Trump’s WARNING to Terrorists: Daughter of Americans Held Hostage Reacts thumbnail

Trump’s WARNING to Terrorists: Daughter of Americans Held Hostage Reacts

In one day, 117 of the people Iris Weinstein Haggai grew up with, including her parents, “vanished.” Among the 400 residents living in Kibbutz Nir… Read More

The post Trump’s WARNING to Terrorists: Daughter of Americans Held Hostage Reacts appeared first on The Daily Signal.

, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailysignal.com%2F2024%2F12%2F24%2Ftrumps-warning-terrorists-daughter-americans-held-hostage-reacts%2F?w=600&h=450, In one day, 117 of the people Iris Weinstein Haggai grew up with, including her parents, “vanished.” Among the 400 residents living in Kibbutz Nir… Read More The post Trump’s WARNING to Terrorists: Daughter of Americans Held Hostage Reacts appeared first on The Daily Signal.,

In one day, 117 of the people Iris Weinstein Haggai grew up with, including her parents, “vanished.” Among the 400 residents living in Kibbutz Nir… Read More

The post Trump’s WARNING to Terrorists: Daughter of Americans Held Hostage Reacts appeared first on The Daily Signal.

, In one day, 117 of the people Iris Weinstein Haggai grew up with, including her parents, “vanished.” Among the 400 residents living in Kibbutz Nir… Read More The post Trump’s WARNING to Terrorists: Daughter of Americans Held Hostage Reacts appeared first on The Daily Signal., , Trump’s WARNING to Terrorists: Daughter of Americans Held Hostage Reacts, https://www.dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Trump-1.jpg, The Daily Signal, Policy News, Conservative Analysis and Opinion, , https://www.dailysignal.com/rss, ,

Japan Wisely Builds Up Military to Counter China, but It May Not Be Enough thumbnail

Japan Wisely Builds Up Military to Counter China, but It May Not Be Enough

Japan is engaged in a significant military buildup by boosting domestic defense spending, refining its national security strategy, and strengthening multilateral security partnerships with its… Read More

The post Japan Wisely Builds Up Military to Counter China, but It May Not Be Enough appeared first on The Daily Signal.

, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailysignal.com%2F2024%2F12%2F24%2Fjapans-military-buildup-on-right-track-but-needs-to-accelerate%2F?w=600&h=450, Japan is engaged in a significant military buildup by boosting domestic defense spending, refining its national security strategy, and strengthening multilateral security partnerships with its… Read More The post Japan Wisely Builds Up Military to Counter China, but It May Not Be Enough appeared first on The Daily Signal.,

Japan is engaged in a significant military buildup by boosting domestic defense spending, refining its national security strategy, and strengthening multilateral security partnerships with its… Read More

The post Japan Wisely Builds Up Military to Counter China, but It May Not Be Enough appeared first on The Daily Signal.

, Japan is engaged in a significant military buildup by boosting domestic defense spending, refining its national security strategy, and strengthening multilateral security partnerships with its… Read More The post Japan Wisely Builds Up Military to Counter China, but It May Not Be Enough appeared first on The Daily Signal., , Japan Wisely Builds Up Military to Counter China, but It May Not Be Enough, https://www.dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/241219_Japan_Beaver.jpg, The Daily Signal, Policy News, Conservative Analysis and Opinion, , https://www.dailysignal.com/rss, ,

‘Full of Hope’: How Pro-Lifers Convicted for Praying Outside Abortion Clinics Spend Christmas in Prison thumbnail

‘Full of Hope’: How Pro-Lifers Convicted for Praying Outside Abortion Clinics Spend Christmas in Prison

Ten pro-lifers are spending Christmas in prison this year after being convicted for praying outside abortion clinics and trying to persuade abortion-minded women to save… Read More

The post ‘Full of Hope’: How Pro-Lifers Convicted for Praying Outside Abortion Clinics Spend Christmas in Prison appeared first on The Daily Signal.

, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailysignal.com%2F2024%2F12%2F23%2Ffull-hope-how-pro-lifers-convicted-praying-outside-abortion-clinics-are-spending-christmas-in-jail%2F?w=600&h=450, Ten pro-lifers are spending Christmas in prison this year after being convicted for praying outside abortion clinics and trying to persuade abortion-minded women to save… Read More The post ‘Full of Hope’: How Pro-Lifers Convicted for Praying Outside Abortion Clinics Spend Christmas in Prison appeared first on The Daily Signal.,

Ten pro-lifers are spending Christmas in prison this year after being convicted for praying outside abortion clinics and trying to persuade abortion-minded women to save… Read More

The post ‘Full of Hope’: How Pro-Lifers Convicted for Praying Outside Abortion Clinics Spend Christmas in Prison appeared first on The Daily Signal.

, Ten pro-lifers are spending Christmas in prison this year after being convicted for praying outside abortion clinics and trying to persuade abortion-minded women to save… Read More The post ‘Full of Hope’: How Pro-Lifers Convicted for Praying Outside Abortion Clinics Spend Christmas in Prison appeared first on The Daily Signal., , ‘Full of Hope’: How Pro-Lifers Convicted for Praying Outside Abortion Clinics Spend Christmas in Prison, https://www.dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/convictedPL.jpg, The Daily Signal, Policy News, Conservative Analysis and Opinion, , https://www.dailysignal.com/rss, ,

Quiet Quitting: Joe Biden’s Disappearing Presidency thumbnail

Quiet Quitting: Joe Biden’s Disappearing Presidency

The Wall Street Journal ran a story Thursday under the banner “How the White House Functioned With a Diminished Biden in Charge.” Tuesday’s New York… Read More

The post Quiet Quitting: Joe Biden’s Disappearing Presidency appeared first on The Daily Signal.

, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailysignal.com%2F2024%2F12%2F23%2Fquiet-quitting-joe-bidens-disappearing-presidency%2F?w=600&h=450, The Wall Street Journal ran a story Thursday under the banner “How the White House Functioned With a Diminished Biden in Charge.” Tuesday’s New York… Read More The post Quiet Quitting: Joe Biden’s Disappearing Presidency appeared first on The Daily Signal.,

The Wall Street Journal ran a story Thursday under the banner “How the White House Functioned With a Diminished Biden in Charge.” Tuesday’s New York… Read More

The post Quiet Quitting: Joe Biden’s Disappearing Presidency appeared first on The Daily Signal.

, The Wall Street Journal ran a story Thursday under the banner “How the White House Functioned With a Diminished Biden in Charge.” Tuesday’s New York… Read More The post Quiet Quitting: Joe Biden’s Disappearing Presidency appeared first on The Daily Signal., , Quiet Quitting: Joe Biden’s Disappearing Presidency, https://www.dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/bidendbate-scaled.jpeg, The Daily Signal, Policy News, Conservative Analysis and Opinion, , https://www.dailysignal.com/rss, ,

A Christmas Tale, 1919 thumbnail

A Christmas Tale, 1919

Editor’s note: This true story about my family was first published by The Wall Street Journal in 2008. It has now been 105 years since my… Read More

The post A Christmas Tale, 1919 appeared first on The Daily Signal.

, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailysignal.com%2F2024%2F12%2F23%2Fchristmas-tale-1919%2F?w=600&h=450, Editor’s note: This true story about my family was first published by The Wall Street Journal in 2008. It has now been 105 years since my… Read More The post A Christmas Tale, 1919 appeared first on The Daily Signal.,

Editor’s note: This true story about my family was first published by The Wall Street Journal in 2008. It has now been 105 years since my… Read More

The post A Christmas Tale, 1919 appeared first on The Daily Signal.

, Editor’s note: This true story about my family was first published by The Wall Street Journal in 2008. It has now been 105 years since my… Read More The post A Christmas Tale, 1919 appeared first on The Daily Signal., , A Christmas Tale, 1919, https://www.dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/20241213_19thCenturyXMAS-scaled.jpg, The Daily Signal, Policy News, Conservative Analysis and Opinion, , https://www.dailysignal.com/rss, ,

Assault on DEI: Critics use simplistic terms to attack the programs, but they are key to uprooting workplace bias thumbnail

Assault on DEI: Critics use simplistic terms to attack the programs, but they are key to uprooting workplace bias

Prominent politicians have recently increased their attacks on workplace programs that promote diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI. They claim that initiatives that seek to be inclusive are divisive and lack merit.

President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to ban DEI from federal offices. And Vice President-elect JD Vance, an Ohio senator, in June 2024 introduced the “Dismantle DEI Act” to eliminate all DEI programs from the federal government. He argued, in part, that DEI “breeds hatred and racial division.”

DEI critics are increasingly using the term “diversity hire” as an insult. As a scholar focused on gender and exclusion, I recognize that these attacks are often rooted in anti-Black racism.

For example, despite Kamala Harris’ achievements as vice president and California attorney general, some Republicans targeted her as a “DEI hire” during her recent presidential run. And after the Francis Scott Key bridge collapse in Baltimore in March 2024, Utah State Representative Phil Lyman blamed Wes Moore, Maryland’s first Black governor, for prioritizing DEI over security.

The DEI backlash has hit corporate America, too. Companies like spirits-maker Brown-Forman and the farm equipment manufacturer John Deere have reversed the DEI commitments they made following the 2020 murder of George Floyd by a white police officer.

I believe all these attacks, both political and corporate, promote a distorted and incomplete story about DEI.

The empirical evidence is clear

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to advancing DEI initiatives. The common goal is to create spaces within an institution where everyone feels valued and respected and can thrive.

A 2020 Gallup poll found that 24% of Black and Latino employees have experienced discrimination at work, compared with 15% of white employees.

DEI efforts to identify and solve such issues include surveys, employee interviews and comparing practices across different organizations. They also entail assessments of systems, policies and research, and developing initiatives to address areas that need improvement.

Employee and student surveys, for example, can measure the sense of belonging within an organization and help leaders identify areas in need of improvement.

Evidence suggests that successfully implementing DEI is central to professional and societal well-being and success in a multicultural society.

Maryland Governor Wes Moore speaks outdoors in front of a lectern.

After the Francis Scott Key bridge collapse in Baltimore in March 2024, a Republican lawmaker from Utah blamed Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, center, for prioritizing diversity over security. AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein

Recent research by the author Melinda Epler, for example, shows a clear connection between employees’ sense of safety, belonging and satisfaction and how much their employer prioritizes DEI. Scientists also find that diversity is key to creative, productive and efficient scientific teams.

And other research indicates that employees are more innovative and work harder when teams are made up of people with different experiences. This is why many employers value employees who can solve problems while working with people who have diverse backgrounds in terms of race, gender, religion, age and other factors.

The outcome can be lucrative for companies: On U.S. and global executive staffs, studies show, efforts to improve DEI result in increased profits. Companies with at least one woman on their board, for example, financially outperform those with only men on their boards.

Diversity standards

Despite the many ways leaders of an organization can work to cultivate an inclusive and respectful culture, DEI critics tend to portray this work in simplistic terms.

For example, two Stanford University academics misrepresented DEI efforts recently. In an August 2024 op-ed in The New York Times, they presented DEI as mainly consisting of one-time trainings that divide groups into oppressors and the oppressed.

Narrowly defining DEI in such simplistic ways ignores the bridge-building involved in DEI efforts and makes it easier to repeat the single story that DEI has failed.

In her 2009 TED Talk on the danger of the “single story,” novelist Chimamanda Adichie said single stories, or narratives that only present one perspective, are based on stereotypes and incomplete information. They result in false assumptions and generalizations.

“To create a single story is to show a people as one thing, as only one thing, over and over again,” Adichie said. “And that is what they become.”

Adichie’s warnings about the single story sheds light on the effects of attacks on DEI. Reducing DEI to simplistic “us vs. them” approaches or to a focus on “oppressor vs. oppressed” misses much of the work.

Yet the more societal problems Republicans in power blame DEI for – from racism to inflation – the more believable the story of DEI failure becomes. The absence of quick, easy solutions for historical racial and socioeconomic inequities are presented as further proof of DEI’s failure.

