Given the choice between Republicans who are explicitly committed to doing away with collective bargaining rights and Democrats, public-sector labor unions tend to back Democrats at election time.
But that does not mean that unions are always satisfied with Democratic Party policies—or with Democratic policymakers.
This is especially true with regard to education debates. There are certainly Democrats who have been strong advocates for public schools. But there are also Democratic mayors, governors, members of Congress and cabinet members such as Secretary of Education Arne Duncan who have embraced and advanced “reforms” that supporters of public schools identify as destructive.
Duncan’s policies were so appealing to 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney—who explicitly praised the “good things” the education secretary was doing—that education writer Dave Murray wrote a 2012 article headlined, “Could a Romney Administration include Arne Duncan, President Obama’s education secretary?”
Former US Assistant Secretary of Education Diane Ravitch, who has emerged as a leading champion of public education, refers to Duncan as “one of the worst Secretaries of Education”— arguing that “Duncan’s policies demean the teaching profession by treating student test scores as a proxy for teacher quality.
Teachers are pushing back against Duncan and those policies.
The NEA Representative Assembly joins other educators and parents in calling for the resignation of U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan for the Department’s failed education agenda focused on more high-stakes testing, grading and pitting public school students against each other based on test scores, and for continuing to promote policies and decisions that undermine public schools and colleges, the teaching education professionals, and education unions.
Duncan is not about to resign. Instead, he dismisses the resolution with a typically glib DC-insider dig about how he is “trying to stay out of local union politics.”
But the NEA statement is not a “local” resolution.
This is a call for the resignation of a Democratic secretary of education from the nation’s largest professional employee organization—a union with 3 million members working from the pre-school to university graduate program levels of public education in 14,000 communities across the United States.
Past resolutions urging Duncan’s resignation failed to gain traction with NEA representative assemblies. But this year, the delegates determined that it was time for the education secretary to go.
Even if Duncan does not seem to take the call seriously, the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress should.
For a number of years now, teachers, parents and students have expressed mounting frustration—and appropriate anger—with the focus of Duncan and other education policymakers on standardized testing that they say makes evaluation a bigger priority than actual education.
“For us, one thing is clear: before anything is going to get better: It’s the Testing, Stupid,” the incoming president of the NEA, Utah teacher Lily Eskelsen García, told delegates to the representative assembly. “Better yet, it’s the stupid testing.”
In her speech, Eskelsen García decried what she referred to as a “phony” accountability system that she said hurts students and demeans the teaching profession.
Members of the California Teachers Association, who submitted the resolution urging Duncan to quit, have been especially blunt in their calls for Duncan to exit the cabinet.
Upset both with the education secretary’s emphasis on standardized testing and with Duncan’s response to a recent court ruling that eliminated workplaces protections for teachers, the CTA says:
Authentic education change only comes when all stakeholders— teachers, parents, administrators and the community—work together to best meet the needs of the students in their school or college. Teachers are not the problem. Teachers are part of the solution. And it’s time we have a Secretary of Education who understands and believes that.
Read Next: Ari Berman on the challenges to North Carolina’s voting law
Winston-Salem—In March 1965, Carolyn Coleman, a young activist with the Alabama NAACP, marched to Montgomery in support of the Voting Rights Act.
After the passage of the VRA, Coleman spent a year registering voters in Mississippi, where her friend Wharlest Jackson, an NAACP leader in Natchez, was killed in early February 1967 by a car bomb after receiving a promotion at the local tire plant. A year later, Coleman was in Memphis organizing striking sanitation workers when Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated.
Coleman devoted her life to expanding the franchise for the previously disenfranchised, serving as president of the North Carolina NAACP and Southern voter education director for the national NAACP. For the past twelve years, she’s been a county commissioner in Greensboro’s Guilford County.
Nearly fifty years after marching for voting rights in Alabama, Coleman testified in federal court today in Winston-Salem against North Carolina’s new voting restrictions, which have been described as the most onerous in the nation. The law mandates strict voter ID, cuts early voting by a week and eliminates same-day registration, among many other things. After the bill’s passage, “I was devastated,” Coleman testified. “I felt like I was living life over again. Everything that I worked for for the last fifty years was being lost.”
The federal government and civil rights groups, including the ACLU and the North Carolina NAACP, asked Judge Thomas Schroeder, a George W. Bush appointee for the Middle District of North Carolina, to enjoin key provisions of the law before the 2014 midterms under Section 2 of the VRA. They’re specifically targeting the cuts to early voting, the elimination of same-day registration during the early voting period and the prohibition on counting provisional ballots accidentally cast in the wrong precinct. (The new voter ID law, unlike the above provisions, doesn’t go into effect until 2016, although the state is doing a “test run” in 2014 where poll workers can ask for photo ID although voters don’t have to provide it.) The hearing is expected to last until later in the week, with a decision in the next month or so.
“These provisions have the purpose and result of denying and abridging the right to vote for African-Americans,” argued DOJ attorney Catherine Meza. The plaintiffs say the new restrictions disadvantage minority voters at a greater rate than white voters, in violation of Section 2’s ban on racial discrimination in voting.
