Monthly Archives: September 2022

Introduction and summary

Recent debates across the country have pushed for book banning and the adoption of politically motivated laws and policies on school curricula. Such measures seek to prevent teachers from providing a thorough curriculum on American history, civics, and government in U.S. public schools and deny students their rights to a complete education.1 At least 17 states have introduced bills containing gag orders2 or taken other steps that would restrict how teachers can discuss American history and current events, including pulling books off library shelves in an effort to suppress so-called divisive conceptsa shorthand affectation nearly always referring to issues about race and identity.3

In Texas, for example, at least 713 books have been banned from public schools, and school districts and school boards attempts to censor books have triggered a systematic review of hundreds of books in every school district in the entire state.4 These censorship efforts require tens of thousands of hours from teachers, librarians, and administrators to review the books and implement a system of censorshipall at a time when school resources are already stretched thin, and states across the country are facing teacher and staff shortages.

These actions run counter to the shared value of free speech that has informed generations of American progress. They also violate the First Amendment, 14th Amendment, and Title IX rights of all students and educators, with particular disproportionate impact on people of color and LGBTQI+ individuals.5 However, despite some states and localities focus on book bans and curriculum restrictions, national polling data detailed throughout this report reveal that a majority of Americans oppose the anti-public-education movement, which involves policy decisions that perpetuate discrimination and inequity in education by cutting or reallocating funding dedicated to public schools toward private or alternative schooling structures that tend to benefit the wealthy; want teachers and students to play a more active role in determining school curricula; and want schools to embrace diversity and inclusion. But this is not evident from many media headlines, which often sensationalize popular political talking points, even those with no basis in truth.

Education should not be politicized

Preparing students for all types of civic engagement by teaching complete history is crucial; yet beginning as early as the 2016 Trump administration campaign, efforts to weaken the U.S. Department of Education through proposed cuts of $7.1 billion6 in funding. These cuts would undermine the departments guidance and protections of vulnerable students attending public school, continue to threaten the future of public education in the United States.

When Americans call their legislators, join school boards, or utilize social media platforms to share their concerns about education, they are exercising the right to make their voices heard on policy issuesa right that is central to the American civic engagement process. Schools have a core responsibility to teach students about these processes. Book bans and curriculum gag orders make it impossible for every child to receive a high-quality and age-appropriate education by dictating whose history, identities, and voices matter.

For example, when a 2022 nationwide survey from Campaign for Our Shared Future7 asked, All things being equal, would you prefer that each of the following take a more active role in the decisions about the subjects students are taught in schools, or a less active role?, 92 percent of parents and 85 percent of voters overall said they believe that teachers should play a more active role in decisions about what subjects are taught in classrooms.8 Additionally, 74 percent of parents and 71 percent of voters overall reported believing that current high school students should play the second-most-active role.9

Ongoing state and local actions to ban books simply because they address racism, white supremacy, or LGBTQI+ issues have inspired students to stand up for their civil rights. Young adults attending public, charter, and private schools in Delaware began submitting stories of their experiences with overt and systemic racism,10 countering the narrative that America is a post-racial country and that racism no longer exists. Hundreds of students have taken to student-run social media accounts on platforms such as Instagram to tell their stories in the form of quotes or summaries detailing their experiences with racism and other forms of discrimination in their public, charter, and private schools.11 Young adults in Texas and Pennsylvania have also protested,12 while others in Missouri have sued their districts for removing books that are inclusive of multiple groups across racial/ethnic, gender, nondisabled and disabled, and socioeconomic lines.13

Attempts to limit learning are un-American

Recent survey research conducted by the National Education Association14 and ASO Communications15 between September and October 2021 found that everyone across demographics agrees that removing history from curricula and banning books are tools that politicians use to control a political narrative. GBAO and Anchor Collaborative conducted a similar survey in April and May 2022 and found a majority of Americans felt that efforts to censor classroom conversations about race go way too far.16 The survey asked participants to rate on a scale of 010 how well a group of statements on historical facts, honesty, and no one being ashamed of their background described how they feel about race in America, where 10 means the statement describes how you feel very well and 0 means it does not describe how you feel at all. Fifty-nine percent of people responded to the following statement with a rating of 810:

Efforts to censor teachers, omit history, or ban important conversations about race in our schools go way too far. Our children deserve an education honest about who we are, demonstrating integrity in how we treat others, and creating a sense of belonging so every child has the freedom to learn, grow, and pursue their dreams.

Research findings from Campaign for Our Shared Future17 found that in a national sample of parents and nonparents ages 18 and older who are registered or likely voters, more than half were overall supportive of, and voted in favor of, educators teaching about the following topics in K-12 schools:18

Yet, in less than one year, state legislators have called for districtwide reviews of books, despite a nationwide teacher shortage and other existing strains on the teacher workforce.19 These actions are part of anti-public-school policies and agendas, which have adverse impacts on the experiences of students who attend these schools. More recently, states such as Arizona20 and Tennessee21 have also resurrected former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos privatization schemes and proposals to expand tax incentives that benefit private-school parents by passing voucher laws allowing parents to move their children into private school or other alternative schooling options with no accountability in accordance with Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) law.

Interestingly, polling data on voters attitudes toward school voucher programs reveal that despite Arizona voters previous opposition to and rejection of a similar universal vouchers proposalwith 67 percent voting No and 33 percent voting Yes in 2018, Arizona lawmakers successfully passed a new law on school choice vouchers.22 Other national polling results found that 49 percent of survey participants believe:23

Certain politicians try to use race to turn us against schools and teachers, or point the finger at parents. These politicians want to keep us from coming together to demand every school provide a quality education to every child, not just the children of the wealthy few.

More than 1,500 book bans have occurred in at least 86 school districts in 26 states since politicians began igniting the anti-public-education movement toward the end of 2019.24 Of the total number of books banned, 41 percent include protagonists or prominent secondary characters who are people of color; 22 percent of the titles directly address issues of race and racism; 16 percent are history books or biographies; and 9 percent have themes related to rights and activism.25 Other survey results revealed that 51 percent of survey participants responded to the following statement with a rating of 810, with 10 indicating that the statement describes how they feel very well:26

While educators work to deliver our children accurate and honest education, some politicians are trying to censor the truth of our history, passing laws to ban learning from the mistakes of our past and erase leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr. who stood up to racism and changed our country for the better.

Share of banned books that include protagonists or prominent secondary characters who are people of color

Share of banned books that directly address issues of race and racism

Share of banned books that are history books or biographies

Share of banned books that have themes related to rights and activism

Book bans and the passage of laws to allegedly combat critical race theoryso-called divisive-concepts lawshave nothing to do with the actual tenets of critical race theory, a form of scholarship that emerged in critical legal studies discourse by scholars of various disciplines, including law, sociology, education, and other social sciences. Critical race theory analyzes and critiques formalism and objectivism in American legal and social institutions when examining the relationship between power and law27 and holds that subjective personal voice, or storytelling as a methodological tool in legal analysis or education policy research,28 reveals two important things about the law: 1) how the law has been shaped and 2) how law shapes issues of race.29 But some media outlets are inaccurately describing it as ideas around inferiority, inherently racist, oppressive, unpatriotic, or divisive concepts.30 Polling data showed 46 percent of survey respondents agreed that the following statements align very well with their views:31

Out of touch politicians are trying to confront problems the only way they know how: lying about them. The same grifters who have peddled lies about our election want to peddle lies about our history, hoping to keep us divided and distracted so they can take away our freedom to vote and deny us the resources our schools, families, and communities actually need.

