Daily Archives: November 12, 2019

Note:This is part of the Promise of Republicanism series, which can be foundherein its entirety.

The idea of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) is getting a lot of attention these days, thanks largely to the fact that Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang has made it the centerpiece of his campaign. Yang calls his version of the UBI the Freedom Dividend, a proposal under which every American over the age of eighteen would receive $1,000 a month from the Federal government, no strings attached.

The name Freedom Dividend is, of course, a nice bit of political rhetoric for an electorate largely inclined to view any large-scale scheme of income redistribution as a form of socialism. But beneath the rhetoric lies a legitimate, substantive point. Yang is right: Theres a good case to be made for a UBI based on the importance of individual freedom. Indeed, the foundations of that case have already been laid by none other than the renowned champion of economic and personal liberty, Friedrich Hayek.

Hayeks devotion to the ideals of free markets and limited government is well-known. His most famous book, The Road to Serfdom, argued that economic and political liberties are tightly connected, and that liberal democracies cannot safely curtail the former without also endangering the latter. His later works, especially The Constitution of Liberty, set forth a positive vision of a free society centered on the idea that individuals should be left largely free to act on the basis of their own values and beliefs, rather than those of government regulators or planners, in both the personal and economic dimensions of their lives.

While everybody knows that Hayek saw himself as a champion of individual freedom, few understand the precise nature of the freedom that Hayek sought to defend. Unlike many libertarians, who understand freedom primarily in terms of non-interference or respect for property rights, Hayek subscribed to a republican theory in which freedom consists of being able to live ones life according to [ones] own decisions and plans, in contrast to one who was irrevocably subject to the will of another.

Understanding Hayek as a commercial republican helps to make sense of many different aspects of his political theory. It explains why, unlike many libertarians, Hayek was never seriously tempted by the idea of anarcho-capitalism. Hayek did not believe that government was necessarily inimical to freedom. Indeed, he believed that government, or at least governance, in the sense of a set of institutions that subject human conduct to general and impartial rules, is a necessary precondition for freedom. For example, traffic laws limit the actions we can perform, but they do so in a way that makes us more free rather than less. They do so by allowing us to form reliable expectations about the behavior of others, which enables us to carry out our own plans more effectively than we could without them. However, a tyrant who can order us to perform or refrain from specific behaviors at a whim deprives us of the ability to effectively set and pursue our plans with any confidence even if the tyrant happens not to interfere at any given time. The fact that it is always in her power to intervene in any way she likes strips us of control over our lives, and thus renders us unfree.

Considerations such as these explain why Hayek continually emphasized the distinction between general rules on the one hand and commands on the other (or between law and legislation) in his writings. To be subject to the commands of a tyrant is to be dependent on the arbitrary will of another person. The actions of those subject to commands are based not on the beliefs and values of the actor, but on the beliefs and values of the tyrant. In contrast, general and impersonal rules do not subject individuals to the will of anyone else. They are, in Hayeks words, like laws of nature stable facts of social existence around which individuals can learn to navigate and plan their lives. They do not place some citizens in a position of subordination, nor do they elevate others to a position of dominance.

Hayeks republican political theory provides one of the main theoretical foundations for his strong support of free markets. Although many contemporary republican theorists have been either overtly hostile or at best lukewarm toward the market economy, Hayek saw correctly that market competition can serve as one of the most effective guarantors of republican freedom.

The essence of market competition is the existence of alternatives, and the right to say no to offers that fail to serve ones interests at least as well as one of those alternatives. In a competitive labor market, an employer who tries to force an employee to do something she doesnt want to do is constrained by that employees ability to quit and find a job elsewhere. A used car dealer who would like to take advantage of a buyer by charging an unfairly high price is similarly constrained by the presence of a competing dealer next door. In general, the more competitive a market is, the more prices and other terms of agreements will be regulated by the impersonal forces of supply and demand, and the less any particular market agent will be able to impose her particular will on her partner in exchange. All market actors are constrained by the general, impersonal rules of the market. But those same rules generally work to prevent any market actors from achieving a position of dominance over others.

Similarly, it is largely because Hayek views competition as such an effective check on coercion that he views government power with suspicion. After all, government is the only institution within society to claim and generally possess an effective monopoly on the use of force. And this monopoly on force is often used to establish and maintain other monopolies: on roads, on the delivery of regular mail, on the creation and enforcement of criminal law, and so on. Because individuals who value these services have nowhere else to go, they are often left with no practical alternative to compliance with the governments demands.

Moreover, as legal rules become more numerous and complex, as ordinary individuals become unable to know in advance what actions are permitted and which are prohibited, as law enforcement becomes practically unable to enforce all the rules that they could, in theory, enforce, the extent of individual discretion within government increases, and so too does the possibility of arbitrary coercion. In that case, individuals are no longer required to comply with the law, but with the edicts of a bureaucrat behind a desk, or an officer behind a badge. When the agents of the state are granted a practically unchecked power to apply the law (or not) in whatever way he sees fit, individuals are no longer fully free.

But while Hayeks republicanism provides strong support for the ideals of free markets and limited government, it also provides a criterion for determining when those institutions are not enough. Market competition generally protects the consumer against predation by unscrupulous sellers, but this protection can be undermined by collusion and natural monopolies. Similarly, competition in the labor market might protect workers from exploitation when those workers have an adequate range of alternatives available to them, but fall short when those alternatives are limited either by features of the local economy (a lack of jobs) or by characteristics of the employee (e.g. limited skills or lack of mobility).

In order to protect individual freedom in these circumstances, Hayek believed that some governmental action was both necessary and appropriate. Indeed, Hayek took great pains even in his most partisan work, The Road to Serfdom, to distance himself from a dogmatic opposition to government action, writing that nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rough rules of thumb, above all the principle of laissez faire. Hayek believed that government had a legitimate (though delicate) role to fill in preventing and/or regulating monopolies. He believed that government had important work to do in the areas of sanitation, health services, and public works. And, most strikingly of all, he believed that it was not only permissible but necessary for government to redistribute income in order to provide a social safety net that would ensure a certain minimum income for everyone, or a certain floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself.