Teaching a fuller story

DEI is not easy to do well. But as a DEI practitioner and scholar, I find working to create inclusive spaces through curiosity, learning and dialogue can be transformative.

The more institutions do to support welcoming, supportive spaces – where people’s differences are respected – the healthier and more successful everyone is as individuals and organizations.

In 2022, my team in the Office of Transformational and Inclusive Excellence developed a Religious Observances and Inclusive Scheduling calendar. We did so to recognize religious pluralism in our university community.

A group of people form a circle with their clenched fists.

Research shows that employees are more innovative and work harder when teams are made up of people with different experiences. FG Trade Latin/Gerry Images

We followed up with educational posters in 2023. The next year, we launched an educational video series featuring students discussing their religious practices. We partnered with the university’s communications office and athletics office to create and show these videos at university athletic events, such as football and basketball games.

In January 2024, the office I lead at Miami University partnered with several other departments to launch what we called a Constructive Dialogue Initiative. The goal of this new project is to provide all students with concrete skills and opportunities to communicate across social and cultural differences and to decrease polarization. Students first engage with short online modules from the Constructive Dialogue Institute. They then apply strategies learned online to facilitate in-person, peer-to-peer dialogues.

Our pilot program showed very positive results. Among the nearly 100 student leaders who participated, 78% felt less polarized.

This work is important for universities, where research shows retention and graduation rates are tied to students’ sense of belonging.

Collaboration and communication across differences are central to successful DEI efforts.

This is why we launched the DEI in Leadership Certificate in 2022. That same year, the project won an international Telly Award, which recognizes excellence in video.

Those who have participated in the certificate have included leaders and employees in the health, legal, human resources, criminal justice and nonprofit sectors across the U.S.

The narrow, single story of DEI failure promoted by critics makes it very difficult to recognize the value of these efforts.

Simplistic single stories can be appealing. They do not reflect reality, though. The fuller story presents a much more useful way to advance shared goals — as a society that is deserving of systems in which everyone can be included and valued.

2024-12-18 13:17:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Ftheconversation.com%2Fassault-on-dei-critics-use-simplistic-terms-to-attack-the-programs-but-they-are-key-to-uprooting-workplace-bias-243011?w=600&h=450, Prominent politicians have recently increased their attacks on workplace programs that promote diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI. They claim that initiatives that seek to be inclusive are divisive and lack merit. President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to ban DEI from federal offices. And Vice President-elect JD Vance, an Ohio senator, in June 2024 introduced,

Prominent politicians have recently increased their attacks on workplace programs that promote diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI. They claim that initiatives that seek to be inclusive are divisive and lack merit.

President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to ban DEI from federal offices. And Vice President-elect JD Vance, an Ohio senator, in June 2024 introduced the “Dismantle DEI Act” to eliminate all DEI programs from the federal government. He argued, in part, that DEI “breeds hatred and racial division.”

DEI critics are increasingly using the term “diversity hire” as an insult. As a scholar focused on gender and exclusion, I recognize that these attacks are often rooted in anti-Black racism.

For example, despite Kamala Harris’ achievements as vice president and California attorney general, some Republicans targeted her as a “DEI hire” during her recent presidential run. And after the Francis Scott Key bridge collapse in Baltimore in March 2024, Utah State Representative Phil Lyman blamed Wes Moore, Maryland’s first Black governor, for prioritizing DEI over security.

The DEI backlash has hit corporate America, too. Companies like spirits-maker Brown-Forman and the farm equipment manufacturer John Deere have reversed the DEI commitments they made following the 2020 murder of George Floyd by a white police officer.

I believe all these attacks, both political and corporate, promote a distorted and incomplete story about DEI.

The empirical evidence is clear

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to advancing DEI initiatives. The common goal is to create spaces within an institution where everyone feels valued and respected and can thrive.

A 2020 Gallup poll found that 24% of Black and Latino employees have experienced discrimination at work, compared with 15% of white employees.

DEI efforts to identify and solve such issues include surveys, employee interviews and comparing practices across different organizations. They also entail assessments of systems, policies and research, and developing initiatives to address areas that need improvement.

Employee and student surveys, for example, can measure the sense of belonging within an organization and help leaders identify areas in need of improvement.

Evidence suggests that successfully implementing DEI is central to professional and societal well-being and success in a multicultural society.

Maryland Governor Wes Moore speaks outdoors in front of a lectern.

After the Francis Scott Key bridge collapse in Baltimore in March 2024, a Republican lawmaker from Utah blamed Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, center, for prioritizing diversity over security. AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein

Recent research by the author Melinda Epler, for example, shows a clear connection between employees’ sense of safety, belonging and satisfaction and how much their employer prioritizes DEI. Scientists also find that diversity is key to creative, productive and efficient scientific teams.

And other research indicates that employees are more innovative and work harder when teams are made up of people with different experiences. This is why many employers value employees who can solve problems while working with people who have diverse backgrounds in terms of race, gender, religion, age and other factors.

The outcome can be lucrative for companies: On U.S. and global executive staffs, studies show, efforts to improve DEI result in increased profits. Companies with at least one woman on their board, for example, financially outperform those with only men on their boards.

Diversity standards

Despite the many ways leaders of an organization can work to cultivate an inclusive and respectful culture, DEI critics tend to portray this work in simplistic terms.

For example, two Stanford University academics misrepresented DEI efforts recently. In an August 2024 op-ed in The New York Times, they presented DEI as mainly consisting of one-time trainings that divide groups into oppressors and the oppressed.

Narrowly defining DEI in such simplistic ways ignores the bridge-building involved in DEI efforts and makes it easier to repeat the single story that DEI has failed.

In her 2009 TED Talk on the danger of the “single story,” novelist Chimamanda Adichie said single stories, or narratives that only present one perspective, are based on stereotypes and incomplete information. They result in false assumptions and generalizations.

“To create a single story is to show a people as one thing, as only one thing, over and over again,” Adichie said. “And that is what they become.”

Adichie’s warnings about the single story sheds light on the effects of attacks on DEI. Reducing DEI to simplistic “us vs. them” approaches or to a focus on “oppressor vs. oppressed” misses much of the work.

Yet the more societal problems Republicans in power blame DEI for – from racism to inflation – the more believable the story of DEI failure becomes. The absence of quick, easy solutions for historical racial and socioeconomic inequities are presented as further proof of DEI’s failure.

Teaching a fuller story

DEI is not easy to do well. But as a DEI practitioner and scholar, I find working to create inclusive spaces through curiosity, learning and dialogue can be transformative.

The more institutions do to support welcoming, supportive spaces – where people’s differences are respected – the healthier and more successful everyone is as individuals and organizations.

In 2022, my team in the Office of Transformational and Inclusive Excellence developed a Religious Observances and Inclusive Scheduling calendar. We did so to recognize religious pluralism in our university community.

A group of people form a circle with their clenched fists.

Research shows that employees are more innovative and work harder when teams are made up of people with different experiences. FG Trade Latin/Gerry Images

We followed up with educational posters in 2023. The next year, we launched an educational video series featuring students discussing their religious practices. We partnered with the university’s communications office and athletics office to create and show these videos at university athletic events, such as football and basketball games.

In January 2024, the office I lead at Miami University partnered with several other departments to launch what we called a Constructive Dialogue Initiative. The goal of this new project is to provide all students with concrete skills and opportunities to communicate across social and cultural differences and to decrease polarization. Students first engage with short online modules from the Constructive Dialogue Institute. They then apply strategies learned online to facilitate in-person, peer-to-peer dialogues.

Our pilot program showed very positive results. Among the nearly 100 student leaders who participated, 78% felt less polarized.

This work is important for universities, where research shows retention and graduation rates are tied to students’ sense of belonging.

Collaboration and communication across differences are central to successful DEI efforts.

This is why we launched the DEI in Leadership Certificate in 2022. That same year, the project won an international Telly Award, which recognizes excellence in video.

Those who have participated in the certificate have included leaders and employees in the health, legal, human resources, criminal justice and nonprofit sectors across the U.S.

The narrow, single story of DEI failure promoted by critics makes it very difficult to recognize the value of these efforts.

Simplistic single stories can be appealing. They do not reflect reality, though. The fuller story presents a much more useful way to advance shared goals — as a society that is deserving of systems in which everyone can be included and valued.

, Prominent politicians have recently increased their attacks on workplace programs that promote diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI. They claim that initiatives that seek to be inclusive are divisive and lack merit. President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to ban DEI from federal offices. And Vice President-elect JD Vance, an Ohio senator, in June 2024 introduced the “Dismantle DEI Act” to eliminate all DEI programs from the federal government. He argued, in part, that DEI “breeds hatred and racial division.” DEI critics are increasingly using the term “diversity hire” as an insult. As a scholar focused on gender and exclusion, I recognize that these attacks are often rooted in anti-Black racism. For example, despite Kamala Harris’ achievements as vice president and California attorney general, some Republicans targeted her as a “DEI hire” during her recent presidential run. And after the Francis Scott Key bridge collapse in Baltimore in March 2024, Utah State Representative Phil Lyman blamed Wes Moore, Maryland’s first Black governor, for prioritizing DEI over security. The DEI backlash has hit corporate America, too. Companies like spirits-maker Brown-Forman and the farm equipment manufacturer John Deere have reversed the DEI commitments they made following the 2020 murder of George Floyd by a white police officer. I believe all these attacks, both political and corporate, promote a distorted and incomplete story about DEI. The empirical evidence is clear There is no one-size-fits-all approach to advancing DEI initiatives. The common goal is to create spaces within an institution where everyone feels valued and respected and can thrive. A 2020 Gallup poll found that 24% of Black and Latino employees have experienced discrimination at work, compared with 15% of white employees. DEI efforts to identify and solve such issues include surveys, employee interviews and comparing practices across different organizations. They also entail assessments of systems, policies and research, and developing initiatives to address areas that need improvement. Employee and student surveys, for example, can measure the sense of belonging within an organization and help leaders identify areas in need of improvement. Evidence suggests that successfully implementing DEI is central to professional and societal well-being and success in a multicultural society. After the Francis Scott Key bridge collapse in Baltimore in March 2024, a Republican lawmaker from Utah blamed Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, center, for prioritizing diversity over security. AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein Recent research by the author Melinda Epler, for example, shows a clear connection between employees’ sense of safety, belonging and satisfaction and how much their employer prioritizes DEI. Scientists also find that diversity is key to creative, productive and efficient scientific teams. And other research indicates that employees are more innovative and work harder when teams are made up of people with different experiences. This is why many employers value employees who can solve problems while working with people who have diverse backgrounds in terms of race, gender, religion, age and other factors. The outcome can be lucrative for companies: On U.S. and global executive staffs, studies show, efforts to improve DEI result in increased profits. Companies with at least one woman on their board, for example, financially outperform those with only men on their boards. Diversity standards Despite the many ways leaders of an organization can work to cultivate an inclusive and respectful culture, DEI critics tend to portray this work in simplistic terms. For example, two Stanford University academics misrepresented DEI efforts recently. In an August 2024 op-ed in The New York Times, they presented DEI as mainly consisting of one-time trainings that divide groups into oppressors and the oppressed. Narrowly defining DEI in such simplistic ways ignores the bridge-building involved in DEI efforts and makes it easier to repeat the single story that DEI has failed. In her 2009 TED Talk on the danger of the “single story,” novelist Chimamanda Adichie said single stories, or narratives that only present one perspective, are based on stereotypes and incomplete information. They result in false assumptions and generalizations. “To create a single story is to show a people as one thing, as only one thing, over and over again,” Adichie said. “And that is what they become.” Adichie’s warnings about the single story sheds light on the effects of attacks on DEI. Reducing DEI to simplistic “us vs. them” approaches or to a focus on “oppressor vs. oppressed” misses much of the work. Yet the more societal problems Republicans in power blame DEI for – from racism to inflation – the more believable the story of DEI failure becomes. The absence of quick, easy solutions for historical racial and socioeconomic inequities are presented as further proof of DEI’s failure. Teaching a fuller story DEI is not easy to do well. But as a DEI practitioner and scholar, I find working to create inclusive spaces through curiosity, learning and dialogue can be transformative. The more institutions do to support welcoming, supportive spaces – where people’s differences are respected – the healthier and more successful everyone is as individuals and organizations. In 2022, my team in the Office of Transformational and Inclusive Excellence developed a Religious Observances and Inclusive Scheduling calendar. We did so to recognize religious pluralism in our university community. Research shows that employees are more innovative and work harder when teams are made up of people with different experiences. FG Trade Latin/Gerry Images We followed up with educational posters in 2023. The next year, we launched an educational video series featuring students discussing their religious practices. We partnered with the university’s communications office and athletics office to create and show these videos at university athletic events, such as football and basketball games. In January 2024, the office I lead at Miami University partnered with several other departments to launch what we called a Constructive Dialogue Initiative. The goal of this new project is to provide all students with concrete skills and opportunities to communicate across social and cultural differences and to decrease polarization. Students first engage with short online modules from the Constructive Dialogue Institute. They then apply strategies learned online to facilitate in-person, peer-to-peer dialogues. Our pilot program showed very positive results. Among the nearly 100 student leaders who participated, 78% felt less polarized. This work is important for universities, where research shows retention and graduation rates are tied to students’ sense of belonging. Collaboration and communication across differences are central to successful DEI efforts. This is why we launched the DEI in Leadership Certificate in 2022. That same year, the project won an international Telly Award, which recognizes excellence in video. Those who have participated in the certificate have included leaders and employees in the health, legal, human resources, criminal justice and nonprofit sectors across the U.S. The narrow, single story of DEI failure promoted by critics makes it very difficult to recognize the value of these efforts. Simplistic single stories can be appealing. They do not reflect reality, though. The fuller story presents a much more useful way to advance shared goals — as a society that is deserving of systems in which everyone can be included and valued., , Assault on DEI: Critics use simplistic terms to attack the programs, but they are key to uprooting workplace bias, https://images.theconversation.com/files/636866/original/file-20241206-15-bvilma.jpg?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&rect=119%2C622%2C7868%2C3928&q=45&auto=format&w=1356&h=668&fit=crop, Politics + Society – The Conversation, , , https://theconversation.com/us/politics/articles.atom, M. Cristina Alcalde, Vice President for Transformational and Inclusive Excellence, Miami University,