Inclusive history and school curricula strengthen communities

The inclusion of complete U.S. history in public school curricula serves the public good. Americas public schools exist as an epicenter of teaching and learning of truth. If children are not taught accurate and inclusive historical facts in school, they will find information to fill the voidoften from unreliable and agenda-driven sources on the internet that may lead them to believe false and even harmful narratives.

Culturally responsive pedagogy involves teaching diverse history; it teaches children how to relate to their own family members and communities who may hold identities that differ from their own. All families deserve access to supportive curricula targeted to meet their unique socio-emotional and social identity needs, especially during the growing mental health crisis brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic over the past two years. In the wake of the pandemics impacts on the K-12 education systemcreating learning gaps that have been exacerbated by an increasing teacher shortagethe politicization of public education also gave some states and school districts the opportunity to ban books and restrict curricula, just to score political points. Schools must remain a neutral place of learning for all students of all backgrounds.

Recent polling data from Education Next find thatalmost two-thirds, or 64 percent, of all parents who respondedto the survey believed that their childs school places an appropriate emphasis on slavery, racism, and discrimination against Black people, with 69 percent of Republican parents saying their childs school placed an appropriate emphasis on race and racism.32 Additional polling data on school curricula asked Democrats and Republicans the following questions:33

Responses revealed that 93 percent of Democrats responded that they believe it is appropriate for schools to include discussions of slavery and racism in teaching about U.S. history, with 67 percent indicating that they strongly believe it is appropriate. However, only 71 percent of Republicans responded that they believe these discussions are appropriate in schools, with only 45 percent indicating a strong belief on this point. On the whole, Democratic respondents were 22 percentage points more likely than Republican respondents to believe that the discussion of slavery and racism in U.S. history classes is appropriate.

Share of Democratic survey respondents who said they believe it is appropriate

Share of Democratic survey respondents who said they strongly believe it is appropriate

Share of Republican survey respondents who said they believe it is appropriate

Share of Republican survey respondents who said they strongly believe it is appropriate

On the question of whether schools should include discussions on the continued social, economic, and political impacts of slavery and racism when teaching U.S. history, 89 percent of Democrats believed it is appropriate for schools to include these discussions in classroom instruction, with 70 percent indicating that they strongly believe it is appropriate. However, only 48 percent of Republicans believed that these discussions are appropriate in school, with only 15 percent indicating a strong belief on this point. On the whole, Democratic respondents were significantly more likely than their Republican counterparts to believe that the discussion of the continued impacts of slavery and racism in U.S. history classes is appropriate.

In response to concerns about the teaching of history and culture in schools, several states, including Colorado, Connecticut, and Delaware, have passed bills mandating the inclusion of civic and social contributions of American Indian, Black, Pacific Islander, and Asian American communities as well as of the intersecting identity, religious, and cultural features within each community.34 In Delaware, Gov. John Carney (D) passed H.B. 198,35 which called for each district and charter school to implement a complete curriculum on Black history for students in grades K-12. In June of this year, Arizona also passed a law requiring the state Board of Education to include discussions in social studies classes on political ideologies that conflict with the principles of freedom and democracy in the United States.36

These state legislative actions demonstrate support for parents and teachers who believe that young people cannot be fully engaged in the democratic process without learning the fundamental facts concerning a social cause, issue, law, or policy. Americas youth must be afforded the opportunity to learn full and complete U.S. history in order to actively participate in the system of democracy they inherit when they turn 18 years old.

The May 2022 survey results from GBAO and Anchor Collaborative also asked participants in the sample to rate on a scale of 010 how well a group of statements on historical facts, honesty, and no one being ashamed of their background described how they feel about race in America, where 10 means the statement describes how they feel very well and 0 means it does not describe how they feel at all. The results found that 54 percent of participants responded to the following statement with a rating of 810:37

Teenagers & young adults today are passionate, active, aware, & more accepting of everyone. These young people want to keep moving the world forward. Those that want to silence them want to take us backwards. So lets make sure young people get an education that empowers them to make a better future.

These findings suggest that providing an education that includes a diverse history and curricula helps to inform democratic engagement at an early age.

Teachers and families should stand against anti-public-education legislation

When participants in the sample were asked to rate on a scale of 010 how well the following statements, which focused on historical facts, honesty, and no one being ashamed of their background, described how they feel about race in America, 45 percent of respondents said they felt that the following statement aligned very well with their views:38

Attacks on how we teach and talk about race and racism draw from the oldest playbook in American politics. Politicians use fear of people of color, immigrants, or LGBTQ people to breed resentment so they can retain power and dominance by undermining our multiracial democracy.

The federal government has remained steadfast in supporting the teaching of American history and civics education in K-12 schools. Under Title II of ESSA, the Department of Education awarded six competitive grants from fiscal year 2016 to fiscal year 2021 for helping schools work with local nonprofits to teach curricula on American history and civics education. Most recently, Street Law was awarded funding in partnership with the Georgetown University Law Center to implement a program called Talking About Local Current and Contested Issues in Schools (TALCCS), where Georgetown law students partnered with local Baltimore County school districts to teach young people curricula that reflect diversity, identities, histories, contributions of all students.39 Social studies teachers, who are often overlooked when it comes to professional development opportunities, receive regular instructional support, check-ins, and reflection opportunities as part of TALCCS implementation and evaluation.

An innovative part of the logic model is the community deliberations aspect, where students and teachers participate in hands-on, civic engagement and deliberate on current issues while receiving support from Georgetown staff to help address their fears about bringing current and controversial issues into classrooms. These types of programs need to be implemented nationwide. Not only do they reaffirm the belief that everyone should participate in civic life, but they also amplify impact through a community-schools approach by connecting schools, communities, and legal professionals to solve individual and community problems. Community deliberations encourage people to work together toward policy on local or cross-district issues that benefit all communities. Congress should utilize the existing provision in Title II, Part B of ESSA as a federal accountability guideline to ensure that all students have opportunities to receive a fair, equitable, and high-quality education, as well as to close educational achievement gaps.

The teaching of American history and civics education is listed under ESSA Title II, Part B: National Activities. The secretary of education is authorized to reserve no less than 26 percent of the appropriated, competitive funds for an institution of higher education or other nonprofit or for-profit organization with demonstrated expertise in the development of evidence-based approaches whose projected plans will improve:40

(1) the quality of American history, civics, and government education by educating students about the history and principles of the Constitution of the United States, including the Bill of Rights; and (2) the quality of the teaching of American history, civics, and government in elementary schools and secondary schools, including the teaching of traditional American history.41

Under Section 2233: National Activities, ESSA defines national activities to include those that:

(A) show potential to improve the quality of student achievement in, and teaching of, American history, civics and government, or geography, in elementary schools and secondary schools; and (B) demonstrate innovation, scalability, accountability, and a focus on underserved populations; and (2) may include(A) hands-on civic engagement activities for teachers and students; and (B) programs that educate students about the history and principles of the Constitution of the United States, including the Bill of Rights.

