This sport’s identity crisis has existed since the inception of the College Football Playoff a decade ago, but never before have we had to come to terms with it the way we did on Sunday.
That identity crisis? Whether the teams that play for the national championship should be the best or the most deserving. In the nine years before this season, the best and most deserving seamlessly became one, resulting in cut-and-dried decisions on which teams would make the field.
In the final season of the four-team era — before it expands to 12 in 2024 — the CFP committee was charged with a very difficult decision that was guaranteed to result in a worthy team feeling cheated. The committee, for the first time, was actually going to have to choose what it values more — the teams that earned it or the teams that look the best on TV.
Florida State, the most deserving, became the first unbeaten Power 5 conference champion left out of the field. The Seminoles were the ones left feeling cheated.
And with that one decision, the committee didn’t just choose teams in a given year. It revealed to the world the ugly truth about college football — this sport is a beauty contest where decisions on which teams can win the national title are sometimes made as much in a cozy hotel boardroom in Grapevine, Texas, as they are on the actual field.
Michigan and Washington made it through the season unscathed. Texas lost a nail-biter in its rivalry game to Oklahoma, and the Longhorns, wait for it, beat Alabama.
We wouldn’t be having this discussion if Florida State’s star quarterback, Jordan Travis, didn’t break his leg two weeks ago. But the Seminoles team that just beat Louisville 16-6 in the ACC Championship Game was relying on a third-string quarterback. The win was far from impressive.
devastated. heartbroken. In so much disbelief rn, I wish my leg broke earlier in the season so y’all could see this team is much more than the quarterback. I thought results matter. 13-0 and this roster matches up across any team in those top 4 rankings. I am so sorry. Go Noles!
The committee, knowing it was going to unjustly break someone’s heart, decided to break Florida State’s. In that room on Saturday night, the committee members decided the Seminoles weren’t good enough for us.
That’s not what sports are supposed to be about. And with the four-team CFP era ending after this season, fans will be viewing it as a broken system that needed to be changed rather than the first frontier of the modernization of the sport.
It’s very easy to fathom why the committee couldn’t choose between Alabama and Texas. Alabama is a one-loss SEC champion that beat Georgia on Saturday, ending the Bulldogs’ 29-game winning streak. Texas, a one-loss Big 12 champion, beat Alabama by 10 points in Tuscaloosa in September.
Many fans were hoping that the SEC would be left out entirely for the first time, but the committee — charged with picking the “best teams” — couldn’t ignore what the ultra-talented Crimson Tide accomplished. But if Alabama goes, how could the committee leave the team out that beat it?
It couldn’t.
This is probably the path of least resistance. Outside of Florida State fans, the general population will move on convinced that the Playoff semifinals will be more entertaining with more high-level teams. The best teams, as they say, won out.
The problem with choosing the best is that it’s entirely subjective and ultimately misleading given this is a sport that routinely features unpredictable results and unforeseen runs. The last time a team was relying on a third-string quarterback heading into the College Football Playoff — Ohio State in the inaugural season of the four-team field — won the national title.
The difference between those Buckeyes and this Florida State team was that Ohio State won the Big Ten title game that year 59-0. Florida State was in a close game with Louisville that was, quite frankly, not an enjoyable watch for people who love the excitement of big-time offense. Perception, wrongly, became reality.
“Florida State is a different team,” CFP committee chair Boo Corrigan said after the field was revealed. “You look at who they are as a team without Jordan Travis — they are a different team.”
That’s a well-informed opinion that’s probably true. It, however, is not a fact. You could make the case that Florida State is so good that it won a Power 5 conference championship game with a true freshman quarterback. In the CFP, Florida State would have gotten second-string quarterback Tate Rodemaker back with a month to prepare for a semifinal game.
Florida State was robbed.
And its head coach didn’t hide his disappointment.
“I am disgusted and infuriated with the committee’s decision today to have what was earned on the field taken away because a small group of people decided they knew better than the results of the games,” Mike Norvell said in a statement. “What is the point of playing games?”
As difficult as it would have been, the right thing for the committee to do would have been to leave Alabama out. Most of us know in our gut that the Crimson Tide — the most talented team, on paper, in the sport — are one of the four best teams. Alabama is certainly equipped to win the whole thing.
But Alabama — like peers Georgia and Ohio State, teams with a wealth of raw talent on their rosters — lost a game (at home). Better teams have been left out in the past than this Alabama team because losses had consequences.
Alabama’s loss to Texas didn’t have a consequence because we’re enamored with the SEC and what it means to beat Georgia. It didn’t matter that Alabama — though perceived to be an entirely different team in September — lost to the Longhorns. That game could have been a Playoff game in September. It turns out it was an exhibition.
There are plenty of people who are against the expansion of the field to 12 because of the sanctity of the regular season. But if the games in the regular season aren’t going to matter when it comes to picking the final four, then there are no consequences for expanding to 12.
The regular season didn’t decide who made it this year. Thirteen people did.
The games mattered. The results didn’t.
(Photo of Mike Norvell: Isaiah Vazquez / Getty Images)
Next year, all this College Football Playoff arguing will be moot with the CFP expanding to 12 teams. Arguing over Nos. 3, 4 and 5 is very different than 10, 11, 12 and 13. You lose your benefit of the doubt when you lose games. Even in the SEC.
But this year is still a four-team field, and with so many variables factoring into the decision, there is a lot to dissect. And to state it plainly: the College Football Playoff committee got it wrong. College football has, or at least it used to have — up until right now — the best regular season in sports because the games mattered most. We have a smaller sample size in this sport than in any other.
To leave out an undefeated 13-0 Florida State team in a Power 5 conference was the wrong decision.
Michigan and Washington, both undefeated with top-10 wins, were the easy ones. The problem for the College Football Playoff committee was that there were three teams with legitimate arguments for the final two slots.
Sorry, Georgia. You didn’t win your conference title, and in this format, that has to count for something.
Booger McFarland is not happy that Alabama got into the CFP over an undefeated Florida State team.
“To me, this is a travesty to the sport…One team has a loss, and that’s Alabama. One doesn’t in Florida State.” pic.twitter.com/3rhBvvpT1D
Alabama and the SEC are the proverbial elephant in this room. Nick Saban is the greatest coach of all time, and to me, this year was the greatest coaching job he’s ever done in-season. His team got whipped at home by Texas in Week 2 and didn’t look any better struggling with a middling USF team the following week. But Jalen Milroe kept making big strides and when it mattered most, he and the Tide made enough plays to knock off a Bulldogs team that wasn’t anywhere near as dominant as it was in its previous two title seasons.
The problem for Alabama — and the SEC — is the partner they’re about to bring in: Texasdid beat Alabama convincingly in Tuscaloosa. That happened, and there was nothing fluky about it.
The Longhorns, 12-1, were the class of the Big 12. There wasn’t a second-best team in the Big 12 this year, but Oklahoma State beat Oklahoma, the team Texas stumbled against and, as expected, Texas hammered the Cowboys Saturday. Remember, this was an Oklahoma State team that went 9-3 and had lost by a combined score of 78-10 against South Alabama and UCF. That wasn’t going to help Texas’ cause, but do we just forget that a week ago Alabama barely escaped against an Auburn team that got blown out at home the week before by New Mexico State, 31-10?
The bigger issue was with Florida State, the 13-0 Seminoles from the ACC. As we all know, FSU lost star quarterback Jordan Travis two weeks ago. The Seminoles’ backup Tate Rodemaker, who had led them to a comeback win over Louisville a year ago when Travis had gotten hurt, didn’t look great in the regular-season finale at arch-rival Florida. He also sustained a concussion.
ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips calls it “unfathomable” that Florida State was left out. “Florida State deserved better. College football deserved better.”
FSU’s third-stringer, Brock Glenn, had a shaky outing in the ACC Championship Game, but the defense was dominant. Led by Braden Fiske and Jared Verse, the Seminoles had 14 TFLs and seven sacks and became the first team in five years to hold a Jeff Brohm offense under 200 total yards. Not so coincidentally, that same FSU defense began the year by dominating LSU and the SEC’s biggest star, Jayden Daniels, 45-24, and held the SEC and the nation’s No. 1 offense to its worst performance of the season.
FSU was the only team that held Daniels under 60 percent passing in a game. Daniels ran for almost 100 yards less (99) against the Noles than when he played the Crimson Tide.
The CFP rankings often devolve into an argument over “best” versus “most deserving.” Best is usually the get-out-of-jail free card whenever your team loses or has a bad loss that it can’t explain. Similar to the nonsense of, “Well, Vegas would make so-and-so more than a touchdown favorite against them.” Great. But tell that to Washington. The Huskies were almost a double-digit underdog against Oregon last week, a team they’d already beaten this year. … Well, the Huskies beat the Ducks again.
I get it. The SEC has been the most dominant conference in college football for the past two decades. But this year hasn’t been like those other years if you’ve been paying attention. It’s simply been a down year for the SEC. The ACC actually went 6-4 against the SEC this year. If this was a one-loss FSU team, I’d say the Seminoles didn’t earn their way in, but they did. Texas should not have been left out either for a team it beat in its own place.
As colleague David Ubben wrote Saturday night, the games have to matter. What’s the point of playing them if we’re going to try and rationalize them away?
(Top photo Florida State: John Byrum / Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)
NEW YORK, Dec 01 (IPS) – Although the dire impact of the Israel-Hamas war has touched many countries in the region and beyond, no foreign country has been so profoundly affected by the war than Jordan. Israel must mitigate Jordan’s concerns to save its critical alliance with its neighbor while fully collaborating in the search for a permanent resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Under Prime Minister Netanyahu’s leadership, Israel-Jordan relations have hit a new low. Sadly, after 30 years of peace, there is deep sullenness and disappointment between the two countries. The aspiration for strategic partnership has fallen short, except for security collaboration. Jordan’s King Abdallah and Netanyahu do not see eye-to-eye on many issues.
The King views Netanyahu as particularly responsible for the deterioration of the relationship between the two countries. Of specific concern to Jordan is the Israeli government’s brutal treatment of the Palestinians in the West Bank, its worries about any change in its status as the guardian of the holy Muslim shrines (Haram al-Sharif), and its concerns over the limits of the bilateral economic relations.
What has added significant insult to the already injured relationship is the tragically inadvertent carnage and destruction being inflicted on the Palestinians in Gaza as a result of the Israel-Hamas war.
For Jordan, the future resolution to the Palestinian conflict is the most contentious because whatever happens to the Palestinians, especially in the West Bank, has a direct and indirect impact on Jordan’s security, economy, and demographics due to its proximity and also because half of the population is of Palestinian origin.
Netanyahu made hardly any effort to address King Abdallah’s justifiable worries about the rapidly deteriorating security conditions in the West Bank. Since the Israel-Hamas war began on October 7th, nearly 220 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank as of this writing, and there is no sign that the violence will abate any time soon.
Indeed, the absurdity here is that given that Jordan has been at peace with Israel since 1995, its proximity to Israel, and its mutual concerns over the region’s stability, the need for full cooperation on intelligence sharing, commercial ties, and national security become ever more critical.
But then, Netanyahu has taken Jordan for granted when, in fact, Amman remained faithful to its collaborative efforts with Israel and continues to play a critical role in monitoring and securing the approximately 300-mile-long border with Israel to prevent the smuggling of weapons and infiltration of terrorists into Israel proper and the West Bank.