Hayek himself did not have much to say about why he thought such a policy might be justified. But Hayeks commitment to republican freedom provides a starting point from which an argument can easily be constructed. Poverty, while not itself coercive, renders people vulnerable to coercion by others. A wife who is dependent on her husbands paycheck may have to put up with abusive behavior simply in order to keep a roof over her head. And as Hayek himself noted, an employee in a slack labor market must do what his boss tells him or else risk destitution. In these cases and many more, people are unable to escape serious and pervasive interference by others because they lack the financial resources to stand on their own. Providing people with money gives them options, and thus the ability to live their lives in accordance with their own will, rather than in subjugation to the will of another.

Moreover, there are strong Hayekian reasons for providing assistance in the form of cash, rather than in-kind benefits. One of the most powerful and consistent themes in all of Hayeks work is the idea that government planners often lack knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place that would be necessary to carry out their plans effectively. For Hayek, that limitation was an important part of the case for decentralized (i.e., free market) economic planning. But these same considerations provide a powerful argument for redistribution taking the form of cash grants, as opposed to in-kind transfers. Cash gives individuals the freedom to decide for themselves what they need, whether that is paying rent, buying groceries, or saving for future consumption. A system of in-kind transfers, in contrast, puts those decisions in the hands of government, where they are at least as likely to be determined by powerful special interests as they are by genuine and accurate considerations of recipients basic needs.

Hayeks support of a minimum income is compatible with his famous rejection of social justice. There is a difference, Hayek argued, between a society that accepts the duty of preventing destitution and of providing a minimum level of welfare and one which seeks to determine the just position of everybody and allocates to each what it thinks he deserves. The latter task requires a level of knowledge on the part of government that Hayek believed was impossible to obtain, and a level of discriminatory power that he believed was incompatible with a free society. The former, in contrast, could be administered by precisely the sort of general, impartial rules that Hayek believed were essential to a genuinely liberal order.

Still, despite all this, it would be misleading to claim that Hayek supported a Universal Basic Income. One of the defining features of a UBI is the idea of unconditionality, meaning that eligibility is not limited to those who are working, or who are willing to work. And this is an idea that Hayek explicitly and repeatedly rejected.

I do not question any individuals right voluntarily to withdraw from civilisation. But what entitlements do such persons have? Are we to subsidise their hermitages? There cannot be any entitlement to be exempted from the rules on which civilisation rests. We may be able to assist the weak and disabled, the very young and old, but only if the sane and adult submit to the impersonal discipline which gives us means to do so.

Still, just because Hayek rejected a UBI does not mean that Hayekians must do so. Indeed, as I argue in more detail elsewhere, Hayeks own fundamental principles provide one of the best arguments for rejecting the kind of work requirement that Hayek himself endorses. In particular, Hayeks own insights into the radically dispersed nature of knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place pose a serious obstacle to conditional schemes such as those he favored.

The problem is this: Hayeks support of a work requirement appears to be based on a kind of reciprocity principle according to which those who seek to benefit from the productive activities of society have a moral obligation to make some reciprocal contribution to society. But it would clearly be a mistake to assume that paid labor is the only way to make such a contribution. Artists, parents, and caregivers, for instance, all make (or are capable of making) an important contribution to society, even if none of them are engaged in the sort of work that would qualify them for benefits under something like the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Furthermore, even if the reciprocity principle is true, presumably some accommodation will have to be made for those who are genuinely incapable of making a reciprocal contribution. Those who are physically or mentally unable to work, for instance, presumably should not be excluded from receiving benefits even if one thinks that those who are able but unwilling to work should not be eligible.

So, in order to correctly apply Hayeks principle, governments would have to know both (a) what sorts of activity count as a legitimate reciprocal contribution and which do not, and (b) which particular individuals are genuinely incapable (as opposed to just unwilling) to make such a contribution. But how could we expect governments to accurately arrive at this information? What standard should they apply to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate contributions to social welfare? What sort of intrusive powers will they require to distinguish between a genuine inability to find work and mere shiftlessness? The Hayekian case for an unconditional benefit is that it economizes on governments scarce knowledge, and that it errs on the side of protecting individuals who truly are in danger of subjugation due to their economic vulnerability, even if that means erring on the side of supporting some individuals who do not truly need it.

Hayeks republicanism provides an attractive way for reconciling a commitment to free markets and limited government with support for a social safety net. Moreover, Hayeks particular emphasis on the significance of dispersed knowledge push in favor of that safety net taking the form of a UBI.

This principled case for a UBI leaves many concerns of a more practical nature unanswered. Wouldnt the UBI cost too much? Wouldnt it discourage work? Wouldnt it turn the United States into a welfare magnet or, on the flip side, lead voters to push for even tighter restrictions on immigration?

But these concerns are not really objections to a UBI as such. Rather, they are objections to particular ways in which a UBI might or might not be set up. It is probably best to think of the UBI not as a single policy but as a family of policies, all of which involve cash transfers, but which vary according to the size of those transfers, whether or not they are means-tested, what sort of citizenship and residency requirement are attached to them, and so on.

My own inclination is to favor a UBI in the form of a Negative Income Tax (as Niskanens Samuel Hammond has argued, UBI is really just a NIT with a leaky bucket), and to address concerns about excessive costs and unemployment effects by altering the size and phase-out rate of the transfer. But as Miranda Fleischer and Daniel Hemel have pointed out, there are a variety of different ways of structuring the Architecture of a Basic Income, each with its own costs and benefits.

The important point is that pragmatic concerns about the UBI can largely if not entirely be addressed at the level of policy design. If the Hayekian argument I have presented here is correct, and there really is a good case to be made for a UBI on grounds of a republican conception of individual freedom, then we should not let such concerns stand in the way of making progress toward a basic income for all.

Read the rest here:

Hayek, Republican Freedom, and the Universal Basic Income - Niskanen Center

Investors are increasingly concerned about the impact of their money on the world, and the emergence of portfolios geared toward investing in freedom and democracy are one example.

As well as determining which factors contribute to varying levels of civil, political or economic freedom in emerging market countries, a key issue for fund managers and economists has been whether to allocate capital to countries with current quantifiably high levels of freedom, or those in the early stages of transition to open market economies and democracy.

China accounts for almost 32% of the MSCI Emerging Markets Index, but is excluded entirely from the Alpha Architect Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF (FRDM), which is sponsored by "freedom-weighted" portfolio provider Life + Liberty Indexes.