Moving forward, the federal government must continue to provide funding and other supports to ensure that teachers who value the nations diverse history can teach it. One way the government can demonstrate this support is by issuing federal guidance reiterating the significance of these grants and the importance of cross-collaboration between schools and nonprofits, followed by additional guidelines for effective implementation and use of competitive grant funds. If these actions are taken, the Department of Education will be able to better support and hold K-12 schools accountable for providing all students with a quality education.

Conclusion

Overall, researchers found that respondents were more likely to respond positively when messaging emphasized the prioritization of qualified educators and proven facts in the classroom. Respondents were also more likely to agree with messaging that stressed collectivity and used words such as integrity, freedom, honesty, and sense of belonging when discussing these topics.

Ultimately, crafting good policies should prioritize teaching truth, not restricting or omitting important aspects of U.S. history simply because more inclusive curricula might make some students feel uncomfortable or shamed about the United States history of racially discriminatory systems and laws. Survey data indicate that 58 percent of parents and voters feel that the following statement describes very well how they feel about teaching historical facts, prioritizing honesty, and supporting individuals and families from all backgrounds:42

Kids in this country have not been taught our full, honest history, including some of Americas worst chapters. No one should be made to feel ashamed of who they are-no matter their background. But well all progress as a country if we learn and acknowledge the mistakes of the past.

Legislators need to combat policies that violate students rights by ensuring that the accountability systems in place for protecting their rights are operating as intended and that all students are receiving a quality education. Failure to protect elementary and secondary school students rights to an improved quality of education that teaches complete and accurate American history, literature, civics, and governmentincluding the history and principles of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rightsis a direct violation of the Department of Educations explicit responsibility to abide by its mission to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.43 The department must continue to monitor the state and local landscape of school curricula on American history, as well as state actions on book banning, and offer technical guidance to schools that seek to implement more inclusive strategies or other policies ensuring that school districts are not violating students First Amendment rights.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Allie Pearce, policy analyst for the K-12 Education Policy team, and Jamil Modaffari, research associate for the K-12 Education Policy team, for helping support the research for this report. She would also like to thank Edwith Theogene, senior director for Racial Equity and Justice; Jesse OConnell, senior vice president for Education; and Mara Rudman, executive vice president of policy, for their thoughtful review of this report.

Here is the original post:

Book Banning, Curriculum Restrictions, and the Politicization of U.S. Schools - Center For American Progress

Indiana's near-total abortion ban remains in effect for now as a southern Indiana judge weighs a request to halt its enforcement while courts determine the constitutionality of Senate Enrolled Act 1.

Judge Kelsey Hanlon of the Owen Circuit Court, a Republican sitting as special judge in Monroe County, listened to some 75 minutes of oral argument on the issue Monday.

She subsequently pledged to rule "expeditiously" on a motion for a preliminary injunction.

The new abortion law, which took effect Thursday, prohibits all abortions in Indiana from the moment of conception, except within 10 weeks of fertilization for pregnancies caused by rape or incest, or 20 weeks if necessary to prevent serious physical impairment or the death of a pregnant woman, or because of a lethal fetal anomaly.

People are also reading

Pro-life and pro-choice protesters take to the Porter County Courthouse lawn in Valparaiso.

The statute, approved Aug. 5 by the Republican-controlled General Assembly and Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb, also shuts down abortion services at Planned Parenthood clinics by requiring every abortion be completed in a hospital or hospital-owned surgical center, and it puts doctors at risk of losing their medical license if they fail to sufficiently justify the legal basis for an abortion.

Kenneth Falk, legal director at the Indiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, argued on behalf of a variety of abortion rights plaintiffs the near-total abortion ban runs afoul of the Indiana Constitution and must be struck down.

Specifically, Falk said the Constitution's declaration that all people have inalienable rights, including the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, establishes a right to privacy, including the right to abortion, upon which the General Assembly cannot infringe.

He said that absent a right to privacy, couldn't the General Assembly, in the name of preserving potential life, eliminate the rape and incest exceptions to the abortion ban, prohibit access to contraception generally and even criminalize male masturbation?

"We are asking the court to recognize that the Legislature went too far," Falk said. "Women will suffer. Women will die (if the law remains in effect)."

Solicitor General Thomas Fisher, a Jasper County native defending the statute on behalf of the state, said that if the framers of the Indiana Constitution intended to create a right to privacy they would have written it into the state's governing charter.

Instead, records show abortion was prohibited by law both before and after the 1851 Constitution was adopted, and abortion remained a criminal offense in the Hoosier State until the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion nationwide.

Fisher said the General Assembly was well within its rights to once again restrict abortion access following the June 24 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that rescinded the right to abortion established by Roe, and a state court should not unilaterally overturn the will of the people of Indiana as expressed through their elected representatives.

"Unborn children literally will die if this law does not go into effect," Fisher said. "Privacy is nowhere in the Indiana Constitution mentioned as an undifferentiated right. ... There just isn't enough there."

Falk's second argument focused on a different constitutional provision that prohibits treating similar entities differently. He said the law's requirement that all abortions be performed in hospitals or affiliated surgical centers unlawfully discriminates against abortion clinics.

Riding Shotgun/DNR Conservation Officer Tyler Brock

Fisher said Indiana only licensed abortion clinics post-Roe. With Roe no longer good law, he said legislators appropriately chose to restrict abortion access to hospitals and surgery centers capable of providing all necessary follow-up care.

No matter how the judge rules on Falk's request for a preliminary injunction, the decision is all but certain to be ultimately appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, a separate lawsuit claiming the near-total abortion ban runs afoul of Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act is scheduled for review next month by an Indianapolis court.

In Northwest Indiana, abortion access remains largely accessible to Region women at a Planned Parenthood health center just across the state line at 19831 Governors Hwy. in Flossmoor, Illinois.