The Israel-Hamas war has enormously changed the political dynamic of the Jordanian-Israeli relationship. Although Jordan expressed sympathy toward the Israelis for the unimaginable butchery that Hamas inflicted on innocent Israeli civilians, Israel’s invasion of Gaza and the horrendous destruction and death have enraged the Jordanians to a level unseen between the two countries since they signed a peace treaty in 1994.
More than 50 percent of the Jordanian population are of Palestinian origin and have a strong affinity to their brethren wherever they reside. The death of more than 14,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including nearly 6,000 children and 4,000 women, caused an unparalleled stir in Jordan, damning Israel and demanding an immediate end to the hostilities. In fact, out of sympathy and solidarity, many Jordanian youth have chosen to adopt “Hamas ideology.”
The UN Jordanian delegation presented a resolution to the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) calling for an “immediate, permanent, and sustainable humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities,” which was adopted by 120 countries. On November 1st, Jordan’s Foreign Minister Ayman Al-Safadi recalled Jordan’s Ambassador to Israel, saying that his decision was an “expression of Jordan’s rejection and condemnation of the raging war in Gaza, which is killing innocent people and causing an unprecedented human catastrophe.”
Jordan considers the forced evacuation and displacement of Palestinians in Gaza as equivalent to a war against civilians that will fundamentally shake the bilateral Israeli-Jordanian relations, mainly because Jordan has the largest Palestinian refugee population of any other country, which makes it extraordinarily sympathetic and sensitive to the Palestinian cause.
Of particular concern to the Jordanian government is that the Netanyahu government is determined to deny the Palestinians the right to statehood, which will have a significant impact on Jordan domestically. What worries the Hashemite Kingdom is that some ministers in the current Israeli government are resuscitating the notion that Jordan is Palestine by their actions in the West Bank.
Although Netanyahu knows how sensitive the Jordanian government is about this momentous issue, he has done nothing to assuage the Jordanians’ growing anxieties that the West Bank Palestinians will be entirely pushed into Jordan.
Amman can play a significant regional diplomatic role in stemming the escalation of the conflict, especially in the West Bank, before it spins out of control. Jordan, the most stable country with moderate political leadership in a region reddened with violent conflicts, has and continues to serve along with Israel as the cornerstone of the US-Middle East security partnership, which both countries must guard with zeal.
There are several necessary measures that the Israeli government must take to alleviate and mend past and present Jordanian grievances and restore and further improve their bilateral relationship, which would best serve their national interests.
First, given Jordan’s direct and indirect involvement with the Palestinians, Israel must not ignore Jordan’s concerns over the violent clashes between the Israeli settlers and security forces and the Palestinians. Recently, the increasing violence in the West Bank compelled Jordan to strengthen its border security to prevent the escalation of violence from spilling over into its territory.
Nevertheless, it could precipitate an influx of Palestinians into Jordan, which Amman wants to avoid. Israel must restate in an unmistakable tone that it respects Jordan’s sovereignty, and any resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be separate and apart from and would not infringe in any way on Jordan’s independence, which Israel recognizes.
Second, Israel must commit to continuing water and gas supplies to Jordan without interruption. This is critical for restoring Jordan’s confidence in any Israeli government, which has been dangerously eroding under Netanyahu. The “Blue and Green Prosperity” project, financed by the UAE and signed in August 2023, enables the exchange of Israeli desalinated water for Jordanian solar energy. This is a significant project for Jordan and must be guarded and fully implemented under any circumstance.
Third, although the collaborative security ties and intelligence sharing between Jordan and Israel remain close, the Israeli government must ensure their security collaboration stays intact and robust. Israel must also carefully address Jordan’s unique security needs given the continuing regional tension and the threats of extremist militant groups, as well as its concerns over Iranian threats, which Israel shares. Amman needs to feel assured that Israel has Jordan’s back.
Fourth, Israel must assure Jordan that under no circumstances would it seek or facilitate any change in the custodianship and the administrative responsibility of Jordan over the Muslim holy shrines (Haram al-Sharif) in Jerusalem. From the Jordanian perspective, the current arrangement gives it a strategic basis that allows it to have a say in any future agreement with the Palestinians in connection with Jerusalem. Although Saudi Arabia aspires to assume that role, Israel should honor its agreement with the Hashemite Kingdom from the time Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1967.
Fifth, Israel ought to strengthen its economic ties with Jordan by expanding the import-export of goods and services, encouraging Israelis to invest in Jordan, especially in the technological sector, and increasing tourism once the Israel-Hamas war comes to an end and the anti-Israeli Jordanian public sentiment subsides.
The current Netanyahu or any future Israeli government must stop short of nothing to safeguard its ties and constantly improve its relations with Jordan—Israel’s most important Arab ally, partner for peace, and its closest neighbor. Since they have a strong mutual national security interest and strategic alliance, Israel should work hand-in-hand with Jordan in the search for a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because it will directly affect Jordan’s national interest on every front.
To be sure, given the Israel-Hamas war, which makes it impossible nor desirable to restore the status quo ante, it is now more urgent than any time before for Israel and Jordan to mitigate their differences, strengthen their strategic alliance, and find common ground on how to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
For more information on how a sustainable peace agreement based on a two-state solution can be reached, please refer to my essay in World Affairs, “The Case for an Israeli-Palestinian-Jordanian Confederation: Why Now and How?”
Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies. [email protected]
Ostensibly, Thursday’s debate between California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is not running for president, and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is, was supposed to be an exploration of the ideological differences between the two chief executives.
Opinion Columnist
Robin Abcarian
After all, one is the embodiment of progressive, blue-state policies and a high-profile surrogate for President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. The other represents the younger, less orange face of Planet MAGA, and, as it became clear, can’t pronounce “Kamala” correctly.
Twenty minutes in, however, I had a headache. There was so much cross-talk and interrupting — by both governors — that it was impossible to hear what they were saying.
If a third debater had been onstage, they almost certainly would have piped up, “See folks, this is why those two should not be on this debate stage.”
It was actually pretty funny that Sean Hannity, an unabashed supporter of former President Trump who engineered this overhyped meeting of ideological opposites, positioned himself as the grownup in the room, the guy who wanted to take the temperature down a few notches in order to get his loaded questions answered.
“Let each other breathe,” pleaded Hannity. “I don’t want to be the hall monitor.” Don’t worry, Sean, you weren’t. He prefaced one of his loaded questions thus: “Joe Biden has experienced significant cognitive decline.”
DeSantis performed better than I expected against the voluble Newsom, who has two decades of political experience to DeSantis’ one. In three previous Republican debates, DeSantis failed to distinguish himself, appearing almost wimpy next to the verbally muscular former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who has overtaken him in polls. (Which probably explains why he agreed to debate Newsom after refusing to for most of the past year.) He landed well-deserved blows about California’s infamous, and well-acknowledged, problems — homelessness, in particular.
The problem with this spectacle was that too many incompatible things were simultaneously going on: The flailing DeSantis was trying to reestablish himself as a viable GOP alternative in the event that Trump’s felony indictments make him, finally, unpalatable to Republican voters.
Newsom was trying to raise his national political profile, defend the Biden-Harris record and argue that California is a better place to live than Florida. (Which, of course, it is.)
Did Newsom have anything to lose? Not really.
Yes, we all know that California is expensive, and that for the first time in forever, more people are leaving than coming in. Yes, we had lockdowns during the pandemic. This was the gist of DeSantis’ argument that he’s the better governor.
And yet, as Newsom pointed out, more Floridians have recently moved to California than Californians to Florida.
“There is one thing that we have in common,” said Newsom. “Neither of us will be the nominee for our party in 2024.”
“What are you going to do with that?” is a question I heard often from my family as both an undergraduate and a graduate student.
Yes, I was an English major. My older siblings were going to nursing and medical school and all of my cousins were pursuing engineering, science and business degrees. So there was always an edge to that question every time it came up at family gatherings. A just-under-the-surface skepticism about the usefulness of a humanities degree as job preparation.
I know now that this question was meant kindly — and was informed by the older generation’s desire to see their children enjoy a return on investment (ROI) on a college education similar to what they themselves experienced as first- and second-generation college-goers.
College degrees changed the trajectories of their lives. They opened opportunities for economic and social mobility and moved my parents’ generation beyond the experiences of their grandparents and great-grandparents, many of whom, as first- and second-generation immigrants to this country in the nineteenth century, started their working lives as farmers or day laborers.
My aunts, uncles and parents were keenly aware that they themselves had benefited substantially from America’s grand expansion of the public higher education system post-World War II. Though their question burdened me at the time with self-doubt, among other things, they asked it out of a caring sense of concern for my future.
Decades later, I now have the privilege of serving as the dean of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences at George Mason University, an access-oriented public research university that servesand graduates high numbers of students who are first-generation college goers, military veterans, economically under-resourced or transfer students, or from historically underrepresented groups.
As the idea of higher education as a public good is increasingly questioned or under attack, and as public perceptions of the value of a college degree relative to its cost continue to shift, I often remind my faculty of our fundamental purpose: We are here to educate our students.
We are here to engage them in the kinds of high-impact discovery learning that public research universities can offer at scale; the kinds of experiences that can change the trajectory of their lives and the lives of their families.
“What can’t you do with a humanities degree?”
It is because of my institution’s access-oriented educational mission that I view the release of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences’ Humanities Indicators report, “Employment Outcomes for Humanities Majors: State Profiles,” as an important occasion.
Drawing on data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, the data collected and analyzed in this study should help change national narratives about both the “death” of the humanities and the low ROI on a four-year college degree.
The first national study of its kind, the report offers a state-by-state comparison of the salary ranges and unemployment rates of college graduates who majored in the humanities with those of, on the one hand, high-school and two-year college graduates and, on the other hand, college graduates in the arts, education, social sciences, business, natural sciences and engineering.
In doing so, the report tells a very different story than the one you typically see circulating in the media these days. Key takeaways:
Earnings: Humanities graduates’ earnings are substantially higher than those of people without a college degree and are often on par with or higher than those of graduates in non-engineering fields.
Earnings Disparities: Except in a few northwestern states, humanities majors earn at least 40 percent more than people with only a high school degree.
Unemployment: The unemployment rate of humanities majors is around 2-4 percent in every state, similar to that of engineering and business majors and substantially lower than that of people without a college degree.
Occupational Versatility: Humanities graduates make up big portions of the legal, museum and library workforces across all states; other significant areas of humanities graduate employment are education, management and sales.
Without question, the total cost of college attendance should continue to be a concern for all of us. And earnings and occupation are not the only measures of success in one’s career or life. But I am excited, as a dean, to have in hand the American Academy of Arts & Sciences’ new Humanities Indicators report and its “State of the Humanities 2021: Workforce and Beyond”report as resources to use to help current undergraduate and graduate students see how humanities majors in all 50 states have put their degrees to work across a broad spectrum of occupations and industries.
The workforce data in this new American Academy of Arts & Sciences report is the perfect complement to individual storytelling in helping today’s humanities majors think through “What are you going to do with that?” — and see clearly the vast world of work that opens to them through education in these disciplines.
“What can’t you do with a humanities degree?” is a tagline we invite the George Mason undergraduate admissions officers to keep top of mind as they begin their recruitment road trips.
Even as technological change is accelerating and reshaping jobs in ways that will require all of us to reinvent our careers, this American Academy of Arts & Sciences report gives today’s college students a data-informed way to conceptualize both the job opportunities and the career earning trajectories of humanities majors in all 50 states and across many sectors of our nation’s knowledge-based economy.