Consider this data, via the DOJ’s brief:
Seventy percent of African-Americans voted early in 2012, compared to 51 percent of whites. African-Americans were also more likely to vote early during the now-eliminated first week of early voting, when 900,000 North Carolinians cast their ballots—35 percent of the total vote in 2012.
Black voters were over 35 percent more likely than white voters to register using same-day registration.
And black voters were twice as likely to cast an out-of-precinct provisional ballot as white voters.
According to expert witness Charles Stewart, a political scientist at MIT, if the law had been in effect in 2012, “over 30,000 African-Americans who registered during the same-day registration period would have been unable to register during that period, almost 300,000 [black] early voters would have been shoehorned into more congested early voting and Election Day voting sites, and at least 2,000 African-American voters would have had their out-of-precinct votes left uncounted.”
North Carolina officials responded that the voting changes weren’t a big deal. The new law “puts North Carolina in the mainstream of other states with regard to election laws,” argued Butch Bowers, a South Carolina—based lawyer representing North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory. Bowers’s statement implicitly suggested that there was something extreme about adopting election procedures that lead to higher voter turnout.
Indeed, the new voting law repealed or curtailed nearly every reform passed by the state in the past two decades that encouraged more people to vote. In 1996, North Carolina ranked forty-third nationally in voter turnout. By 2012, thanks to measures like same-day registration and expanded early voting, North Carolina ranked eleventh.
In March 1965, when LBJ introduced the VRA, 46.8 percent of black North Carolinians were registered to vote compared to 96.8 percent of whites. But in 2008 and 2012, for the first time in state history, black turnout exceeded white turnout. The legislature “targeted the very reforms that expanded voting opportunities for African-Americans,” argued DOJ attorney Meza.
North Carolina is the perfect case study for what happened after the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act.
In April 2013, the North Carolina House passed a sixteen-page voter ID bill that required a government-issued photo ID to cast a ballot, but also accepted student IDs from state universities and public employee IDs. The bill languished in the North Carolina Senate until the Supreme Court overturned Section 4 of the VRA, freeing states like North Carolina from having to clear their voting changes with the federal government.
Within a month of the Shelby County v. Holder decision, the Senate introduced a fifty-seven-page “monster” (so dubbed by Democracy NC) that required strict voter ID (no student IDs, no public employees IDs allowed), cut early voting, eliminated same-day registration, repealed out-of-precinct voting, axed pre-registration for high school students, ended public financing of judicial elections, increased the number of poll challengers and even got rid of Citizen Awareness Month, which encouraged North Carolinians to register to vote. The bill passed in two days, with no public input. Rev. William Barber, president of the North Carolina NAACP, calls it “the greatest attack on voting rights since Jim Crow.”
The law likely would’ve never been introduced by the legislature—let alone cleared by the federal government, since the burden of proof would have been on the state to show an absence of voting discrimination—if the Supreme Court had preserved Section 4.
Instead, under Section 2, the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs and the law is in effect unless Judge Schroeder grants a preliminary injunction. (There will be a full trial on the constitutionality of the law in July 2015.) We’re in uncharted territory. Section 2 has heretofore been used mainly to challenge discriminatory election systems or redistricting plans, not block recent vote denial efforts like cutting early voting or eliminating same-day registration.
After the hearing, eight hundred North Carolinians gathered in downtown Winston-Salem for a “Moral March to the Polls” event protesting the law. “I know it’s hot out here,” Barber told the crowd. “But it’s going to be hotter if you let them take our vote away.”
There’s been much to-do in the past month about the “war on coal,” the latest front of which is, supposedly, the Environmental Protection Agency’s new rule to cut carbon emissions from power plants. This “war” has already been invoked in midterm election campaigns, not just by Republicans but also by coal-state Democrats who protest that the industry is being singled out for euthanasia.
They’re half right. It’s important to distinguish between coal mining communities and Big Coal corporations; technology and geology doomed the former, not government policy. Coal mining jobs have been disappearing for decades as strip mines and advanced machinery made the work less dependent on human labor. In Appalachia, coal itself has run out, at least in reserves that are economically feasible to mine. Still, Big Coal’s investors and political supporters are right to notice that in a carbon-constrained world, their product has to be phased out even further. Burning carbon rocks is just irreconcilable with climate action.
What all this “war on coal” talk is missing is the fact that while the Obama administration is taking steps to discourage coal consumption at home, it is tacitly promoting coal exports overseas. Last week the Bureau of Land Management announced plans to lease more than 8 million tons of coal on public lands in Colorado’s Delta County—a continuation of a decades-long debacle known as the federal coal leasing program, which has cost taxpayers billions and effectively acted as a subsidy for Big Coal.