State Sen. Michael Griffin, D-Highland

1st Senate District

Represents: Hammond (south side), Munster, Highland, Griffith, Dyer, Schererville

Experience: Former Highland clerk-treasurer; university instructor

Committees: Insurance and Financial Institutions; Local Government

State Sen. Lonnie Randolph, D-East Chicago

2nd Senate District

Represents: Hammond, Whiting, East Chicago, Gary (west side), Griffith, Hobart, Merrillville

Experience: State senator since 2008, previously served 1994-98; attorney

Committees: Commerce and Technology; Insurance and Financial Institutions (ranking member); Judiciary (ranking member); Rules and Legislative Procedure; Tax and Fiscal Policy; Utilities (ranking member)

State Sen. Eddie Melton, D-Gary

3rd Senate District

Represents: Gary, Lake Station, New Chicago, Hobart, Merrillville, Crown Point

Experience: State senator since 2016; community relations manager

Committees: Appropriations (ranking member); Education and Career Development; Health and Provider Services; Joint Rules; Rules and Legislative Procedure

State Sen. Rodney Pol Jr., D-Chesterton

4th Senate District

Represents: Ogden Dunes, Portage, Chesterton, South Haven, Burns Harbor, Beverly Shores, Michigan City, Westville

Experience: State senator since 2021; attorney

Committees: Corrections and Criminal Law (ranking member); Environmental Affairs; Local Government; Pensions and Labor; Public Policy

State Sen. Ed Charbonneau, R-Valparaiso

5th Senate District

Represents: Valparaiso, Hebron, Kouts, Jasper County

Experience: State senator since 2007; attorney

Committees: Appropriations; Ethics; Health and Provider Services (chairman); Rules and Legislative Procedure; Tax and Fiscal Policy

State Sen. Rick Niemeyer, R-Lowell

6th Senate District

Represents: St. John, Cedar Lake, Crown Point, Winfield, Lowell, Newton County

Experience: State senator since 2014, state representative 2012-14; small business owner

Committees: Environmental Affairs; Local Government; Tax and Fiscal Policy

State Sen. Mike Bohacek, R-Michiana Shores

8th Senate District

Represents: LaPorte County

Experience: State senator since 2016; consultant

Committees: Corrections and Criminal Law; Insurance and Financial Institutions; Judiciary; Local Government

State Rep. Carolyn Jackson, D-Hammond

1st House District

Represents: Hammond, Whiting

Experience: State representative since 2018; retired Cook County, Ill., probation officer

Committees: Environmental Affairs; Family, Children and Human Affairs; Natural Resources

State Rep. Earl Harris Jr., D-East Chicago

2nd House District

Represents: East Chicago, Gary (west side)

Experience: State representative since 2016; small business owner

Committees: Government and Regulatory Reform; Roads and Transportation; Ways and Means

State Rep. Ragen Hatcher, D-Gary

3rd House District

Represents: Gary (downtown and east side), Lake Station, New Chicago, Hobart

Experience: State representative since 2018; attorney

Committees: Commerce, Small Business and Economic Development; Courts and Criminal Code (ranking member); Government and Regulatory Reform

State Rep. Ed Soliday, R-Valparaiso

4th House District

Represents: Valparaiso

Experience: State representative since 2006; aviation safety consultant

Committees: Elections and Apportionment; Roads and Transportation; Utilities, Energy and Telecommunications (chairman)

State Rep. Pat Boy, D-Michigan City

9th House District

Represents: Michigan City, Chesterton, Beverly Shores, Long Beach, Westville

Experience: State representative since 2018; retired small business owner

Committees: Environmental Affairs; Natural Resources (ranking member)

State Rep. Chuck Moseley, D-Portage

10th House District

Represents: Portage, Chesterton, Ogden Dunes, Burns Harbor, South Haven

Experience: State representative since 2008; financial solutions associate

Committees: Employment, Labor and Pensions; Roads and Transportation (ranking member); Veterans Affairs and Public Safety

State Rep. Mike Aylesworth, R-Hebron

11th House District

Represents: St. John, Cedar Lake, Lowell, Schneider, Hebron, Kouts

Experience: State representative since 2014; farmer, former state environmental regulator

Committees: Agriculture and Rural Development (vice chairman); Courts and Criminal Code; Environmental Affairs

State Rep. Mike Andrade, D-Munster

12th House District

Represents: Munster, Hammond (south side), Highland, Griffith

Experience: State representative since 2020; small businessman

Committees: Commerce, Small Business and Economic Development; Employment, Labor and Pensions; Veterans Affairs and Public Safety

State Rep. Vernon Smith, D-Gary

14th House District

Represents: Gary (south side), Merrillville

Experience: State representative since 1990; education professor at Indiana University Northwest

Read more from the original source:

Judge considers halting enforcement of Indiana's near-total abortion ban - The Times of Northwest Indiana

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

THE WOODLANDS The worship space at Grace Woodlands church was peppered with red MAGA hats on Saturday, as young adults gathered to hear from leading conservatives often seen on Fox News.

In the hallways, a few people pushed strollers and others weaved through the crowd to get to the tables hawking shirts that read, Let the revolution begin or Freedom is never more than one generation from tyranny.

They were there for the fourth annual Texas Youth Summit, a two-day conference in which teenage and young adult Texans convened with politicians, ideologically aligned companies and political groups to hear lectures, meet in small groups and ultimately feel empowered, as the summits slogan says, to be the catalysts to win the Culture War.

Speakers included Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Donald Trump Jr., talk show host Candace Owens and U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, who wore a pistol strapped to her leg as she addressed the hall. As the headliners gave their speeches, a large cross from the churches sanctuary was illuminated behind them.

U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz also spoke, the same day the Washington Post reported that he sought a preemptive pardon from President Donald Trump related to a sex trafficking investigation. On Saturday, Gaetz made no mention of the investigation, in which the U.S. Department of Justice was reportedly looking into whether he paid for women to travel across state lines for sex and had a relationship with a 17-year-old girl. Instead, he urged the young people in attendance to fight for conservative causes.

If you're here with me on a Saturday, you came to this because you care and it is because you know the fight we are in, he said. We're now in a country where you see grandmothers robbed in broad daylight in our major cities, and they are raiding the home of the former president of the United States. You used to only see this in the poorest third world countries on planet Earth.

The summit was founded by Christian Collins, a former political staffer for Cruz and U.S. Rep. Kevin Brady. Registration for the event, which was supported through donations and sponsorships from businesses like the right-wing cellphone company Patriot Mobile, was free for students ages 12 through 26, as long as they submitted a reference from an adult confirming their interest in conservative politics. Adults were able to buy a ticket.

According to its website, the summit strives to identify, educate, and train students to promote principles of fiscal responsibility, free market, limited government, American Exceptionalism and the Judeo-Christian principles this country was founded on.

"The Left controls the education system, TV networks, Hollywood, and social media and they are influencing youth," the website reads. "Its so important youth learn the Conservative Principles that have always made and will continue to make America exceptional."

For attendees, the stakes were high.

I'm so conservative, I love my country. So all of that stuff is just stuff we need to strive for. And they're trying to take that away from our country, said Manny Galvan, president of his Houston high schools Turning Point USA chapter. Every day we sit here, so the more we do nothing, the more that's getting taken. The more we're trying to fight back, the more we can gain.

But attendees also had differing views on what the culture war means.

It's not a literal war, but it is a metaphorical war for the battle of ideas, said Collins, the event's founder. We are working to educate young people with conservative and most importantly, Judeo Christian values so that they have the right worldview when they go off to college, or when they're in their high schools, because of what the left is doing.

Paideia Classical School was one of the organizations tabling at the event. They have four campuses across Texas, with three of them opening up within the last three years.

We are trying to create critical thinkers with our classes, said Loiuse Davidson, who was working the table. Many people just accept what they first see without any research.