Ann Ardis is dean of George Mason University’s College of Humanities and Social Sciences.
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
When I became a mom, I thought my dream of teaching would have to remain just that: a dream.
Juggling single parenthood was a full-time job in and of itself. I didn’t have the support or resources to pursue the path to becoming a teacher, even though I thought I could be a great one and it was what I so desperately wanted to do.
Barriers to entering the profession are too high.
To become a teacher in California you have to study for, pay for and pass a slew of standardized tests. Then you have to earn your certification through an accredited program involving more tests, classes and student teaching. And then, if you’ve passed all your classes and tests and pay tens of thousands of dollars, maybe you can finally enter the classroom.
How does someone who is already a parent, and not wealthy, manage to do all that?
I am a better teacher because I am a parent, and a better parent because I am a teacher.
I’m fortunate that I found a program that broke down those barriers to entry. I’m now earning my teaching credential through a low-cost program that allows me to work full-time in a classroom; I will graduate debt-free.
With a national teacher shortage looming, it’s time to support students by creating more programs like mine and easier pathways into the classroom for parents.
Here are some ideas about how we can make the teaching profession more attainable for parents:
Pay higher salaries. It’s no secret that being a parent comes with challenges — often financial ones. The average debt load for experienced educators is $56,500. We need to increase pay and make teaching a financially viable profession.
Prioritize flexibility in teacher prep programs. My teacher prep program is called TeachStart, and as one of their fellows I receive paid study days. This means that parents like me working toward credentials can study while our children are in school or daycare so we don’t have to give up precious time in the evenings or on weekends.
Personal support. TeachStart also provides me with a designated in-house mentor, so I have a point person for questions or concerns and to celebrate personal and professional wins with. TeachStart has also created scheduled times for me to lesson plan and collect my bearings at the beginning and end of each day.
Utilize skills parents bring to the table. Years of motherhood can translate directly into classroom skills. My son has made me a better listener. Parenthood is a two-way street: You grow with your child just as they grow with you. Teaching is no different. As a single parent, I bring empathy, understanding and dedication to the classroom. My experience as a mother has allowed me to connect with students and families on a deeper level, fostering a sense of trust and partnership. I appreciate the pivotal role parental involvement plays in a child’s education and actively work to bridge the gap between home and school lives. And I take pride in listening to and learning from my students. We can take these lessons and skills that parents have learned through their experience raising children and allow them to utilize them in the classroom. Our students will be better for it.
Furthermore, increasing the number of parents leading classrooms could be a key to reducing teacher turnover. Parents who have earned certification have already proven their strength and dedication, which will help them remain in the classroom and, in turn, help improve student achievement.
I want other parents like me to know that with the proper support, they too can pursue a career that fulfills them and makes them better parents along the way.
Being a parent has equipped me with a unique perspective and a deep understanding of the challenges that families of all backgrounds face. I am always learning.
When I ask my son at the end of the day what he learned in school, he knows to ask me the same. I am a better teacher because I am a parent, and a better parent because I am a teacher.
All aspiring educators deserve the same opportunities that brought me to the classroom. If legislators, teacher prep programs and school leaders can commit to breaking down barriers to entry for future teachers, we will all benefit.
Katie Dillard is a TeachStart fellow. She teaches middle school English at Samuel Jackman Middle School in Sacramento.
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
BERGEN, Norway, Nov 27 (IPS) – Popular migration discourses in Europe often question the ability of African states to govern migration effectively. Media images of African migrants squeezed into dingy boats in the Mediterranean constantly reinforce these discourses.
However, positive examples of what migration governance should be now exist within the continent, and they can provide important lessons for many of the EU Member States. One such example is the National Coordination Mechanism on Migration (NCM) adopted by countries in the East and Horn of Africa.
NCMs are government-led interagency platforms that bring together different ministries to promote dialogue on migration issues and formulate holistic migration policies. They have realised coherent and inclusive migration governance in the region, and more states in other parts of Africa are now adopting this approach.
The African continent boasts of diverse migration experiences, including but not limited to regular cross-border trade, labour migration, forced migration, seasonal migration and migration for educational purposes. These happen at the domestic, regional and international levels and can be documented or undocumented.
Currently, 85 per cent of mobility occurs within the continent, as most African migrants – including refugees – prefer moving to neighbouring countries.
Ensuring coherent and inclusive migration governance
Against this backdrop, African Union (AU) Heads of State adopted the African Migration Policy Framework in 2006. Its current version is the Migration Policy Framework for Africa and Plan for Action (2018-2030).
The framework provides comprehensive and integrated policy guidelines to AU Member States and Regional Economic Communities (RECs) in their endeavours to promote migration and development. It further provides a guideline on how to address migration challenges on the continent.
The Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), a REC in the Horn of Africa comprising eight members (Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan and Uganda), decided to establish NCMs to implement the African Union’s framework.
The REC also has a Regional Migration Policy Framework guided by the AU’s policy framework, and NCMs are also part of this implementation.
NCMs, as stated earlier, are platforms that foster dialogue on migration-related issues to realise coherent and inclusive migration governance. For instance, Kenya’s NCM, spearheaded by the Ministry of Interior and National Administration, includes the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, the Ministry of Foreign and Diaspora Affairs, the Ministry of Investments, Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Youth Affairs, Sports and the Arts, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education and, last but not least, the Ministry of Environment and Forestry.
Government agencies like the National Bureau of Statistics and the National Employment Authority are also involved. The NCM also holds consultative workshops with academia, civil society, trade unions, the private sector, church, as well as faith-based organisations, including county assemblies at local governance levels.
More broadly, NCMs in the IGAD region endeavour to mainstream migration into national development through a whole-of-society and government approach. They mobilise resources, offer technical support and directly participate in implementing migration programmes rolled out by different government ministries.
As such, it makes it possible for various ministries to know what the others are doing, avoiding duplication of activities and save limited resources.
Lessons for Europe
It is thus fair to say that European Union Member States have something to learn from IGAD Member States. In most EU countries, the migration docket currently falls solely within the Ministries of Interior or Home Affairs. These ministries often work in silos and formulate migration policies without fully involving other relevant ministries.
As a result, migration policies and overall migration governance take off from a security standpoint first and foremost. Consequently, migration is viewed and governed as a threat to the nation-state.
On the contrary, numerous peer-reviewed studies and reports show that migrants contribute to their destination countries’ economic and social development. The EU and its Member States continuously disregard this fact and put more funds into externalisation than into opening regular migration pathways.
The union has set aside millions of euros to outsource migration management to countries outside Europe to prevent migration into its territory. This strategy has, however, not been successful, as evidenced by hardline stands, pushbacks by African border states and the abuse of migrants’ human rights within these states.
The number of migrants that reached Italy’s shores in the summer of 2023, for example, was at a record high compared to previous years. It is, therefore, imperative for the EU to look at migration differently and develop new approaches to manage it effectively.
Bringing together all migration stakeholders through one platform is a daunting task — but not an impossible one. IGAD Member States have proven that it is an achievable endeavour. Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia and Djibouti, considered to be on a development trajectory, have had more progress in the implementation of NCMs and provide lessons that could be a starting point for countries in the EU.
NCMs, as highlighted, offer a platform to critically address specific migration issues and challenges and share diverse ways to manage migration in a coordinated manner. NCMs also allow the sharing of migration data across different ministries and agencies to inform policies coherently.
For instance, Kenya’s NCM has developed and validated Standard Operating Procedures on migration data management by all NCM stakeholders. Different government ministries have also signed a Memorandum of Understanding on data sharing, exchange and dissemination.
These initiatives have facilitated informed dialogue on migration issues within the NCM and further resulted in inclusive migration policies.If accompanied by political goodwill, a similar undertaking can achieve maximum results within EU Member States.
The EU Member States have proven that they are able to make great strides, such as with the General Data Protection Regulation, and they have the financial and technical capabilities to implement such a platform.
But with the migration narrative currently being run by far-right politicians, the time to act is now!
Felicity Okoth coordinates the International Migration and Ethnic Relations (IMER) research network in Bergen, Norway. She is also pursuing a PhD at the department of Social Anthropology at the University of Bergen. Her research looks at the situated and trans-local practices of Sub-Saharan African migrants in Nairobi and how these influence their migration aspirations (return or move to third countries).
Source: International Politics and Society (IPS)-Journal published by the International Political Analysis Unit of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Hiroshimastrasse 28, D-10785 Berlin
Climate migrants tend to move to cities in their own countries where they often end up in urban slums characterized by sub-standard housing. Credit: Donatas Dabravolskas/Shutterstock
Opinion by Jin-ho Chung (oxford, england)
Inter Press Service
OXFORD, England, Nov 24 (IPS) – The impacts of climate change on human mobility have yet to be fully understood and addressed on a global scale, even though some 3.3 to 3.6 billion people are highly vulnerable to climate change.
Contrary to popular perceptions, most climate migrants move internally to cities within their own countries, attracted by the perceived employment, education, and healthcare opportunities that urban areas offer.
As these numbers increase, urban areas across the Global South face mounting pressures to provide sufficient housing, jobs, and public services to serve their growing populations.
Those moving due to climate extremes and environmental degradation will most likely find themselves living in urban slums, exposed to unhygienic conditions and forced to live in sub-standard housing.
They could also face highly competitive job markets for which they may lack qualifications or experience, and limited access to healthcare and public services due to citizenship restrictions.
Urban authorities across the Global South will be nervously anticipating an influx of new arrivals as the climate crisis intensifies, grappling with the challenge of integrating these newcomers without increasing pressure on already stretched urban infrastructure and services.
For inspiration they might look at other urban areas that have made significant progress in recent years to enhance their resilience and sustainability.
During the course of my research, I have also wondered whether urban authorities could view the climate migration challenge as an opportunity – to not only alleviate pressures but also to simultaneously pursue development objectives, stimulate economies, and ensure safe and secure living conditions for all residents?
Enhancing urban development
A strategic policy response could help mitigate challenges while preparing cities for the future. City governments will need to play a pivotal role in transforming urban migration into an effective climate change adaptation strategy that benefits both climate-vulnerable rural communities and the cities they settle in.
By doing so, city governments can proactively manage the challenges posed by climate migrants while also harnessing their potential contributions to a city’s economic growth and resilience.
Migrants, acting as agents of change, often support their home communities through remittances. Dynamic labour markets, enabling the geographic mobility of workers, are essential to supply labour precisely where and when it’s needed.
Urban authorities will need to examine mobility patterns and trends, identifying and prioritizing urban areas and infrastructure that require support. Additional legal measures may also be required, including labour laws that strengthen the rights of migrant workers, ensure safe working environments, and provide protection from exploitation.
Migrants’ social inclusion can be secured through education and training, which enhance their employment prospects, and access to healthcare and affordable and suitable housing.
The role of city governments, however, will depend on national governments granting urban authorities more influence in critical policy domains. Policy collaboration across different levels of governance is also key to supporting migrants and enhancing climate-compatible development in both places of origin and destination through circular mobility initiatives.
Accelerating a climate-resilient urban renaissance
COPs have historically made progress in advancing policies, funding, and recommendations to support climate-related migrants and cities in their adaptation efforts. It is imperative that COP28 fulfil its promise to increase climate funding for developing countries, including cities.
