Ron DeSantis requested the medical records of trans students who sought care at Florida’s public universities. Now students are planning a statewide walkout.
Annalise Mabe – February 16, 2023
Students at the University of South Florida gather to protest the request.Justin Blanco
Ron DeSantis told all public universities in Florida to hand over the medical records of trans students who sought care.
Insider has confirmed six of the 12 universities have complied with the request.
Now, college students across the state are planning a walkout to protest the governor’s request.
DeSantis asked to see the records of any student who has experienced gender dysphoria in the past five years. In addition, he wants their ages and the dates they received gender-affirming care. The deadline to submit those records was February 10.
Insider has confirmed that University of Florida, Florida State University, University of Central Florida, Florida A&M University, Florida International University, and the University of North Florida have complied with the request, but has yet to hear back from the rest.
Students at these universities are now planning rallies for next week along with the statewide walkout on February 23. Ben Braver, a junior at the University of South Florida and the outreach officer for the school’s College Democrats chapter, is leading the initiative, known as the Stand for Freedom Florida Walkout.
“Hate is spread when it’s innocuous, when it seems silly, and when it seems like taking a stand is an overreaction,” Braver told Insider. “We, just like any generation, need to stand for the civil rights that have already been fought for, the ones that have been won, and those which are at stake right now.”
Andy Pham, a senior and long-standing member of the University of South Florida’s Trans+ Student Union, said he sees the state’s move as a direct attack on trans rights.
“They want to legislate us out of existence,” Pham said. “That starts with attacking our healthcare, attacking our right to exist in public spaces, attempting surveillance — all of that.”
In January, 20 students at the University of South Florida held a rally protesting DeSantis’ request. They then started an online petition asking the school’s administration not to submit the medical records. The petition received over 2,600 signatures, but officials at the school said they plan to send over the records anyway. Insider hasn’t been able to confirm whether the University of South Florida sent over the data.
“As a state university, USF has an obligation to be responsive to requests from our elected officials,” the university said in a statement, according to WUSF. “However, the university will not provide information that identifies an individual patient or violates patient privacy laws.”
Among those signing on to support the walkout are the Dream Defenders, Florida College Democrats, state lawmaker Anna Eskamani, and 26-year-old Congressman Maxwell Frost.
“The governor’s abusing his power,” Frost told Insider. “He’s targeting folks that disagree with him — people who might not see eye to eye with him, marginalized communities.”
When Insider asked why the state has requested the health data of transgender college students, the state’s deputy press secretary referred to DeSantis’ second inaugural address, in which the governor stated: “We are committed to fully understanding the amount of public funding that is going toward such nonacademic pursuits to best assess how to get our colleges and universities refocused on education and truth.”
The American Civil Liberties Union reports that during this legislative session, Florida lawmakers have introduced 85 bills restricting gender-affirming healthcare, up from 43 bills last year.
Eskamani said DeSantis should prepare for student backlash.
“When students see the visual representation of their peers around them standing up and walking out, they’re going to get plugged in and help us fight back,” she said. “That will happen.”
2nd Amendment sanctuary measure overturned in Oregon
Claire Rush and Lindsay Whitehurst – February 15, 2023
Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2023, that local governments can’t declare themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries and ban police from enforcing certain gun laws within their borders. The opinion was the first court test of the concept, which hundreds of U.S. counties have adopted in recent years. (AP Photo/Andrew Selsky, File)Firearms are displayed at a gun shop in Salem, Ore., on Feb. 19, 2021. An Oregon court decided Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2023, that local governments can’t declare themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries and ban police from enforcing certain gun laws within their borders. The opinion was the first court test of the concept, which hundreds of U.S.
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Local governments in Oregon can’t declare themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries and ban police from enforcing certain gun laws, a state appeals court decided Wednesday, in the first court case filed over a concept that hundreds of U.S. counties have adopted in recent years.
The measure in question, which was approved in Columbia County, forbids local officials from enforcing most federal and state gun laws and would impose thousands of dollars in fines on those who try.
The state Court of Appeals ruled that it violates a law giving the state the power to regulate firearms. The ordinance would effectively, it found, “create a ‘patchwork quilt’ of firearms laws in Oregon, where firearms regulations that applied in some counties would not apply in Columbia County,” something lawmakers specifically wanted to avoid.
Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions have been adopted by some 1,200 local governments around the U.S., including in Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas, Illinois and Florida, experts say. Many are symbolic, but some carry legal force like the one in Columbia County, a conservative, rural logging area in deep-blue Oregon.
The sanctuary movement took off around 2018 as states considered stricter gun laws in the wake of mass shootings, but it had not previously faced a major legal challenge.
The Oregon case was filed in 2021 under a provision in state law that allows a judge to examine a measure before it goes into effect. A trial court judge originally declined to rule, a decision that was appealed to the higher court.
The ordinance’s supporters included the Oregon Firearms Federation, which said in a statement Wednesday that the ruling “calls into question the legitimacy of the court and the likelihood of getting fair rulings from it.”
Opponents included the legal arm of the group Everytown for Gun Safety, which had argued that the ordinance violated the U.S. Constitution. Eric Tirschwell, executive director of Everytown Law, called the court’s decision “a win for public safety and the rule of law.”
“Opponents of gun safety laws have every right to advocate for change at the ballot box, statehouse, or Congress, but claiming to nullify them at the local level is both unconstitutional and dangerous,” Tirschwell said.
State Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, who has also sued two other Second Amendment sanctuary counties, also applauded the ruling.
“Today’s opinion by the Court of Appeals makes it clear that common sense requirements like safe storage and background checks apply throughout Oregon,” Rosenblum said. “Hopefully, other counties with similar measures on the books will see the writing on the wall.”
Trump Plans to Bring Back Firing Squads, Group Executions if He Retakes White House
Asawin Suebsaeng and Patrick Reis – February 14, 2023
trump firing squads – Credit: JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images
“What do you think of firing squads?”
That’s the question Donald Trump repeatedly asked some close associates in the run-up to the 2024 presidential campaign, three people familiar with the situation tell Rolling Stone.
It’s not an idle inquiry: The former president, if re-elected, is still committed to expanding the use of the federal death penalty and bringing back banned methods of execution, the sources say. He has even, one of the sources recounts, mused about televising footage of executions, including showing condemned prisoners in the final moments of their lives.
Specifically, Trump has talked about bringing back death by firing squad, by hanging, and, according to two of the sources, possibly even by guillotine. He has also, sources say, discussed group executions. Trump has floated these ideas while discussing planned campaign rhetoric and policy desires, as well as his disdain for President Biden’s approach to crime.
In at least one instance late last year, according to the third source, who has direct knowledge of the matter, Trump privately mused about the possibility of creating a flashy, government-backed video-ad campaign that would accompany a federal revival of these execution methods. In Trump’s vision, these videos would include footage from these new executions, if not from the exact moments of death. “The [former] president believes this would help put the fear of God into violent criminals,” this source says. “He wanted to do some of these [things] when he was in office, but for whatever reasons didn’t have the chance.”
A Trump spokesman denies Trump had mused about a video-ad campaign. “More ridiculous and fake news from idiots who have no idea what they’re talking about,” the spokesman writes in an email. “Either these people are fabricating lies out of thin air, or Rolling Stone is allowing themselves to be duped by these morons.”
Trump’s enthusiasm for grisly video campaigns has been documented before, including in an anecdote from a former aide that had the then-president demanding footage of “people dying in a ditch” and “bodies stacked on top of bodies” so that his administration could “scare kids so much that they will never touch a single drug in their entire life.”
Asked about firing squads and other execution methods, the spokesman refers Rolling Stone to lines from Trump’s 2024 campaign announcement. “Every drug dealer during his or her life, on average, will kill 500 people with the drugs they sell, not to mention the destruction of families. We’re going to be asking everyone who sells drugs, gets caught selling drugs, to receive the death penalty for their pain.”
At an October rally — to cheers and applause from his audience — Trump pitched a form of supposed justice that has been embraced by some brutal dictatorships. “And if [the drug dealer is] guilty, they get executed, and they send the bullet to the family and they want the family to pay for the cost of the bullet,” Trump said at the rally. “If you want to stop the drug epidemic in this country, you better do that … [even if] it doesn’t sound nice.”
The former president’s zeal for the death penalty has already proven lethal. During the final months of his administration, he oversaw the executions of 13 federal prisoners. Since 1963, only three federal prisoners had been executed, including Oklahoma City bomber and mass murderer Timothy McVeigh. In January 2021, in the final stretch before Biden would become president, Trump oversaw three executions in four days.
“In conversations I’d been in the room for, President Trump would explicitly say that he’d love a country that was totally an ‘eye for an eye’ — that’s a direct quote — criminal-justice system, and he’d talk about how the ‘right’ way to do it is to line up criminals and drug dealers before a firing squad,” says a former Trump White House official.
“You just got to kill these people,” Trump would stress, this ex-official notes.
“He had a particular affinity for the firing squad, because it seemed more dramatic, rather than how we do it, putting a syringe in people and putting them to sleep,” the former White House official adds. “He was big on the idea of executing large numbers of drug dealers and drug lords because he’d say, ‘These people don’t care about anything,’ and that they run their drug empire and their deals from prison anyways, and then they get back out on the street, get all their money again, and keep committing crimes … and therefore, they need to be eradicated, not jailed.”
Trump’s firing-squad fixation may address his desire for the “dramatic,” but some experts believe that an instant death-by-gunshot may be more humane than lethal injection. “There’s pain, certainly, but it’s transient,” according to Dr. Jonathan Groner, a professor of surgery at the Ohio State University College of Medicine. “If you’re shot in the chest and your heart stops functioning, it’s just seconds until you lose consciousness.”
Rules made during Trump’s presidency made federal firing squads more feasible. Previously, lethal injection was the only permissible federal method of execution. But under the administration’s new rules, if lethal injections are made legally or logistically unavailable, the federal government can use any method that is legal in the state where the execution is located.
The rule took effect on Dec. 24, 2020, and thus far has not been applied: All 13 Trump-era executions were done by lethal injection. But the expanded methods of execution could be relevant in the future. Opponents of the death penalty have pushed drugmakers to withhold the drugs needed to conduct lethal injections, complicating efforts to impose capital punishment. In Indiana, home to the Terre Haute facility where most federal executions are conducted, the new policies “legally open the door for the authorized use of firing squads, electrocution, or the gas chamber,” the Indianapolis Star reported at the time.
Former Attorney General Bill Barr, the ideological architect of Trump’s execution binge, told Rolling Stone in December that Trump and his administration would have had more people put to death soon, had he won a second term in 2020. “Yes — that was the expectation,” Barr succinctly summarized in a phone interview.