Some panels at the event urged attendees to question established research, raising conspiracy theories around COVID-19, cellphone towers and more. But more than anything, the event focused on the idea that liberals inside and outside the government were taking the country in a dangerous direction.

When it comes to this organization, we're a nonprofit dealing with conservative issues, and we're addressing the issues as opposed to specific groups, Collins said. "We're really trying to tackle the ideas, the ideas are important to us. And so if we think your idea is wrong, then we will address the idea but I mean, we're not trying to go after anyone's identity.

Phill Cady, an Air Force veteran who moved to Texas from California, set up a table to register people to vote. He said hed register anyone to vote if they asked even if they didn't agree with him.

Some people just see MAGA and think bad, he said, pointing to his red Make America Great Again hat. I am a Republican, but I'm not here to support that.

But from many, the message was to do more than vote. In order to win the culture war, strong political action and mobilization was needed.

If you're a digital warrior, get better at it, Gaetz said. If you make phone calls and knock on doors, become more efficient, become an organizer and activist.

The Texas Tribune Festival is almost here! From Thursday through Saturday, Sept. 22-24, in downtown Austin, TribFest attendees will enjoy three days full of mind-expanding events, conversations and panels featuring more than 350 big names including Chris Bosh, Pete Buttigieg, Liz Cheney, Annette Gordon-Reed and many others. Join us for Texas biggest politics and policy event when you buy your tickets today.

See more here:

Texas Youth Summit draws conservative to plot the culture war - The Texas Tribune

This is an edition of Up for Debate, a newsletter by Conor Friedersdorf. On Wednesdays, he rounds up timely conversations and solicits reader responses to one thought-provoking question. Later, he publishes some thoughtful replies. Sign up for the newsletter here.

Last week, I asked readers to discuss how theyre thinking about the upcoming midterm elections in the United States. I am disappointed that I didnt hear from many current Republican voters, something that Ive found informative in the past and that Ill return to in future installments. I did get lots of responses from former Republicans, independents, and Democrats, and listening to them, Donald Trump seems like an albatross for the Republican Party.

Steve cast his first presidential vote for Ronald Reagan. Until President Trump, I was a lifelong Republican, he wrote. My major issue is whether a candidate supports Trump. He has crushed my vision of America. If a candidate even remotely supports Trump, they will never get my vote.

For correspondents alienated by the latest incarnation of the GOP, one issue loomed largest. Im an independent who was once a Republican, Michael writes. I left the party due to the January 6 insurrection and the GOP refusal to investigate it. The issue driving me is to defeat Trumpism.

Barbara has different ideological priors but the same focus:

I will vote for democracy. That means I will vote for those who uphold the rule of law, meaning that no one is above the law. I will vote for those who uphold our constitutional right to choose our representatives, and vote against those who are trying to restrict voting rights, or trying to give legislators the ability to throw out votes and choose their own winners. I will vote for those who support the peaceful transfer of power and against those who reject an election because they dont like the outcome. I will vote for legislators who work for their constituents and against those who work for their personal benefit. I will vote for legislators who uphold their oath of office.

Additionally, Barbara alluded to abortion, the issue that loomed next-largest among my correspondents, writing, I will vote for those who support a justice system where settled precedent and established rights are not overturned based on judges personal and political beliefs.

The same two issues stood out for Mark, though in a somewhat different manner. He writes:

1) I am pro-life to the core. To me, elective abortion is homicide and a loathsome evil. It can be justified only to save the life of the mother, oras a compromisein cases of rape or incest.

2) To me, the integrity of our Constitution, the institutions it mandates, and even our federal union is at risk. All of this has come to be because of Donald Trump, who never should have been voted in as president. This man is a criminal and for all I know either an ally or a dupe of Vladimir Putin. I will never vote for Mr. Trump. I will not knowingly vote for anyone who endorses him or his take on many positions on items such as election results.

From when I was first able to vote, in 1972, to 2016, I voted Republican nearly 100 percent. I did vote for a few (fewer than five) Democrats and regretted it every time. The issue was that of abortion, that monstrous machinery of death that Justice Harry Blackmun built on the infamous day of January 20, 1973. In particular, it was most discouraging to see Democrats proclaiming themselves to be pro-choice, including some who once were pro-life. Pro-life people were not welcome in the Democratic Party. So be it. So I voted Republican.

Things started to change when Donald Trump ran for president as a Republican. Knowing his unsavory character, I took the position that I MIGHT vote for him but if I did, it would be like eating a turd sandwich. In the spring of 2016, I moved to the position of not voting for Trump under any circumstances. I considered voting for Hillary Clinton until I saw her at the DNC pumping fists with Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood. So I didnt vote for her or Trump in 2016. I voted for Evan McMullin. After seeing Trumps COVID response and, worse, seeing his starting to whine about the election being stolen even before votes were cast, I made up my mind to vote for Joe Biden, which I did. I would have sat it out if ANY OTHER Democrat ran for president.

We come to the here and now.

The attempted coup of January 6, 2021, and the revelations of Trumps involvement and, worse, the Republicans continuing to excuse Trump have made it so I will not vote for any Republican unless (like Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney), he or she denounces and renounces Trump and his positions on things like our elections, race, Putin, and other strong leaders. However, in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, the Democrats are apparently running EXCLUSIVELY on protecting the right to choose death before birth for babies. The Republicans have handed them so many issues on which they could run, and maybe even secure my vote: issues like protecting our elections; our republican institutions; and our foreign policy, especially concerning Russia and Ukraine. But are Democrats running on those issues? No, of course not. Rather, they are running to protect a monstrous evil of abortion. On that, I will NOT vote.

So in 2022, I might consider it my patriotic duty to stay home. I may vote for some Democrats, but there are no guarantees. I even might vote for some Republicans if I see them dropping Trump.

CG, another voter who objects to Trumps efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, is torn about whether his fellow Democrats should talk about abortion when they talk about democracy.

He writes:

The most important issue to me is stopping the MAGA candidates who still promote lies about election fraud. Im torn by how the Democratic Party has approached this election. I think abortion is a much more complex issue than a right being stripped away, and dislike that its such a focus this year. I think that collapsing critiques of authoritarian tendencies within Republican/conservative leaders and voters with critiques of anti-abortion, anti-gay, and anti-climate science positions cloud the issue. I also dislike spending money in Republican primaries to elevate the crazy people because theyre easier to beat. Its so dangerous; these crazy Republican candidates might win!

On the other hand, winning in November is really important. Even normal conservatives like Senator Sasse refused to impeach Trump. Normal conservatives supported McCarthys submission to Trump and punished Cheney for refusing to ignore that Trump tried to use deceit, fraud, and violence to stay in power. So Im not sure theres much of a difference between a normal conservative in Congress and a MAGA conservative. In which case, generating turnout by focusing on the Dobbs decision makes sense. Spending money to support repugnant, but weaker general-election candidates is justified. It might also have been necessary to highlight extreme positions earlier so that these candidates could not pretend to be normal now during the general election.

Read: Who knows what Putin will do next?