Urban areas are not only home to more than half of the world’s population, but also serve as the primary engines of the global economy and job creation. Funds targeting cities can help accelerate the global green transition.
However, COP28 will need to address a critical shortage in available funding, laid bare by the UN Environment Programme’s recent Adaptation Gap report which estimates that developing countries will need between $215 and $387 billion in public adaptation finance per year this decade.
The trend of decreasing adaptation funds – only $21 billion was available in 2021, $4 billion less than the previous year – needs to be urgently addressed.
COP28, just a few weeks away, is an opportunity to emphasize the need for long-term policy support aimed at tackling the challenges associated with climate-induced migration to urban areas.
The decision to dedicate a day at the summit to ‘multilateral action, urbanization, and the built environment’ underscores the central role that cities will play in our transition to more resilient and sustainable societies. Anticipating and responding strategically to climate migration will support an urban renaissance that is able to cope with climate change while delivering secure housing, improved services, and decent jobs for all.
Jin-ho Chung is Research Fellow at United Nations University Centre for Policy Research (UNU-CPR)
Source: UNESCO-IOC (The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.?)
Opinion by Temily Baker, Juliette de Charry (bangkok, thailand)
Inter Press Service
BANGKOK, Thailand, Nov 24 (IPS) – Between 1970 and 2022, disaster events in Asia and the Pacific caused 2.04 million deaths and $2.71 trillion in economic damages. ESCAP estimates that among these totals, tsunamis rank as the third deadliest hazard, accounting for 12% of fatalities, and the fourth most economically destructive hazard, comprising 11 per cent of economic damages.
Tsunamis, despite their infrequent occurrence, cause significant damage, with 260,000 fatalities from 58 tsunamis in the last century, averaging 4,600 deaths per event. Vulnerable populations, including women, children, persons with disabilities, and the older persons, are disproportionately affected.
For example, in the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, around 70 per cent of fatalities were women, whereas in the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami, 64.4 per cent of the victims were older individuals.
By 2030, around half of the global population will reside in coastal areas vulnerable to floods, storms, and tsunamis. Given the ongoing impact of climate change the need for proactive measures to mitigate these coastal risks is becoming more apparent.
Since natural hazards do not follow national boundaries, regional cooperation plays a critical role in tsunami warnings in the Asia-Pacific region.
Regional commitment, catalysed by the devastating 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, has led to significant improvements in multi-hazard coastal preparedness across the Indian Ocean basin. In 2005, a ground-breaking grant of US$10 million from the Government of Thailand established the ESCAP Multi-Donor Trust Fund for Tsunami, Disaster and Climate Preparedness.
The Trust Fund represents a regional commitment to strengthening early warning systems and the current membership of Italy, Switzerland, India, and Japan with Thailand are evidence of how triangular and south-south cooperation can be mutually supportive.
As a result, 19 countries have directly benefitted through building regional and national end-to-end warning systems for coastal hazards.
The Trust Fund played a vital role in creating the Indian Ocean Tsunami Warning and Mitigation System (IOTWMS), which became operational in October 2011, with Australia, India, and Indonesia as regional service providers. With an initial investment of US$300 million, this system supports 36 countries in the Indian Ocean basin.
These nations now share a Probabilistic Tsunami Hazard Assessment, recently updated to include the Makran Subduction Zone in the North-West Indian Ocean. To ensure sustainability, the IOTWMS promotes a multi-hazard approach and encourages governments to formalize financial commitments through legal frameworks and long-term policies. A 2015 ESCAP study estimated that the IOTWMS will save at least 1,000 lives annually over the next century.
Figure 1: Existing services of the Global Tsunami Warning System.
Source: UNESCO-IOC (The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.?)
In May 2023, ESCAP reaffirmed its regional commitment to advance early warning systems, including those for tsunamis. They also resolved to accelerate climate action for sustainable development and mandated the development of regional early warning systems (E/ESCAP/RES/79/1).
ESCAP recognized the Trust Fund for Tsunami, Disaster, and Climate Preparedness as a crucial funding mechanism to support these efforts across the region (ESCAP/CDR(8)/6).
Advancing tsunami warnings for all
This year’s World Tsunami Awareness Day (WTAD) on 5 November was dedicated to addressing inequality for a more resilient future and focused on raising awareness about the factors that make tsunamis more deadly for the most vulnerable populations.
The theme was aligned with the “Early Warnings for All” global initiative, which aims to provide early warning systems to everyone on Earth by 2027, and Target G of the Sendai Framework, which promotes the expansion of early warnings and early actions for all.
Building on the momentum of the Early Warnings for All initiative, it’s crucial to ensure that efforts to improve early warning systems for climate-related hazards also include those of seismic origin, such as tsunamis.
Through generous contributions to the Trust Fund for Tsunami, Disaster and Climate Preparedness, UNESCO-IOC and ESCAP have now initiated a comprehensive assessment of tsunami preparedness capacity in the Indian and Pacific Ocean basins.
This assessment will use a standardized methodology based on the 2018 capacity assessment Indian Ocean tsunami preparedness. It will evaluate progress made since the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami and provide regional decision-makers with insights into the additional requirements for tsunami preparedness, both technically and in terms of policy.
Tsunamis should be treated as multifaceted threats that not only endanger lives but also disrupt livelihoods, industry, agriculture, gender equality, and critical services like education and healthcare.
Access to high-quality and readily information is crucial for supporting regional mechanisms and local preparedness while also increasing awareness of early warning systems.
When COVID-19 struck, companies had little choice but to adapt swiftly. Office spaces were replaced by living rooms and in-person meetings transitioned to virtual calls — a temporary solution, or so it was thought.
But months have turned into years, and now it’s clear this is not just a fleeting phase but a profound transformation in work dynamics.
A friend calls this day “Thanksscrapping.” He may have a point.
My favorite Thanksgiving story happened at a dinner on Park Avenue about 20 years ago when a lady with a large bouffant and a genial manner — let’s call her Mrs. Anders — raised a glass. Knowing I grew up in Dublin in a Catholic family, she said: “…and I’d like to raise a glass to Fair Eire and hope that the six counties of Northern Ireland are one day free from the British!” She did not realize that the host’s in-laws were Ulster Protestants. They were not amused.
UCKFIELD, UK, Nov 23 (IPS) – As we stand at a critical crossroads in climate change, we must recognise the inextricable link between nature and climate. This connection has been overlooked for far too long. IAR’s COP28 campaign, ‘Give Wildlife A Seat At The Table,’ is gaining support from prominent figures such as Joanna Lumley, Peter Egan, and Jo Brand, who are joining forces with the organisation to address the urgent need for wildlife representation.
The campaign aims to push world leaders to seriously consider the planet’s wildlife and the biodiversity crisis during COP28 discussions.
As the world gears up for COP28, the urgency of addressing climate change has never been more apparent. However, it is crucial to recognise that climate change is not a standalone issue; it is intricately linked to biodiversity loss and, ultimately, the health and wellbeing of humanity. It is important to understand the critical role that conserving wildlife, habitats, nature, and ecosystems plays in mitigating climate change and safeguarding our shared future.
The toll on people and wildlife from climate change is not a distant threat; its impacts are already being felt across the globe, affecting both human populations and wildlife. Communities are already experiencing the adverse effects of rising sea levels, extreme weather events, flooding, droughts and severe storms.
Similarly, the changes to global weather patterns due to climate change pose direct threats to ecosystems worldwide. These changes disrupt habitats, pushing hundreds of thousands of species to the brink of extinction. As ecosystems unravel, the intricate web of biodiversity is compromised, affecting the delicate balance that sustains life on Earth.
We are now at a critical moment in global climate action. This urgency is underscored by a year of record-breaking temperatures and extreme weather events across the planet. COP28 serves as an evaluation of the progress since the promises made in Paris at COP21 and how effective these commitments have been in limiting long-term global temperature rises.
At COP28, we are hopeful that world leaders will come together, representing their countries, and step up their commitments to slow global heating. They will also consider the funding and adaptations needed to support the communities most affected.
The central question arises: Is it right that wildlife does not have a voice at the table where decisions impacting the entire planet are made? Wildlife must be given due representation in these discussions. Wildlife must have a seat at the table! International Animal Rescue (IAR) is leading the charge to ‘Give Wildlife A Seat At The Table,’ mobilising 10,000 voices to implore world leaders to prioritise wildlife and biodiversity during the discussions.
IAR envisions a world where humans and animals thrive together in sustainable ecosystems. Conserving biodiversity is not just about protecting endangered species; it’s about preserving the intricate web of life that sustains our planet. Healthy ecosystems, thriving with diverse plant and animal species, act as a natural buffer against climate change.
IAR’s conservation programme, IARconserves, embraces a holistic, one-health approach. By adopting community-centric, grass-roots strategies, the outcomes positively impact people, wildlife and the environment. Through IARconserves, we have improved the health and prosperity of forest edge communities; in turn, this has reduced the environmental impact of human activity.
By conserving wildlife and their habitats, forests are protected, ensuring that millions of tonnes of carbon remain stored in the flora and deep peat below.
As we approach COP28, the call to ‘Give Wildlife A Seat At The Table’ becomes more urgent. The success of this campaign hinges on collective action – individuals, communities, and nations coming together to advocate for a more sustainable and inclusive approach to climate discussions.
It is imperative that the international community recognises the inextricable link between climate change, biodiversity loss, and human health. Conservation efforts must be elevated on the global agenda, with a commitment to preserving wildlife, habitats, nature, and ecosystems. By doing so, we not only mitigate the impacts of climate change but also foster a world where both human and non-human inhabitants can thrive.
The urgency is palpable; the time for action is now. The ‘Give Wildlife A Seat At The Table’ campaign by International Animal Rescue calls for world leaders to consider the planet’s wildlife and biodiversity during COP28 seriously.
With a target of 10,000 signatures on the petition, the campaign aims to ensure that the voices of wildlife are heard in decisions that affect all of us – people, animals, forests, and the entirety of our interconnected ecosystems. You can find out more here.
Gavin Bruce is Chief Executive of International Animal Rescue
Marvel built its comic book revolution on the back of one idea: rendering colorful superheroes as relatable. In the mid 20th century, DC do-gooders were essentially square-jawed Sunday school teachers, which let Marvel corner the market on heroes with human depth and fragility. The Fantastic Four were vulnerable to insecurity and in-fighting. The X-Men represented the cost of bigotry on a wide scale.
But Spider-Man represented this new wave best. Consumed by youthful everyman angst and desperate to find balance in his life, Spider-Man is broadly sympathetic. We identify with his struggles and his little glimmers of connection and triumph — which makes him the perfect superhero for Thanksgiving. And Spider-Man writers know it.
Image: Jacob Chabot/Marvel Comics
Thanksgiving has a complicated history, tied to the roots of American colonialism, and more recently processed through a lens of joyful capitalism. But feeding friends and family is perhaps one of the most humane acts we can pursue. It’s less about the spirit of giving, and more about admitting that people have innate, basic needs, like food and social comfort, and that those needs are best fulfilled when people work in tandem. Honestly, we should try to do it more on every other day of the year: The number of people volunteering to help feed the homeless and families in need peaks around November and December, but that energy needs to be carried through the preceding 10 months, too.