There could soon be a 45th prisoner on federal death row. The Justice Department is seeking the death penalty for convicted domestic terrorist Sayfullo Saipov, who steered a truck onto a bike path and pedestrian walkway in New York City on Halloween in 2017, and is set to be sentenced in federal court in the days ahead. Biden and his attorney general, Merrick Garland, implemented a moratorium on capital punishment, but the sentence would leave Saipov eligible for execution under a future president.
Trump’s plan for a 2nd term reportedly includes firing squads, hangings, and group executions
RafiSchwartz, Staff writer – February 14, 2023
Gallows outside the U.S. Capitol complex on January 6, 2021 Photo by Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post via Getty Images
As Donald Trump’s second re-election bid begins to pick up steam in the new year, details about the former president’s plans for his return to the White House have begun to emerge — including a new report from Rolling Stone, which alleges Trump has begun polling his advisers on whether he should bring back firing squads, hangings, and even the guillotine should he win in 2024.
According to two sources, the former president has even begun exploring the possibility of group executions, with a third person claiming Trump has expressed interest in a government ad campaign to highlight the administration’s lethality and, per Rolling Stone‘s source, “help put the fear of God into violent criminals.” A Trump campaign spokesperson denied the former president had plans for an execution ad campaign in a statement to Rolling Stone.
Trump’s fascination with the death penalty has long been on public display, stretching back to his call to execute the “Central Park Five,” five young Black and Latino men accused of rape and assault in the late 1980s (all were later exonerated). As Rolling Stone had previously reported, Trump had ended his first term by executing more than four times as many convicted persons in his final six months in office as the federal government had killed in total over the prior half-century. He also signed an executive order in those last weeks in office that expanded the federal government’s ability to conduct hangings and firing squads as methods of execution. And during his campaign launch in November, Trump made a special point to highlight a call to execute “everyone who sells drugs [or] gets caught selling drugs” if given a second term.
This latest report has earned harsh rebukes from some, including journalist Oliver Willis, who called it the “kind of fascist s–t Republican primary voters love.” Citing a 2016 campaign event in which Trump enthusiastically lauded the disproven myth that U.S. General John Pershing summarily executed dozens of Muslim prisoners in the Philippines with ammunition “dipped […] in pig’s blood,” Semafor Washington Bureau Chief Benjy Sarlin wryly noted that now Trump was “moderating his stance ahead of 2024, before he just favored summary executions while defiling the bodies.”
Witnesses who testified in front of the Georgia grand jury investigating Trump ‘may have lied under oath,’ judge says
Jacob Shamsian – February 13, 2023
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and former President Donald Trump.AP Photo/John Bazemore; MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images; REUTERS/Jeenah Moon
Witnesses “may have lied under oath” to a Georgia special grand jury investigating Trump’s efforts to overturn election results.
A judge said he’ll release a portion of a secret report detailing the special grand jury’s findings.
Three portions of the report will be unsealed on Thursday, the judge said.
A Georgia special grand jury that investigated Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss believes witnesses “may have lied under oath” while testifying, according to a judge who ordered the release of parts of its report.
On Monday, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney ordered the release of portions of a special grand jury report, including a section “in which the special purpose grand jury discuss its concern that some witnesses may have lied under oath.”
McBurney said three portions of the report would be made public on Thursday, February 16, giving the Fulton County district attorney’s office time to discuss redactions. Willis said she does not plan to appeal the judge’s order.
The special grand jury was empaneled throughout much of the second half of last year and heard evidence regarding Trump’s efforts to pressure Georgia officials to “find” votes that would reverse his loss to now-President Joe Biden in the state. Hearing evidence brought by the office of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, the special grand jury also investigated an effort to send fake electors to Washington, DC, on January 6, 2021, and falsely declare Trump the victor in the state’s presidential contest.
In January, the special grand jury completed a report summarizing its findings. According to McBurney’s order published Monday, it includes “a roster of who should (or should not) be indicted, and for what, in relation to the conduct (and aftermath) of the 2020 general election in Georgia.”
That report is now in the possession of Willis, who has the job of deciding whether to refer it to a regular grand jury, which can bring criminal charges in the investigation.
A group of journalism organizations sought to have the special grand jury report made public, arguing its contents were in the public interest and that it was technically a court document in the public record. But Willis argued in an extraordinary hearing in an Atlanta courtroom in late January that its contents should be kept under wraps.
In a decision published Monday morning, McBurney sided mostly with Willis, finding that releasing the entire report’s contents before Willis completes her investigation would impede on the due-process rights of various witnesses.
McBurney did, however, order the release of three parts of the special grand jury report he said were “ripe for publication,” even if Willis wanted them to be kept under lock and key.
“While publication may not be convenient for the pacing of the District Attorney’s investigation, the compelling public interest in these proceedings and the unquestionable value and importance of transparency require their release,” McBurney wrote.
Those three portions, McBurney wrote, include the report’s introduction, conclusion, and a section where the special grand jury discusses whether witnesses lied under oath.
For her investigation, Willis fought high-profile court battles to subpoena figures to testify, including Mark Meadows, Trump’s chief-of-staff at the time; Gov. Brian Kemp; Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger; the state’s Republican Party chairman, David Shafer; Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina; and more than a dozen others who spoke with Trump at the time. The case had 75 witnesses overall.