Lucretia is energized by the fight to protect legal abortion:

Womens right to bodily integritytheir place as a person, not just a human beingis under assault. That a party that saw the COVID vaccines as a denial of personal freedom would put itself in the position of controlling the most personal and female functions of more than half the population is a matter of mind-numbing hubris. I will vote Democratic.

B. concurs:

Im not usually a one-issue voter, but this year there is no contest: I will be voting for a womans right to control her own body. Im 87. I remember well what life for women was like before Roe. I joined second-wave feminism in the 1970s. I marched on the National Mall. I even shook Justice Blackmuns hand to thank him for the Supreme Court decision. I cant believe we are having to relive what women like me fought so hard for 50 years ago.

Jen shares the same values but isnt going to vote:

As a woman, abortion is the most important issue to me. I have never voted. I have always felt voters have never really mattered in the political system. You get only a selection of candidates pre-chosen for you, so its a selection, not an election. And none of the candidates seems to have the socioeconomic status of their voters, who are mostly low-income or middle-class.

James is a likely nonvoter, too:

At 35, Ive lost all sense of political identity or ideology. I see the harms in untruths across the spectrum, and I find it difficult to be on board with anything anymore. Sanity and reason never feel like theyre on the ballot. So much of our society, across the political spectrum, appears consumed by an ever-growing movement to make an authoritarian religion out of their personal and political identity. It feels deeply wrong to me. This isnt what a self-governing society, or life, should be about. I want to vote. I just dont know if I can bring myself to.

Climate change is the issue Sam cares about more than any other:

It will continue to be the most important issue for the rest of our lives. It is the most important issue in the history of our species. The economy is important, but nothing is more important than the future of all life on Earth. I care about this issue not just because of my daughter, but also because of me. I hope to have 50 more years of life on this planet, and the climate situation is currently dire. If any Republicans would put forth a real plan to address climate change, I might consider voting for them. They havent and they wont.

Trump alienated Marty from the Republican Party:

I am 80. I have been a registered GOP voter most of my life. I could not vote for Hillary and I never voted for Trump. I voted for Biden, unhappily, because I could not vote for Trump.

I consider myself to be conservative on fiscal matters and liberal on social matters. As a partial libertarian, my view is that people should be allowed to do what they want to do so long as they dont ask others to clean up their mess. There is simply no political party that represents my views. I am not in the MAGA camp. I cannot register as a Democrat because of fiscal irresponsibility and the ghastly failure of the withdrawal from Afghanistan. I will vote for Val Demings instead of Marco Rubio for the United States Senate. Unless someone like Mitt Romney is nominated for the GOP in 2024, I will most likely vote Democratic. I am appalled at the Supreme Courts destruction of Roe v. Wade. We need to legalize abortion and work to reduce unwanted pregnancies. I strongly believe we and the West should provide Ukraine with aircraft, Western tanks, and strong air-defense systems at an accelerated level. If we gave Ukraine these weapons quickly, I believe it could truly win this war. Ukrainians are fighting and dying for all the values we claim to support, so what is the problem?

Russell is a former Republican, too:

I am 62 years old and have voted in every election since I was 18. I voted for Ronald Reagan for president twice. While it has often been said that the stakes couldnt be higher, it is my belief that this time that is empirically true. Republicans need to lose elections at every level, nationwide, regardless of integrity, to send a clear and unmistakable message that the present-day Republican ethos is unacceptable in a democracy. Millions of Republicans state out loud that my vote for Joe Biden should not count. Apathy is no longer an option for those who claim there is no difference between the two parties, unless they really do not care if they themselves are subjugated.

Meredith is a Gen X military spouse, a practicing Christian, a political independent, and a never-Trumper. She writes:

As a voter in North Carolina, I am heavily in support of Judge Cheri Beasley for Senate and will be turning out to vote for her. Beyond the fact that her opponent is awash in Trumpism, I genuinely like her for her character, compassion, and experience within the justice system. I am hoping we will see the first African American woman to represent NC in the Senate, because she is the most qualified person to fill the seat.

I used to believe in good-faith disagreements that led to understanding and compromise and would have considered myself a moderate Republican. But I no longer find a home in either party. We independents generally understand the deeper complexity involved in policy making and avoid the shallow, reductionist views that push the margins toward extreme tribalism. I hold many priorities in tension and find it difficult selecting one overriding issue. I care as deeply about police reform as I do about better support and advocacy for veterans. I am alarmed at the rate at which our society is trending authoritarian and want to protect voting rights and access for all citizens.

Democrats might enjoy my vote for the moment, but I am not naive about the influence of power on either party. Right now, the focus is on salvaging the executive processes that buffered the trend toward extremism and reforming a declining legislative branch.

Chuck is a married father in his 50s. He writes:

I strongly believe that voting is a civic duty and have voted in pretty much every election-special, primary, and generalsince I was 18. I was raised in a Roman Catholic, country-club-Republican family and supported the Republican candidate in most elections in my late teens and early 20s, but began thinking of myself as more of an independent in my mid-20s ... While the Democrats are not perfect, I am concerned about the trend in the Republican Party to win at all costs, even if that means perverting the normal ruleswritten and unwrittenthat govern our elections. It concerns me greatly that so many Republican candidates are repeating the Big Lie that Trump was the true winner of the 2020 election and that Biden and the Democrats stole the election. I will not only be voting but will also be sending contributions to Democratic candidates in close elections around the country, especially Senate candidates facing beatable, Trump-endorsed Republicans with minimal qualifications and wacky ideas about the election, nonexistent voter fraud, and outlawing all abortions.

Kristinia is unaligned and feels that the major parties are not a viable vehicle to advance her foremost priority: a negotiated end to the Ukraine-Russia conflict, instead of escalating it by sending billions of our tax dollars for weaponry. This will push me to vote for third parties, as I often do.

She writes:

Like soldiers anywhere in the dark abyss of war, most do not want to be part of their leaders madness and would welcome any escape possible. That would be a negotiated truce, a pause in the fighting to work toward an imperfect settlement whereby both Russia and Ukraine can save face before more horrific loss of life occurs, before nuclear weapons are used, before the meltdown of a nuclear power plant. We hear nothing of that option for negotiation from Democrats or liberals, and only a few extremist, isolationist Republicans oppose the war spending, but for the wrong reasons. The U.S. government, the Pentagon, the war planners, and the neoliberals are hell-bent on making sure they achieve a unipolar world with the West at the helm, a proxy war with the ends justify the means goal of regime change, weakening Russia.

It is not understood by the U.S. populace that one can hold two thoughts (or more) at the same time: Putins aggression is wrong and imperialist, and the U.S. response in keeping the war hot is wrong and imperialist. One can believe both conceptions and push for the option of stopping the war, and still be in support of the Ukrainian people. Thus Ill be voting for candidates who have the courage to speak in favor of ending the war. Ill be voting my conscience. Because our flawed system is stacked against third parties, my candidates wont win, but I will sleep at night knowing I voted to end the slaughter, for peace, for humanity.