The primary benefit of the Delta County sale, according to the BLM’s environmental impact statement, is that it will be a “contribution to the supply of coal to meet the nation’s energy demands.” This is a fishy statement considering that demand for coal in the United States is at a twenty-four-year low. It looks particularly ludicrous in light of the fact that the prospective buyer, Bowie Resources, has been aggressively trying to develop new pathways to get its landlocked Western reserves to Asia—in other words, is actively looking for ways to avoid contributing to the domestic coal supply.
Bowie’s financial incentives are simple: demand for coal is still growing overseas, particularly in China, and it makes sense to go in search of higher price outside the United States. But things get more complicated when the coal Bowie and other producers are selling is taxpayer-owned, as most Western coal stocks are. Among the many problems with the leasing program is that the BLM “does not fully account for export potential” when it prices publicly owned coal, according to a 2013 report by the Interior Department’s inspector general. While giving producers access to below-market coal was originally intended to ensure a cheap supply of domestic energy, the leasing program now looks more like an arrangement benefitting Big Coal alone. As Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey wrote in a February letter calling for a moratorium on new federal coal leases, “Taxpayers are likely losing out so that coal companies can reap a windfall and export that coal overseas where it is burned, worsening climate change. This is a bad deal all around.”
So far the Obama administration has failed to address the climate implications of subsidizing coal exports with below-market prices (or, for that matter, the contradictions between the president’s climate agenda and his “all of the above” energy strategy more generally). It looks like the courts may beat the administration to the punch. Days before the Delta County sale was announced, a US District judge ruled that the BLM and the US Forest Service violated federal law by failing to consider the social cost of carbon before approving an expansion of a coal lease in Colorado’s Gunnison County. “While the agencies provided an adequate disclosure of effects on adjacent lands, their treatment of the costs associated with [greenhouse gas] emissions from the mine was arbitrary and capricious,” wrote Judge R. Brooke Jackson.
So far Big Coal’s export-expansion dreams have been kept at bay by local opposition to new port facilities in California and the Pacific Northwest. But that doesn’t resolve the incoherence between Obama’s regulatory agenda at home, which is intended to cut carbon emissions, and the administration’s resistance to considering the global warming implications of the leasing program, which continues largely unreformed despite successive reports of poor management. If Big Coal is dying, it’s going out with a bang; according to the BLM, leases are pending for 3.5 billion tons.
Read Next: Eric Alterman and Reed Richardson on how the media enable the right wing’s politicization of science
“Inequality” is out as a White House talking point, The Washington Post reported on July 4. “Opportunity” is in. This is a problem. It’s just wrongheaded to believe that we face a binary choice: reform an unequal system or help the middle class.
By implying that there is a disconnect between inequality and opportunity, (many, not all) Democrats ignore the fact that opportunity cannot be provided as long as the economic and financial system is so unequal. Some, like Senator Elizabeth Warren, intuitively understand this. After all, she first came to Washington to battle a system that has long been rigged against the middle class, where working families’ voices get overpowered by well-funded lobbyists who hold elected officials by the pocket. By creating an artificial division between inequality and opportunity, we turn a blind eye to this rampant unfairness that helped the 1 percent ascend to their economic perches in the first place.
We also accept the built-in unfairness of the system as, simply, the way things are. Robert Borosage, co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future, labels this flawed way of thinking “passive-voice populism.” We assume that the ups and downs of the American middle class are as natural and as out-of-our-hands as the ebb and flow of the tides: economic inequality as an act of god. But, Borosage writes, “inequality didn’t just happen to us. It wasn’t inevitable. Just as the broad middle class was constructed brick by brick after World War II, the decline of that middle class was constructed policy-by-policy, step-by-step over the last three decades.” Or, as Warren Buffett famously said in 2011, “[T]here’s been class warfare going on for the last twenty years, and my class has won. We’re the ones that have gotten our tax rates reduced dramatically.”
If we want to really create “opportunity” within our system, then we need to change the system. We need more than, as Borosage wrote today, “rhetorical pablum about lifting the middle class.” A solution, he continues, “will involve taking on the rigged game and changing the rules. And that inevitably will require curbing Wall Street, taxing the wealthy and making vital public investments, closing the tax havens and dodges of the multinationals, requiring the Federal Reserve to favor a full employment economy for workers rather than an austerity regime for bankers, and much more.”
On May 1, Senator Warren (D-MA) wrote in a prescriptive CNN op-ed, “We can repair the cracks in the middle class. We can strengthen our foundations and make sure that all of our children have a fighting chance. But it means changing who Washington works for—and doesn’t.”
It means providing opportunity by addressing inequality—at the same time.
Read Next: On this Fourth of July, meet your unpatriotic corporations
Since the Democrats have pretty much avoided mentioning gun control since 1994, when the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives was largely (though mistakenly) credited to the National Rifle Association, the party can’t complain too much about Chris Christie’s veto last week of legislation that would have cut the number of bullets allowed in a magazine from fifteen to ten. Hardly a radical goal, but one calculated to win Christie support from Republican voters in 2016 primaries.
In New Jersey at least, the Democrats and local opinion makers are letting Christie know that they’re unhappy, including the Newark Star-Ledger, which in an editorial called the veto a “self-serving political stunt.”