In his decision Monday, McBurney said the argument for releasing the entire report to the public may be on stronger ground after the district attorney’s office brings indictments, at which point the report may be considered an ordinary court record like a wiretap application.
“When the criminal investigation is complete and an indictment has been obtained, the wiretap application and the search warrant affidavit do become part of the court record through discovery and pre-trial litigation,” McBurney wrote in a footnote. “At that point the public’s right of access accrues. The special purpose grand jury’s final report is no different.
After their genitals were cut, some women search for healing
Mariam Fam – February 13, 2023
A 34-year-old Egyptian woman, who asked to be identified as N.S., visits a garden in Cairo, Egypt, Sept. 29, 2022. She remembers it all: How female relatives held her down when she was 11, legs spread and genitals exposed. The fear that stiffened her body. The stranger in black holding the scissors. And the pain. “I had a feeling of being incomplete and that I will never feel happy because of this,” she said. “It’s a horrible feeling.” (AP Photo/Amr Nabil)A 34-year-old Egyptian woman, who asked to be identified as N.S., holds a flower as she visits a garden in Cairo, Egypt, Sept. 29, 2022. N.S. has been on a journey to heal from physical and psychological scars after female genital cutting when she was a child. “I had a feeling of being incomplete and that I will never feel happy because of this,” she said. “It’s a horrible feeling.” (AP Photo/Amr Nabil)Dr. Reham Awwad, a surgeon and co-founder of Restore FGM, explains surgeries performed at her clinic for women suffering from the consequences of genital cutting, in Cairo, Egypt, Sept. 25, 2022. Awwad says many patients’ initial visits are emotional. “One of the first things they’ll say is, ‘I’ve never spoken about this to anybody.’” (AP Photo/Amr Nabil)Dr. Reham Awwad, a surgeon and co-founder of Restore FGM, explains surgeries performed at her clinic for women suffering from the consequences of genital cutting, in Cairo, Egypt, Sept. 25, 2022. Awwad says many patients’ initial visits are emotional. “One of the first things they’ll say is, ‘I’ve never spoken about this to anybody.’” (AP Photo/Amr Nabil)
CAIRO (AP) — She remembers it all: How female relatives held her down when she was 11, legs spread and genitals exposed. The fear that stiffened her body. The stranger in black holding the scissors. And the pain.
Like so many others, the 34-year-old Egyptian woman has lived with the psychological and physical repercussions of that day, when she was subjected to a practice many activists call “mutilation.”
For N.S., who asked to be identified only by her initials to discuss the sensitive topic, the trauma continuing into adulthood was accompanied by a desire to reclaim control over her health and body.
“I had a feeling of being incomplete and that I will never feel happy because of this,” she said. “It’s a horrible feeling.”
Meanwhile, some women living with the consequences have embarked on deeply personal journeys to heal. They search for answers, sometimes scouring the Internet, amid treatment gaps in many countries, or shame and possible related sexual complications.
Prevalent in parts of Africa, the Middle East and Asia, cutting has been performed in communities of different cultures and faiths. It can be viewed as a rite of passage or linked to beliefs about chastity or femininity and cleanliness, and be fueled from generation-to-generation by social pressure.
“It’s an entrenched social norm and really deeply rooted in cultural beliefs and sometimes in religious beliefs,” said Nafissatou Diop, an official with the United Nations Population Fund. “So to be able to make any change, people need to be convinced that this is not threatening their culture.”
It’s estimated that at least 200 million women and girls are living with the aftermath of the practice, which can include partial or total removal of their external female genitalia and can cause excessive bleeding and even death. Long term, it can lead to urinary tract infections, menstrual problems, pain, decreased sexual satisfaction and childbirth complications, as well as depression, low self-esteem and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Some faith leaders have worked to eliminate the practice, while others condone it. In Egypt, where genital cutting has been widespread but illegal since 2008, top Islamic authorities condemn the practice. In online edicts or television appearances, they cite medical evidence of its harms and say it’s a custom with no sound religious basis. Still, there’s opposition to the bans in Egypt and elsewhere.
Besides resistance from some religious leaders and other “traditional gatekeepers,” Diop said the campaign to change minds is hindered by limited funding, lack of political will from some governments and a perception that ending cutting reflects a “Western-led agenda.”
Meanwhile, some women suffering the aftereffects post anonymously online in the quest for healing. They express feelings of distress, discomfort in their own skin, embarrassment or fears that being cut could stop them from getting married or condemn their marriages to failure. Some want information on medical procedures.
Some considering medical interventions have found specialized treatment, including in the United States and Europe, where opposition to the practice is longstanding. But in many countries, options can be scarce or too costly.
“There are so many treatment gaps in a lot of countries where FGM is really widely practiced,” said Christina Pallitto, a scientist leading the work on FGM at the World Health Organization. “A lot of health care providers receive no training at all.”
N.S. turned to a private clinic in Egypt, Restore FGM, that opened in 2020 and has promoted treatments on Instagram and other social media.
Dr. Reham Awwad, a plastic surgeon and clinic co-founder, said many patients’ initial visits are emotional. “One of the first things they’ll say is, ‘I’ve never spoken about this to anybody,’” she said.
The clinic, which also attracts clients from Sudan and elsewhere, offers surgical and non-surgical therapies. Psychological therapy is recommended, but many don’t pursue it, Awwad said.
N.S. has struggled with anger at her parents and low self-confidence. She’s wrestled with sensitive questions: Will sex hurt? Will cutting lead to sexual problems in a marriage? What about pregnancy and childbirth? She struggled with pain and difficulty reaching orgasm.