B.A. is a single-issue voter, too, but his issue is the environment:

I am feeling the inflation, but in the long run, the loss of the planet were living on is apocalyptic. If there were a candidate with enough drive and power to introduce serious changes, Id be voting for him or her. If this candidate opposed abortion, Id still vote in their favor. Were in a desperate situation, and there must be a dozen articles every day that emphasize the losses we are in the middle of, but there seems to be a kind of lassitude about it in the country. I no longer think my recycling efforts and all the other things individuals can do to make things better are going to make any difference until we massively alter our country. I know other countries like China are contributing to emissions, but thats no excuse for Americas inaction. Ill give up stuffIll pay morebut I need someone to take charge.

Read: 19 readers on the rise of dating apps

The same issue alienated Ryan from the GOP:

Politically Ive been mostly independent in my life and have voted for candidates from both parties. That is until recent years, and the most important reason for this is the Republican Party's refusal to accept/engage in climate change. There are many topics that are important, but its hard to compare the importance of this or that with the issue of whether we will have a viable and sustainable planet to inhabit and share with all its wondrous life forms.

Harold is disgusted by the GOP on behalf of Trump supporters he believes it has manipulated and harmed:

I have always considered myself politically moderate. In the past I even identified as a conservative, and likely still would, had someone like John Kasich won the Republican nomination in 2016. Instead I voted for Hillary Clinton and split the rest of the ticket, voting for Patrick Toomey for Senate. Since then, I have voted only for Democrats in each subsequent election. Perhaps there are Democrats who are equally disillusioned by their party as I am with Republicans. We are prisoners of our experiences, and I can speak only of the failings I see in a group I once identified as being a part of. For me those failures are so great that the party needs to be destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up. Once it stood for principle and character. Now those in charge are opportunistic blobs preying off of people genuinely struggling for a sense of purpose. They have access to the truth, but they feed lies to their supporters. Countless livelihoods were ruined as they were sent off to fulfill quixotic fantasies of overthrowing the government on January 6 or defeating the deep state as they charged FBI field offices We all deserve better, and therefore I will never vote Republican again so long as this sickness prevails. Something this broken can be found only in the crushed hopes, dreams, and lives of the individuals they trample on to ascend to power. It has to stop.

GE pledged to vote for the candidates who embrace individual freedom instead of central government:

This nation has 50 states, and each state is very different. The people in those states have different needs and desires. Allowing maximal freedom for local and state populations to decide on which laws will dictate social behavior seems more logical than a central government forcing a one-size-fits-all policy across 330 million people. I have no problem voting for any candidate regardless of party if they come down more on the side of individual freedoms.

Holly will vote for a losing candidate:

I intend to throw away my vote. By that I mean that I will vote for the candidates who show the most libertarian tendencies, in the vain hope that we can turn away from the lefts abiding faith that more regulations and government meddling will solve our problems, and from the rights abandonment of free trade and of faith in individuals ability to serve their own best interests. Very few candidates have anything that could remotely be considered a libertarian point of view. Free speech and freedom of association have fallen victim to the intolerance of both left and right. Im afraid my choices this November will be pretty limited, but I cant bring myself to abstain from voting.

And Dorothy is an undecided voter:

This is one of the hardest election seasons to make sense of in my lifetime. I am 60, female, and highly educated, and have been registered as Democrat, independent, and Republican at different times. I abhor party politics in general, because I regard parties as marketing ploys. They are based only very loosely, if at all, on principle. Mostly, they are based on changes in where the wind is blowing at any given moment, with only the most macro, overarching concepts a constant. Republicans dont like centralized authority; Democrats dont like concentrations of wealth. Republicans think that government writ large is the problem; Democrats think it is a solution. The rest is up for grabs.

For what it is worth, I believe that government, as it actually exists in 3-D, is a huge problem. It invades spaces that should be left to private decision making, negotiation, and exploration. It is a barrier we all must cross, and nine times out of 10, there is little to no payoff for the impediments it throws in our way. We need regulation and law enforcement, but we most certainly do not need a bloated, corrupt, sluggish, inefficient bureaucracy that any sentient human can see now exists to protect its empire and feed itself.

I speak from some experience. I spent years living in Washington at the beginning of a legal career and later worked on Capitol Hill. I despise politics as religion, which it clearly has become. Both parties have come unhinged, and neither really cares about how its actions or words affect the country. They care about preserving and growing their power.

With that as the background, abortion rights (and other civil liberties) and the economy are tied in my mind as the most important issues in the upcoming election. That means I am in a bit of a pickle. I am too smart to fall for the comical justifications and falsehoods the Democrats offer for their endless tax-and-spend policies, which are hurting us very badly and will continue to do so. No household or company could afford to operate in such a fiscally irresponsible manner, and it is a massive betrayal of trust that our elected officials do so on a regular basis (with other peoples money) while draping themselves in the appearance of virtue. And I am far too principled and worried about our freedom to love whom we please and do what we like with our adult bodies to ever throw myself behind the piggish, repulsive desires of the Republicans who want to impose their own Leave It to Beaver fantasies on those of us who live in the real world.

I have no idea what will drive my vote this year. I will vote for whichever candidates are willing to do the hard work of governing with fairness, intelligence, and independence of thought.

I could publish a half-dozen more notes from former Republicans turned off by Trump and Trumpism, but were running long already. Thank you to everyone who wrote regardless of perspective, and if youre voting for Republicans this November, I would love to hear from you, too.

Read more from the original source:

The Weight of Trump - The Atlantic

Half a century ago, the Tanzania-Zambia Railway (Tazara) stood out as a crucial symbol of Africas struggle for independence. The 1,860km-long railway connects Kapiri Mposhi in Zambia with Dar es Salaam at the Indian Ocean.

In November 1965, the unilateral declaration of independence by Rhodesias racist regime had left newly independent Zambia extremely vulnerable to its hostile southern neighbour. Zambia, a landlocked country, remained highly dependent on transport routes through Rhodesia and apartheid South Africa. It relied on these to import essential goods such as oil and coal, and to export copper, its biggest source of revenue.

To address this vulnerability, then president Kenneth Kaunda sought an alternative route to the sea. He found an ally in Tanzanias Julius Nyerere. The idea of the Freedom Railway (Reli ya Uhuru in Kiswahili) was born.

The two leaders tried to solicit funding. But the World Bank, several western governments and the Soviet Union declined. Nyerere and Kaunda turned to Beijing.

The Tazara became Chinas biggest foreign aid project, costing about US$415 million at the time. It was financed through a combination of interest-free loans and commodity credit arrangements.

Tazaras construction between 1970 and 1975, and inauguration in 1976, were steeped in anti-imperialist narratives that emphasised Sino-African solidarity. The network significantly boosted Chinas influence across Africa and deepened its social, political, cultural and economic ties with Tanzania and Zambia. The railway is still frequently invoked by officials on both sides as the cornerstone for the all-weather friendship between Africa and China.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, Tazara transported a significant share of copper and mining inputs for Zambias state-owned mines. The railway increased the mobility of the rural population in both countries. Trading centres and small businesses emerged at its dozens of stations.