FBI director guides the agency in confronting complex international threats, investigating federal crimes and running 55 field offices thumbnail

FBI director guides the agency in confronting complex international threats, investigating federal crimes and running 55 field offices

Mention the FBI, and many older Americans will likely think of a time when the agency was run by J. Edgar Hoover, who spent much of his nearly half-century tenure at the agency harassing political dissidents and abusing his power. But as former FBI counterterrorism expert Javed Ali explains, the role of both the FBI and its leader have dramatically shifted over time. The Conversation’s politics editor Naomi Schalit asked Ali, who now teaches courses in national security and intelligence at the University of Michigan, to explain just what a modern FBI director does as President-elect Donald Trump aims to name his own director to replace current FBI head Christopher Wray, whom Trump appointed in 2017. Wray has said he will resign in January 2025.

Let’s start with FBI 101. What does the agency do?

The FBI began as the country’s lead federal criminal investigative agency in 1909, then named the Bureau of Investigation, or BOI. Previously, organizations like the Secret Service and the U.S. Marshall’s Service had responsibility for investigating federal crimes, but the introduction of the BOI began the tenure for what became the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 1935 to now.

Over this 100-plus-year stretch, the FBI has focused on investigating federal crimes on matters like racketeering, fraud, public corruption, illegal financial schemes and organized crime, to name a few. But despite the general public perceptions of the FBI as the nation’s premier crime-fighting organization, as revealed in the iconic FBI badge, logo and early depictions of “G-men,” the FBI has always focused on national security threats to the nation. That focus was evident as early as the 1910s – before World War I – as the FBI investigated suspected saboteurs and spies.

A man in a suit standing behind a desk covered with a lot of things.

J. Edgar Hoover, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in Washington, D.C., on July 15, 1964. AP Photo/Washington Star

During the 1930s and 1940s, the FBI focused on individuals linked to the Axis powers of Germany, Italy and Japan, and communists and Bolsheviks as the Soviet Union grew in power. During the Cold War, in the FBI’s zeal to root out and prevent Soviet influence in the United States, it began arguably the darkest chapter in the organization’s history.

Beginning in the mid-1950s and called COINTELPRO, these efforts through the 1960s included domestic surveillance, intelligence collection and disinformation campaigns without court-ordered approvals against Americans suspected of receiving money or other forms of support from the Soviet Union – even though the factual bases for these concerns were often flimsy, at best.

The FBI’s focus on terrorists and spies continued for decades after and intensified in the 1990s with the emergence of jihadist threats in the United States and abroad. Despite the warning signs of attacks in the run-up to 9/11, a number of gaps and challenges remained within the FBI, which contributed to those attacks and led to major reforms within the organization. While counterterrorism and counterintelligence have remained significant priorities since 9/11, the FBI also increased its efforts on cybersecurity, demonstrating the continuing evolution of the organization’s national security focus as new threats emerge and legacy threats recede.

What is the role of the head of the FBI?

The FBI director is presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed, but is not a member of the cabinet. The FBI is a subagency within the Department of Justice, whose head, the attorney general, is a cabinet member. The FBI director is appointed to serve a full 10-year term that theoretically insulates the director from political pressure.

There’s no one-size-fits-all background for the FBI director. Some have been chosen because of their familiarity and knowledge of federal law enforcement from the legal side or from the eyes of an agent.

After Hoover, some have been former judges like William Webster, or former prosecutors or Department of Justice attorneys like James Comey, Robert Mueller, Christopher Wray or President Trump’s current nominee-designate, Kash Patel. One – Louis Freeh – was a former FBI special agent.

Two men in suits and ties sitting next to each other.

President Donald Trump sits with FBI Director Christopher Wray during the FBI National Academy graduation ceremony on Dec. 15, 2017, in Quantico, Va. AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File

You were at the FBI working in the headquarters between 2007 and 2010. During this time, Robert Mueller was the director, and you worked closely enough that you were able to see how he ran the organization. What are the actual tasks that an FBI director undertakes?

Mueller was very much focused on pulling the FBI as an organization into a different mindset, but also organizationally and bureaucratically, to face the terrorist threat landscape that the country was confronting after 9/11.

Part of that entailed transforming the FBI into an intelligence-driven organization that used information to prevent national security threats from occurring, or disrupt them, rather than responding to and investigating crimes after they occurred.

At times he would stay at the 50,000-foot level and think big picture thoughts and try to make sure that the bureau was moving in the direction that he had set forth, or doing what Congress and the White House wanted him to do.

On the flip side, there were moments when Director Mueller would dive into the details of specific counterterrorism investigations and cases, and ask questions of his senior team in order to ensure he had a good understanding of what was happening in the field.

These were the kind of questions any FBI director would ask of his staff about such investigations, such as: how many FBI resources were involved in conducting a particular operation, the value of any intelligence being collected, the ability of an individual or group under investigation to carry out an attack, and what, if any, legal basis existed to conduct an arrest on a federal criminal charge to prevent an attack from occurring.

These kinds of high-stakes deliberations happened on a routine basis, underscoring the depth of the responsibilities an FBI director carries with the position.

And knowing what is happening in the field is important, since the FBI is not just a Washington, D.C.-based organization. There are 55 field offices throughout the United States and Puerto Rico, and the bulk of the FBI workforce is distributed across those – with Washington, D.C., New York City and Los Angeles the three biggest – in addition to FBI personnel posted overseas as part of the legal attache program or on temporary assignments around the world.

In a 2013 hearing, FBI Director Robert Mueller was questioned by U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin about the agency’s technological abilities.

Who sets the agenda of the FBI?

The FBI director has to manage multiple relationships in order to carry out the duties of the position effectively. The director reports both to the attorney general and the president, is overseen by judiciary and intelligence committees in Congress, and likewise has to maintain the trust and confidence of the American people to investigate crimes and prevent national security threats.

In some administrations, the relationship between the president and the FBI director has been lukewarm. In those cases, the attorney general is the one setting the course for the FBI. That’s where the president or other senior White House staff, for the most part, either have confidence in the FBI director and the attorney general and what they’re doing or it’s just not as much of a priority for them.

And then there are other times where the president really wants to know what the FBI director is doing, making sure that they are moving on the priorities that the president sets. But again, that has to be confined to staying within the Constitution and staying within the FBI internal guidelines.

This story is part of a series of profiles of Cabinet and high-level administration positions.

2024-12-13 18:37:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Ftheconversation.com%2Ffbi-director-guides-the-agency-in-confronting-complex-international-threats-investigating-federal-crimes-and-running-55-field-offices-245506?w=600&h=450, Mention the FBI, and many older Americans will likely think of a time when the agency was run by J. Edgar Hoover, who spent much of his nearly half-century tenure at the agency harassing political dissidents and abusing his power. But as former FBI counterterrorism expert Javed Ali explains, the role of both the FBI,

Mention the FBI, and many older Americans will likely think of a time when the agency was run by J. Edgar Hoover, who spent much of his nearly half-century tenure at the agency harassing political dissidents and abusing his power. But as former FBI counterterrorism expert Javed Ali explains, the role of both the FBI and its leader have dramatically shifted over time. The Conversation’s politics editor Naomi Schalit asked Ali, who now teaches courses in national security and intelligence at the University of Michigan, to explain just what a modern FBI director does as President-elect Donald Trump aims to name his own director to replace current FBI head Christopher Wray, whom Trump appointed in 2017. Wray has said he will resign in January 2025.

Let’s start with FBI 101. What does the agency do?

The FBI began as the country’s lead federal criminal investigative agency in 1909, then named the Bureau of Investigation, or BOI. Previously, organizations like the Secret Service and the U.S. Marshall’s Service had responsibility for investigating federal crimes, but the introduction of the BOI began the tenure for what became the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 1935 to now.

Over this 100-plus-year stretch, the FBI has focused on investigating federal crimes on matters like racketeering, fraud, public corruption, illegal financial schemes and organized crime, to name a few. But despite the general public perceptions of the FBI as the nation’s premier crime-fighting organization, as revealed in the iconic FBI badge, logo and early depictions of “G-men,” the FBI has always focused on national security threats to the nation. That focus was evident as early as the 1910s – before World War I – as the FBI investigated suspected saboteurs and spies.

A man in a suit standing behind a desk covered with a lot of things.

J. Edgar Hoover, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in Washington, D.C., on July 15, 1964. AP Photo/Washington Star

During the 1930s and 1940s, the FBI focused on individuals linked to the Axis powers of Germany, Italy and Japan, and communists and Bolsheviks as the Soviet Union grew in power. During the Cold War, in the FBI’s zeal to root out and prevent Soviet influence in the United States, it began arguably the darkest chapter in the organization’s history.

Beginning in the mid-1950s and called COINTELPRO, these efforts through the 1960s included domestic surveillance, intelligence collection and disinformation campaigns without court-ordered approvals against Americans suspected of receiving money or other forms of support from the Soviet Union – even though the factual bases for these concerns were often flimsy, at best.

The FBI’s focus on terrorists and spies continued for decades after and intensified in the 1990s with the emergence of jihadist threats in the United States and abroad. Despite the warning signs of attacks in the run-up to 9/11, a number of gaps and challenges remained within the FBI, which contributed to those attacks and led to major reforms within the organization. While counterterrorism and counterintelligence have remained significant priorities since 9/11, the FBI also increased its efforts on cybersecurity, demonstrating the continuing evolution of the organization’s national security focus as new threats emerge and legacy threats recede.

What is the role of the head of the FBI?