Russia and Saudi Arabia also miss out. The fund directs the highest proportions of its capital to Taiwan, South Korea, Chile and Poland.

Life + Liberty Founder Perth Tolle told CNBC that the fund still permits indirect exposure to China. For example, it holds Naspers, which has a stake in Tencent, while Chile has significant trade ties to China.

"The happy accident here is that South Korea and Taiwan are the freest emerging markets in our universe so they have a very high weight in our index and those are highly correlated with China, so we get a lot of correlation without actually having direct China exposure," Tolle told CNBC via telephone.

"We do have indirect China exposure through trade and investments that other countries do with China, and we don't penalize those countries for that free trade."

Ed Smith, head of asset allocation research at Rathbones, contended that the development of South Korean and Taiwanese economies owed some thanks to state intervention policies, and suggested that the academia had moved toward a focus on the direction of travel as the key driver of returns.

"The mechanism that led to South Korea's huge success, and also Taiwan, was quite frankly an authoritarian use of the state to raise the investible surplus, but directing it to the industries and firms important to the economy's ability to sustain higher wages in the future," Smith told CNBC.

"That led to much more rapid, intensive cycles of investment than perhaps a free market would have allowed for."

A recent study conducted by Marshall Stocker, vice president and head of country research at investment firm Eaton Vance, concluded that countries with a low level of economic freedom outperform their freer counterparts over a five-to-10 year period.

This is primarily due to the risk premium of investing in countries with low rule of law, large governments which impose high taxes and inconsistently applied regulations. Beyond the 10-year investment horizon, however, returns even out.

Stocker's team focuses on trying to anticipate policy change in specific countries during an investment horizon which will affect various asset class returns.

"What happens over a longer period than 10 years? They come along and steal your stuff, so all that profit you accrued gets stolen," Stocker told CNBC.

"It could be from outright theft, like what might be going on in Zambia today, it could be from monetization through hyperinflation the Zimbabwe story and lo and behold, those returns go back to being equal across the levels of economic freedom."

With investors becoming more concerned with ESG (environmental, social and governance) factors, Stocker suggested that ESG is moving from version 1.0, which centered around negatively screening out countries with low levels of ESG, to version 2.0, which involves engagement.

"Here's what's encouraging when countries increase economic freedom they have the salutary benefit of ESG gains," he said, adding that by investing in countries where economic freedom is increasing, investors become "missionaries" for ESG improvements.

Over a longer period, there is a broad correlation between equity markets and GDP (gross domestic product) per capita, according to Jon Harrison, managing director of EM macro strategy at TS Lombard.

"We find that there is a high correlation between GDP/capita and a small number of indicators, categorized as: Human capital, institutional & regulatory environment, trade liberalization and financial system development," Harrison told CNBC via email.

"We find that these are roughly weighted 40%/30%/20%/10% so Human Capital is the most important."

In richer economies with a GDP per capita greater than 30% that of the U.S., this correlation breaks down, but for emerging markets it holds firm.

"Undemocratic countries are able to make substantial progress on human capital without necessarily becoming 'free', but may come up against limitations as the level of wealth increases for example, it may be more difficult to eradicate corruption in a non-democratic country," Harrison added.

The firm also found a high correlation between ESG factors and economic growth, with undemocratic countries able to make greater progress before reaching a ceiling.

"The important point about both our structural change analysis and our ESG analysis is that EM economies offer 'low hanging fruit' both in terms of economic growth and ethical improvement which would seem to be a reason to invest in them," Harrison concluded.

Read the original post:

How the investment world is trying to promote 'freedom' in emerging markets - CNBC

Two of the freest economies in the world are on fire. According to indexes of economic freedom published annually separately by two conservative thinktanks the Heritage Foundation and the Fraser Institute Hong Kong has been number one in the rankings for more than 20 years. Chile is ranked first in Latin America by both indexes, which also place it above Germany and Sweden in the global league table.

Violent protest in Hong Kong has entered its eighth month. The target is Beijing, but the lack of universal suffrage that is catalysing popular anger has long been part of Hong Kongs economic model. In Chile, where student-led protests against a rise in subway fares turned into a nationwide anti-government movement, the death toll is at least 18.

The rage may be better explained by other rankings: Chile places in the top 25 for economic freedom and also for income inequality. If Hong Kong were a country, it would be in the worlds top 10 most unequal. Observers often use the word neoliberalism to describe the policies behind this inequality. The term can seem vague, but the ideas behind the economic freedom index help to bring it into focus.

All rankings hold visions of utopia within them. The ideal world described by these indexes is one where property rights and security of contract are the highest values, inflation is the chief enemy of liberty, capital flight is a human right and democratic elections may work actively against the maintenance of economic freedom.

These rankings are not merely academic. Heritage rankings are used to allocate US foreign aid through the Millennium Challenge Corporation. They set goals for policy-makers: in 2011, the Institute of Economic Affairs lamented that a rise in social spending was leading to a fall in Britains ranking. Tory MP Iain Duncan Smith even cited the Heritage index in support of a hard Brexit. Launching the 2018 index at the Heritage Foundation, Trumps commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, expressed hope that environmental deregulation and corporate tax cuts would reverse Americas decline in the ranking. Where did this way of framing the world come from?

The idea for the economic freedom index was born in 1984, after a discussion of Orwells 1984 at a meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society an exclusive debating club of academics, policymakers, thinktankers and business leaders formed by Friedrich Hayek in 1947 to oppose the rise of communism in the east and social democracy in the west. The historian Paul Johnson argued that Orwells predictions had not come true; Michael Walker of the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute countered that perhaps they had. High taxes, obligatory social security numbers and public transparency about political contributions suggested we might be closer to Orwellian dystopia than we thought.

Walker saw this debate as the unfinished business of Milton Friedmans 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom, which had suggested that political liberty relied on market freedom but had not proved it scientifically. Friedman was at the meeting, and, with his wife and co-author, Rose, agreed to help host a series of workshops on the challenge of measuring economic freedom.

The Friedmans gathered a crowd of luminaries, including Nobel prize winner Douglass North and The Bell Curve co-author Charles Murray, to figure out whether something as nebulous as freedom could be quantified and ranked. They ended up with a series of indicators, measuring the stability of currency; the right of citizens to own bank accounts in foreign countries and foreign currencies; the level of government spending and government-owned enterprise; and, crucially, the rate of individual and corporate taxation.