But when Christie gets his questionnaire in the mail from Mike Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety, he can safely answer it in such a way that warms the hearts of NRA supporters and their government-hating, gun-totin’ friends in the Tea Party.
That doesn’t mean that the Tea Party is ready, just yet, to endorse Christie in 2016. As the Tea Party News Network says, they’re happy that Christie vetoed the bill from New Jersey “gun-grabbing tyrants,” but they urge the governor to stay right where he is:
As America geared up for celebrating our Independence Day, New Jersey governor Chris Christie did something very American: he stood up to gun-grabbing tyrants. While the Tea Party has soured on Chris Christie (for some very good and obvious reasons), let’s give credit where credit is due: this was the right call from Christie. Of course, this is not enough to earn him any true Tea Party support for a presidential bid (not by a long shot), but Christie’s actions prove what many Tea Partiers have long contended: that Chris Christie is the right Republican for New Jersey…and he should stay there.
In New Jersey, state legislative leaders are blasting Christie, needless to say. A lead sponsor of the legislation, Assembly majority leader Louis Greenwald, released a statement noting that Christie’s veto “came only minutes after the families of children who were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School visited the New Jersey Statehouse to deliver petitions urging the governor to support the measure.” Greenwald’s statement said:
The governor’s action today can best be described with the words used in his own veto statement, “difficult choices are brushed aside [and] uncomfortable topics are left unexplored.” I would imagine this is a very uncomfortable topic to [discuss] with conservative voters in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Added Senate majority leader Loretta Weinberg:
High-capacity magazines have no purpose other than to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. They do not belong on our streets. The governor’s veto is an insult to the families of gun violence victims who have fought to make sure that others did not have to suffer as they have. His veto is an insult to our residents who deserve additional protections.
The Star-Ledger reported that in New Hampshire, whose electorate is essential to Christie’s presidential hopes—the New Jersey governor is heading to Iowa next week, but he isn’t strong in the state, which is dominated by conservative Christians—gun control opponents warned Christie last year that they are watching him closely:
“I think it’s a step in the right direction for Governor Christie,” said Sam Cohen, vice president and CEO of Pro-Gun New Hampshire, whose state holds the first-in-the-nation presidential primary. Cohen’s group last year warned Christie that it was watching him closely, and advised him to veto four gun control bills Democrats sent him. Ultimately, Christie vetoed the two most strongly opposed by gun rights groups, and signed the other two.
There don’t appear to be any Republicans willing to challenge the NRA, at least not among the possible candidates in 2016. Christie, as a governor from the blue state where support for gun control is strong, may have once thought fleetingly about being the odd man out on gun control, but clearly no longer—if ever. So he’s decided to cash in on his pro-NRA stand as something courageous, and the same can’t be said for candidates from Kentucky, Texas or, well, Florida, where Jeb Bush hasn’t crossed the NRA. In Florida, of course, it isn’t often that anti-gun measures get to the governor’s desk, so it will be hard to find evidence of Bush vetoing a bill that the NRA didn’t like during his term as governor there. As On the Issues reports, Bush supports Florida’s pro-gun Stand Your Ground law, and while he supports the idea of instant background checks Bush favored Florida’s NRA-backed “concealed carry” laws. (The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence reports that a new Quinnipiac Poll found “that 92 percent of American voters, including 92 percent of gun owners, support requiring background checks on all gun purchases,” including 86 percent of Republicans. So that’s hardly a courageous stand by ex-Governor Bush.)
Fox News, reporting on the Bloomberg Everytown campaign, quotes an NRA leader saying that Bloomberg is “just the latest incarnation of a long line of anti-freedom billionaires who’ve tried to take on the National Rifle Association.” Actually, there haven’t been that many billionaires, anti-freedom or not, who’ve done anything at all about guns, so Bloomberg deserves credit for what he’s doing. Sadly, if the Everytown effort has any success at all, it may come in the form of eliminating a few Democratic incumbents here and there, in rural, pro-gun states and districts, who decide to challenge the NRA and create an opening for their Republican challenger.
The War on Women found an ally at the Supreme Court last week with two rulings that threaten to deepen gender inequality in the workplace. The Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case is more clearly aimed at women, with its religiously inspired assault on women’s contraceptive healthcare access. But it was the ruling on union rights in Harris v. Quinn, which threatens a vital union for public healthcare workers, that may prove even more consequential for the lives of working women.
Washington has for years been paralyzed by the right’s anti-abortion agenda and resistant to funding the most basic welfare supports for low-income mothers. Now the Court has expanded the attack on women through legal clampdowns on women’s economic and civil rights—attacking reproductive healthcare in one ruling and gutting women’s labor power in the other.
Harris centered on Illinois home healthcare workers’ ability to collect dues from all workers they represent. Though the issues of “fair share” rules at unionized workplaces related to all public sector unions, Harris hit at the Achilles heel of public labor: the unique situation of home care workers for people with disabilities, working in private homes, but paid by the government. For this hybrid sector, the Court arbitrarily carved out of standard labor law a novel, and sexist, category, termed “partial public employees.” Siding with the national Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, the decision effectively stripped unions working in the partial public sector of their ability to finance themselves by invalidating “fair share agreements,” the practice that allows unions to collect dues from employees of an organized shop.