The FBI director is presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed, but is not a member of the cabinet. The FBI is a subagency within the Department of Justice, whose head, the attorney general, is a cabinet member. The FBI director is appointed to serve a full 10-year term that theoretically insulates the director from political pressure.

There’s no one-size-fits-all background for the FBI director. Some have been chosen because of their familiarity and knowledge of federal law enforcement from the legal side or from the eyes of an agent.

After Hoover, some have been former judges like William Webster, or former prosecutors or Department of Justice attorneys like James Comey, Robert Mueller, Christopher Wray or President Trump’s current nominee-designate, Kash Patel. One – Louis Freeh – was a former FBI special agent.

Two men in suits and ties sitting next to each other.

President Donald Trump sits with FBI Director Christopher Wray during the FBI National Academy graduation ceremony on Dec. 15, 2017, in Quantico, Va. AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File

You were at the FBI working in the headquarters between 2007 and 2010. During this time, Robert Mueller was the director, and you worked closely enough that you were able to see how he ran the organization. What are the actual tasks that an FBI director undertakes?

Mueller was very much focused on pulling the FBI as an organization into a different mindset, but also organizationally and bureaucratically, to face the terrorist threat landscape that the country was confronting after 9/11.

Part of that entailed transforming the FBI into an intelligence-driven organization that used information to prevent national security threats from occurring, or disrupt them, rather than responding to and investigating crimes after they occurred.

At times he would stay at the 50,000-foot level and think big picture thoughts and try to make sure that the bureau was moving in the direction that he had set forth, or doing what Congress and the White House wanted him to do.

On the flip side, there were moments when Director Mueller would dive into the details of specific counterterrorism investigations and cases, and ask questions of his senior team in order to ensure he had a good understanding of what was happening in the field.

These were the kind of questions any FBI director would ask of his staff about such investigations, such as: how many FBI resources were involved in conducting a particular operation, the value of any intelligence being collected, the ability of an individual or group under investigation to carry out an attack, and what, if any, legal basis existed to conduct an arrest on a federal criminal charge to prevent an attack from occurring.

These kinds of high-stakes deliberations happened on a routine basis, underscoring the depth of the responsibilities an FBI director carries with the position.

And knowing what is happening in the field is important, since the FBI is not just a Washington, D.C.-based organization. There are 55 field offices throughout the United States and Puerto Rico, and the bulk of the FBI workforce is distributed across those – with Washington, D.C., New York City and Los Angeles the three biggest – in addition to FBI personnel posted overseas as part of the legal attache program or on temporary assignments around the world.

In a 2013 hearing, FBI Director Robert Mueller was questioned by U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin about the agency’s technological abilities.

Who sets the agenda of the FBI?

The FBI director has to manage multiple relationships in order to carry out the duties of the position effectively. The director reports both to the attorney general and the president, is overseen by judiciary and intelligence committees in Congress, and likewise has to maintain the trust and confidence of the American people to investigate crimes and prevent national security threats.

In some administrations, the relationship between the president and the FBI director has been lukewarm. In those cases, the attorney general is the one setting the course for the FBI. That’s where the president or other senior White House staff, for the most part, either have confidence in the FBI director and the attorney general and what they’re doing or it’s just not as much of a priority for them.

And then there are other times where the president really wants to know what the FBI director is doing, making sure that they are moving on the priorities that the president sets. But again, that has to be confined to staying within the Constitution and staying within the FBI internal guidelines.

This story is part of a series of profiles of Cabinet and high-level administration positions.

, Mention the FBI, and many older Americans will likely think of a time when the agency was run by J. Edgar Hoover, who spent much of his nearly half-century tenure at the agency harassing political dissidents and abusing his power. But as former FBI counterterrorism expert Javed Ali explains, the role of both the FBI and its leader have dramatically shifted over time. The Conversation’s politics editor Naomi Schalit asked Ali, who now teaches courses in national security and intelligence at the University of Michigan, to explain just what a modern FBI director does as President-elect Donald Trump aims to name his own director to replace current FBI head Christopher Wray, whom Trump appointed in 2017. Wray has said he will resign in January 2025. Let’s start with FBI 101. What does the agency do? The FBI began as the country’s lead federal criminal investigative agency in 1909, then named the Bureau of Investigation, or BOI. Previously, organizations like the Secret Service and the U.S. Marshall’s Service had responsibility for investigating federal crimes, but the introduction of the BOI began the tenure for what became the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 1935 to now. Over this 100-plus-year stretch, the FBI has focused on investigating federal crimes on matters like racketeering, fraud, public corruption, illegal financial schemes and organized crime, to name a few. But despite the general public perceptions of the FBI as the nation’s premier crime-fighting organization, as revealed in the iconic FBI badge, logo and early depictions of “G-men,” the FBI has always focused on national security threats to the nation. That focus was evident as early as the 1910s – before World War I – as the FBI investigated suspected saboteurs and spies. J. Edgar Hoover, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in Washington, D.C., on July 15, 1964. AP Photo/Washington Star During the 1930s and 1940s, the FBI focused on individuals linked to the Axis powers of Germany, Italy and Japan, and communists and Bolsheviks as the Soviet Union grew in power. During the Cold War, in the FBI’s zeal to root out and prevent Soviet influence in the United States, it began arguably the darkest chapter in the organization’s history. Beginning in the mid-1950s and called COINTELPRO, these efforts through the 1960s included domestic surveillance, intelligence collection and disinformation campaigns without court-ordered approvals against Americans suspected of receiving money or other forms of support from the Soviet Union – even though the factual bases for these concerns were often flimsy, at best. The FBI’s focus on terrorists and spies continued for decades after and intensified in the 1990s with the emergence of jihadist threats in the United States and abroad. Despite the warning signs of attacks in the run-up to 9/11, a number of gaps and challenges remained within the FBI, which contributed to those attacks and led to major reforms within the organization. While counterterrorism and counterintelligence have remained significant priorities since 9/11, the FBI also increased its efforts on cybersecurity, demonstrating the continuing evolution of the organization’s national security focus as new threats emerge and legacy threats recede. What is the role of the head of the FBI? The FBI director is presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed, but is not a member of the cabinet. The FBI is a subagency within the Department of Justice, whose head, the attorney general, is a cabinet member. The FBI director is appointed to serve a full 10-year term that theoretically insulates the director from political pressure. There’s no one-size-fits-all background for the FBI director. Some have been chosen because of their familiarity and knowledge of federal law enforcement from the legal side or from the eyes of an agent. After Hoover, some have been former judges like William Webster, or former prosecutors or Department of Justice attorneys like James Comey, Robert Mueller, Christopher Wray or President Trump’s current nominee-designate, Kash Patel. One – Louis Freeh – was a former FBI special agent. President Donald Trump sits with FBI Director Christopher Wray during the FBI National Academy graduation ceremony on Dec. 15, 2017, in Quantico, Va. AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File You were at the FBI working in the headquarters between 2007 and 2010. During this time, Robert Mueller was the director, and you worked closely enough that you were able to see how he ran the organization. What are the actual tasks that an FBI director undertakes? Mueller was very much focused on pulling the FBI as an organization into a different mindset, but also organizationally and bureaucratically, to face the terrorist threat landscape that the country was confronting after 9/11. Part of that entailed transforming the FBI into an intelligence-driven organization that used information to prevent national security threats from occurring, or disrupt them, rather than responding to and investigating crimes after they occurred. At times he would stay at the 50,000-foot level and think big picture thoughts and try to make sure that the bureau was moving in the direction that he had set forth, or doing what Congress and the White House wanted him to do. On the flip side, there were moments when Director Mueller would dive into the details of specific counterterrorism investigations and cases, and ask questions of his senior team in order to ensure he had a good understanding of what was happening in the field. These were the kind of questions any FBI director would ask of his staff about such investigations, such as: how many FBI resources were involved in conducting a particular operation, the value of any intelligence being collected, the ability of an individual or group under investigation to carry out an attack, and what, if any, legal basis existed to conduct an arrest on a federal criminal charge to prevent an attack from occurring. These kinds of high-stakes deliberations happened on a routine basis, underscoring the depth of the responsibilities an FBI director carries with the position. And knowing what is happening in the field is important, since the FBI is not just a Washington, D.C.-based organization. There are 55 field offices throughout the United States and Puerto Rico, and the bulk of the FBI workforce is distributed across those – with Washington, D.C., New York City and Los Angeles the three biggest – in addition to FBI personnel posted overseas as part of the legal attache program or on temporary assignments around the world. In a 2013 hearing, FBI Director Robert Mueller was questioned by U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin about the agency’s technological abilities. Who sets the agenda of the FBI? The FBI director has to manage multiple relationships in order to carry out the duties of the position effectively. The director reports both to the attorney general and the president, is overseen by judiciary and intelligence committees in Congress, and likewise has to maintain the trust and confidence of the American people to investigate crimes and prevent national security threats. In some administrations, the relationship between the president and the FBI director has been lukewarm. In those cases, the attorney general is the one setting the course for the FBI. That’s where the president or other senior White House staff, for the most part, either have confidence in the FBI director and the attorney general and what they’re doing or it’s just not as much of a priority for them. And then there are other times where the president really wants to know what the FBI director is doing, making sure that they are moving on the priorities that the president sets. But again, that has to be confined to staying within the Constitution and staying within the FBI internal guidelines. This story is part of a series of profiles of Cabinet and high-level administration positions., , FBI director guides the agency in confronting complex international threats, investigating federal crimes and running 55 field offices, https://images.theconversation.com/files/638335/original/file-20241212-15-v2hzkt.jpg?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&rect=22%2C22%2C4931%2C2465&q=45&auto=format&w=1356&h=668&fit=crop, Politics + Society – The Conversation, , , https://theconversation.com/us/politics/articles.atom, Javed Ali, Associate Professor of Practice of Public Policy, University of Michigan,

Stop and think: An undervalued approach in a world that short-circuits thoughtful political judgment thumbnail

Stop and think: An undervalued approach in a world that short-circuits thoughtful political judgment

When’s the last time you saw a pundit pause?

When President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter, who was convicted of three felony charges, the pardon was startling because Biden repeatedly pledged before the election that he would respect the federal jury’s conviction.

As the news broke of the president’s decision, liberal political analyst Molly Jong-Fast was asked on live television for a “fast and furious” reaction to the pardon of Hunter Biden.

Jong-Fast paused for a moment, then said, “I just heard it. I have to process it. I don’t have a take. I’m sorry.”

That became a story. Several news outlets adopted the Fox News headline that a prominent liberal commentator was rendered “speechless,” “gobsmacked” by the pardon. The next day, conservative commentator Megyn Kelly featured the clip on her Sirius XM program as a “very fun example” of liberal hypocrisy.

But Jong-Fast wasn’t speechless. She said she hadn’t yet formulated a response and needed time to do so. This is a responsible position to take in the midst of breaking news.

Yet it was treated as a political failing.

The negative reaction to Jong-Fast’s caution reveals a troubling trend in American democracy. People are captivated by the “hot take,” the “call out,” the “clap back,” the immediate verdict. That makes for shallow analysis that largely repeats familiar ideas.

But responsible political judgment requires reflection, and reflection takes time.

When Molly Jong-Fast was asked what she thought of President Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter, she said she needed time to think about an answer.

Engage reflexes; suppress judgment

As I argue in my new book “Civic Solitude: Why Democracy Needs Distance,” the trouble is that our social environments are primed to short-circuit our thinking. They engage our reflexes while suppressing our judgment.

Here’s how. We humans are all subject to a cognitive dynamic known as belief polarization. This is the tendency for individuals to adopt more extreme perspectives as a result of their interactions with like-minded peers. When we shift toward more radical views, we become more inclined to dismiss anyone who does not agree with us as ignorant, irrational and devious.

But that’s not all. Our more extreme selves are also more “groupish” – that is, more conformist, more eager to fit in with our peers.

In other words, as we become more polarized in our beliefs, we become more invested in asserting our status within our group. We become hardliners and thus less tolerant of deviation among our allies.