At Restore FGM, she opted for “reconstruction” surgery to remove scar tissue, expose uncut parts of the clitoris and make that more accessible. But some experts view the procedure with caution.
Surgeons who back it say it can improve function and appearance, and reduce pain. Others, including the WHO, call for more research and say there isn’t adequate evidence to assess benefits, possible complications or long-term outcomes.
“We don’t have a recommendation in favor of that at this moment because of the lack of evidence on the safety and the efficacy,” said WHO’s Pallitto. “Any woman who has clitoral reconstruction should be offered sexual health counseling in conjunction with it.” Neither the procedure nor such counseling is widely available in high prevalence countries, she added.
It’s been more than a year since N.S. underwent the surgery. After treatment for post-surgery bruising, she’s feeling better. “I no longer feel pain,” she said. “Sensation has also improved a lot.”
But her journey isn’t over. “I still need to work on accepting myself, accepting that this has happened to me and that it has been treated,” she said. “The operation on its own is not enough. … I don’t feel like I am completely over the trauma and I still struggle with the idea of physical touch.”
She wants to pursue psychological therapy but says she can’t afford it and worries about finding someone she can trust with such intimate details.
Basma Kamel recalled bleeding badly days after getting cut — at the hands of a doctor — when she was 9. For a long time, the 30-year-old Egyptian couldn’t trust her mother. Eventually, she concluded her mother didn’t know better and didn’t mean to hurt her. But feelings of being “different” lingered.
After moving from Egypt to England, she started looking for answers and turned to an FGM clinic and charity group for talk therapy. She’s made progress, but her self-acceptance work is ongoing.
“The goal is to find peace with myself and accept my body and accept that I am a normal person,” she said. “Even if I have, like, a missing part from my body, I’m still a normal woman.”
Dr. Jasmine Abdulcadir, a gynecologist at Geneva University Hospitals, treats women, mostly from East and West Africa, who underwent genital cutting.
The women have options for medical intervention, including a procedure to re-open a narrowed vaginal opening to help with everything from urination and menstruation to natural childbirth.
Clitoral reconstruction surgery also is an option. Abdulcadir said the procedure for that includes meeting with a psychologist, who is also a trauma-trained sex therapist, and making sure patients are prepared if the surgery ends up being mentally triggering.
She said some patients said they felt “born again” post-surgery, which she attributes to her practice’s holistic approach.
“What is very important is that you are not just focusing on the clitoris,” Abdulcadir said. “It’s really the health of the person.”
N.S. has yet to tell her family about her surgery. One day she might; she especially wants to tell her sister who was cut the same day she was.
But she does speak up when she can.
She threatened to call the police on learning some relatives were considering genital cutting for their daughters even though the practice is outlawed in Egypt.
“I didn’t want anyone else to be tormented like I was,” she said. “Someone must put their foot down and say: ‘Enough.’”
Deepti Hajela in New York contributed.
Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.
DeSantis’ attempt to roll back diversity, equity, and inclusion is doomed to fail | Opinion
Ben Wright – February 12, 2023
I’ve had a front row seat for Gov. Ron DeSantis’ attempts to overhaul Florida’s university system. My eldest son is currently a junior at New College of Florida which is ground-zero in this struggle. He didn’t choose New College because of some liberal ideology; he was excited about small class sizes, accessible professors, and its designation as an honors college. New College has been a great experience. Now, the rug is being pulled out from under him. His tiny school is the first test in a state-wide experiment that is coming to a campus near you.
It’s almost guaranteed DeSantis is running for president. By claiming that Florida’s universities and colleges are filled with radically liberal professors that are indoctrinating our students, the governor has discovered a way to energize his Republican base and present himself as a champion for conservatives. Are independent voters in Arizona and Pennsylvania going to lose sleep over the reshuffling of Florida’s colleges? Probably not. He has found an issue where he can win the hearts of Republicans without alienating the independent voters that he needs to win the presidency.
The governor is targeting many aspects of higher education, but his main line of attack is focused on eliminating “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) programs from state colleges and universities. Ironically, under DeSantis, the Board of Governors insisted that universities adopt these DEI programs just a few years ago.
DeSantis’ government overreach may be an important building block in his run for the presidency, but it will do long-lasting harm to Florida’s institutions of higher learning. Florida’s universities spend time, money, and resources to attract talented students and faculty … and they have been successful. There are many jokes about our weird and wonderful Florida, but our higher education system has garnered well-deserved respect in recent years.
Universities in other states are now poised to start poaching these talented folks with promises of true academic freedom. Florida will lose talented professors and students through attrition and find it more difficult to attract quality replacements. The governor’s decision to use these schools as pawns in his political games will cause long-term damage to the institutions and the degrees they issue.
In the real world, corporate America has overwhelmingly adopted diversity, equity, and inclusion. All the Fortune 100 companies have made a public commitment to DEI. Why? Because the young, talented workers they want to attract are demanding it. Employees now expect their employer to promote the values they hold. Why did Disney come out against DeSantis’ “Don’t Say Gay” law? Because Disney employees around the country wouldn’t stand for anything less. The unemployment rate is unprecedentedly low … it’s hard to attract top talent. Millennials and Gen-Z are driving the workforce now and they expect DEI to be a priority.
