Credit: Bryan Bedder/Getty Images for Bloomberg Philanthropies
Opinion by Andrew Firmin (london)
Inter Press Service
LONDON, Nov 17 (IPS) – The need to act on the climate crisis has never been clearer. In 2023, heat records have been shattered around the world. Seemingly every day brings news of extreme weather, imperilling lives. In July, UN Secretary-General António Guterres grimly announced that ‘the era of global boiling has arrived’.
In short, there’s a lot at stake as the world heads into its next climate summit.
But there’s a big problem: COP28, the latest in the annual series of conferences of parties (COP) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, will be held in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This is a country with closed civic space, where dissent is criminalised and activists are routinely detained. It’s also a fossil fuel power bent on continuing extraction.
At multilateral summits where climate change decisions are made, it’s vital that civil society is able to mobilise to demand greater ambition, hold states and fossil fuel companies and financiers to account and ensure the views of people most affected by climate change are heard. But that can’t happen in conditions of closed civic space.
Concerning signs
In September, the UAE was added to the CIVICUS Monitor Watchlist, which highlights countries experiencing significant declines in respect for civic freedoms. Civic space in the UAE has long been closed: no dissent against the government or advocacy for human rights is allowed, and those who try to speak out risk criminalisation. In 2022, a Cybercrime Law introduced even stronger restrictions on online expression.
There’s widespread torture in jails and detention centres and at least 58 prisoners of conscience have been held in prison despite having completed their sentences. Many of them were part of a group known as the UAE 94, jailed for the crime of calling for democracy. Among the ranks of those incarcerated is Ahmed Mansoor, sentenced to 10 years in jail in 2018 for his work documenting the human rights situation, and held in solitary confinement for over five years and counting.
Ahead of COP28, civil society has worked to highlight the absurdity of holding such a vital summit in closed civic space conditions. Domestic civil society is unable to influence COP28 and its preparatory process, and it’s hard to see how civil society, both domestic and international, will be able to express itself freely during the summit.
Civil society is demanding that the UAE government demonstrate that it’s prepared to respect human rights, including by releasing political prisoners – something it’s so far failed to budge on.
An ominous sign came when the UAE hosted a climate and health summit in April. Participants were reportedly instructed not to criticise the government, corporations, individuals or Islam, and not to protest while in the UAE.
Civic space restrictions aren’t the only indication the UAE isn’t taking COP28 seriously. The president of the summit, Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, also happens to be head of the state’s fossil fuel corporation ADNOC, the world’s 11th-biggest oil and gas producer. It’s like putting an arms manufacturer in charge of peace talks. Multiple other ADNOC staff members have roles in the summit. ADNOC is currently talking up its investments in renewable energies, all while planning one of the biggest expansions of oil and gas extraction of any fossil fuel corporation.
Instead of real action, all the signs are that the regime is instrumentalising its hosting of COP28 to try to launder its reputation, as indicated by its hiring of expensive international lobbying firms. An array of fake social media accounts were created to praise the UAE as host and defend it from criticism. A leaked list of key COP28 talking points prepared by the host made no mention of fossil fuels.
A summit that should be about tackling the climate crisis – and quickly – is instead being used to greenwash the image of the host government – something easiest achieved if civil society is kept at arm’s length.
Fossil fuel lobby to the fore
With civil society excluded, the voices of those actively standing in the way of climate action will continue to dominate negotiations. That’s what happened at COP27, also held in the closed civic space of Egypt, where 636 fossil fuel lobbyists took part – and left happy. Like every summit before it, its final statement made no commitment to reduce oil and gas use.
The only way to change this is to open the doors to civil society. Civil society has consistently sounded the alarm and raised public awareness of the need for climate action. It’s the source of practical solutions to cut emissions and adapt to climate impacts. It urges more ambitious commitments and more funding, including for the loss and damage caused by climate change. It defends communities against environmentally destructive impacts, resists extraction and promotes sustainability. It pressures states and the private sector to stop approving and financing further extraction and to transition more urgently to more renewable energies and more sustainable practices. These are the voices that must be heard if the cycle of runaway climate change is to be stopped.