As belief polarization escalates, we feel more pressure to conform. Hesitation begins to look like disloyalty. Even a momentary reluctance to affirm the party line signals to allies that our commitment to the group is wavering. Accordingly, we become more inclined simply to adopt the opinions that are popular among our peers – we decide what to think by mimicking our allies.

Opinions based on groupish dynamics

Meanwhile, our associates are subject to the same dynamics. The result is groupthink, where a network of like-minded people come to express opinions that have their source in groupish dynamics rather than facts and evidence.

Add to this that our everyday social environments are increasingly segregated along partisan lines. It is no exaggeration to say that in the United States today, opposing partisans live in different social worlds.

For example, liberals and conservatives live in different kinds of neighborhoods, shop at different stores, purchase different products, drive different vehicles, express different aesthetic preferences, work in different occupations and form different kinds of family groups. They eat different foods. They understand words differently, and even exhibit different patterns of pronunciation.

The familiar narrative of “red” and “blue” states goes far deeper than geography. In the United States today, political affiliation is more of a lifestyle than an outlook on the purposes of government.

An orderly group of blue fish, with one gold fish pulling away from the group.

Americans are primed to act in conformity with group expectations and are less disposed to step back and think. IconicBestiary/iStock via Getty Images Plus

Wanted: Thoughtful, reflective citizens

Our day-to-day lives are saturated with triggers of our partisan group loyalties. These conditions then trigger the groupish dynamics of belief polarization. This in turn means that we’re primed to act quickly in conformity with perceived group expectations, while also being less disposed to step back and think for ourselves.

To be clear, as a philosopher who focuses on democracy and civic ethics, I know that democracy needs engaged citizens. It is our duty to be civically vigilant, to be involved in the processes that shape political circumstances.

No doubt, the free press plays a central role in democracy. Reporters, pundits and analysts keep us informed while also providing their various perspectives on political matters.

However, it is possible to overemphasize the active elements of democracy. The demand for fast and furious judgment is a call for democracy conducted by partisan talking points and scripted taglines. It’s as if all of life were to be conducted in a spin room.

No less crucial for the democratic project is a citizenry that is thoughtful and reflective. This means that we cannot always rely on our familiar partisan reflexes. Especially when dealing with an unexpected political development, we need to step back and revise our stance.

But thought and reflection take time. Our current modes of politics allow for neither.

Jong-Fast’s reaction was no democratic failure. It was an affirmation of one of democracy’s most important civic values: reasoned judgment.

2024-12-13 13:46:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Ftheconversation.com%2Fstop-and-think-an-undervalued-approach-in-a-world-that-short-circuits-thoughtful-political-judgment-245332?w=600&h=450, When’s the last time you saw a pundit pause? When President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter, who was convicted of three felony charges, the pardon was startling because Biden repeatedly pledged before the election that he would respect the federal jury’s conviction. As the news broke of the president’s decision, liberal political analyst Molly,

When’s the last time you saw a pundit pause?

When President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter, who was convicted of three felony charges, the pardon was startling because Biden repeatedly pledged before the election that he would respect the federal jury’s conviction.

As the news broke of the president’s decision, liberal political analyst Molly Jong-Fast was asked on live television for a “fast and furious” reaction to the pardon of Hunter Biden.

Jong-Fast paused for a moment, then said, “I just heard it. I have to process it. I don’t have a take. I’m sorry.”

That became a story. Several news outlets adopted the Fox News headline that a prominent liberal commentator was rendered “speechless,” “gobsmacked” by the pardon. The next day, conservative commentator Megyn Kelly featured the clip on her Sirius XM program as a “very fun example” of liberal hypocrisy.

But Jong-Fast wasn’t speechless. She said she hadn’t yet formulated a response and needed time to do so. This is a responsible position to take in the midst of breaking news.

Yet it was treated as a political failing.

The negative reaction to Jong-Fast’s caution reveals a troubling trend in American democracy. People are captivated by the “hot take,” the “call out,” the “clap back,” the immediate verdict. That makes for shallow analysis that largely repeats familiar ideas.

But responsible political judgment requires reflection, and reflection takes time.

When Molly Jong-Fast was asked what she thought of President Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter, she said she needed time to think about an answer.

Engage reflexes; suppress judgment

As I argue in my new book “Civic Solitude: Why Democracy Needs Distance,” the trouble is that our social environments are primed to short-circuit our thinking. They engage our reflexes while suppressing our judgment.

Here’s how. We humans are all subject to a cognitive dynamic known as belief polarization. This is the tendency for individuals to adopt more extreme perspectives as a result of their interactions with like-minded peers. When we shift toward more radical views, we become more inclined to dismiss anyone who does not agree with us as ignorant, irrational and devious.

But that’s not all. Our more extreme selves are also more “groupish” – that is, more conformist, more eager to fit in with our peers.

In other words, as we become more polarized in our beliefs, we become more invested in asserting our status within our group. We become hardliners and thus less tolerant of deviation among our allies.

As belief polarization escalates, we feel more pressure to conform. Hesitation begins to look like disloyalty. Even a momentary reluctance to affirm the party line signals to allies that our commitment to the group is wavering. Accordingly, we become more inclined simply to adopt the opinions that are popular among our peers – we decide what to think by mimicking our allies.

Opinions based on groupish dynamics

Meanwhile, our associates are subject to the same dynamics. The result is groupthink, where a network of like-minded people come to express opinions that have their source in groupish dynamics rather than facts and evidence.

Add to this that our everyday social environments are increasingly segregated along partisan lines. It is no exaggeration to say that in the United States today, opposing partisans live in different social worlds.

For example, liberals and conservatives live in different kinds of neighborhoods, shop at different stores, purchase different products, drive different vehicles, express different aesthetic preferences, work in different occupations and form different kinds of family groups. They eat different foods. They understand words differently, and even exhibit different patterns of pronunciation.

The familiar narrative of “red” and “blue” states goes far deeper than geography. In the United States today, political affiliation is more of a lifestyle than an outlook on the purposes of government.

An orderly group of blue fish, with one gold fish pulling away from the group.

Americans are primed to act in conformity with group expectations and are less disposed to step back and think. IconicBestiary/iStock via Getty Images Plus

Wanted: Thoughtful, reflective citizens

Our day-to-day lives are saturated with triggers of our partisan group loyalties. These conditions then trigger the groupish dynamics of belief polarization. This in turn means that we’re primed to act quickly in conformity with perceived group expectations, while also being less disposed to step back and think for ourselves.

To be clear, as a philosopher who focuses on democracy and civic ethics, I know that democracy needs engaged citizens. It is our duty to be civically vigilant, to be involved in the processes that shape political circumstances.

No doubt, the free press plays a central role in democracy. Reporters, pundits and analysts keep us informed while also providing their various perspectives on political matters.

However, it is possible to overemphasize the active elements of democracy. The demand for fast and furious judgment is a call for democracy conducted by partisan talking points and scripted taglines. It’s as if all of life were to be conducted in a spin room.

No less crucial for the democratic project is a citizenry that is thoughtful and reflective. This means that we cannot always rely on our familiar partisan reflexes. Especially when dealing with an unexpected political development, we need to step back and revise our stance.

But thought and reflection take time. Our current modes of politics allow for neither.

Jong-Fast’s reaction was no democratic failure. It was an affirmation of one of democracy’s most important civic values: reasoned judgment.

, When’s the last time you saw a pundit pause? When President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter, who was convicted of three felony charges, the pardon was startling because Biden repeatedly pledged before the election that he would respect the federal jury’s conviction. As the news broke of the president’s decision, liberal political analyst Molly Jong-Fast was asked on live television for a “fast and furious” reaction to the pardon of Hunter Biden. Jong-Fast paused for a moment, then said, “I just heard it. I have to process it. I don’t have a take. I’m sorry.” That became a story. Several news outlets adopted the Fox News headline that a prominent liberal commentator was rendered “speechless,” “gobsmacked” by the pardon. The next day, conservative commentator Megyn Kelly featured the clip on her Sirius XM program as a “very fun example” of liberal hypocrisy. But Jong-Fast wasn’t speechless. She said she hadn’t yet formulated a response and needed time to do so. This is a responsible position to take in the midst of breaking news. Yet it was treated as a political failing. The negative reaction to Jong-Fast’s caution reveals a troubling trend in American democracy. People are captivated by the “hot take,” the “call out,” the “clap back,” the immediate verdict. That makes for shallow analysis that largely repeats familiar ideas. But responsible political judgment requires reflection, and reflection takes time. When Molly Jong-Fast was asked what she thought of President Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter, she said she needed time to think about an answer. Engage reflexes; suppress judgment As I argue in my new book “Civic Solitude: Why Democracy Needs Distance,” the trouble is that our social environments are primed to short-circuit our thinking. They engage our reflexes while suppressing our judgment. Here’s how. We humans are all subject to a cognitive dynamic known as belief polarization. This is the tendency for individuals to adopt more extreme perspectives as a result of their interactions with like-minded peers. When we shift toward more radical views, we become more inclined to dismiss anyone who does not agree with us as ignorant, irrational and devious. But that’s not all. Our more extreme selves are also more “groupish” – that is, more conformist, more eager to fit in with our peers. In other words, as we become more polarized in our beliefs, we become more invested in asserting our status within our group. We become hardliners and thus less tolerant of deviation among our allies. As belief polarization escalates, we feel more pressure to conform. Hesitation begins to look like disloyalty. Even a momentary reluctance to affirm the party line signals to allies that our commitment to the group is wavering. Accordingly, we become more inclined simply to adopt the opinions that are popular among our peers – we decide what to think by mimicking our allies. Opinions based on groupish dynamics Meanwhile, our associates are subject to the same dynamics. The result is groupthink, where a network of like-minded people come to express opinions that have their source in groupish dynamics rather than facts and evidence. Add to this that our everyday social environments are increasingly segregated along partisan lines. It is no exaggeration to say that in the United States today, opposing partisans live in different social worlds. For example, liberals and conservatives live in different kinds of neighborhoods, shop at different stores, purchase different products, drive different vehicles, express different aesthetic preferences, work in different occupations and form different kinds of family groups. They eat different foods. They understand words differently, and even exhibit different patterns of pronunciation. The familiar narrative of “red” and “blue” states goes far deeper than geography. In the United States today, political affiliation is more of a lifestyle than an outlook on the purposes of government. Americans are primed to act in conformity with group expectations and are less disposed to step back and think. IconicBestiary/iStock via Getty Images Plus Wanted: Thoughtful, reflective citizens Our day-to-day lives are saturated with triggers of our partisan group loyalties. These conditions then trigger the groupish dynamics of belief polarization. This in turn means that we’re primed to act quickly in conformity with perceived group expectations, while also being less disposed to step back and think for ourselves. To be clear, as a philosopher who focuses on democracy and civic ethics, I know that democracy needs engaged citizens. It is our duty to be civically vigilant, to be involved in the processes that shape political circumstances. No doubt, the free press plays a central role in democracy. Reporters, pundits and analysts keep us informed while also providing their various perspectives on political matters. However, it is possible to overemphasize the active elements of democracy. The demand for fast and furious judgment is a call for democracy conducted by partisan talking points and scripted taglines. It’s as if all of life were to be conducted in a spin room. No less crucial for the democratic project is a citizenry that is thoughtful and reflective. This means that we cannot always rely on our familiar partisan reflexes. Especially when dealing with an unexpected political development, we need to step back and revise our stance. But thought and reflection take time. Our current modes of politics allow for neither. Jong-Fast’s reaction was no democratic failure. It was an affirmation of one of democracy’s most important civic values: reasoned judgment., , Stop and think: An undervalued approach in a world that short-circuits thoughtful political judgment, https://images.theconversation.com/files/638170/original/file-20241212-15-guckzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&rect=0%2C653%2C6202%2C3101&q=45&auto=format&w=1356&h=668&fit=crop, Politics + Society – The Conversation, , , https://theconversation.com/us/politics/articles.atom, Robert B. Talisse, W. Alton Jones Professor of Philosophy, Vanderbilt University,

What the US Supreme Court will consider when it rules on gender-affirming care for trans children thumbnail

What the US Supreme Court will consider when it rules on gender-affirming care for trans children

A case recently argued in the U.S. Supreme Court will likely determine for the foreseeable future how difficult it will be for trans people to win constitutional challenges to laws that discriminate against them.