The changes at New College of Florida are just the opening gambit in a much larger plan. DeSantis’ attempt to roll back diversity, equity, and inclusion is doomed to fail. It’s akin to closing the barn door after the horse has already bolted. In the meantime, his political ploy will do lasting harm to our state universities and colleges … and undermine the competitiveness of our college graduates.
Tallahassee resident Ben Wright is a third generation Floridian and former captain in the U.S. Air Force. He graduated from Indian River State College, the University of Florida, and Regis University in Colorado with an M.B.A. He works for a Fortune 500 company and his oldest son attends New College of Florida.
A Close Look at the Chaotic House Republican Majority
Karen Yourish, Danielle Ivory and Charlie Smart – February 12, 2023
Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy of Calif., ends the joint session of Congress after President Joe Biden delivered the State of the Union address at the U.S. Capitol, Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2023, in Washington. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh) (ASSOCIATED PRESS)
The tumult that broke out last month during the election of Kevin McCarthy for speaker illustrated the potential for profound dysfunction in the new House Republican majority. And the spectacle created by Republican lawmakers at the State of the Union address showed the unruly behavior of some in the GOP rank and file that is becoming a new normal.
Many lawmakers who were leading a chorus of boos and heckling were familiar faces from the far right, including some who are poised to wield real power in the 118th Congress. The defining dynamic for House Republicans, who have a four-vote majority, may be the push and pull between the far right and the rest of the Republican conference.
Here is a closer look at the fractious House Republican caucus:
Of the 222 House Republicans, more than 50 lawmakers explicitly denied the 2020 election results, were supported by the House Freedom Fund during the midterms or both. The fund is the campaign arm of the House Freedom Caucus, a hard-line faction founded in 2015 that has often (but not always) aligned with former President Donald Trump, has tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act and has opposed legislation to protect same-sex marriage rights.
Among them are the 20 Republicans who repeatedly voted against McCarthy for speaker, viewing him as insufficiently conservative and too cozy with the Washington establishment.
More than 50 representatives have co-sponsored articles of impeachment against Alejandro N. Mayorkas, the homeland security secretary, so far this session. Hard-line Republicans intent on attacking the Biden administration see Mayorkas as the face of failures at the border.
Some far-right lawmakers and those who have embraced conspiracy theories have landed seats on the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, the main investigative organ in the House. They will be in a position to shape inquiries into the Biden administration and on other issues.
Across the ideological spectrum are 119 of the 139 representatives who objected to certifying the 2020 Electoral College results, including all but one member of the House GOP leadership team.
Mainly tilting toward the other end of the spectrum are the 18 Republicans who represent districts that Joe Biden won in 2020. Many of these lawmakers, who include 11 newcomers, have indicated a greater willingness to work on bipartisan legislation than their peers.
And there are also 20 lawmakers who in 2021 bucked Trump and the rest of the party by voting to impeach him or to form an independent commission to investigate the Jan. 6 attack at the U.S. Capitol.
Departures and Newcomers
The caucus has shifted toward the right in other ways too, because of the departure of conservatives who bucked the party. Nearly three-quarters of Republican House members who did not run for reelection or who lost their primaries in 2022 voted to impeach Trump or to form the Jan. 6 commission. Almost all of that group also voted to certify the 2020 Electoral College results, in defiance of Trump and a vast majority of House Republicans.
Because of redistricting, it is not possible to do a one-to-one match for every seat, but some newcomers who align more closely with the far right were elected to seats previously held by Democrats or Republicans who voted to impeach Trump or to create the Jan. 6 commission.
One of five newcomers who opposed McCarthy’s speaker bid, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, took over a seat previously held by a Democrat, Charlie Crist, who ran against (and lost to) Ron DeSantis for Florida governor. Luna has explicitly said the 2020 election was stolen and has joined the House Freedom Caucus.
Rep. Harriet Hageman of Wyoming, who has also denied the 2020 election results, defeated Rep. Liz Cheney in the primary. Hageman was appointed by McCarthy to the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, which will focus on finding evidence that the government has silenced and punished conservatives.
Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee, the member who screamed, “It’s your fault!” when Biden called for an end to the fentanyl crisis during the State of the Union address, replaced Rep. Jim Cooper, a Democrat who retired after redistricting diluted Democrats’ power in the Nashville-area district. Ogles also opposed McCarthy’s speaker bid and has explicitly said the 2020 election was stolen.
In all, more than one-third of the 41 Republican newcomers explicitly denied the results of the 2020 election, were supported by the House Freedom Fund or both.
About a half dozen political experts who spoke with The New York Times said that many members of the Republican caucus have learned there is value in being antagonistic and refusing to compromise — a harbinger of more chaos to come.
“Confrontation attracts attention, and, you know, the attention economy has always been important for politicians,” said Richard H. Pildes, a professor at New York University’s School of Law. “But traditionally you had to go through a series of gatekeepers or mediating institutions to get that kind of attention. The average member of the House wasn’t able to generate that kind of attention for themselves in a way that they, of course, now can very easily.”
Beyond attention, being confrontational appears to have financial incentives as well.
The internet has enabled a flood of money from small donors, which, Pildes said, has allowed politicians to bring in large sums without having to rely on large donors or party funds. Indeed, a Times investigation last year found that objecting to the results of the 2020 Electoral College was politically profitable.
“We’ve come to recognize the role of more extremism and more outrage, provoking more attention, provoking more media coverage, provoking more small-donor contributions,” Pildes said. “And I think that’s part of the story here.”