The railway recorded its peak performance in 1977/78, when it transported 1.27 million tonnes of cargo. But it never came close to its design capacity of 2.5 million tonnes per year.

From the late 1980s onwards, liberalisation of the transport sector and the privatisation of Zambias mines resulted in fierce competition from road transporters.

The eventual demise of white minority regimes in the region further diminished Tazaras geopolitical significance. Despite longer distances, a higher proportion of Zambias trade started to move along the southern corridors via South Africas efficient ports.

Inadequate management structures and chronic under-investment in infrastructure and rolling stock have amplified the steady decline of Tazaras cargo and passenger services since the 1990s. The shareholding governments had to regularly inject funds for outstanding salaries and urgent repairs.

In recent years, political will to refurbish the Freedom Railway not least to reduce the expensive wear and tear on roads has grown. However, tight public finances have prevented a major recapitalisation.

In August 2022, Zambias President Hakainde Hichilema made his first visit as head of state to Tanzania. After meetings with his counterpart Samia Suluhu Hassan, they announced that the two governments had agreed to rehabilitate Tazara. They sought to upgrade its tracks from Cape gauge (1,067mm) to standard gauge (1,435mm) through a public-private partnership.

An upgrade to standard gauge would enable the Uhuru railway to interlink with Tanzanias new standard gauge railway. The standard gauge tracks have meanwhile reached the Dodoma region. Contracts for extensions to Tabora (about 740km to the north-west of Dar es Salaam) and Mwanza (about 350km further north) have already been awarded. An inter-governmental agreement between Rwanda and Tanzania to build a line from Isaka (on the Tabora-Mwanza route) to Kigali was signed in 2018. Further connections to Burundi, the DRC and Uganda are planned.

But upgrading Tazara to standard gauge would be expensive and hence less attractive for a private investor. It would also pose connectivity challenges in Zambia. Zambias national network still operates on Cape gauge, as do South Africas and Zimbabwes.

A senior Tanzanian official with knowledge of the matter told me that the standard gauge upgrade was part of a long-term plan under the African Unions Agenda 2063. The immediate objective is to rehabilitate the existing infrastructure.

Since its inauguration, Tazaras impact has gone beyond the immediate goal to remedy Zambias transport emergency. The railway transformed the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Tanzanians and Zambians who lived or decided to settle along its route. This is meticulously documented by the historian Jamie Monson in her formidable book Africas Freedom Railway.

Economically however, Tazaras glorious days have long passed.

In the 2014/2015 financial year Tazara conveyed only 87,860 metric tonnes of cargo. According to its own estimates, it needs to transport at least 600,000 tonnes a year to cover its costs.

The situation has improved slightly since then, as a new management team brought down travel times and attracted new clients. Tazaras governing bodies also decided to allow private operators to use its tracks.

Yet, the challenges for the company remain huge. The biggest one is the outdated, in some cases inoperative, infrastructure. Dilapidated tracks, bridges and buildings, a dysfunctional signalling system and insufficient rolling stock prevent Tazara from meeting market demands.

The Tazara Authority is also grappling with crippling debts.

In 2016, the shareholding governments under the rigid control of the late President John Magufuli rejected a 30-year concession proposed by a Chinese consortium. Irreconcilable differences about the terms and conditions arose which I documented in an article titled Win-win contested.

Evidently, the times have changed. China is now a global political and economic powerhouse. Faced with massive overcapacity in its home market, the countrys construction and railway firms are seeking opportunities elsewhere. For Chinese firms Tazara is no longer an aid project but an investment opportunity.

Under Hichilema and Hassan there seems to be new momentum for the privatisation of the Freedom Railway. This is for several reasons.

Hichilema has long been considered a free marketeer. Hassan, for her part, has markedly departed from Magufulis confrontational approach to foreign investors. She has openly called for more public-private partnerships.

In addition, there is the factor of mounting fiscal pressure felt in Lusaka and, in recent years, also in Dodoma.

Under Zambias recently agreed International Monetary Fund rescue package all state expenses will be put to utmost scrutiny.

For its part, Tanzanias sovereign debt has rapidly increased since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The World Bank adjusted its assessment of the countrys risk of debt distress from low to moderate early this year. As I recently argued in the Review of African Political Economy, Africas current debt crisis is likely to lead to a new wave of privatisations across the continent.

China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation was recently tasked with conducting yet another feasibility study for Tazaras rehabilitation. It sent a 40-person delegation to visit Tazara in early September 2022.

The train towards privatisation seems to be picking up speed.

But the issue of incompatibility between old and new networks shows that Africas current railway renaissance requires profound regional and continental coordination and planning. Integrating Africas railways will be a monumental task, considering that the greater part of the continents network still operates on Cape or metre gauge a colonial legacy that hampers railway inter-connectivity to this day.

Go here to see the original:

Tanzania and Zambia want to upgrade the 'Uhuru Railway' but can they? - The Conversation Indonesia

The power sector in India is increasingly becoming a site of contestation between the Centre and the states. Much of the recent confrontation between the two can be traced to the distribution segment the weakest link in the power chain. Over the years, the central government has formulated various schemes to turn around the financial and operational position of state power distribution companies (discoms). But despite these multiple attempts, the financial position of discoms continues to be precarious. Their mounting losses have increased the fiscal risks at the general government level (Centre and states). As per a recent study by the RBI, a bailout of discoms in 18 large states is likely to impose a burden equivalent to around 2.3 per cent of the GSDP of these states. Considering that their weakening finances pose a threat to the entire power chain, the government has, of late, been increasingly adopting a tough stance. Earlier, the Power System Operation Corporation, the national grid operator, had asked power exchanges to restrict buying and selling by discoms from 12 states and Jammu and Kashmir on account of their dues to power generating companies. Now, another site of confrontation has opened up.

The Union government plans to shift to a market-based economic dispatch (MBED) mechanism. This shift to a centralised framework marks a radical departure from the current decentralised, voluntary pool-based electricity market. The arguments in favour of the move are straightforward. Under the MBED framework, the cheapest power from across the country will be dispatched to meet the system wide demand. The architecture would also lead to a uniform clearing price. Sellers and buyers will place their bids for the day ahead market, and an outcome of this will be the discovery of the market clearing price. This process is expected to generate significant savings for consumers.

Newsletter | Click to get the days best explainers in your inbox

However, as reported in this newspaper, the shift to this new framework is creating apprehensions that it could strip states of their freedom. Some analysts have also argued that as inefficient plants are likely to be adversely impacted by this move, it may impact state generators disproportionately. Moreover, as an official said, the market trends necessitate greater decentralisation of markets and voluntary pools for efficient grid management and operations. Considering the system-wide ramifications of this move, the changes to the operations, systems and infrastructure of the players involved, and that this framework is under scrutiny around the world, there is need to tread cautiously. All stakeholders from state governments to load dispatch centres to power exchanges and others need to be consulted at each step in this process. Their comments/suggestions must not only be sought, but the desirability of the policy itself needs to be discussed threadbare.

Read more:

Power games: Plans to shift to a centralised market in power sector must take into account concerns of all stakeholders - The Indian Express