The case, United States v. Skrmetti, concerns whether a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming medical care for trans youth violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

As a constitutional law scholar, I see United States v. Skrmetti, which was argued before the justices on Dec. 4, 2024, as a very important case. This is because the court’s decision in Skrmetti requires the justices to determine how strongly the equal protection clause protects trans people.

The equal protection clause is one of the key parts of the U.S. Constitution used to protect civil rights. The court decisions declaring school segregation unconstitutional and legalizing gay marriage both invoked the equal protection clause.

Two large white buildings with columns, on two sides of a large plaza.

Tennessee legislators, meeting in the state Capitol, left, passed a law banning gender-affirming medical care for trans youth that is being challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court. DenisTangneyJr/E+ via Getty Images

‘Encouraging minors to appreciate their sex’

In 2023, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee signed into law Tennessee Senate Bill 1, known as SB1. SB1 bans gender-affirming medical care for trans people under the age of 18.

It does this by prohibiting health care providers from offering medical care designed to help minors identify with a gender that differs from the one they were assigned at birth. It also prohibits certain forms of medical care designed to treat gender dysphoria – the discomfort or distress due to having a gender identity that differs from one’s sex assigned at birth or one’s sex-related physical characteristics.

The Tennessee law prohibits anyone from providing puberty blockers or hormones such as estrogen or testosterone to trans youth for these purposes. But the law still allows the provision of puberty blockers and sex hormones for other medical purposes, such as treating congenital defects, early puberty or physical injury.

The Tennessee legislature claims in the text of the law that “this state has a legitimate, substantial, and compelling interest in encouraging minors to appreciate their sex” and in protecting the ability of minors to grow into adults “who can create children of their own.”

Shortly after SB1 was passed, the American Civil Liberties Union sued Tennessee on behalf of various trans youth and their parents. They claimed that the law discriminated based on sex in violation of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

A district court judge granted the the ACLU’s request for a preliminary injunction. This temporarily stopped the enforcement of SB1. But a divided panel of federal judges later reversed the district court’s judgment, allowing the law to go into effect.

The ACLU and the Biden administration then appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to review the case.

‘Equal protection of the laws’

The equal protection clause forbids U.S. states from denying “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This provision prevents states from creating unjust differences in how the law is applied to different people.

The most famous equal protection case is likely the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education. There, the Supreme Court held that racial segregation in schools violated the equal protection clause, declaring, “Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law.”

A key question in all equal protection clause cases is whether the law being challenged relies on what is referred to in constitutional law as a “suspect” or “quasi-suspect” classification. This may seem like a technical aspect of the Skrmetti case, but it has profound implications.

Suspect classifications include race, religion, national origin and ancestry. Quasi-suspect classifications include sex and whether one’s parents were married at their time of birth.

The basic idea – and reason for the word “suspect” in the name – is that courts are extra suspicious of laws that take these features into account. This is because judges generally think that a person’s characteristics such as race, religion and, to a lesser degree, sex should not be relevant to how the law applies to them.

If a court determines that a law is based on a suspect or quasi-suspect classification, then it will assess the law using tests that make it difficult for the law to pass constitutional muster.

But if a court determines that a law is not based on a suspect or quasi-suspect classification, then it will assess the law using a test that is highly deferential to the legislators who passed the law. This test makes it relatively easy for a court to conclude that a law is constitutional.

Thus, it is a crucially important legal issue to determine whether SB1 relies on a suspect or quasi-suspect classification. Tennessee argues that it does not, while the ACLU and the U.S. argue that it does. The court will decide.

A stethoscope, pen and prescription pad.

The Tennessee case is about more than the ability of health care providers to prescribe puberty blockers or hormones to trans youth. Mutlu Kurtbas/E+ via Getty Images

Sex discrimination

The U.S. and ACLU argue that SB1 discriminates based on sex, and thus it is based on a quasi-suspect classification. Tennessee rejects this claim.

Here, in brief, is how the argument that SB1 discriminates based on sex goes.

Under SB1, the only minors prohibited from getting feminizing sex hormones such as estrogen are minors who are assigned male at birth. Similarly, the only minors prohibited from getting masculinizing sex hormones such as testosterone are minors who are assigned female at birth.

Thus, whether a minor is prevented from being able to get the treatment depends on the minor’s sex. Similar arguments can be made about use of puberty blockers. That, the U.S. and ACLU claim, is sex-based discrimination.

Tennessee advocates a different understanding of whether sex-based discrimination is at work in the law. It argues that all youth, no matter their sex, are prohibited from taking hormones or puberty blockers that would help them identify with a sex other than the one they were assigned at birth. In this way, they argue, the law is not about sex.

In the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision Bostock v. Clayton County, Justice Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court’s liberals in holding that discrimination based on sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 included discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. This decision provided LGBTQ people with nationwide protection against employment discrimination.

The U.S. and ACLU offer a similar argument in Skrmetti to the one in Bostock. But in Bostock, the court was interpreting the text of a law that explicitly mentioned discrimination based on sex. In this case, the court is interpreting the equal protection clause, which doesn’t make explicit reference to sex discrimination. Thus, the justices may not think the same kind of reasoning applies.

The court faces questions in Skrmetti other than whether the law discriminates based on sex. The parties also disagree about how good the evidence is that gender-affirming care is safe and effective. The court could rule on that question too, or it could require the lower court to resolve that issue.

The court could also address whether gender identity should be recognized as a new suspect or quasi-suspect classification, although recent history suggests it is unlikely to do this.

What’s next?

The court will likely issue its decision by the end of June 2025. In the meantime, SB1 remains in effect. There are similar laws in half of all states that are part of other legal battles.

If the court concludes that SB1 is a case of sex discrimination, this would establish a precedent that would make it easier for others to challenge laws prohibiting or restricting gender-affirming care. It might also help trans people litigate other kinds of cases, such as challenges to laws restricting which restrooms trans people can use.

But if the court concludes that SB1 does not discriminate based on sex, that would make it harder for trans people to win in future cases in which they claim that a law discriminates against them.

2024-12-12 13:43:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Ftheconversation.com%2Fwhat-the-us-supreme-court-will-consider-when-it-rules-on-gender-affirming-care-for-trans-children-245635?w=600&h=450, A case recently argued in the U.S. Supreme Court will likely determine for the foreseeable future how difficult it will be for trans people to win constitutional challenges to laws that discriminate against them. The case, United States v. Skrmetti, concerns whether a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming medical care for trans youth violates the equal,

A case recently argued in the U.S. Supreme Court will likely determine for the foreseeable future how difficult it will be for trans people to win constitutional challenges to laws that discriminate against them.

The case, United States v. Skrmetti, concerns whether a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming medical care for trans youth violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

As a constitutional law scholar, I see United States v. Skrmetti, which was argued before the justices on Dec. 4, 2024, as a very important case. This is because the court’s decision in Skrmetti requires the justices to determine how strongly the equal protection clause protects trans people.

The equal protection clause is one of the key parts of the U.S. Constitution used to protect civil rights. The court decisions declaring school segregation unconstitutional and legalizing gay marriage both invoked the equal protection clause.

Two large white buildings with columns, on two sides of a large plaza.

Tennessee legislators, meeting in the state Capitol, left, passed a law banning gender-affirming medical care for trans youth that is being challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court. DenisTangneyJr/E+ via Getty Images

‘Encouraging minors to appreciate their sex’

In 2023, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee signed into law Tennessee Senate Bill 1, known as SB1. SB1 bans gender-affirming medical care for trans people under the age of 18.

It does this by prohibiting health care providers from offering medical care designed to help minors identify with a gender that differs from the one they were assigned at birth. It also prohibits certain forms of medical care designed to treat gender dysphoria – the discomfort or distress due to having a gender identity that differs from one’s sex assigned at birth or one’s sex-related physical characteristics.

The Tennessee law prohibits anyone from providing puberty blockers or hormones such as estrogen or testosterone to trans youth for these purposes. But the law still allows the provision of puberty blockers and sex hormones for other medical purposes, such as treating congenital defects, early puberty or physical injury.

The Tennessee legislature claims in the text of the law that “this state has a legitimate, substantial, and compelling interest in encouraging minors to appreciate their sex” and in protecting the ability of minors to grow into adults “who can create children of their own.”

Shortly after SB1 was passed, the American Civil Liberties Union sued Tennessee on behalf of various trans youth and their parents. They claimed that the law discriminated based on sex in violation of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

A district court judge granted the the ACLU’s request for a preliminary injunction. This temporarily stopped the enforcement of SB1. But a divided panel of federal judges later reversed the district court’s judgment, allowing the law to go into effect.

The ACLU and the Biden administration then appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to review the case.

‘Equal protection of the laws’

The equal protection clause forbids U.S. states from denying “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This provision prevents states from creating unjust differences in how the law is applied to different people.

The most famous equal protection case is likely the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education. There, the Supreme Court held that racial segregation in schools violated the equal protection clause, declaring, “Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law.”

A key question in all equal protection clause cases is whether the law being challenged relies on what is referred to in constitutional law as a “suspect” or “quasi-suspect” classification. This may seem like a technical aspect of the Skrmetti case, but it has profound implications.

Suspect classifications include race, religion, national origin and ancestry. Quasi-suspect classifications include sex and whether one’s parents were married at their time of birth.

The basic idea – and reason for the word “suspect” in the name – is that courts are extra suspicious of laws that take these features into account. This is because judges generally think that a person’s characteristics such as race, religion and, to a lesser degree, sex should not be relevant to how the law applies to them.

If a court determines that a law is based on a suspect or quasi-suspect classification, then it will assess the law using tests that make it difficult for the law to pass constitutional muster.

But if a court determines that a law is not based on a suspect or quasi-suspect classification, then it will assess the law using a test that is highly deferential to the legislators who passed the law. This test makes it relatively easy for a court to conclude that a law is constitutional.

Thus, it is a crucially important legal issue to determine whether SB1 relies on a suspect or quasi-suspect classification. Tennessee argues that it does not, while the ACLU and the U.S. argue that it does. The court will decide.

A stethoscope, pen and prescription pad.

The Tennessee case is about more than the ability of health care providers to prescribe puberty blockers or hormones to trans youth. Mutlu Kurtbas/E+ via Getty Images

Sex discrimination

The U.S. and ACLU argue that SB1 discriminates based on sex, and thus it is based on a quasi-suspect classification. Tennessee rejects this claim.

Here, in brief, is how the argument that SB1 discriminates based on sex goes.

Under SB1, the only minors prohibited from getting feminizing sex hormones such as estrogen are minors who are assigned male at birth. Similarly, the only minors prohibited from getting masculinizing sex hormones such as testosterone are minors who are assigned female at birth.

Thus, whether a minor is prevented from being able to get the treatment depends on the minor’s sex. Similar arguments can be made about use of puberty blockers. That, the U.S. and ACLU claim, is sex-based discrimination.

Tennessee advocates a different understanding of whether sex-based discrimination is at work in the law. It argues that all youth, no matter their sex, are prohibited from taking hormones or puberty blockers that would help them identify with a sex other than the one they were assigned at birth. In this way, they argue, the law is not about sex.

In the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision Bostock v. Clayton County, Justice Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court’s liberals in holding that discrimination based on sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 included discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. This decision provided LGBTQ people with nationwide protection against employment discrimination.

The U.S. and ACLU offer a similar argument in Skrmetti to the one in Bostock. But in Bostock, the court was interpreting the text of a law that explicitly mentioned discrimination based on sex. In this case, the court is interpreting the equal protection clause, which doesn’t make explicit reference to sex discrimination. Thus, the justices may not think the same kind of reasoning applies.