Spider-Man represents these needs, even though very few of us have to balance photojournalist work, a fraught dating life, and pummeling Dr. Octopus. Peter Parker is often the most financially strapped among his Avengers buddies, and frequently the loneliest, too. Those are recognizable traits among many young people, even those without radioactive-spider powers. When you’re growing up and trying to figure out the world, it’s easy to feel lost and isolated. But feelings of loneliness spike during the holidays, meaning that there’s a good chance you’ll feel even more like Peter Parker when late November rolls around.
Image: Columbia Pictures/Disney Plus
It’s what makes the Thanksgiving scene in the 2002 Spider-Man film so engaging. That whole movie is an exercise in heart-on-your-sleeve sweetness. Everyone who’s seen it knows the Thanksgiving dinner rapidly descends into chaos, with Norman Osborn ominously sticking his fingers into Aunt May’s sweet-potato casserole, figuring out Spider-Man’s secret identity, and delivering a grossly sexist diatribe to his son Harry, leaving Harry and Mary Jane at odds with each other. Aunt May and Peter clearly wind up with a ton of leftovers after everyone else storms out.
But for Peter, who’s just lost his Uncle Ben and has been facing the initial trials of being Spider-Man, there’s a nice moment of personal respite at the opening of that scene, where he walks into a room where he knows he’s loved, bearing an offering of cranberry sauce,. Sure, everyone in that room is trying to hold things together. Mary Jane wants to impress Norman, Harry wants to impress Norman and Mary Jane, Peter loves Mary Jane but doesn’t dare hurt Harry, and Aunt May is finishing what’s presumably a dope turkey, in an attempt to care for all of them.
It’s the trying that counts: Life can be hard, weird, and cruel, but while sitting down for a meal with our nearest and dearest, maybe for at least a little while, we won’t need to have it all figured out.
Image: Sony Pictures Television/Disney Plus
Not all Spider-Man Thanksgiving dinners end up falling apart, and some succeed in reminding Peter that he isn’t alone. The first season of The Spectacular Spider-Man ends with a bang: One of Peter’s closest pals, Eddie Brock, has become Venom, and has threatened everyone Peter holds dear. This comes just after Peter himself was infected by the symbiote, and went through the now-iconic throes of pushing everyone away. Aunt May has just gotten out of the hospital, and even noted jerk “Flash” Thompson has given Peter hell for how awful he’s been acting.
Peter, attempting to make things right, opts to cook the Thanksgiving meal all by himself, but mostly succeeds in ruining the kitchen. No worries — Gwen Stacy and her father, along with a recuperating Aunt May and her doctor, all help out, and the episode concludes with a pleasant dinner. There are no big turns or twists, aside from Aunt May revealing that she’s publishing a cookbook. It’s just simple, earned solace in a life marked by chaos. Peter even gets a kiss from Gwen on his porch, a sequence conducted with a John Hughes sense of satisfying romantic flair.
Photo: Laura Cavanaugh/FilmMagic
Various Spider-Man comics have also dabbled in seeing what Thanksgiving looks like when you’re young and arachnid-themed, but real life has associated Spider-Man with the holiday, too. Spider-Man is the only Marvel character to rate a balloon in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Parade. Other Marvel characters have appeared on floats, but only Spider-Man has been inflated to 80 feet and pulled through the Upper West Side. (That also makes him the only Marvel character to have his head horrifically torn open by a tree branch.)
From his first comic book appearance, Spider-Man has been a reminder that life is hard and complicated, and being a superhero doesn’t preclude anyone from experiencing ordinary frustrations, setbacks, and confusion. But no matter how Spider-Man’s Thanksgiving escapades turn out, they remind readers and viewers that the holiday is about the hope of mutual connection, support, and nurturing. Even if the girl of your dreams is out of reach and the Green Goblin is on your case, a table, some friends, and Aunt May’s rad turkey might just make everything better for a little while.
KABUL, Afghanistan, Nov 22 (IPS) – On the morning of 11 November, Mohammed Abu Salmiya, the Director of Gaza’s largest medical center, Al Shifa Hospital, sent out an emotional S.O.S. to the world through a television news interview and through the remaining charge on his mobile phone. His plea for an immediate ceasefire on behalf of a hospital under siege and its 700 critically injured and ill patients, 36 premature babies, 400 staff, and the 2000 vulnerable civilians. These people sheltering within the hospital and its garden were heard as far away as Afghanistan yet totally ignored where it counted most- with the men in Israel’s war cabinet and Washington; they were busy executing and aiding an illegal war of choice on an unarmed, defenseless hospital and one of the poorest and densely populated places in the world.
Like the Palestinians, Afghans have experienced the cruelty of armed conflict and occupation for decades. They know the painful cost of the endless wars waged by those who so casually destroy innocent lives in exchange for more power, revenge, or, as in the case of America’s post-9/11 response to Afghanistan, delusion that war can somehow defeat terrorism. In 2015, a U.S. gunship fired hundreds of shells into an M.S.F. trauma hospital in Kunduz, in northeastern Afghanistan because it had intelligence that Taliban fighters were based at the same location.
Like Al Shifa Hospital’s S.O.S., those M.S.F. staff who survived the initial shelling desperately called military authorities in the area to call off the attack. Shelling continued for nearly an hour, and by the time it stopped, 34 men, women, children, patients, nurses, doctors, and M.S.F. support staff were killed, and dozens more seriously injured. Another casualty of the attack was the community. Before the hospital was destroyed, it had served as a lifeline for civilians wounded by the war raging around them but also as the only specialized surgical hospital in the region. It took six years for the hospital to reopen.
Between 2001 and the day U.S. Forces chaotically left Afghanistan twenty years later, nearly 50,000 Afghan civilians were killed as a direct result of the U.S. and Coalition military occupation. Brown University’s The Cost of War Project and other independent sources, such as the Uppsala Conflict Data Program, have determined that the scope of direct and indirect deaths through injury, malnutrition, poor water sanitation, infectious disease, pregnancy and birth-related risks, and cancers left untreated as a result of destroyed public services and infrastructure. The U.S. led post 9-11 total civilian death toll in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Libya was an unfathomable 4 million people and a staggering 40 million people displaced by the fighting.
Despite the lingering scars of war and the dire humanitarian crisis facing Afghans today, the hearts of Afghans are with Gazans and with all those citizens of the world from Washington DC to London, Mexico City to Istanbul, who are crying out for a cease-fire and sense of humanity to prevail amidst world leaders. This heartbreaking, cruel moment transcends borders.
The collective punishment of the Palestinian people by Israel in retaliation for the actions of Hamas, with the unconditional diplomatic backing and financial and military support of the United States and many European nations, is now a collective pain felt across the world, irrespective of nationality, religion, ethnicity, or class.
When President Biden visited Israel on 18 October, he said, “I caution this: While you feel rage, don’t be consumed by it…After 9/11, we were enraged in the United States. And while we sought justice and got justice, we also made mistakes.” Instead, Washington, the U.K., and E.U. leaders have wasted precious time and lives arguing for humanitarian pauses while giving Israel the green light to continue its slaughter of civilians throughout the Gaza Strip.
The scope of the human catastrophe so far could have been prevented had President Biden backed up his advice to Israel with immediate humanitarian action for the Palestinian people and support through the several law enforcement and diplomatic options at Israel’s disposal to expedite the release of the 240 Israeli hostages and reinforce Israel’s border security from further Hamas attacks.
In the face of such inhumanity, President Biden’s ultimate mistake now would be continuing to ignore his advice to Israel. As Yonatan Zeigen, the son of 74 Vivian Silver, a lifelong peace activist, murdered by Hamas at Kibbutz Be’eri on October 7th, said this week, “Israel won’t cure our dead babies by killing more babies.”
It has been 12 brutal days and nights since those in power ignored the S.O.S. by the director of Al-Shifa Hospital. The I.D.F. forces stormed the hospital soon after the director’s urgent humanitarian appeal to the world. All of Al Shifa’s 22 intensive care patients have died, and another 30 patients, including three premature babies, have also died. Mohammed Abu Salmiya made another call to the world. This time, he said Al Shifa was “no longer a hospital but a graveyard” and reminded world leaders that civilians and civilian infrastructure such as hospitals are protected by international law and, if not the law, then by one’s sense of decency and humanity. So far, the response to Al Shifa’s Director from Washington and some E.U. members continues to be a surge in lethal military aid to Israel.
The four-day humanitarian pause Qatar just announced needs to be reinforced by American and European demands on Israel for a definitive end to hostilities. The devastation of lives and infrastructure in Gaza is so vast and traumatic that a humanitarian pause immediately followed by a resumption of attacks on civilians by Israel and retaliations by Hamas will only lead to an abyss of more suffering for both Palestinians and Israelis and escalate the risk for a broader regional war.
If only Western leaders, starting with President Biden, had as much courage as the director, staff, and patients of Al Shifa Hospital and the loved ones of those killed at Kibbutz Be’eri on 7 October.
Unlike in Afghanistan, the time to stop the war is now, not after twenty years.
Melek Zahine is a humanitarian affairs and disaster management specialist with over 30 years of experience working in Afghanistan, the Middle East, and the Balkans.
We face a critical time where action needs to be scaled-up dramatically if we are to avoid the worst outcomes from the climate threat. Credit: Guillermo Flores/IPS
Opinion by Felix Dodds, Chris Spence (new york)
Inter Press Service
NEW YORK, Nov 22 (IPS) – Climate change has been a source of concern among the international community since the 1970s. Yet, almost fifty years since the issue was first raised in international diplomatic circles by prominent scientists, the situation continues to deteriorate, with rises in temperatures and extreme weather causing ever-magnifying problems around the world.
What has the global community done to date to deal with what many consider an existential threat to humanity’s future? And what needs to happen next in the UN negotiations as diplomats and other key stakeholders head to Dubai for COP28? This briefing provides a short history of global cooperation to date, then looks towards Dubai and beyond for what needs to happen next.
We argue that, although much more has been done to date than many give the UN and global community credit for, we face a critical time where action needs to be scaled-up dramatically if we are to avoid the worst outcomes from the climate threat.
A Brief History of the International Community’s Response to Climate Change
The United Nations first began to set out the case for action on climate change in the late 1970s, with the First World Climate Conference in 1979. Sponsored by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), it brought together scientists from various disciplines to explore the issue.
This led in 1988 to the establishment by the WMO and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which took scientific consideration of climate change to a new level. The research-based warnings presented by the IPCC strengthened the case for action (and continue to do so today).
Initially, a Second World Climate Conference was held in 1990 and this set the agenda for negotiations on a global treaty. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was agreed by the UN General Assembly in time for the June 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The agreement entered into force in March 1994 when 50 countries had ratified the convention through their legislatures. It now has 198 Parties.
The UNFCCC is sometimes criticized for being weak or ineffective. However, as a “framework” convention, it should really be considered a foundation or starting-point for further agreements that build upon it. In this respect, it models earlier agreements, including the ones that have so successfully tackled the ozone crisis.
The Vienna Convention, which was the first treaty on ozone, was itself quite limited. However, subsequent agreements, including the Montreal Protocol, built a strong and ultimately successful structure upon this early foundation.
Furthermore, the UNFCCC does include some strong and important concepts and commitments, including the need to limit climate change caused by humans to a level that is not dangerous. It also recognizes that some countries are better placed than others to do this work, and that many, such as those in the Global South, will need support and assistance.
The UNFCCC led rapidly to the Kyoto Protocol, which was agreed in December 1997. It, too, recognized the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” between different groups of countries, with developed countries to take the lead and carry the most responsibility for emissions in the atmosphere.