The target of the suit matters here. In home healthcare and other sectors of domestic work, the jobs have long been dismissed as “women’s work,” disproportionately done by poor women of color and immigrants. Besieged by the arduous schedules, psychological stress and physical strain of caretaking, homecare providers have the most to gain from unionization. They’re also some of the hardest workers to unionize, because the aides serve thousands of people with disabilities and their families, all in diverse households with unique medical needs.
Some labor scholars noted that fair share is not yet completely abolished for all public workers, since the Court did not overturn the key precedent allowing public closed-shop unions, Abood v. Board of Education. And yes, the narrower decision in Harris may for now spare more conventional public sector unions, like direct employees of state agencies. Some actually see Harris as a potential springboard for intensified grassroots organizing strategies to “market” union membership to the rank-and-file.
But Harris may nonetheless inflict major financial damage on an already precarious industry that remains largely atomized, unstable and unorganized. The evisceration of a rare bastion of unionism in domestic work could undermine efforts to organize the many other home attendants, housekeepers, nannies and other marginalized household laborers. Once dues evaporate, organizers may soon become stuck making an increasingly hard sell for an increasingly weak and underfinanced union.
The ruling evokes the problems that hindered organizing back in the 1990s, when SEIU first started reaching out to home health aides in California. The high turnover and poverty wages made it a challenge to persuade workers to invest in any organizing project. But the union combined grassroots outreach with community education to enlist both local officials and consumers behind the union, and Illinois followed in 2003, turning homecare workers into official state employees and weaving together a strong union shop from thousands of individual providers in separate homes.
Unionization paid off once the workers were hooked into the collective bargaining system. According to the Economic Policy Institute, wages jumped by 65 percent over a decade, workers gained health insurance coverage and job training, and recently negotiated to establish a formal grievance procedure. Home healthcare programs in California and Washington have seen similar gains in wages and benefits, which would otherwise be extremely rare in the in-home workforce.
The sector’s peculiar blend of public healthcare standards and highly personalized service necessitates this triangular labor structure, explain historians Eileen Boris and Jennifer Klein in the The American Prospect. Homecare programs stem from the movement toward community-based “consumer-directed care,” rather than institutions, which gives beneficiaries “the power to hire, fire, and supervise their attendants.” Yet such a huge system demands central state management, which can efficiently set standards for work duties, wages and benefits. An organized public workforce under a single employer makes everyone happier, say Boris and Klein: “As part of this process, California, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, Missouri, and Illinois decided that allowing collective bargaining was the best way to maintain an adequate home care workforce, reduce turnover, improve skill, and deliver services efficiently with cost effectiveness.”
In other words, this system works. Nicole Woo, director of domestic policy with the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), says via e-mail that the Harris case “has brought attention to the importance of unions—especially public sector unions—in helping women workers gain livable wages and benefits in notoriously low-wage occupations…. public sector unions are essential in bolstering the working conditions and quality of service in home care occupations.”
According to a CEPR analysis of the “union advantage” and gender inequality, union women are more likely to have decent family leave policies, retirement benefits and wages. Unionized female health aides generally earn wages that are 16 percent higher than that of their non-union counterparts. Meanwhile, though the union workforce is shrinking nationwide, women are becoming the majority and have especially high representation in public service jobs, thanks in large part to the immigration-driven growth in Asian American and Latina workers.
And that brings us back to why Illinois home attendants were a perfect target for the anti-union movement. Union-supported homecare demonstrates how women, “big government” and consumers can effectively work together, so naturally, the right is fighting to destroy this model before it catches on in more states.
Hobby Lobby revealed how companies can lord over working women’s reproductive freedom in a deeply inequitable insurance system. Harris struck from another angle—eroding union women’s labor power and threatening public health services in the process. Unions are a tool for resistance; although unionization alone won’t overcome greed or religious chauvinism in corporations, a strong collective bargaining system would give women a platform to hold bosses accountable and thwart reactionary attacks on health programs for workers and the poor.
In a statement following the Court’s decision, Chicago homecare provider Flora Johnson explained why the ruling threatens gender, labor and health justice: “They are trying to divide us and limit our power, but we won’t stop standing together for our families and our consumers…. I know from experience that we are stronger together.”
The Supreme Court has highlighted the right’s hostility to both labor and public health protections. But when women in public service defend their labor rights, they safeguard the welfare of those who receive care as well as those who give it.