The court faces questions in Skrmetti other than whether the law discriminates based on sex. The parties also disagree about how good the evidence is that gender-affirming care is safe and effective. The court could rule on that question too, or it could require the lower court to resolve that issue.

The court could also address whether gender identity should be recognized as a new suspect or quasi-suspect classification, although recent history suggests it is unlikely to do this.

What’s next?

The court will likely issue its decision by the end of June 2025. In the meantime, SB1 remains in effect. There are similar laws in half of all states that are part of other legal battles.

If the court concludes that SB1 is a case of sex discrimination, this would establish a precedent that would make it easier for others to challenge laws prohibiting or restricting gender-affirming care. It might also help trans people litigate other kinds of cases, such as challenges to laws restricting which restrooms trans people can use.

But if the court concludes that SB1 does not discriminate based on sex, that would make it harder for trans people to win in future cases in which they claim that a law discriminates against them.

, A case recently argued in the U.S. Supreme Court will likely determine for the foreseeable future how difficult it will be for trans people to win constitutional challenges to laws that discriminate against them. The case, United States v. Skrmetti, concerns whether a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming medical care for trans youth violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment. As a constitutional law scholar, I see United States v. Skrmetti, which was argued before the justices on Dec. 4, 2024, as a very important case. This is because the court’s decision in Skrmetti requires the justices to determine how strongly the equal protection clause protects trans people. The equal protection clause is one of the key parts of the U.S. Constitution used to protect civil rights. The court decisions declaring school segregation unconstitutional and legalizing gay marriage both invoked the equal protection clause. Tennessee legislators, meeting in the state Capitol, left, passed a law banning gender-affirming medical care for trans youth that is being challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court. DenisTangneyJr/E+ via Getty Images ‘Encouraging minors to appreciate their sex’ In 2023, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee signed into law Tennessee Senate Bill 1, known as SB1. SB1 bans gender-affirming medical care for trans people under the age of 18. It does this by prohibiting health care providers from offering medical care designed to help minors identify with a gender that differs from the one they were assigned at birth. It also prohibits certain forms of medical care designed to treat gender dysphoria – the discomfort or distress due to having a gender identity that differs from one’s sex assigned at birth or one’s sex-related physical characteristics. The Tennessee law prohibits anyone from providing puberty blockers or hormones such as estrogen or testosterone to trans youth for these purposes. But the law still allows the provision of puberty blockers and sex hormones for other medical purposes, such as treating congenital defects, early puberty or physical injury. The Tennessee legislature claims in the text of the law that “this state has a legitimate, substantial, and compelling interest in encouraging minors to appreciate their sex” and in protecting the ability of minors to grow into adults “who can create children of their own.” Shortly after SB1 was passed, the American Civil Liberties Union sued Tennessee on behalf of various trans youth and their parents. They claimed that the law discriminated based on sex in violation of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. A district court judge granted the the ACLU’s request for a preliminary injunction. This temporarily stopped the enforcement of SB1. But a divided panel of federal judges later reversed the district court’s judgment, allowing the law to go into effect. The ACLU and the Biden administration then appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to review the case. ‘Equal protection of the laws’ The equal protection clause forbids U.S. states from denying “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This provision prevents states from creating unjust differences in how the law is applied to different people. The most famous equal protection case is likely the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education. There, the Supreme Court held that racial segregation in schools violated the equal protection clause, declaring, “Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law.” A key question in all equal protection clause cases is whether the law being challenged relies on what is referred to in constitutional law as a “suspect” or “quasi-suspect” classification. This may seem like a technical aspect of the Skrmetti case, but it has profound implications. Suspect classifications include race, religion, national origin and ancestry. Quasi-suspect classifications include sex and whether one’s parents were married at their time of birth. The basic idea – and reason for the word “suspect” in the name – is that courts are extra suspicious of laws that take these features into account. This is because judges generally think that a person’s characteristics such as race, religion and, to a lesser degree, sex should not be relevant to how the law applies to them. If a court determines that a law is based on a suspect or quasi-suspect classification, then it will assess the law using tests that make it difficult for the law to pass constitutional muster. But if a court determines that a law is not based on a suspect or quasi-suspect classification, then it will assess the law using a test that is highly deferential to the legislators who passed the law. This test makes it relatively easy for a court to conclude that a law is constitutional. Thus, it is a crucially important legal issue to determine whether SB1 relies on a suspect or quasi-suspect classification. Tennessee argues that it does not, while the ACLU and the U.S. argue that it does. The court will decide. The Tennessee case is about more than the ability of health care providers to prescribe puberty blockers or hormones to trans youth. Mutlu Kurtbas/E+ via Getty Images Sex discrimination The U.S. and ACLU argue that SB1 discriminates based on sex, and thus it is based on a quasi-suspect classification. Tennessee rejects this claim. Here, in brief, is how the argument that SB1 discriminates based on sex goes. Under SB1, the only minors prohibited from getting feminizing sex hormones such as estrogen are minors who are assigned male at birth. Similarly, the only minors prohibited from getting masculinizing sex hormones such as testosterone are minors who are assigned female at birth. Thus, whether a minor is prevented from being able to get the treatment depends on the minor’s sex. Similar arguments can be made about use of puberty blockers. That, the U.S. and ACLU claim, is sex-based discrimination. Tennessee advocates a different understanding of whether sex-based discrimination is at work in the law. It argues that all youth, no matter their sex, are prohibited from taking hormones or puberty blockers that would help them identify with a sex other than the one they were assigned at birth. In this way, they argue, the law is not about sex. In the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision Bostock v. Clayton County, Justice Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court’s liberals in holding that discrimination based on sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 included discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. This decision provided LGBTQ people with nationwide protection against employment discrimination. The U.S. and ACLU offer a similar argument in Skrmetti to the one in Bostock. But in Bostock, the court was interpreting the text of a law that explicitly mentioned discrimination based on sex. In this case, the court is interpreting the equal protection clause, which doesn’t make explicit reference to sex discrimination. Thus, the justices may not think the same kind of reasoning applies. The court faces questions in Skrmetti other than whether the law discriminates based on sex. The parties also disagree about how good the evidence is that gender-affirming care is safe and effective. The court could rule on that question too, or it could require the lower court to resolve that issue. The court could also address whether gender identity should be recognized as a new suspect or quasi-suspect classification, although recent history suggests it is unlikely to do this. What’s next? The court will likely issue its decision by the end of June 2025. In the meantime, SB1 remains in effect. There are similar laws in half of all states that are part of other legal battles. If the court concludes that SB1 is a case of sex discrimination, this would establish a precedent that would make it easier for others to challenge laws prohibiting or restricting gender-affirming care. It might also help trans people litigate other kinds of cases, such as challenges to laws restricting which restrooms trans people can use. But if the court concludes that SB1 does not discriminate based on sex, that would make it harder for trans people to win in future cases in which they claim that a law discriminates against them., , What the US Supreme Court will consider when it rules on gender-affirming care for trans children, https://images.theconversation.com/files/637856/original/file-20241211-15-tjj0g7.jpg?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&rect=23%2C948%2C5205%2C2602&q=45&auto=format&w=1356&h=668&fit=crop, Politics + Society – The Conversation, , , https://theconversation.com/us/politics/articles.atom, Mark Satta, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Law, Wayne State University,

'Absolute necessity': Trump sparks concerns after floating desire to control Panama Canal, Greenland thumbnail

‘Absolute necessity’: Trump sparks concerns after floating desire to control Panama Canal, Greenland

President-elect Donald Trump suggested on Wednesday that the U.S. could take control of Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal—an unexpected Christmas Day message that has sparked concerns among world leaders in recent days as they scramble to prepare for Trump’s second White House term.

In a Wednesday post on the platform Truth Social, Trump wished a “Merry Christmas to all,” including to the “wonderful soldiers of China, who are lovingly, but illegally, operating the Panama Canal,” before moving on to take aim at Canada and Greenland as well, which he suggested again could be better off under U.S. governance.

Trump reiterated his claim that U.S. shippers are being forced to pay “ridiculous” and “exorbitant” prices to navigate the Panama Canal—an artificial, 51-mile waterway that connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. He has suggested, without evidence, that Chinese interests are gaining outsize influence over the waterway, something Panamanian leaders have steadfastly denied.

TRUMP FLOATS IDEA OF US RECLAIMING PANAMA CANAL: ‘FOOLISHLY GAVE IT AWAY’

In his Truth Social post Wednesday, Trump also mockingly referred to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as “governor” reiterating his recent suggestion that Canada should be turned into a U.S. state. 

“If Canada was to become our 51st state, their taxes would be cut by more than 60%, their businesses would immediately double in size, and they would be militarily protected like no other country anywhere in the world,” Trump said.

Finally, the president-elect turned his attention to Greenland; an autonomous, geographically important Arctic location rife with natural resources, including rare earth minerals.

The U.S., Trump said on Wednesday, “feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity” for reasons of national security and “global freedom.’

Bigger picture

Trump’s lengthy Truth Social post did little to assuage the concerns of some world leaders, who have carefully watched Trump’s actions and his statements in recent weeks for clues as to how he might govern in a second term.

The remarks also appear to be at odds with the “America First” policies long espoused by Trump, which seek to prioritize domestic policy rather than expansion or U.S. presence abroad.

Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont., echoed Trump’s concerns in an interview Thursday, describing China’s influence in the Panama Canal, and the higher prices incurred by shippers, as a “shot across the bow.” 

“Remember, we have China and Cuba,” Zinke said on “Mornings with Maria. “We have Maduro in Venezuela. We have had Russian ships there. And the Panama Canal is critical to our national security. And at present, it is being run by the Chinese Communist Party. So it’s a concern—absolutely.” 

‘AMERICA FIRST’ VS. ‘AMERICA LAST’: WHAT DOES TRUMP’S RETURN MEAN FOR US FOREIGN POLICY?

To be sure, it is not the first time Trump has indicated interest in Greenland, a mineral-rich, geographically important territory.

In 2019, then-President Trump told reporters he was “interested” in purchasing Greenland, which he described at the time as “essentially” a “large real estate deal.” The 2019 effort never gained traction, however; and this week, Greenland Prime Minister Mute Egede immediately poured cold water on the idea that their territory could be sold to the U.S.

“Greenland is ours,”  Greenland Prime Minister Mute Egede said this week, in response to Trump’s suggestion. 

“We are not for sale and will never be for sale,” he said. “We must not lose our long struggle for freedom.”

Meanwhile, Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino also disputed the notion that U.S. vessels have been singled out or paid higher fees to traverse the Panama Canal—as well as the notion that the U.S., which phased out its ownership beginning in the 1970s, has any right to reassert control over the shipping waypoint. 

In a video posted to social media earlier this week, Mulino reassured his country’s people that the “sovereignty and independence of our country is non-negotiable.”

The Panama Canal is one of the largest and most strategically important commodity shipping waterways in the world. It handles roughly 5% of all global maritime trade and roughly 40% of U.S. container ship traffic. 

Recent higher prices are primarily the result of drought and more competition, which sent water levels plummeting last year to their lowest point on record. Though water levels have since rebounded, operators of the canal were forced to temporarily limit vessel traffic and increase costs for ships using the waypoint.

Other factors have also played a role in higher maritime shipping prices.

A series of attacks on vessels in the Red Sea late last year prompted many major commodities shippers, including BP and Equinor, to pause or reroute their shipments away from the Suez Canal. Some opted to reroute supplies via the Cape of Good Hope, adding weeks of additional time to their trips.

The Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, incorrectly claimed on social media last week that the Panama Canal cost U.S. taxpayers $15.7 billion. In fact, the higher costs are shouldered by the ships that pass through the waterway, in the form of tolls.  The U.S. government does not subsidize the canal.

‘AMERICA FIRST’ VS. ‘AMERICA LAST’: WHAT DOES TRUMP’S RETURN MEAN FOR US FOREIGN POLICY?