The Kyoto Protocol was innovative in several ways.
First, it included specific targets for many countries from the Global North. While not all governments took these as seriously as they might, in many countries it started an ongoing and detailed policy response from governments, including greater investment in renewable energy and other policy shifts to begin to decouple economic growth from the growth in fossil fuel emissions.
These efforts have enjoyed some success, and per capita emissions have dropped in many industrialized countries even as rising populations and economic growth elsewhere mean global emissions have continued to increase overall.
What’s more, the Kyoto Protocol provided a catalyst for private sector engagement. Government policies that encouraged corporate investment in new technologies, emissions trading, and other innovations began to make the climate response look more like a “whole-of-society” effort than one involving sequestered government departments.
However, as the economies of the Global South grew and prospered in the 2000s, it was clear that Kyoto, with its focus squarely on actions in the Global North, would not be enough.
Hopes were high that the Copenhagen Climate Conference in 2009 would replace the Kyoto Protocol with a more ambitious approach that would come into effect from 2012.
Ultimately, it failed in its immediate goal of securing a new, legally binding agreement. However, as we note in our book, Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy (Routledge, 2022), although the meeting did not secure a new deal, President Obama did manage to float some new concepts in a weakened outcome known as the Copenhagen Accord. The ideas it contained included a $100 billion climate fund to help the Global South and, even more significantly, a need for all countries to be a part of the solution to climate change.
In 2015, the seeds sown at the disappointing meeting in Copenhagen finally bore fruit. The Paris Agreement took on the ambitious aim of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius by the end of this century. It requires countries to take on targets and to report back to the UN on progress.
While some criticized these targets for being voluntary rather than mandatory (as was the case with Kyoto), many praised the fact that the commitments were to be taken on by all countries. What’s more, the Paris Agreement provided flexibility so countries could take on what was best fitted to their particular circumstances and level of economic development. This made it possible for all countries to agree on the way forward, since it continued to respect nations’ sovereignty rather than trying to impose specific emissions targets on them.
One sign that Paris has had a positive impact has been forecasts for future global temperature rise by the end of the century. Before 2015, various predictions based on emissions trends suggested rises of upwards of 4, 5, and 6 Celsius, or even higher.
This would be utterly catastrophic for humanity. Today, forecasts trend somewhere between 1.8C-3C, depending on the assumptions in the model. To be clear, these are still very bleak numbers. They signify likely outcomes that are highly dangerous and may even be calamitous. But it does show an encouraging trend.
One of the family photos taken after the laborious end of the 26th climate summit in Glasgow, which closed a day later than scheduled with a Climate Pact described as falling short by even the most optimistic, lacking important decisions to combat the crisis and without directly confronting fossil fuels, the cause of the emergency. CREDIT: UNFCCC
The next significant UN climate conference was COP26 in Glasgow. Held in 2021 as the world was still reeling from the COVID pandemic, the outcome from COP26 included the Glasgow Climate Pact, which sought to promote the reduced use of coal and other sources of emissions.
Glasgow also witnessed the first review of countries’ voluntary commitments under Paris (known in UN-speak as “Nationally Determined Contributions”). Glasgow also promoted the idea of ‘coalitions of the willing’ to advance ideas that might not have enough support to find consensus among all 198 countries that belonged to the UNFCCC, but that were nevertheless considered by some to be worth pursuing.
In spite of some skepticism at the time, some of these coalitions do promise positive results. For instance, the Methane Pledge now has 111 countries committing to a 30% reduction in methane on 2020 levels by 2030. If countries honor their promises, this could bring down climate projections by 0.2C by 2050.
Another coalition of the willing was the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), which brought commitments from over 650 global financial institutions from banking, asset owners and managers, insurers and financial service providers committing to support the transition to net zero. Again, promises only matter if they are kept. However, if they are honored, then the impact of GFANZ will be significant.
In 2022, the UN Climate Conference, COP27, was held in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. There, the major breakthrough was the agreement on the need for a fund to help developing countries suffering loss and damage caused by climate change. Such a fund has long been a rallying cry for negotiators from the Global South, as well as their allies.
For a meeting billed as the “implementation COP” where climate action was taken to another level, the news on mitigation and finance was therefore disappointing. Credit: Shutterstock
What Next? Looking towards COP28 in Dubai
COP28 is being held against a complicated global backdrop. With conflict and turmoil in Europe and the Middle East, tension among the great powers and economic uncertainty around the world, how realistic can our ambitions be for COP28 and what does it need to deliver for us to consider it a success?
Progress on Loss and Damage
The run-up to COP28 in Dubai has seen significant work by a transitional committee deliberating on the infrastructure of a future Loss and Damage Fund. It was meant to have three meetings between the COPs and ultimately needed more before a compromise was found on where such a fund might be situated. In the end, the agreement was for the World Bank to act as an “interim” host for four years.
The decision to set up a similar governance structure to the Green Climate Fund has perhaps given it a heavy bureaucracy, which might be a problem in the future. However, the forward momentum and growing certainty on how it will be organized has encouraged a number of countries to put funds into the nascent Loss and Damage Fund. This includes the European Union, which is pledging “substantial” contributions. Meanwhile, the host country, UAE, is looking at making a contribution, The US has also said it would put “several millions into the fund”. While modest in size, it is at least a start.
A key issue in Dubai will be who will get the money. The agreement at COP27 was to assist “developing nations, especially those that are particularly vulnerable”.
The EU is suggesting this means the least developed countries and small island developing states. Developing countries have so far resisted reducing it to those groups. Some point to situations such as the terrible floods in Pakistan before COP27 as an example of how funds might be allocated. Pakistan is neither a least developed country nor an island state. Does that mean it would not have been eligible had such a fund existed at the time, in spite of its clear and obvious need?
In spite of these kind of uncertainties, COP28 is expected to advance work on the Loss and Damage Fund. Failure to do so would be judged harshly, given recent momentum.
Beyond Loss and Damage – Boosting Funding
The commitment proposed back in Copenhagen in 2009 for US$100 billion a year for climate finance by 2020 was not achieved until 2022. In part, the blame for this can be placed on COVID 19, which caused disruption in aid and climate budgets, among many other problems.
While the $100 billion goal has now been attained, it is important to remember that this was intended as a floor and not a ceiling. Furthermore, much of the money is being distributed as loans rather than grants. As a consequence, it has actually had a negative impact on the indebtedness of some least developed countries.
The reality is that we need trillions, not billions, to address climate change and that government aid will not be enough. As a reference point, Official Development Assistance (ODA) reached a new high of US$204 billion in 2022. While welcome, this is wholly inadequate for the climate crisis, for which funding should be additional to ODA in any case.
COP28 marks a staging post on the path to developing a new collective quantified goal on climate finance, which is slated to be agreed in 2024. In Dubai there will be a High-Level Ministerial Dialogue on 3 December. This discussion should send a strong signal that any new goal in 2024 will be ambitious, innovative, and at a much higher level than in the past. Anything less will invite criticisms that COP28 was a missed opportunity.
Looking Back to Leap Forward?
A major component of the talks at COP28 will be what insiders call the “global stocktake”. Held every five years, it presents delegates with an opportunity to assess their collective progress in delivering on the Paris Agreement. How has the world performed in terms of climate mitigation, adaptation, and implementation?
Participants in this year’s stocktake have before them the worrying fact that the world is already nudging close to the 1.5C warming limit governments pledged to stay within. Optimists are hoping COP28 catalyzes the beginning of more ambitious Nationally Determined Contributions in the next two years, and a strong collective undertaking by governments to redouble their efforts.
The signs so far are not positive. Since COP27, only 20 countries have increased their pledges, including Egypt, Mexico, Norway, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates.
While this should be welcomed, none of the major emitters has stepped forward. Recently, the head of the UN’s climate office, Simon Stiell, labeled efforts as “baby steps” rather than the “bold strides” that are needed. If COP28 does not yield a satisfactory outcome on this topic, many are likely to see it as a missed opportunity, or even as a failure. At the very least, major emitters should step up at COP28 and indicate that they will be announcing much more ambitious goals sooner than later.
A Host of Problems?
In recent months, there has been considerable criticism of the incoming UAE Presidency. Many media commentators have asked why an OPEC member should be hosting a climate COP? Does this not send a bad signal, they ask?
Many of these talking heads may not be aware that UN Climate Summits are rotated around the five UN regions, and that this was Asia’s turn to host. Furthermore, there was little appetite from other governments in the region to host it.
Critics have also pointed out that the President of COP28 will be Sultan Al Jaber, who has a history in the fossil-fuel industry. The counter-argument is that he has also been prominent in promoting the UAE’s work on renewable energy. He was the founding CEO and is the current Chair of Masdar, a UAE-owned renewable energy company. As we write this article, the United Arab Emirates has launched the Al Dhafra solar farm. It is now the world’s largest single-site solar farm, powering 200,000 homes.
Rather than engaging in these debates, we would argue that the host government should be judged on whether COP28 is a success. The UAE Presidency has identified its own priorities where they will push for major progress: mitigation, adaptation, loss and damage, innovating the UN process by engaging more with the private sector, and pushing for greater inclusion, accountability and transparency.
These are worthy goals and it should therefore be possible to judge them based on these topics once the meeting ends. If they deliver, it will show that a fossil fuel producer is capable of promoting progress on climate change. If it does not, then the UAE will certainly come in for criticism.
It is also worth noting that, although the UAE is a prominent fossil fuel producer, many previous hosts have also been in the same camp, even if some are less well known for this. For instance, Poland, South Africa, India, and Indonesia have all hosted COPs in the past (Poland has actually hosted three), and yet all four of these countries line up among the world’s top ten coal producing countries.
Meanwhile, Qatar, another former host, is a major oil and gas producer. Should they not have hosted the COPs? Again, we feel hosts should be judged by the results they achieve.
Ramping Up the Carbon Market
The Paris Agreement included use of carbon markets to reach our emissions targets. A rulebook for this was largely completed at Glasgow in 2021. This should open the door to many billions of dollars of investments (in 2021 it was $2 billion). The rules set at Glasgow should help ensure that offsets are of high “quality” (meaning they genuinely help reduce and offset emissions).
COP28 will provide an opportunity to assess early progress as we move into an implementation phase. Are the markets ramping up? Who is using them, and how can we encourage them to grow? COP28 needs to address these issues.
Global Goal on Adaptation
The world is so far down the climate change path that adapting to its impact is already happening and will be unavoidable in future. A review under what is known as the Glasgow–Sharm el-Sheikh work programme (GlaSS) will be presented at COP28, and clear targets, indicators, and financing options are expected by COP29.
There was also a commitment in Glasgow to double adaptation funding by 2025. If this happened, it would raise the amount to US$40 billion annually. Again, COP28 provides an opportunity to give some early signals this goal will be achieved.
Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero
Outside the government negotiations, observers at COP28 will also be looking for progress by other stakeholders. For instance, the Glasgow Finance Alliance for Net Zero referred to earlier represents two-fifths of the world’s financial assets, $130 trillion, under the management of banks, insurers and pension funds that have signed up to 2050 net-zero goals, including limiting global warming to 1.5C. The potential of such a group is enormous.
At COP28, this group should report back on progress, and other stakeholders should be ready to hold it to account to ensure these goals are real and are being actively pursued, rather than just being empty promises.