With Secretary of State John Kerry’s failed shuttle diplomacy long dead and forgotten—and with President Obama seemingly unwilling to say much at all about the Israel-Palestine crisis—it’s getting ugly again, amid talk of a new intifada. (Of course, a new intifada is the last thing the Palestinians need, if it turns violent.) And what is ugliest about the current violence is the shocking crime committed by “nationalist” (read extremist) Israelis against an unarmed and defenseless boy. It isn’t surprising that Israel’s settler-right and other religious and political extremists might use unchecked violence against the Palestinians living under occupation, since that happens every day. But as in many such situations, a single, highly personal traumatic event can create shock waves that ordinary “statistical” violence doesn’t generate. Thus, listen to the authors of an editorial in Haaretz, the liberal Israeli daily that sometimes serves as Israel’s conscience. It’s worth quoting in its entirety:
There are no words to describe the horror allegedly done by six Jews to Mohammed Abu Khdeir of Shoafat. Although a gag order bars publication of details of the terrible murder and the identities of its alleged perpetrators, the account of Abu Khdeir’s family—according to which the boy was burned alive—would horrify any mortal. Anyone who is not satisfied with this description, can view the horror movie in which members of Israel’s Border Police are seen brutally beating Tariq Abu Khdeir, the murder victim’s 15-year-old cousin.
The Israel Police was quick to label the murderers “Jewish extremists,” meaning they aren’t part of the herd, they are outliers, “wild weeds.” This is the police’s way of trying to justify a sin, to “make the vermin kosher.” But the vermin is huge, and many-legged. It has embraced the soldiers and other young Israelis who overran the social media networks with calls for revenge and with hatred for Arabs. The vermin was welcomed by Knesset members, rabbis and public figures who demanded revenge. Nor did it skip over the prime minister, who declared “Vengeance for the blood of a small child, Satan has not yet created.”
Abu Khdeir’s murderers are not “Jewish extremists.” They are the descendants and builders of a culture of hate and vengeance that is nurtured and fertilized by the guides of “the Jewish state”: Those for whom every Arab is a bitter enemy, simply because they are Arab; those who were silent at the Beitar Jerusalem games when the team’s fans shouted “death to Arabs” at Arab players; those who call for cleansing the state of its Arab minority, or at least to drive them out of the homes and cities of the Jews.
No less responsible for the murder are those who did not halt, with an iron hand, violence by Israeli soldiers against Palestinian civilians, and who failed to investigate complaints “due to lack of public interest.” The term “Jewish extremists” actually seems more appropriate for the small Jewish minority that is still horrified by these acts of violence and murder. But they too recognize, unfortunately, that they belong to a vengeful, vindictive Jewish tribe whose license to perpetrate horrors is based on the horrors that were done to it.
Prosecuting the murderers is no longer sufficient. There must be a cultural revolution in Israel. Its political leaders and military officers must recognize this injustice and right it. They must begin raising the next generation, at least, on humanist values, and foster a tolerant public discourse. Without these, the Jewish tribe will not be worthy of its own state.
If you’ve read Max Blumenthal’s Goliath, an important investigation into the culture and beliefs of Israel’s far right (and you can read my review of Goliath in Middle East Policy), then you know that for decades the intolerant, Arab-hating radicals who thrive both in the occupied West Bank and in Israel proper have been gaining momentum for decades, and so Haaretz is right on point in calling for a “cultural revolution” and for arguing that the radical “vermin is huge, and many legged.” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s crocodile tears over the death of Mohammed Abu Khdeir are belied by his decision to order airstrikes against Hamas and other, more extreme Palestinian Islamists in Gaza, strikes that accomplish nothing but to inflame passions even further while allowing the prime minister to exercise his “vengeance.”
The kidnapping and execution of three Israeli teenagers by Palestinian thugs does not, of course, justify the murder of Khdeir. That, too, was a horrific crime, and it can’t be excused by saying that it was a legitimate form of resistance to Israel’s brutal occupation of the West Bank. But there is clearly an imbalance here: Israel is all-powerful and militarily supreme in the occupied West Bank, and its Jewish radicals have the support and encouragement of the Israeli state, while a battered and flailing Palestinian Authority government manages to exercise little or no actual “authority” in the areas in which it has nominal control, and its radicals, extremists and murderers are spawned in the hellish conditions under which they live.
Meanwhile, Khdeir’s cousin was savagely beaten, arrested and jailed in a clear instance of police brutality. That event reached the corridors of the State Department in Washington, which issued the following comment (in its entirety) on July 5:
We can confirm that Tariq Khdeir, an American citizen, is being held by Israeli authorities in Jerusalem. He was visited by an official from the US Consulate General in Jerusalem today. We are profoundly troubled by reports that he was severely beaten while in police custody and strongly condemn any excessive use of force. We are calling for a speedy, transparent and credible investigation and full accountability for any excessive use of force. We reiterate our grave concern about the increasing violent incidents, and call on all sides to take steps to restore calm and prevent harm to innocents.