Panamanian authorities have stressed that the prices are not the result of “unfair” treatment, or capitulation to China or any other nation-state influence.

“The canal has no direct or indirect control from China, nor the European Union, nor the United States or any other power,” Mulino said in his remarks. “As a Panamanian, I reject any manifestation that misrepresents this reality.”

Still, Trump does not appear to be backing down on expansion claims.

“The Panama Canal is considered a VITAL National Asset for the United States, due to its critical role to America’s Economy and National Security,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Sunday. “A secure Panama Canal is crucial for U.S. Commerce, and rapid deployment of the Navy, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and drastically cuts shipping times to U.S. ports.”

“We’re not going to stand for it,” he said. “So, to the officials of Panama, please be guided accordingly.”

2024-12-26 20:52:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fpolitics%2Fabsolute-necessity-trump-sparks-concerns-after-desire-control-panama-canal-greenland?w=600&h=450, President-elect Donald Trump suggested on Wednesday that the U.S. could take control of Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal—an unexpected Christmas Day message that has sparked concerns among world leaders in recent days as they scramble to prepare for Trump’s second White House term. In a Wednesday post on the platform Truth Social, Trump wished,

President-elect Donald Trump suggested on Wednesday that the U.S. could take control of Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal—an unexpected Christmas Day message that has sparked concerns among world leaders in recent days as they scramble to prepare for Trump’s second White House term.

In a Wednesday post on the platform Truth Social, Trump wished a “Merry Christmas to all,” including to the “wonderful soldiers of China, who are lovingly, but illegally, operating the Panama Canal,” before moving on to take aim at Canada and Greenland as well, which he suggested again could be better off under U.S. governance.

Trump reiterated his claim that U.S. shippers are being forced to pay “ridiculous” and “exorbitant” prices to navigate the Panama Canal—an artificial, 51-mile waterway that connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. He has suggested, without evidence, that Chinese interests are gaining outsize influence over the waterway, something Panamanian leaders have steadfastly denied.

TRUMP FLOATS IDEA OF US RECLAIMING PANAMA CANAL: ‘FOOLISHLY GAVE IT AWAY’

In his Truth Social post Wednesday, Trump also mockingly referred to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as “governor” reiterating his recent suggestion that Canada should be turned into a U.S. state. 

“If Canada was to become our 51st state, their taxes would be cut by more than 60%, their businesses would immediately double in size, and they would be militarily protected like no other country anywhere in the world,” Trump said.

Finally, the president-elect turned his attention to Greenland; an autonomous, geographically important Arctic location rife with natural resources, including rare earth minerals.

The U.S., Trump said on Wednesday, “feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity” for reasons of national security and “global freedom.’

Bigger picture

Trump’s lengthy Truth Social post did little to assuage the concerns of some world leaders, who have carefully watched Trump’s actions and his statements in recent weeks for clues as to how he might govern in a second term.

The remarks also appear to be at odds with the “America First” policies long espoused by Trump, which seek to prioritize domestic policy rather than expansion or U.S. presence abroad.

Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont., echoed Trump’s concerns in an interview Thursday, describing China’s influence in the Panama Canal, and the higher prices incurred by shippers, as a “shot across the bow.” 

“Remember, we have China and Cuba,” Zinke said on “Mornings with Maria. “We have Maduro in Venezuela. We have had Russian ships there. And the Panama Canal is critical to our national security. And at present, it is being run by the Chinese Communist Party. So it’s a concern—absolutely.” 

‘AMERICA FIRST’ VS. ‘AMERICA LAST’: WHAT DOES TRUMP’S RETURN MEAN FOR US FOREIGN POLICY?

To be sure, it is not the first time Trump has indicated interest in Greenland, a mineral-rich, geographically important territory.

In 2019, then-President Trump told reporters he was “interested” in purchasing Greenland, which he described at the time as “essentially” a “large real estate deal.” The 2019 effort never gained traction, however; and this week, Greenland Prime Minister Mute Egede immediately poured cold water on the idea that their territory could be sold to the U.S.

“Greenland is ours,”  Greenland Prime Minister Mute Egede said this week, in response to Trump’s suggestion. 

“We are not for sale and will never be for sale,” he said. “We must not lose our long struggle for freedom.”

Meanwhile, Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino also disputed the notion that U.S. vessels have been singled out or paid higher fees to traverse the Panama Canal—as well as the notion that the U.S., which phased out its ownership beginning in the 1970s, has any right to reassert control over the shipping waypoint. 

In a video posted to social media earlier this week, Mulino reassured his country’s people that the “sovereignty and independence of our country is non-negotiable.”

The Panama Canal is one of the largest and most strategically important commodity shipping waterways in the world. It handles roughly 5% of all global maritime trade and roughly 40% of U.S. container ship traffic. 

Recent higher prices are primarily the result of drought and more competition, which sent water levels plummeting last year to their lowest point on record. Though water levels have since rebounded, operators of the canal were forced to temporarily limit vessel traffic and increase costs for ships using the waypoint.

Other factors have also played a role in higher maritime shipping prices.

A series of attacks on vessels in the Red Sea late last year prompted many major commodities shippers, including BP and Equinor, to pause or reroute their shipments away from the Suez Canal. Some opted to reroute supplies via the Cape of Good Hope, adding weeks of additional time to their trips.

The Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, incorrectly claimed on social media last week that the Panama Canal cost U.S. taxpayers $15.7 billion. In fact, the higher costs are shouldered by the ships that pass through the waterway, in the form of tolls.  The U.S. government does not subsidize the canal.

‘AMERICA FIRST’ VS. ‘AMERICA LAST’: WHAT DOES TRUMP’S RETURN MEAN FOR US FOREIGN POLICY?

Panamanian authorities have stressed that the prices are not the result of “unfair” treatment, or capitulation to China or any other nation-state influence.

“The canal has no direct or indirect control from China, nor the European Union, nor the United States or any other power,” Mulino said in his remarks. “As a Panamanian, I reject any manifestation that misrepresents this reality.”

Still, Trump does not appear to be backing down on expansion claims.

“The Panama Canal is considered a VITAL National Asset for the United States, due to its critical role to America’s Economy and National Security,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Sunday. “A secure Panama Canal is crucial for U.S. Commerce, and rapid deployment of the Navy, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and drastically cuts shipping times to U.S. ports.”

“We’re not going to stand for it,” he said. “So, to the officials of Panama, please be guided accordingly.”

, President-elect Donald Trump suggested on Wednesday that the U.S. could take control of Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal—an unexpected Christmas Day message that has sparked concerns among world leaders in recent days as they scramble to prepare for Trump’s second White House term. In a Wednesday post on the platform Truth Social, Trump wished a “Merry Christmas to all,” including to the “wonderful soldiers of China, who are lovingly, but illegally, operating the Panama Canal,” before moving on to take aim at Canada and Greenland as well, which he suggested again could be better off under U.S. governance. Trump reiterated his claim that U.S. shippers are being forced to pay “ridiculous” and “exorbitant” prices to navigate the Panama Canal—an artificial, 51-mile waterway that connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. He has suggested, without evidence, that Chinese interests are gaining outsize influence over the waterway, something Panamanian leaders have steadfastly denied. TRUMP FLOATS IDEA OF US RECLAIMING PANAMA CANAL: ‘FOOLISHLY GAVE IT AWAY’ In his Truth Social post Wednesday, Trump also mockingly referred to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as “governor” reiterating his recent suggestion that Canada should be turned into a U.S. state.  “If Canada was to become our 51st state, their taxes would be cut by more than 60%, their businesses would immediately double in size, and they would be militarily protected like no other country anywhere in the world,” Trump said. Finally, the president-elect turned his attention to Greenland; an autonomous, geographically important Arctic location rife with natural resources, including rare earth minerals. The U.S., Trump said on Wednesday, “feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity” for reasons of national security and “global freedom.’ Bigger picture Trump’s lengthy Truth Social post did little to assuage the concerns of some world leaders, who have carefully watched Trump’s actions and his statements in recent weeks for clues as to how he might govern in a second term. The remarks also appear to be at odds with the “America First” policies long espoused by Trump, which seek to prioritize domestic policy rather than expansion or U.S. presence abroad. Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont., echoed Trump’s concerns in an interview Thursday, describing China’s influence in the Panama Canal, and the higher prices incurred by shippers, as a “shot across the bow.”  “Remember, we have China and Cuba,” Zinke said on “Mornings with Maria.” “We have Maduro in Venezuela. We have had Russian ships there. And the Panama Canal is critical to our national security. And at present, it is being run by the Chinese Communist Party. So it’s a concern—absolutely.”  ‘AMERICA FIRST’ VS. ‘AMERICA LAST’: WHAT DOES TRUMP’S RETURN MEAN FOR US FOREIGN POLICY? To be sure, it is not the first time Trump has indicated interest in Greenland, a mineral-rich, geographically important territory. In 2019, then-President Trump told reporters he was “interested” in purchasing Greenland, which he described at the time as “essentially” a “large real estate deal.” The 2019 effort never gained traction, however; and this week, Greenland Prime Minister Mute Egede immediately poured cold water on the idea that their territory could be sold to the U.S. “Greenland is ours,”  Greenland Prime Minister Mute Egede said this week, in response to Trump’s suggestion.  “We are not for sale and will never be for sale,” he said. “We must not lose our long struggle for freedom.” Meanwhile, Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino also disputed the notion that U.S. vessels have been singled out or paid higher fees to traverse the Panama Canal—as well as the notion that the U.S., which phased out its ownership beginning in the 1970s, has any right to reassert control over the shipping waypoint.  In a video posted to social media earlier this week, Mulino reassured his country’s people that the “sovereignty and independence of our country is non-negotiable.” The Panama Canal is one of the largest and most strategically important commodity shipping waterways in the world. It handles roughly 5% of all global maritime trade and roughly 40% of U.S. container ship traffic.  Recent higher prices are primarily the result of drought and more competition, which sent water levels plummeting last year to their lowest point on record. Though water levels have since rebounded, operators of the canal were forced to temporarily limit vessel traffic and increase costs for ships using the waypoint. Other factors have also played a role in higher maritime shipping prices. A series of attacks on vessels in the Red Sea late last year prompted many major commodities shippers, including BP and Equinor, to pause or reroute their shipments away from the Suez Canal. Some opted to reroute supplies via the Cape of Good Hope, adding weeks of additional time to their trips. The Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, incorrectly claimed on social media last week that the Panama Canal cost U.S. taxpayers $15.7 billion. In fact, the higher costs are shouldered by the ships that pass through the waterway, in the form of tolls.  The U.S. government does not subsidize the canal. ‘AMERICA FIRST’ VS. ‘AMERICA LAST’: WHAT DOES TRUMP’S RETURN MEAN FOR US FOREIGN POLICY? Panamanian authorities have stressed that the prices are not the result of “unfair” treatment, or capitulation to China or any other nation-state influence. “The canal has no direct or indirect control from China, nor the European Union, nor the United States or any other power,” Mulino said in his remarks. “As a Panamanian, I reject any manifestation that misrepresents this reality.” Still, Trump does not appear to be backing down on expansion claims. “The Panama Canal is considered a VITAL National Asset for the United States, due to its critical role to America’s Economy and National Security,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Sunday. “A secure Panama Canal is crucial for U.S. Commerce, and rapid deployment of the Navy, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and drastically cuts shipping times to U.S. ports.” “We’re not going to stand for it,” he said. “So, to the officials of Panama, please be guided accordingly.”, , 'Absolute necessity': Trump sparks concerns after floating desire to control Panama Canal, Greenland, https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2024/11/931/523/greenland-trump.jpg?ve=1&tl=1, Latest Political News on Fox News, Read all about the political news happening with Fox News. Learn about political parties, political campaigns, and international politics today., https://global.fncstatic.com/static/orion/styles/img/fox-news/logos/fox-news-desktop.png, https://moxie.foxnews.com/google-publisher/politics.xml, ,