When Walkers Fraser Institute published its first index in 1996 with a foreword from Friedman, there were some surprises. According to its historical overview, the second freest economy in the world in 1975 was Honduras, a military dictatorship. For the next year, another dictatorship, Guatemala, was in the top five. These were no anomalies. They expressed a basic truth about the indexes. The definition of freedom they used meant that democracy was a moot point, monetary stability was paramount and any expansion of social services would lead to a fall in the rankings. Taxation was theft, pure and simple, and austerity was the only path to the top.

The right to food, clothing, medical services, housing or a minimal income level, the authors wrote, was nothing less than forced labor requirements [imposed] on others. The director of the index translated the vision into policy advice a few years later, writing in a public memo to the Canadian prime minister that poverty could be eliminated through a simple solution: End welfare. Reinstitute poorhouses and homes for unwed mothers.

Not content with mere economics, the Fraser Institute joined up with the Cato Institute in 2015 to publish the first global index of human freedom. They included all of the earlier economic indicators and supplemented them with measurements of civil liberty, rights to association and free expression, alongside dozens of others but left out multiparty elections and universal suffrage. The authors noted specifically that they excluded political freedom and democracy from the index and Hong Kong topped the list again.

What was going on? One answer is that the project of measuring economic freedom had made some of its authors question their prior assumptions about the natural relationship between capitalism and democracy. By the 1990s, Friedman, who had previously seen the two as mutually reinforcing, was singing a different tune. As he said in an interview in 1988: I believe a relatively free economy is a necessary condition for freedom. But there is evidence that a democratic society, once established, destroys a free economy. An enfranchised people tended to use their votes to pressure politicians into more social spending, clogging the arteries of free exchange.

In the workshops devoted to creating the indexes, Friedman cited the example of Hong Kong as evidence for the truth of this proposition, saying: There is almost no doubt that if you had political freedom in Hong Kong you would have much less economic and civil freedom than you do as a result of an authoritarian government.

Hong Kongs former chief executive, CY Leung, agreed. During the umbrella revolution protests of 2014 he was asked why suffrage could not be expanded. His matter-of-fact response was that this would increase the power of the poor and lead to the kind of politics that favour the expansion of the welfare state instead of business-friendly policies. For him, the tradeoff between economic and political freedom was not buried in an index. It was as clear as day.

Economic freedom rankings exist inside nations, too. Stephen Moore and Arthur Laffer, two of Trumps economic advisers, created comparable league tables for American states which have proved drastically unhelpful in predicting economic success. The system has been rolled out by the Cato Institute in India, too, encouraging a deregulatory race to the bottom within national borders as well as across them. One of the authors of the report, Bibek Debroy, now chairs the Economic Advisory Council to Indian prime minister Narendra Modi.

Pinochet, Thatcher and Reagan may be dead. But economic freedom indexes carry the neoliberal banner by deeming the goals of social justice forever illegitimate and pushing states to regard themselves solely as guardians of economic power. Stephen Moore, who was a favourite earlier this year for Trumps appointment to the Federal Reserve Board, put the matter simply. Capitalism is a lot more important than democracy, he said in an interview. Im not even a big believer in democracy. Hong Kongs financial secretary made much the same argument two weeks ago in London, when he cited the citys top economic freedom ranking and reassured his audience that alongside the protests, the business of business rolls on, unabated.

By colour-coding nations, celebrating victors on glossy paper stock and giving high-ranking countries a reason to celebrate at banquets and balls, the indexes help perpetuate the idea that economics must be protected from the excesses of politics to the point that an authoritarian government that protects free markets is preferable to a democratic one that redesigns them. At a time when the casting of ballots may lead to changes that threaten the freedom that capital has long enjoyed, the disposability of democracy in the vision of the index is what haunts us, from Santiago to the South China Sea to Washington DC.

Quinn Slobodian is a historian and author of Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism

Link:

Democracy doesnt matter to the defenders of economic freedom - The Guardian

Daniel L. Gardner, Contributing columnist Published 10:19 a.m. CT Nov. 11, 2019

Republican Tate Reeves won the election for governor Tuesday. He made his first public appearance Friday at a Veterans Day event. Giacomo Bologna, The Clarion-Ledger

Someone shared the following definition of a veteran on Facebook:

A Veteran whether active duty, retired, or National Guard or Reserve is someone who, at one point in his or her life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America" for an amount of "up to and including my life." That is honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.

Harold Grant of Jackson, Miss, 71, an Army veteran, who served in Vietnam in 1968, wears his heavily decorated VFW garrison cap during an early Veteran's Day ceremony at the Museum of Mississippi History and Mississippi Civil Rights Museum in Jackson, Miss., Nov. 8, 2019.(Photo: Rogelio V. Solis, AP)

The earliest post of this definition I could find was on a Googlegroup called parklandwatch. On Aug. 4, 2007, Art Allen posted that Reed Jarvis had discovered a great definition of a veteran, followed by the definition cited above. I dont know Allen or Jarvis, and neither attributed the quote to anyone. Nevertheless, the quote says a lot about veterans and was probably written by a veteran or one who loves a veteran.

Sometimes we fail to remember all the branches of our military, including all the statuses within each of those branches. Even on Nov. 11 at 11:11 a.m., many of us no longer consider with thanksgiving our fellow Americans who have served and are serving to protect our nation, our rights and our freedoms. Most of the time most Americans take our veterans for granted, or worse.

The closest I ever came to becoming a veteran was in the fall of 1971 when I drove to a Marine Corps recruiting station in Meridian. The recruiter showed me many options but recognized much more than I did at the time that my reasons for joining were more about leaving a place than about joining a service.

My father was a Naval aviator in the Pacific in WWII and achieved the rank of Lt. Commander. I have his log book and have read enough to know how well he served our nation honorably. My dad never spoke about his experiences in that war.

Our oldest son joined the Marine Corps right out of high school two years before 9/11 broke the world. Needless to say, he also served honorably in every station where he was sent, and he achieved the rank of Sergeant. Both grandfathers fought in WWI, and an uncle served in WWII.

Story continues after gallery.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

No doubt many American families can be proud of contributions they have made in the defense of our country. Make no mistake, when a family member serves, the whole family is involved in service and sacrifice.