That was followed, on July 6, by this statement, also in its entirety, from State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki:
There was a hearing today at 11:15 AM this morning (July 6) where it was agreed by the judge that Tariq would be released under house arrest while the criminal investigation is conducted. An official from the US Consulate General was at that hearing. Mr. Khudeir’s family was asked to post bail and Tariq is restricted to his uncle’s home in the Beit Hanina area of East Jerusalem. He is also permitted to make arrangements to visit medical facilities if needed. If the investigation is concluded promptly, Mr. Khudeir should be able to return to Florida as planned with his family later this month. We will continue to monitor the situation closely. We are profoundly troubled by reports that he was severely beaten while in police custody and strongly condemn any excessive use of force. As we stated yesterday we are calling for a speedy, transparent and credible investigation and full accountability for the apparent excessive use of force.
It’s hard to remember the last time that the State Department condemned Israeli violence without issuing an “on-the-other-hand” type of “balance.”
And if there’s any hope in any of this, it’s that Yishai Fraenkel, whose nephew, Naftali Fraenkel, was one of the three murdered Israeli teens, spoke by telephone with Hussein Abu Khdeir, the father of the murdered Palestinian, and presumably both exchanged condolences.
For years, the National Rifle Association has pressed candidates for local and national offices to answer questions about gun control policy. The highly publicized results, which help form a candidate’s often sacred “NRA rating,” not only affect races in the short term but help shape policy long after as politicians are hemmed into a particular position on guns before even taking office.
Now, a leading pro-gun control group is launching a counter-effort: Everytown for Gun Safety, funded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, will soon present federal candidates in the 2014 midterms with a ten-part questionnaire about gun control policy. Bloomberg has committed to spending $50 million on the midterms, and the questionnaire is a good starting point for evaluating where candidates stand.
In many cases, this is the first time these candidates will be asked in detail about gun control policy. Among the questions, which you can read in full here:
Does the candidate support closing the gun show loophole?
What about loopholes that allow people to buy guns online without a criminal background check?
Does the candidate support increased penalties for straw purchases and gun trafficking?
Should the size of ammunition clips be restricted? (There is no baseline given).
Some of the questions are traps, in a sense, for candidates who normally hew close to the NRA line and oppose any restrictions on gun rights whatsoever. For example, one question asks if the candidate supports laws to keep guns out of the hands of people who have been convicted of stalking or of abusing a dating partner. (Current federal law only prohibits gun ownership by people convicted of spousal abuse, but not domestic violence more generally.) Any sensible answer to the question would be yes, and a “no” answer is a campaign ad waiting to happen.
Other questions are clearly designed to build political support among potential members of the next Congress for things like expanded background checks or even smaller-bore policy items like increased funding for the federal background check database.
But there is one curious omission, especially for a group whose name is supposed to recall the horror of the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut: no question asks about an assault weapons ban. There was notable state-level action around restricting assault weapons after Newtown, but congressional Democrats dropped this from last spring’s major gun control legislation. Apparently Everytown for Gun Safety isn’t too interested in pushing Congress forward on this issue.
Read Next: David Cole on the one Supreme Court decision we can celebrate
FIFA boss Sepp Blatter was strutting like a rooster over the weekend about the absence of mass protests during Brazil’s World Cup. “Where is all this social unrest?” he asked in mocking snark that, along with bribery and corruption, has become his trademark. Then Blatter waxed rhapsodic about how “football is more than a religion” in Brazil, as if that explains the absence of millions of people marching on his “FIFA quality stadiums”. Similar, sentiments were expressed by Brazil’s Deputy Minister of Sports Luis Fernandes , who said that “during the World Cup, the passion for football has taken over.”
This position has been echoed continuously in the US media. The Washington Post has carried headlines that have read, “In Brazil,smiles, parties have replaced protests” and “A nation’s haves, have nots unite for a common cause.” No need to pick on the Post, as this has been “the line” in multiple media outlets over the last several weeks.
As is often the case with the mainstream media, they have started with an indisputable truth and then have chosen to draw conclusions that match their own embedded perspective: a perspective shaped by Sepp Blatter, his broadcast partners and a blinkered reality of hotels and black SUVs. It is certainly true that the million-person protests have not taken place during the World Cup, as they did during the 2013 Confederation’s Cup. But the conclusion that now everything is awesome and “parties have replaced protests” is simply not true. I recently returned from Brazil and saw a different reality. The fact is that there are protests, strikes and battles with police happening every day. In the favelas, there are demonstrations against the police occupations that are happening because of the Cup. (Here is a terrific photo essay by Andalusia Knoll that shows images from all the World Cup protests that are not happening.)
If the protests are far smaller than the ones a year ago, it is because the streets are militarized down to the last inch, ruled by a military police force who are tear-gassing any group of people who attempt to gather and raise political demands.
I attended one of these “FIFA Go Home” demonstrations, and it was a fearful exercise in state intimidation. The gathering was at a public square. An hour before the start of the march, the square was already surrounded by riot police with machine guns in hand. One would have had to gently push aside and say “excuse me” to someone with a machine gun and a badge just to get there. This was daunting for me as a gringo journalist. Imagine if you are someone with a family, a job and a life that you had to return to following the Cup.