Judging Dubai
COP28 has a number of key outcomes it needs to deliver, as well as being an important stepping stone to further COPs that will also have to deliver specific outcomes that are ambitious and commensurate with the scale of the challenge we face.
If delegates in Dubai are to declare success, they will need to finalize the Loss and Damage Fund, advance the Goal Global on Adaptation, and pack a real punch with the Global Stocktake, with concrete outcomes to help us limit global temperature rise. Do this, and COP28 stands a good chance of being hailed a success. Fail to deliver and observers will view it rightly as a missed opportunity not just for diplomacy, but in guiding us towards a more sustainable future.
Felix Dodds and Chris Spence are co-editors of the recent book, Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge Press, 2022). It includes chapters on the climate negotiations held in Kyoto (1997), Copenhagen (2009) and Paris (2015). Felix is also Director, Multilateral Affairs. Rob and Melani Walton Sustainability Solutions Service (RMWSSS) at Arizona State University
References
UNFCCC (2023) Nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement. Synthesis report by the secretariathttps://unfccc.int/documents/632334
The Black college students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) share a common bond with other marginalized groups. Our nation’s history is replete with stories of the relentless fight for equitable voting rights.
That’s why, as this struggle continues due to the need to combat various voter suppression tactics, college campuses must play a crucial role in promoting a connection between political leaders and their electorate.
Higher education has the power to formidably facilitate political engagement on campus by supporting greater access to political candidates.
The voices heard, the debates sparked and the connections made can ignite student political engagement.
As researchers on the political socialization of Black youth voters at HBCUs, we can offer critical advice for those seeking to engage with HBCU students. Successful political messaging to this demographic lies in authentic engagement that includes a sincere effort to address students’ concerns and priorities.
Superficial appearances, monologues or insincere support-seeking will not make the intended impact.
When political candidates embark on message and outreach tours, they must be careful not to alienate the critical yet frequently underestimated population of Black youth voters, who too often feel that they only matter to politicians during election season.
We know this from interviews with over 118 young Black voters at HBCUs, who expressed frustration with politicians who resort to hollow pandering by playing identity politics — for example, “Vote for me because you are Black” — or making superficial statements like “I keep hot sauce in my bag” or “I’ve lit up a joint.”
Such tactics are a turn-off for these young voters, who want genuine conversations about their rights before discussions about what they should do with their votes.
Politicians who invite themselves onto our campuses should prioritize giving students unfiltered access that allows for unscripted interactions and authentic engagement.
Here are some recommendations based on our findings:
First, candidates should strategically engage with youth voters by going where they are. The key to engaging young voters effectively lies in the choice of location and method of interaction.
Instead of speaking in grand auditoriums, candidates should focus on smaller venues — campus cafeterias, quads and student dormitories — to facilitate flexible and genuine conversations.
Second, candidates should emphasize that they want to learn from students during their campus visits. The significance of these visits lies in the lessons imparted by and the feedback received from students — listening to student voices is essential to make visits impactful. Candidates should convey that they believe students can make valuable contributions.
Third, these young voters want politicians to pay genuine attention to their needs and aspirations. As one participant aptly expressed, “Show what you’ve done. Why would I vote for you, if you haven’t done anything in my community that shows me that you’re here for me and not just my vote?”
Finally, candidates should make efforts to keep the momentum of voter engagement going beyond Election Day. Voting is just the beginning, and if candidates gain Black youth voters’ initial support, they may earn enduring support.
Candidates’ campus visits are opportunities for voters and politicians to cultivate trust and foster stronger relationships beyond Election Day.
Engagement is not about pandering or making campaign pit stops; instead, it’s about empowering a generation to vote for leaders who truly champion their causes.
However, her lecture-like approach, with moderated discussions, seems to be falling short of establishing a genuine connection. If the tour’s goal is to inspire and empower young voters on topics important to their demographic, it should actively include them in the plan.
Politicians who invite themselves onto our campuses should prioritize giving students unfiltered access that allows for unscripted interactions and authentic engagement.
Politicians need not search far for exemplars, for academics manifest this practice daily in their classrooms. They engage students in open dialogues, affording them the opportunity to pose unvetted inquiries and receive forthright responses.
Postsecondary institutions should help facilitate these connections between politicians and students, thus amplifying youth voter voices in a manner that centers them. Simply giving politicians the chance to be visible on campus is not enough and won’t matter beyond Election Day.
Students want to hear from and vote for leaders who legitimately connect with them and will actively advocate for their causes.
Amanda Wilkerson is an assistant professor at the University of Central Florida in the Department of Educational Leadership and Higher Education.
Shalander “Shelly” Samuels is an Afro-Caribbean assistant professor in the English department in the College of Liberal Arts at Kean University.
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
NEW YORK, Nov 20 (IPS) – In the midst of the Israel-Hamas conflagration, a significant anniversary at the United Nations –October 24th was the 78th year since its founding–went unremarked by the larger world. But the work of–and significant problems with–the UN continues. Among the problems is embedded institutional racism. It’s time that it be deeply addressed–not just by lip service.
The UN was founded in the aftermath of World War II to prevent the recurrence of such catastrophic events, with a commitment to “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, the dignity, and worth of the human person” and, proclaiming “the right of everyone to enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.”
Marking International Day on Eliminating Racial Discrimination on March 21, 2023, the UN Secretary-General António Guterres said, “Racial discrimination is a deeply damaging and pervasive abuse of human rights and human dignity that affects every country. It is one of the most destructive forces dividing societies, responsible for death and suffering on a grotesque scale throughout history. Today, racial discrimination and the legacies of enslavement and colonialism continue to ruin lives, marginalize communities and limit opportunities, preventing billions of people from achieving their full potential.”
There are visible contradictions in how the UN addresses racism and racial discrimination that go against the stipulations of the UN Charter. Some of this is attributable to systemic issues that date back to the founding of the UN.
The UN was established in 1945 as a solution for countries of European descent as they looked for a stable new international (and European) order. At that time, most parts of the world remained under European colonial domination, so the creation of the UN was led by those colonial and former enslaving powers.
The wave of decolonization between 1945 and 1960 changed the face of the world order as well as the World Body. The membership of the UN grew from 51 founding members in 1945 to 127 by 1970, and currently there are 193 member states. This aspect contributed towards altering the balance of power within the UN. These new member states were not from Europe and not white.
These new members persuaded the UN to embrace the change in the world order and brought new ideas to the General Assembly, the main deliberative body of the UN, which now practices the noble principle of “One Nation One Vote” and with five Regional Groups of member states – Africa, Asia – Pacific, Eastern Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Western Europe and Other Group (including North America).
However, a similar transformation did not take place within the staffing of the organizations of the UN system.
In UN organizations, the staff experience or witness workplace discrimination largely on the basis of national origin, race, or skin color, according to the findings of several recent surveys. Most mentioned their lack of trust and confidence in the system, including existing recourse mechanisms and believed that the organization would offer no recourse if they complained about the racism they experienced.
The JIU review on racism and racial discrimination confirms that racism and racial discrimination are widespread throughout the system and the magnitude is high, based on evidence of prevalence, form, and effects of racism and racial discrimination. It further revealed that the “likelihood of experiencing racism and racial discrimination is higher” among black/African descent, Indigenous, South Asian and Middle Eastern/North African respondents.
More than half of the staff in the Professional and higher categories in the UN organizations are from Western countries or European descent. Hence, there is disproportionate representation among the five regional groupings. This disparity, directly and indirectly, contributes to the current organizational culture that enables racism and racial discrimination.
All organizations in the UN system should implement measures to reduce the proportion of the most highly represented regional groups and to increase the proportion of less represented regional groups, thereby reducing the overall imbalance among regional groups and making the UN organizations more representative of the populations they serve, including at decision-making levels.
Tackling systemic racism and racial discrimination within the UN system is not only an ethical issue but also a business issue. Racism and racial discrimination cause significant financial losses for all parties. Staff members suffer from loss of income, health, morale, enthusiasm and job satisfaction during their career span, while organizations suffer in terms of loss of time, resources, talent, committed staff, quality of work, timely delivery, productivity and reputation, among others.
It is therefore important to assess the tangible impacts of racism, in monetary terms, on staff, organizations and their capacities for programme delivery, especially the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals. Such an exercise is critical if the UN organizations are genuinely committed to eliminating racism within.
The world urgently needs the UN leadership to fight systemic racism. Hence, the organizations of the UN system do not have time to spend another year on internal discussions and dialogues. Immediate implementation of the Secretary-General’s Strategic Action Plan on Addressing Racism and Promoting Dignity for All in the UN Secretariat would be a starting point, and similar action plans should follow urgently in all other UN organizations.
The time is now for the UN to act to fully eradicate racism and racial discrimination within its organizations.
Shihana Mohamed, a Sri Lankan national, is a founding member and one of the Coordinators of the United Nations Asia Network for Diversity and Inclusion (UN-ANDI) and a Public Voices Fellow with The OpEd Project and Equality Now.
UN-ANDI is a global network of like-minded Asians of the United Nations system who strive to promote a more diverse and inclusive culture and mindset within the UN system. UN-ANDI is the first-ever effort to bring together a diverse group of personnel (staff, retirees, consultants, interns, diplomats, and others) from Asia and the Pacific (nationality/origin/descent) in the UN system. Please contact via email at UnitedNationsA[email protected] to connect or/and collaborate with UN-ANDI.
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Nov 20 (IPS) – Australia had the chance to take a step forward in redressing the exclusion of its Indigenous people – and chose not to. In a referendum held in October, voters rejected a constitutional amendment to establish an institution for Indigenous people to have a say on matters that concern them.
On a 90 per cent turnout under mandatory voting, 60 per cent voted against. Supporters of the referendum were left pointing the finger at disinformation – and those who pushed it for political gain.
A history of exclusion
For a long time, Indigenous Australians – currently 3.8 per cent of the country’s population – lacked any recognition. European settlers didn’t see any need for a treaty with the people already there. Indigenous Australians only got the vote in 1962 and, following a referendum, were put on the census as late as 1972 – until then, they literally didn’t count. They remain unrecognised in the country’s constitution.
For most of the 20th century, assimilation laws saw Indigenous children forcibly taken from their families on a mass scale. It’s estimated that between 1910 and 1970 10 to 30 per cent of Indigenous children were handed to childless white couples to be raised as white. The horror of the ‘stolen generations’ only began to be acknowledged in the mid-1990s.
In 1997 the Australian Human Rights Commission issued a report with recommendations for healing and reconciliation. But a belated prime ministerial apology came only in 2008. That same year, the government issued a plan to reduce disadvantage among Indigenous people. After most of its targets expired unmet, a new approach was developed in partnership with an Indigenous coalition in 2020.
But little progress has been made in overcoming exclusion. On almost any indicator, Indigenous people remain two to three times worse off than non-Indigenous Australians. Being dramatically underrepresented in decision-making bodies, they also lack the tools to change it.
The Uluru Statement from the Heart
The road towards the referendum started more than a decade ago, when an expert panel found that constitutional recognition was the way to go. But the call for a referendum was delayed. In 2016, a Referendum Council again concluded that constitutional reform should proceed.
In 2017, the First Nations Dialogues issued the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which called for a Voice to Parliament for Indigenous people, a truth commission and a treaty. The Voice was viewed as the first step to open up a conversation and enable further progress.
Then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, of the centre-right Liberal Party, rejected the Uluru Statement. But in 2018 another committee was set up to investigate options for constitutional change – and again, it endorsed a constitutionally enshrined Voice. The Labor opposition promised to put the proposal to a referendum if it won the next election.