Like many parents, I feared for our sons life when he made the decision to write a blank check made payable toThe United States of America,for an amount ofup to and including (his) life.After 9/11, like many fathers,I would have given anything to have taken my sons place in that fighting.

But thats not how wars work.

And too many of those who cheer for war or who send our sons and daughters to war do so out of selfish political reasons.

Veterans who have served and are serving today know the price of honor. They have all signed the blank check. Veterans and their families always pay the price of service and sacrifice.

All Americans should make time to honor our veterans with thanksgiving throughout the year. Heartfelt honor is not political. Heartfelt honor is patriotic regardless of politics.

Lets honor our veterans today.

Daniel L. Gardner is a syndicated columnist from Starkville. Contact him at PJandMe2@gmail.com.

Read or Share this story: https://www.clarionledger.com/story/opinion/columnists/2019/11/11/veterans-day-honor-men-and-women-who-protect-our-freedom/2562200001/

Read more:

Veterans write a blank check that costs them greatly. We should honor their sacrifices. - Clarion Ledger

At first, it seemed the communists had things under control. The government back then organized an annual official march to commemorate the death of a communist resistance fighter who opposed the Nazi occupation during World War II. Students marched obediently through the streets chanting communist slogans and bearing communist-approved signs. Then things went awry. As the march was about to end, the students suddenly veered off and headed for Wenceslas Square and the heart of the city. Police scrambled to cut them off. They formed a cordon at one end of the long avenue blocking the march then set up a line of police behind the march, and along every side street. The protesters were trapped. Minutes passed, then hours. The students began singing. Few of us journalists spoke Czech so we couldnt understand the words. But the melody was clear. In Czech, the students were singing, We Shall Overcome.

Suddenly the police charged the students with truncheons. Secret police in civilian clothes and with expressionless faces followed behind, methodically punching and pummeling everyone in their path. A reporter from the Chicago Tribune was driven back into a store doorway, beaten until her head split, blood pouring everywhere. A policeman raised a truncheon in front of me. I covered the top of my head with my hands. My wedding ring still carries the dent.

The students scattered. But the next night they returned, and the night after that. The crowds grew larger; the singing louder. Within days the communist government had fallen. Vaclav Havel, the imprisoned dissident playwright, was named president. The anti-communist revolutions swept onward, eventually engulfing the Soviet Union which collapsed and dissolved two years later, in 1991.

Thirty years on, its clear that the tumultuous revolutions of 1989 havent fully lived up to their promise. The end of communism allowed many of the old ethnic hatreds of Eastern Europe to resurface. The economic shock that followed the collapse of the iron curtain led to mass unemployment. Conservative populist governments now rule Poland, Hungary, and even Prague. The end of the Cold War and the dissolution of a seemingly implacable foe left Europe and the United States without a common enemy, leading to fractures in the European Union and, now, in NATO and among Americas longtime alliances.

But if Europe is unsettled today, it is far better than it was in 1989, when the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain divided the continent, the United States and the Soviet Union aimed nuclear missiles at each other, and millions of Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, East Germans, and Romanians lived under communist repression, watched by the secret police, forbidden to travel, forced to stand in line for meat and toys and new shoes.

In the tumult of 1989, the young Eastern Europeans protesting in the streets kept saying that they just wanted to live in a normal country where they could live freely, vote in elections, argue about politics, make their own choices. We may not agree with all those choices, just as many Eastern Europeans today surely cringe at some of Americas political choices. But with their hard-won freedom, they have undoubtedly built something better than what came before.

The street where I watched police beat up demonstrators has now been renamed in honor of that night and is packed with cafes and shops. The Berlin Wall that once symbolized the division of Europe has been reduced to an unobtrusive path underfoot, like Bostons Freedom Trail, that busy Berliners stride over as they hurry to work.

The students who courageously marched down the streets of Prague remind us that history often surprises, and that change can come quickly and unexpectedly.

They also gave us something important: hope.

In our polarized times, it is easy to question whether democracy can continue to advance or even survive. But 30 years ago, tens of millions of people living under communist totalitarianism, who hadnt experienced democracy since before World War II, stunned the world by rising up and peacefully overthrowing their leaders.

They sang a song made popular by the American civil rights movement decades earlier and thousands of miles away.

They reminded us, as Martin Luther King once preached, that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

Jonathan Kaufman, director of the Northeastern School of Journalism, covered the revolutions of 1989 for the Globe. He is the author of The Last Kings of Shanghai: The Rival Jewish Dynasties That Helped Create Modern China to be published by Viking in June.

Excerpt from:

The wages of freedom - The Boston Globe

It was 2017 and Jared Jenkins stood on the field at J. Birney Crum Stadium after leading Freedom High Schools football team to victory over Allentown Central Catholic in his first varsity start.

Jenkins, a sophomore at the time, wasnt surprised. And Patriots coach Jason Roeder wasnt either.

We knew what we were getting with Jared before he even walked in the door here, Roeder said. He's been in our program for all these years. His dad (Earl) has been on the staff.

Its true. Roeder had high expectations for Jenkins from Day 1.

Now, after Jenkins has claimed every major passing record in program history, its probably safe to conclude those hopes have been fulfilled nicely.

But theres still work to be done.

Second-seeded Freedom (10-1) hosts third-seeded Parkland (9-2) 7 p.m. Friday during the District 11 Class 6A semifinals at Bethlehem Area School District Stadium.

Jenkins will have the same high standards for himself in the upcoming blockbuster playoff contest as he had in Allentown dozens of starts ago.

I always want to do the best I can for my teammates, the senior said. I feel like, with the coaches I have and the team around me, I can play a great game because they're always going to put me in spots to do that.

The seniors name is all over the Patriots record book. He holds the marks for career passing attempts (775), completions (450), yards (7,129) and touchdowns (69); season passing attempts (313), completions (160), yards (2,651) and touchdowns (29); and single-game completions (25), yards (426) and touchdowns (5).

Hes 136-for-196 with 2,207 yards and 23 touchdowns (5 INTs) this fall.

Even with all of those numbers and there are a boatload Roeders attention is on the effect that the QB has on his teammates and the leadership he displays.