Living with natural gas pipelines: Appalachian landowners describe fear, anxiety and loss
Erin Brock Carlson, Assistant Professor of Professional Writing and Editing, West Virginia University and Martina Angela Caretta, Senior Lecturer in Human Geography, Lund University – February 11, 2023
Pipeline construction cuts through forests and farms in Appalachia. Provided by Erin Brock Carlson, CC BY-SA
Many of these lines were built in just the past five years to carry natural gas from the Marcellus Shale region of Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, where hydraulic fracturing has boomed. West Virginia alone has seen a fourfold increase in natural gas production in the past decade.
Such fast growth has also brought hundreds of safety and environmental violations, particularly under the Trump administration’s reduced oversight and streamlined approvals for pipeline projects. While energy companies promise economic benefits for depressed regions, pipeline projects are upending the lives of people in their paths.- ADVERTISEMENT -https://s.yimg.com/rq/darla/4-10-1/html/r-sf-flx.html
As a technical and professional communication scholar focused on how rural communities deal with complex problems and a geography scholar specializing in human-environment interactions, we teamed up to study the effects of pipeline development in rural Appalachia. In 2020, we surveyed and talked with dozens of people living close to pipelines in West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
What we found illuminates the stress and uncertainty that communities experience when natural gas pipelines change their landscape. Residents live with the fear of disasters, the noise of construction and the anxiety of having no control over their own land.
‘None of this is fair’
Appalachians are no strangers to environmental risk. The region has a long and complicated history with extractive industries, including coal and hydraulic fracturing. However, it’s rare to hear firsthand accounts of the long-term effects of industrial infrastructure development in rural communities, especially when it comes to pipelines, since they are the result of more recent energy-sector growth.
For all of the people we talked to, the process of pipeline development was drawn out and often confusing.
Some reported never hearing about a planned pipeline until a “land man” – a gas company representative – knocked on their door offering to buy a slice of their property; others said that they found out through newspaper articles or posts on social media. Every person we spoke with agreed that the burden ultimately fell on them to find out what was happening in their communities.
A map shows U.S. pipelines carrying natural gas and hazardous liquids in 2018. More construction has been underway since then. GAO and U.S. Department of Transportation
One woman in West Virginia said that after finding out about plans for a pipeline feeding a petrochemical complex several miles from her home, she started doing her own research. “I thought to myself, how did this happen? We didn’t know anything about it,” she said. “It’s not fair. None of this is fair. … We are stuck with a polluting company.”
‘Lawyers ate us up’
If residents do not want pipelines on their land, they can pursue legal action against the energy company rather than taking a settlement. However, this can result in the use of eminent domain.
Eminent domain is a right given by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to companies to access privately held property if the project is considered important for public need. Compensation is decided by the courts, based on assessed land value, not taking into consideration the intangibles tied to the loss of the land surrounding one’s home, such as loss of future income.
Through this process, residents can be forced to accept a sum that doesn’t take into consideration all effects of pipeline construction on their land, such as the damage heavy equipment will do to surrounding land and access roads.
One man we spoke with has lived on his family’s land for decades. In 2018, a company representative approached him for permission to install a new pipeline parallel to one that had been in place since 1962, far away from his house. However, crews ran into problems with the steep terrain and wanted to install it much closer to his home. Unhappy with the new placement, and seeing erosion from pipeline construction on the ridge behind his house causing washouts, he hired a lawyer. After several months of back and forth with the company, he said, “They gave me a choice: Either sign the contract or do the eminent domain. And my lawyer advised me that I didn’t want to do eminent domain.”
Pipeline construction cuts through a farmer’s field. Provided by Erin Brock Carlson, CC BY-SA
There was a unanimous sense among the 31 people we interviewed that companies have seemingly endless financial and legal resources, making court battles virtually unwinnable. Nondisclosure agreements can effectively silence landowners. Furthermore, lawyers licensed to work in West Virginia who aren’t already working for gas companies can be difficult to find, and legal fees can become too much for residents to pay.
One woman, the primary caretaker of land her family has farmed for 80 years, found herself facing significant legal fees after a dispute with a gas company. “We were the first and last ones to fight them, and then people saw what was going to happen to them, and they just didn’t have – it cost us money to get lawyers. Lawyers ate us up,” she said.
The pipeline now runs through what were once hayfields. “We haven’t had any income off that hay since they took it out in 2016,” she said. “It’s nothing but a weed patch.”
‘I mean, who do you call?’
Twenty-six of the 45 survey respondents reported that they felt that their property value had decreased as a result of pipeline construction, citing the risks of water contamination, explosion and unusable land.
Many of the 31 people we interviewed were worried about the same sort of long-term concerns, as well as gas leaks and air pollution. Hydraulic fracturing and other natural gas processes can affect drinking water resources, especially if there are spills or improper storage procedures. Additionally, methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and volatile organic compounds, which can pose health risks, are byproducts of the natural gas supply chain.
Oil spills are a major concern among land owners. Provided by Erin Brock Carlson, CC BY-SA
“Forty years removed from this, are they going to be able to keep track and keep up with infrastructure? I mean, I can smell gas as I sit here now,” one man told us. His family had watched the natural gas industry move into their part of West Virginia in the mid-2010s. In addition to a 36-inch pipe on his property, there are several smaller wells and lines. “This year the company servicing the smaller lines has had nine leaks … that’s what really concerns me,” he said.
The top concern mentioned by survey respondents was explosions.