Political change: potential and limitations
The Liberal/National coalition lost the May 2022 election, and Labor’s incoming prime minister Anthony Albanese promised progress on long-stalled policies to address Indigenous rights.
The proposed constitutional amendment and text of the ballot question were made public in March 2023 and approved by parliament in June. The government endorsed a set of principles of representation, transparency and accountability that would be used to design the Voice. It was made clear that, as the name implied, this new body would give a voice to Indigenous people but not have decision-making authority or veto power. Any further decision on its composition, functions, powers and procedures would be in the hands of parliament.
Foreshadowing what was to come, the Liberal and National opposition parties submitted dissenting reports, and the Nationals rejected the proposal entirely. By siding with the No campaign, the opposition doomed the referendum. No referendum has ever been carried without bipartisan support.
For and against
Given the legal requirement to distribute an official pamphlet presenting the case for both sides, members of parliament who’d voted for and against the amendment bill drafted and approved a text containing their side’s arguments. This meant that disinformation was inserted into the process from the start: as an independent fact-checking initiative showed, several claims in the No pamphlet were false or misleading.
The Yes campaign focused its messaging on fairness, reconciliation and healing, seeking to sell the idea that Australia would be made better by the recognition of a space for Indigenous people to have a say in national politics.
Indigenous people overwhelmingly supported the proposal, although some opposed it – because they thought it didn’t go far enough, saw it as whitewash or hoped not to see relationships they’d painstakingly developed sidelined. The No campaign made a point of foregrounding contrarian Indigenous voices, disproportionately boosted by supportive media.
Different organisations in the No camp appealed to different groups. Advance, a conservative lobby group, went after young progressives with its ‘Not Enough’ campaign, suggesting that the Voice wasn’t what Indigenous Australians wanted and wouldn’t solve their problems. The Blak Sovereign Movement questioned the timing, arguing that a treaty should be negotiated first. Disinformation and racial abuse were rife.
Two much-repeated claims were that the Voice would divide Australians and enshrine privileges for Indigenous people. No campaigners peddled a zero-sum idea: that non-Indigenous people would lose if Indigenous people won. They falsely claimed that people would lose their farms or that Indigenous people would charge them to access beaches.
Another fear-stoking argument was that the Voice was only the beginning – after they secured this, Indigenous people would go for more, until they took everything from the rest. It could, for example, open up a conversation about land rights. That may have been a genuine fear for Australia’s powerful extractive industries, explaining why the right-wing think tanks that have consistently opposed climate action also lobbied against the Voice.
Having sowed disinformation and confusion, the No campaign told voters that, if in doubt, they should play it safe and vote no. It worked.
What next?
The result could bring even greater backlash. Emboldened, some opposition politicians have since withdrawn their previously stated support for a treaty and suggested rolling back practices they now present as inadmissible concessions to identity politics. This could be a harbinger for the opposition pinning its comeback hopes on a culture war strategy.
But while the referendum defeat has dealt a hard blow to hopes of challenging the exclusion of Indigenous Australians, it isn’t quite game over. A specific proposal has been defeated, but there’s plenty left to advocate for. Progress on the wider reconciliation agenda, including other forms of recognition and redress, could still be possible, particularly at state and local levels. The Uluru Statement from the Heart remains the compass, and civil society will keep urging politicians and the public to follow its path.
In just the past eight years, American confidence in higher education has dropped from 57 percent to 36 percent, with more saying they have “very little” confidence than a “great deal.”
There are many reasons for this souring on colleges and universities, from high tuition sticker prices and large amounts of student loan debt to political polarization and doubts about graduates’ work readiness.
But one of the biggest contributors to declining public confidence in American colleges may be the disproportionate amount of attention paid to elite, top-ranked universities.
Americans are rankled by certain aspects of how elite institutions have behaved and what they represent. But, please America, don’t blame your local college or university because of them.
The “Varsity Blues” admissions scandal in 2019 perhaps epitomizes what bothers Americans about elite higher education. The scandal revealed a widespread scheme in which wealthy parents gained admission to elite colleges for their otherwise unqualifying children through “side door” bribery of college employees.
The lengths the wealthy were willing to go for their children felt particularly egregious given the already enormous imbalance of rich students gaining admission to top-ranked colleges.
For example, a baby born to a family in the top 0.1 percent of income in the U.S. has about a 40 percent chance of going to an Ivy League or other elite college.
At the same time, a baby born to a family in the bottom quintile of income has a less than one-half of one percent chance of admission. In other words, someone born in the top 0.1 percent is roughly 100 times more likely to land in an elite college than someone born in the bottom quintile.
Among “Ivy Plus” colleges (Ivy League plus University of Chicago, MIT, Stanford and Duke), more students come from the top one percent of income distribution than the bottom 50 percent.
The fact that wealthy students dominate enrollments at elite colleges is an insult to one of America’s most deeply held values: meritocracy.
Institutions believed to be the best educational organizations in the world, with highly selective admissions and academic standards, are failing to enroll the best and brightest students from poor and middle-class families.
Now, on the heels of the Supreme Court striking down affirmative action earlier this year (which prevents colleges from using the consideration of race in admissions) there is a lawsuit against Harvard aimed to prohibit legacy admissions — a policy that gives preference to children of often wealthy alumni.
This is a prime example of an unsavory practice among elite colleges that is becoming more visible in the public arena — and is certainly disagreeable to the vast majority of Americans. (Fully 75 percent are in favor of ending legacy admissions.)
Instead of being thought of as the superheroes of higher education, elite colleges are — sadly — now seen by the public as villains.
Despite its enormous wealth, the Ivy League is less than half as likely as schools nationally to enroll low income, Pell Grant recipients. And with the Ivy League schools’ estimated annual costs approaching $90,000 per student per year, they seem downright unapproachable to most Americans.
There is much to be proud of with respect to our nation’s elite colleges. Elite colleges are most certainly educating some of the best and brightest our country has to offer. And they conduct research and support discoveries that improve the health and well-being of Americans, the efficacy of our military and the overall global competitiveness of America.
However, negative stories about them are dominating the news. Instead of being thought of as the superheroes of higher education, elite colleges are — sadly — now seen by the public as villains.
They would be wise to heed the superhero advice that “with great power comes great responsibility.”
Responsibility, in the form of upholding the democratic ideal of meritocracy and providing equity for students from lower income families, is how elite colleges can help all higher education regain the public trust.
In the meantime, Americans should ask themselves how they feel about the colleges and universities in their own regions. America has the most diverse higher education system in the world, and we ought to pay more attention to the important ways in which it serves many types of students and their myriad education and career goals.
Public universities, community colleges, Historically Black Colleges & Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs), federal work colleges and affordable private colleges are just some of the many wonderful options that exist across our higher education landscape: Let’s focus on them.
Such a reframe and refocus will help us all see the incredible asset that American higher education is for our citizens, our country and the world.
Brandon Busteed is the chief partnership officer and global head of Learn-Work Innovation at Kaplan and an internationally known speaker and author on education and workforce development.
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
Marking World Toilet Day on November 19th, the global community faces a pressing sanitation crisis affecting 3.5 billion people. Credit: Lova Rabary-Rakontondravony/IPS
Opinion by Thokozani Dlamini (pretoria, south africa)
Inter Press Service
PRETORIA, South Africa, Nov 19 (IPS) – World Toilet Day 2023, on 19 November, focusing on ‘Accelerating Change’ – Toilets are a foundation stone of public health and play a critical role in protecting the environment”Celebrated annually on the 19th of November, World Toilet Day aims to inspire concerted efforts in addressing the pressing global sanitation crisis, which currently leaves approximately 3.5 billion people without access to safely managed sanitation.
Even today, a staggering 3.5 billion individuals lack safely managed sanitation, and an appalling 419 million people continue to use ‘open defecation’, a condition that encourages the spread of diseases and claims the lives of 1,000 children under the age of five daily. This sanitation crisis, a hazard to human health and the environment, disproportionately affects women, girls, and other vulnerable groups.
Given the fact that only seven years remain to attain the 2030 target for Sustainable Development Goal 6 – ensuring safe water for all – the global community needs to accelerate its efforts to ensure that the 2030 agenda is realized.
Our current pace, coupled with insufficient funds, escalating demand, deteriorating water quality, and the inadequacies of existing governance frameworks, gravely threatens the realization of this goal.
In alignment with this year’s theme – ‘Accelerating Change’ – it’s imperative that we expedite our global efforts to achieve the UN’s 2030 target. Governments and major institutions must synergistically operate, take accountability for their promises, and timely deliver on them. Actually, every individual, regardless of their contributions’ scale, has a role in accelerating this progress.
Implications of poor sanitation
The implications of poor water and sanitation are widespread and deleterious, gravely affecting individuals who are forced to use unsanitary toilet facilities or consume and utilize contaminated water. Diseases linked to sanitation, like diarrheal diseases, cholera, typhoid fever, hepatitis A, and various parasitic infections, pose significant public health risks.
These illnesses can result in extensive sickness, hospitalizations, and even fatalities, particularly in areas with sparse access to clean water and adequate sanitation facilities. Enhancements of sanitation infrastructure can decrease these disease burdens and elevate public health globally.
Benefits of good sanitation
Absolutely, having good sanitation facilities indeed has numerous benefits. They go beyond the improvement of public health. Proper sanitation infrastructure can reduce healthcare costs as there are fewer cases of sanitation-related diseases. It can also increase productivity as individuals are healthier and can devote more time to work. studies, or other activities.
This results in a better quality of life for individuals and their communities. Furthermore, good sanitation infrastructure contributes to environmental sustainability. It aids in reducing pollution since waste is properly managed and does not end up contaminating water bodies and other natural environments. A safe and clean environment, in turn, helps protect vital natural resources, including clean water sources.
Collaborative efforts
Governments, donors, the private sector, and non-governmental organizations all play significant roles in advancing sanitation infrastructure. They need to cooperate and work cohesively towards delivering water and sanitation services effectively. Furthermore, research institutions can contribute by providing the necessary scientific understanding and technological innovations. This joint endeavour will not just help in achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, specifically Goal 6, but also improve public health and well-being on a global scale.
SADC-GMI’s efforts
SADC-GMI has made commendable efforts by implementing various projects in SADC Member States to ensure everyone has access to water and sanitation as per the United Nations Agenda 2030. These initiatives have positively impacted local communities by ensuring a continuous water supply which ultimately leads to better hygiene. Beyond hygiene, these water supply projects have also brought about improved economic benefits for the communities. Indeed, the projects are transformative, aiding communities in gaining access to dependable water supply for both domestic and economic uses.
These projects, despite the complications posed by climate change, continue to thrive and be sustainable. This resilience greatly benefits communities, offering steady water for various needs. This ties into reaching the sanitation goals defined by the United Nations Agenda 2030.
Yes, with the 2030 deadline of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals approaching, fast progress is needed to ensure everyone has access to basic sanitation facilities and clean water. Sanitation and drinking water are human rights, and access to these services is crucial for people’s health and the integrity of the environment. To this end, cooperation between different sectors – governments, donors, the private sector, research institutions, and civil society will be critical in facilitating this progression.
Thokozani Dlamini is SADC-GMI Communication and Knowledge Management Specialist
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25102638/Smile.png)
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25102644/Turkey.png)
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25102660/459651428.jpg)