To maintain that focus, of trying to get better every game, has been such a great example for the rest of our guys, Roeder said. He never got complacent; he never got caught up in reading his own headlines. He's been the consummate team player. He remained humble and coachable through all his successes. I think that just sets a great tone for the way we operate here.

Jenkins indicated that his decision-making has improved as a senior. But, his concern is also about the intangibles, rather than the statistical or mechanical.

You either have it or you don't, Jenkins said about the will to lead. I learned a little from the guys above me, but I had it in me All summer, I was there at every workout, always trying to push everyone. On the field, I'm keeping everyone composed and ready for the next play.

The quarterbacks cool head has been invaluable for Freedom, which has played in several nail-biters during Jenkins career.

He's such a smart football player, Roeder said. He understands what we're trying to accomplish on offense. He's quick to diagnose how a defense is trying to attack us. His composure, during a lot of high-pressure games over the years, really stands out.

Jenkins, whos also been a solid contributor for the Patriots wrestling team, has won 29 games over three seasons. A 30th victory would give Freedom a chance to claim its second consecutive District 11 title.

The Patriots, however, are confronted with a Parkland team thats won seven straight games and is stronger/healthier than the squad that Freedom beat 21-18 on Sept. 6.

It definitely is a different challenge, Jenkins said. Beating a team twice, in the EPC South, in one year is a hard task. We have to put a whole new game plan together to try to beat them in different ways.

It's a long time ago, but neither team is completely different, Roeder said. Obviously, you take a peek at that and factor it in, but you also look hard at what they've been doing well lately. I think you gear your game plan to what they've done more recently.

Its the fourth year in a row Freedom has met the Trojans in the regular season and playoffs.

They're physical on both sides of the ball. They do things well in all three aspects of the game. They come off the ball; they're balanced on offense; and they always play fantastic defense, Roeder said. It's going to be a typical Freedom-Parkland game.

Roeder consistently preaches growth. Parklands gains have been fairly evident. How much Freedom has progressed should be revealed on Friday night.

When you start playing teams a second time, you get some clear benchmarks to how you've improved, Roeder said. I think our team, like theirs, has evolved.

We've gotten better every week, Jenkins said. That Week 10 win (against Liberty) was huge for us for momentum going into the playoffs. Then, another big win over Emmaus last week (in the D-11 quarterfinals) I think we're going to be ready to go on Friday.

Jenkins, who said hes being patient with his college recruitment and waiting to see if his final tape will generate some offers, has been playing with most of his fellow seniors since they were dominant together in the Bethlehem Township Bulldogs youth program.

Its been awesome, the QB said. Ive made so many great relationships with players, coaches and families. Im just so blessed to be able to be here today with the games we have left. I just want to make the most of what we have left together.

RELATED: High school football predictions for Week 12

Kyle Craig may be reached at kcraig@lehighvalleylive.com. Follow him on Twitter @KyleCraigSports. Find Lehigh Valley high school sports on Facebook.

Excerpt from:

The bar has always been high for Freedom footballs Jenkins; thats where he likes it - lehighvalleylive.com

President Trump again slammed the media on Sunday, declaring that we no longer have Freedom of the Press!

He made the comment in a Sunday morningtweetwhere he also said: Journalistic standards are nonexistent today.

Trumps post was in response to a tweet blastingABCNews for not airing a report about Jeffrey Epstein while publicizing accusations of misconduct against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation process.

The president has frequently attacked the media in the past.

In a tweet months ago, hewrote: The press is doing everything within their power to fight the magnificence of the phrase,MAKEAMERICAGREATAGAIN! They cant stand the fact that this Administration has done more than virtually any other Administration in its first 2yrs. They are truly theENEMYOFTHEPEOPLE!

45 PHOTOS

Printing the New York Times in 1942

See Gallery

The Newsroom

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

The bullpen

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

Telegraphers record messages in the wire room.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

Incoming copy from AP

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

Copy boys mimeograph dispatches.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

Dispatches.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

As the copy boy's rush to meet deadlines mimeographed dispatches cover the floor.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

Editors can be seen at the foreign desk discarding stories by 'spiking' them.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

These editors are responsible for all stories outside the U.S.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

NYT correspondents forArgentina, Switzerland, and Mexico.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

Drama critic Brooks Atkinson.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

Old and new dictionaries.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

Head of the 'morgue'Tommy Bracken.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

A New York Times radio operator.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

In the radio room, the news is sent out to ships in morse code.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

A radio operator records a message from Switzerland.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

A cartographer looks over charts before preparing a map of the war in Europe.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

The photo department sends out photo all over the world.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

A negative is inspected in the dark room.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

A fashion image is retouched.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

As mats are completed they are checked off by page.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

One the page is marked up the completed time is marked alongside it.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

A story is typed out on alinotype in the composing room.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

Style change notices.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

Linotype slugs are picked up from the table.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

A mat is looked over for errors.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

A man operatesa proof press.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

A page is prepared for print in the composing room.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

This man has set the daily index by hand for 15 years.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

Proofs posted on the wall.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

As deadlines creep closer page one is completed.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

Type is set.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

Workers move a1608lbs paper reel.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

Paper is fed through the press.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

Curved plates are prepared for the press.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

Curved plates are assigned their corresponding page number.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

Plates are loaded onto the press.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

Numbered plates await the press.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

The press is almost ready to run.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

And the press is a go!

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

The first edition is checked for quality.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

Finished papers are cut.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

Completed papers are bundled for delivery.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

A truck is loaded with the latest edition of the New York Times.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

A cart is loaded with finished papers.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

HIDE CAPTION

SHOW CAPTION

See the original post here:

'We no longer have freedom of the press,' President Trump declares - AOL

But that nearly 140-year quest for peace and freedom across the border has been marred by bloodshed and adversity.

"In many ways, this community has sought to live among the cracks -- not American, but not fully Mexican, either; Mormon, but not 'that' Mormon; desires a peaceful refuge, but faces constant violence," said Benjamin Park, a historian at Sam Houston State University.

The sheer brutality this week shocked even longtime observers of the migration of fundamentalist Mormons to northern Mexico.

History has been hard. They escaped what they saw as oppression at home to settle in a little-known country before many were driven away by the lawlessness of the Mexican Revolution. Periods of violence, extortion and threats from drug cartels and other criminal groups delivered them to this moment.