According to data from 2010 to 2018, a pipeline explosion occurred, on average, every 11 days in the U.S. While major pipeline explosions are relatively rare, when they do occur, they can be devastating. In 2012, a 20-inch transmission line exploded in Sissonville, West Virginia, damaging five homes and leaving four lanes of Interstate 77 looking “like a tar pit.”
A gas line explosion near Sissonville, West Virginia, sent flames across Interstate 77. AP Photo/Joe Long
Amplifying these fears is the lack of consistent communication from corporations to residents living along pipelines. Approximately half the people we interviewed reported that they did not have a company contact to call directly in case of a pipeline emergency, such as a spill, leak or explosion. “I mean, who do you call?” one woman asked.
‘We just keep doing the same thing’
Several people interviewed described a fatalistic attitude toward energy development in their communities.
“It’s just kind of sad because they think, once again, this will be West Virginia’s salvation,” one landowner said. “Harvesting the timber was, then digging the coal was our salvation. … And then here’s the third one. We just keep doing the same thing.”
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. The Conversation is trustworthy news from experts. Try our free newsletters.
The Republican Distraction Farm Is Failing Because They’re Employing Less Talented Grievance-Farmers
Jack Holmes – February 10, 2023
Republican Grievance-Farmers Lose Green ThumbsPool – Getty Images
“Hearst Magazines and Yahoo may earn commission or revenue on some items through these links.”
Sarah Huckabee Sanders, now the governor of Arkansas, gave a rebuttal to President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address this week that suggested Republicans have learned precious few lessons from their dramatic underperformance in the midterms. Biden’s speech was a full-throated appeal to everyday Americans on populist economic grounds—one that actually echoed some of Donald Trump’s rhetoric in the 2016 campaign. Sanders brought the now-standard routine about The Woke Mob “that can’t even tell you what a woman is,” and that is ushering in a world where “children are taught to hate one another on account of their race.” She referred to “C.R.T.” as if everyone listening would know that stands for Critical Race Theory (and that it is inherently evil). Sanders did outline a plan to raise starting salaries for Arkansas teachers, which is welcome in an era in which the American right increasingly seeks to paint educators as rogue agents of Woke determined to brainwash your kids.
The latter is the kind of stuff that cost them seats in the midterms. It hits squarely with people who are up-to-date on their Fox News folklore, fluent in the language of culture-war apocalypto. But for most people, it’s probably pretty weird. They mostly like their kids’ teachers, who are usually trying to do the best job they can in sometimes challenging circumstances. For years, the Democratic Party was the one considered out of touch, if only because of the alienating way that some liberals talked about the issues. But that’s now the Republican Party’s stock-in-trade. The right’s rising star—at least in the view of media-politico types—is the governor of Florida, Ronald DeSantis, who has replaced his pandemic anti-interventionist crusade (which at least dealt with a major issue of public concern) with campaigns against Woke Corporations and in favor of the government’s prerogative to police what teachers teach in schools. It’s gotten fewer national headlines that he, too, has sought to raise salaries, but that nugget is competing with news that teachers have been told to remove or cover up books out of fear they could face criminal charges for their content.
Maybe DeSantis is reluctant to talk about other parts of his record because, as the political press finally turns to it, we’re fully realizing how committed he once was to changing Social Security and Medicare. (We’ve also seen how touchy Republicans get when you talk about this since Biden brought it up at the State of the Union. Even a talk-radio host interviewing Ron Johnson was explicitly trying to brand this stuff as “reforms” not “cuts.”) The president pointed out that some Republicans—including chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and Lizard-American Rick Scott—have called for sunsetting all federal legislation after five years. This would by definition include Medicare and Social Security.
Time will tell if Ronald DeSantis is the kind of right-winger who can still thread the needle.SOPA Images – Getty Images
Maybe they would be renewed as-is, but that’s quite a bet to make, particularly when you examine the record of the hospital chain Scott once ran. DeSantis, though, used to be even more forthright. He supported privatizing aspects of both programs in his 2012 congressional campaign, CNN found, and once in Congress he supported Paul Ryan’s agenda on “entitlements.” (They are earned benefits.) All this is based on the combined notions that these programs are fiscally unsustainable and raising taxes is a kind of supreme evil. None of this is new: George W. Bush tried to privatize Social Security. Ronald Reagan launched his political career with this stuff. Maybe DeSantis is an example of how how you can get away with this kind of policy record, considering he’s extremely popular in the old folks’ Mecca of Florida. Or maybe we in the press have just done a godawful job.
Republicans lose votes when people get a good look at their proposals on these issues, so maybe it’s no wonder they’re now permanently engaged in culture-war food fights. Except that also seems to have lost its luster outside The Base. Trump at least had a canny ear for the more transcendent gripes, particularly in 2016. His would-be successors are less talented grievance farmers, and some absolute loony toons have joined their ranks in Congress. It’s not a change so much as it’s become more obvious than it was that Republicans have no plans to address problems in normal people’s lives. They’re getting so high on their own supply that they can no longer even explain some of these bedrocks of their politics. The Louisville Courier-Journal‘s Joe Sonka asked Kentucky Senate President Robert Stivers for his definition of “woke” on Friday and he replied, “Woke? That is the definition to me that is a describing of a mentality or a culture that certain individuals have about how things are progressing through society.” Hey man, maybe carve out some time to think about this or just admit that it’s become a hollow vehicle for reactionary rage.