Then once we gathered together, the police would, every few minutes, randomly pick out someone in the crowd of 500 and search their bag. People would chant and yell at the police, but five other officers surrounded the one doing the searching, all with their fingers on the trigger of their automatic weaponry. One protester took out a horn and played Darth Vader’s theme music from Star Wars, but other than that there was little anyone could do. Then when the march was finally underway, the demonstrators were gassed by the military police. One police officer, as caught by the Associated Press, fired live ammunition in a panicky fashion over the heads of protesters. Then the riot police moved in with baseball bat–sized batons.
It was an altogether ugly exercise that provoked chants calling FIFA “Brazil’s new dictatorship.” In other words, the demonstrations aren’t bigger because the military police have created a reality that it is terrifying for people to express their dissent, all to the joy of Sepp Blatter.
Larissa, an activist from São Paulo, explained the size of the demonstrations to Al Jazeera by saying, “Some of us are in jail, others are just being cautious. During our latest protests at Rio’s Maracana stadium, fifteen of us were arrested and are now in jail. The police beat many of us…. I love football. I actually play football myself. I just hate the whole industry around it, which—in the name of FIFA—has been eating up whole neighbourhoods here in Brazil. They think they can do anything in the name of football.”
It would be helpful—even novel—if the US media would tell this story: a population angry about the Cup, but terrorized into compliance. But to tell that story one would actually have to talk to Brazilians who aren’t their cab drivers and concierges. There is still time in the next week, before the World Cup ends, for the media to wear out some shoe leather, hire some translators and tell the truth about what is happening in Brazil. With the 2016 Olympics coming to Rio, the anger and discontent over these mega-events is not going anywhere. The next two years should be a time when the stories of regular Brazilians are told and reckoned with, instead of ignored in the name of nerfy, feel-good narratives.
Read Next: Dave Zirin on FIFA’s negligence and the Belo Horizonte overpass collapse
Call it the Sheryl Sandberg theory of feminist progress: help more women get into the tippy top of the company pyramid and change will spread to the bottom ranks. You could also call it trickle-down feminism: focus on equality at the top and the rewards will flow downward. There are some real life examples that show this doesn’t always pan out. Take Marissa Mayer reducing flexible scheduling after she became the first female CEO at Yahoo, or Sandberg herself, who didn’t realize pregnant women needed reserved parking lots close to the building until she was pregnant.
But a new study quantifies just how far the effects of putting women in leadership can, and can’t, go. Marianne Bertrand, Sandra E. Black and Sissel Jensen examined what happened after Norway instituted a quota in 2003 that required public companies to make their boards at least 40 percent female. The quota did get many more women onto corporate boards, and it may have helped boost their pay, as the wage gap between male and female board members fell.
Additionally, it may have helped increase the number of female executives at these companies. While the researchers couldn’t look at the exact genders of those in the C-suite, when they looked at the gender makeup of the five most highly paid people at the companies they found that more female board members begot more women in that group. “[A] higher share of female directors may increase the chance that a female employee…is one of the top five earners,” they report. Women who joined a company’s board were also more likely to end up among its top executives.
The march of progress, however, mostly stops there. An increased number of women on a company’s board had no impact on increasing women’s ranks at any other wage levels below the very top. And not much else got better for the lower-downs. “We also see no improvements on gender wage gaps…and find no evidence of changing work environments,” the researchers write. Generally, they found no evidence that increasing women’s representation on boards boosted female employment overall or employment for women with business degrees or children in particular. They also didn’t find evidence that seeing more women at the top spurred younger women to get a business degree or go into the field.
So does this mean quotas are a public policy failure? Not at all. That’s not what quotas do. The study shows that quotas increase women’s representation among top leadership and even narrow their pay gaps. But to believe that setting aside a certain share of seats that the top for women will mean that everyone below them does better is to believe change can come more easily than it does.
Quotas, instead, serve to bring gender equality to one specific area: positions of power. We can never say we live in a country rid of patriarchy while women hold less than a quarter of all political offices, 5 percent of CEO positions and less than 15 percent of executive officer positions, and less than 17 percent of board seats. And change isn’t coming voluntarily. Women have held about the same share of executive officer roles for four years and the same share of board seats for eight. Countries that have quotas, or even just strongly suggested goals, are making much faster progress.
There are a variety of reasons why individual women in leadership don’t signal broader change. Patriarchy still has a very firm stranglehold on our society, and trying to loosen its grip can prove to be too hard a task for a woman all on her own. (In fact, research has found that it takes at least three women on a company’s board to make a real difference.) Individual people are also flawed and have limited perspectives—had Sandberg never become pregnant, she may not have realized what pregnant women at work need, as many well-meaning male bosses likely don’t. And women are put into these roles to do their jobs and often to focus on shareholder value, not to stage a gender revolution, and those two things can sometimes be in conflict, as with Mayer and her belief that telework was hurting Yahoo’s work culture.
Still, we could use a quota, or at least a strongly suggested target to make equality at the top move faster. That doesn’t mean it would transform things for everyone else. There’s plenty of other of work to do to bring about gender equality in the workplace. But it would start to dilute the white male cabal currently running our largest institutions.
Read Next: Does feminism have a class problem?