"They have a very vivid sense of their own history of persecution, which is not imaginary," said Laurie Maffly-Kipp, a professor at the John C. Danforth Center on Religion and Politics at Washington University in St. Louis. "Now it's the cartels. And all they've wanted to do is live independently and according to their values."

Here's how thousands of Mormon families came to settle in the rural valleys of northern Mexico in the late 19th century.

Mormon families migrate south

But the church disavowed plural marriage in 1890 under pressure from the US government, which had imprisoned polygamists and seized their assets. By 1910, members who continued the practice were excommunicated.

Mormons who accepted polygamy as part of their faith began moving to Mexico and Canada to keep their families together, according to experts.

Thousands set out by rail or horse and wagon on a sometimes perilous journey to the states of Chihuahua and Sinaloa.

"Distances were great and physical obstacles imposed by the terrain were immense," the 1969 article said. "Contact with non-Mormons along the way was strained and threatening."

A relationship of convenience with Mexico

Mexican political leaders agreed to look the other way if the Mormon settlers remained quiet about their marriage practices and helped develop the local economy, said Barbara Jones Brown, executive director of the Mormon History Association. Polygamy is illegal in the US and Mexico.

"Up until the early 20th century, the polygamist Latter-day Saints had a great relationship with the Mexican government because they were bringing in industry and farming and helping to develop the desert area," she said. "They were contributing to the economy."

More than 4,000 Mormons settled in eight communities in Chihuahua and Sonora, according to the 1969 article.

One migrant, John R. Young, who settled in Mexico with his three wives and their families, described the journey of more than 1,000 miles as "long, tedious and expensive, but we were happy, for we have escaped imprisonment," the article said.

Mormons targeted during the Mexican Revolution

When the Mexican Revolution began in 1910, many Mormons were again forced to flee, as they had done in previous generations.

Nationalist and anti-American sentiment ran high. Mormon settlements were sacked or destroyed by rebels. Migrants were attacked.

Many Mormon families never returned, including Romney's father, who was then a boy of 5.

"Those polygamous families in Mexico who went back into the United States during the Mexican Revolution faced prosecution not only from their monogamous nation, but also ostracism from their own church members," Jones Brown said.

"For those two reasons, some of these families kept going back into Revolutionary Mexico in spite of the violence, robbery, and kidnappings they faced there during wartime -- so they could keep their polygamous families intact and try to live their religious beliefs without ostracism and prosecution."

The Chihuahua and Sonora settlers

The convoy of three vehicles that was ambushed this week set out Monday from the La Mora settlement in Sonora, founded decades ago by fundamentalists associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The victims lived there. Many were natives of Mexico, with dual US-Mexican citizenship.

Some La Mora families practiced polygamy, but most considered themselves independent Mormons, according to Cristina Rosetti, a scholar of Mormon fundamentalism.

Family members describe themselves as part of a religiously diverse Mormon community of about 3,000 members, living in their own agricultural enclave.

"The people in La Mora are what is called ... an independent Mormon family," Rosetti said. "They might practice polygamy but they're not part of a church. They're not part of a splinter group. They're not part of the sect. They don't have a leader. They're just a family that is Mormon."

Though some victims in Monday's ambush were named LeBaron, Rosetti said they were not part of a group known by the same name that settled in the nearby state of Chihuahua decades ago. The group is also known as the Church of the Firstborn.

"Calling them a group or a sect or a church is not only offensive but it's historically incorrect," she said of the La Mora families.

Members of the LeBaron group from Chihuahua have had a history of conflict with Mexican drug cartels.

Months later, Benjamin LeBaron and his brother-in-law Luis Widmar were beaten and shot to death after armed men stormed their home in Chihuahua. Authorities later arrested the alleged ringleader of a drug trafficking family that ran a smuggling operation on Mexico's border with Texas.

But the La Mora families had largely been spared the violence that afflicted their neighbors.

"To my knowledge, the La Mora group has lived in relative peace for 60 years," Rosetti said. "They have not had conflicts with cartels.

A close-knit community

Fundamentalist Mormons trace their origins to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

"You have some who are fully committed to the LDS Church, including many who have given up the doctrine of polygamy and are members of the institution in Salt Lake City," said Park, the historian at Sam Houston State University.

"You also, on the other end of the spectrum, have those who are part of the Church of the Firstborn or the LeBarons, who are firmly committed to polygamy, who are formal members of those break-off churches and see themselves as representatives of the true church. And then you have many, many in between those lines."

A spokesman from the LDS Church said the victims were not members.

"We are heartbroken to hear of the tragedy that has touched these families in Mexico. Though it is our understanding that they are not members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, our love, prayers and sympathies are with them as they mourn and remember their loved ones."

"They all know each other," Park said. "If they're not related to each other, their families go back generations as friends and associates and colleagues. This is very close-knit community."

Continued here:

Mormon quest for peace and freedom in Mexico shattered by violence and adversity - CNN

Sister Loraine McGuire with Little Sisters of the Poor after the Supreme Court heard Zubik v. Burwell, an appeal demanding exemption from providing insurance covering contraception, in Washington, D.C., March 23, 2016. (Joshua Roberts/Reuters)

The late Supreme Court Justice Frank Murphy wrote, Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion all have a double aspect freedom of thought and freedom of action. To which one should be able to add, freedom of inaction meaning that absent a compelling state interest, people should not be forced to violate their own religious beliefs through compelled behavior.

Dont tell that to the secular left. Giving a fig about the constitutional guarantee of the free expression of religion, leftwing attorneys general have sued to thwart a Trump administration rule that seeks to protect medical professionals, who refuse to participate in what they consider to be immoral procedures, from being punished by employers that receive federal funding. This includes protecting doctors and nurses from forced participation in abortion or the surgical mutilation of minors (from a certain perspective) deemed medical treatments for gender dysphoria.

Yesterday, a federal judge prohibited the conscience rule from taking effect. From the NBC News story:

A federal judge in New York on Wednesday struck down a new Trump administration rule that would have allowed health care clinicians to refuse to provide abortions for moral or religious reasons.

U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York rejected the federal rule after womens groups, health organizations and multiple states sued the Department of Health and Human Services, arguing the exemptions were unconstitutional.

Engelmayer ruled that the so-called conscience rule was too coercive, allowing HHS to withhold billions in federal funding unless health care providers complied.

Alexandra is right that this ruling and others like it could eventually drive orthodox religious believers out of health care. Actually, I think that is the plan. For example, Dignity Health, a Catholic hospital, is being sued in California with the blessing of the state Court of Appeals for refusing to perform a hysterectomy on a biological woman/transgender man despite its clear violation of Catholic moral doctrine that prevents sterilization in the absence of a medical pathology.

And lets not forget that the Little Sisters of the Poor are still in court fighting an Obama era rule that requires they an order of Catholic nuns provide free contraception health insurance coverage. We also have the baker case and the florist cases, to further illustrate the point.

Back to Trump. Orthodox (small-o) Christians and other faithful people know that Trump seeks to protect their right to act or refrain from acting in the public square based on their faith. And, they know that many of his political opponents seek to coerce action and thereby shrivel their right to the free expression of religion into a mere freedom of worship that evaporates once outside of the home and church/synagogue/temple/mosque.

And that is one major reason why many voters of faith will vote for Trump next year despite his past peccadillos and obnoxious personality.

One last point: Voting Trump for this reason is not to shrink in fear instead of standing boldly in faith, as some have charged. Rather, it is acting in the public square e.g., rendering onto Caesar what is Caesars to protect a fundamental constitutional right that is under direct assault.

One can agree or disagree with that decision, but that is an honorable choice that has no bearing on the fortitude of ones religious beliefs.

The rest is here:

Religious-Freedom Voters Will Vote Trump - National Review

Chinese students speak to representatives from the Illinois Institute of Technology and other American colleges at the "Study in USA" section of the 2015 China Education Expo (CEE) in Shanghai. (Reuters File)

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

A few years ago, I met a student from rural China who had come to a university in Washington, DC, and fallen in love with political science. But he was too afraid of being reported to the Chinese embassy to pursue the subject. While Americans take freedom at universities for granted, for some students from China the feeling is very different. This isnt a free space, he concluded.Ad Policy

There are now approximately 350,000 students from China at American universities. While many have great experiences, some have to deal with the surveillance and censorship that follows them to campus. Over the past several years, Human Rights Watch has documented the unique threats these students face. Our research has revealed Chinese government and Communist Party intimidation ranging from harassment of family members in China over what someone had said in a closed seminar to censorship by US academic institutions that did not want to irk potential Chinese government partners. One scholar said a senior administrator had asked him as a personal favor to decline media requests during a visit by Chinese President Xi Jinping, fearing that any criticism could have negative consequences for the universitys profile in China.

Even when campus debates take an ugly turnsuch as when students from the mainland tried to shout down speakers at a March 2019 event at University of California, Berkeley, addressing the human rights crisis in Xinjiang, or in September when unidentified individuals threatened Hong Kong democracy activist Nathan Law as he arrived for graduate studies at Yaleschools appear reluctant to publicly respond to these threats against free speech. In mid-October, students at the University of California, Davis, tore down other students materials supporting Hong Kong protesters, yet in the ensuing days searching the schools website for Hong Kong yields only information about summer internshipsnot unequivocal support for peaceful expression.

Few schools leverage their broader relationships with Chinese institutions to help faculty members who are denied visas by China when they try to advance research on topics considered sensitive by the Chinese government; equally few institutions make provisions for students from China who want to study sensitive topics to do so without it being known to Chinese authorities. We are unaware of any university that systematically tracks the impact of Chinese government interference in academic freedoma step that could serve as a deterrent to such encroachments.

At a recent meeting I attended, some of the worlds foremost experts on vectors of Chinese government and Communist Party influence detailed for American university officials precisely the ways Chinese students and scholars in the United States are the focus of control and manipulation, including through on-campus surveillance of classroom speech and activities, which is then reported back to embassies or consulates. Yet those university officials appeared skeptical about the urgency or consequences for students or scholars, and the discussion quickly reverted to focusing on the technicalities of schools compliance with various regulations or their interactions with agencies like the FBI.Related Article

In private, some university officials will admit their discomfort in dealing with the issue of Chinese government influence on their campuses, and say theyre afraid that they may be labeled xenophobes. That fear needs urgently to be overcome to protect a community that is demonstrably vulnerable. A recent effort to do just that was initiated students themselves: In September, the student union at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, stripped the campus chapter of the Chinese Students and Scholars Association of its accreditation, on the grounds that the groups reporting of a talk on Xinjiang to the local Chinese consulate violated school rules.

But there are also crass reasons for their reticence. Many academic institutions around the world now have opaque academic or financial relationships with Chinese government entities or government-linked companies. Some are increasingly dependent on international students for tuition revenue, and fear alienating students from China. Others, including MIT, find themselves in the awkward position of accepting money for research partnerships with Chinese companies like iFlytek, which has now been placed on a list of companies sanctioned by the US Department of Commerce for their involvement in human rights abuses in China.Current Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

Our research formed the basis of a 12-step code of conduct that is designed to help schools combat Chinese government efforts to undermine academic freedom around the world. Those steps start with acknowledging the problem, and include publicizing policies that classroom discussions are meant to stay on campusnot reported to foreign missions. Schools could also appoint an ombudsperson to whom threats could be reported and thus tracked, join forces to share experiences and take common positions, and commit to disclosing all links to the Chinese governmentsteps that could deter Chinese government overreach.

The code has been sent to about 150 schools in Australia, Canada, and the United States, and about a dozen have replied. So far none have signed on, convinced that their existing rules are sufficient to mitigate any threat, but we have seen no evidence that those rules and procedures have succeeded.

In April the Association of American Universities published an update of actions taken by universities to address growing concerns aboutundue foreign influence on campusbut most of this document deals with issues like protection of data and export control compliance. A half-dozen universitiesincluding UC Berkeley, the University of Michigan, and Yale Universitypublished statements last spring expressing solidarity with international students and scholars on their campuses, and more than 60 colleges and universities have signed on to the University of Chicagos well-known principles on free expression.

But if schools are going to fulfill their solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it, as the University of Chicago principles insist, they are going to have to tackle these threats head-on. That means providing the most precious asset a university should ensure that all of its students enjoy equally: freedom of thought.

Read more:

The Chinese Government Cannot Be Allowed to Undermine Academic Freedom - The Nation