COPs should be held in countries that offer an enabling civic space that allows strong domestic mobilisation, and summit hosts should be expected to abide by high standards when it comes to domestic and international access and participation. That should be part of the deal hosts make in return for the global prestige that comes with hosting high-level events. Civil society’s exclusion mustn’t be allowed to happen again.
SAN FRANCISCO, USA, Nov 17 (IPS) – Two centuries ago, Percy Shelley wrote that “poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world.” Yet elite power has routinely vetoed their best measures. Still, the ability of poetry to inspire and nurture is precious, including when governments are on protracted killing sprees.
In Gaza, more than 11,000 civilians have been killed since early October. Children are perishing at an average rate of 10 deaths per hour. The ongoing slaughter by Israeli forces — supported by huge military aid from the United States — follows Hamas’s atrocities on Oct. 7 in Israel, where the latest estimate of the death toll is 1,200 including at least 846 civilians in addition to some 200 hostages.
But numbers don’t get us very far in human terms. And news accounts have limited capacities to connect with real emotions.
That’s where poetry can go far beyond where journalism fails. A few words from a poet might chip away at the frozen blocks that support illegitimate power. And we might gain strength from the clarity that a few lines can bring.
In a murderous time the heart breaks and breaks and lives by breaking. It is necessary to go through dark and deeper dark and not to turn.
“In a dark time,” Theodore Roethke wrote, “the eye begins to see.”
Bob Dylan wrote lines that could now be heard as addressing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Biden:
You fasten all the triggers For the others to fire Then you sit back and watch When the death count gets higher You hide in your mansion While the young people’s blood Flows out of their bodies And is buried in the mud
I was born a Black woman and now I am become a Palestinian against the relentless laughter of evil there is less and less living room and where are my loved ones?
In the United States, far away from the carnage, viewers and listeners and readers can easily prefer not to truly see that “their” government is helping Israel to keep killing thousands upon thousands of Palestinian children and other civilians. “I call it cruel and maybe the root of all cruelty / to know what occurs but not recognize the fact,” a poem by William Stafford says.
From Pink Floyd:Don’t accept that what’s happening Is just a case of others’ suffering Or you’ll find that you’re joining in The turning away . . . . Just a world that we all must share It’s not enough just to stand and stare Is it only a dream that there’ll be No more turning away?
Franz Kafka wrote: “You can hold yourself back from the sufferings of the world, that is something you are free to do and it accords with your nature, but perhaps this very holding back is the one suffering you could avoid.”
Norman Solomon is national director of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of many books including War Made Easy. His latest book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, was published in summer 2023 by The New Press.
It’s been two weeks since Alan Wake 2, the sequel to Remedy Entertainment’s 2010 cult action-horror game, was released, and I can’t stop thinking about it. Between the introduction of protagonist and FBI profiler Saga Anderson and the mystery-board storytelling mechanics of the game’s Mind Place system (not to mention a forthcoming new game plus feature and DLC slated for next year), I’m obsessed with Remedy Entertainment’s latest game — much in the same way I was with its last new release, 2019’s Control.
That obsession has only grown after puzzling over how the events of Alan Wake 2 might relate to the upcoming Control 2. I’ve even started a new playthrough of the original Control in my search for clues I might have overlooked. The Remedy Connected Universe has me excited for the possibility of intertextual storytelling in video games at a time where I otherwise feel fatigue over multi-franchise crossovers. Whether it’s the MCU, DCU, or Star Wars, I’m just over how labyrinthine most of these fictional interconnected universes have become. I don’t feel that way about the Remedy Connected Universe, though.
Image: Remedy Entertainment/Epic Games Publishing
I think I know why: An interconnected universe on this scale has never really been attempted before in video games. What’s more, Remedy’s games have so far been self-contained enough to be enjoyable as their own experiences. Finally, by virtue of being video games, which are extremely time-intensive and tricky to make, there’s not a new one to play every few months.
Shared-world storytelling, while compelling when done right, is approaching something of a nadir in popular culture. A recent report by Variety about the internal turmoil of Marvel Studios in 2023 paints a picture of a studio that, through a combination of several box-office disappointments and an oversaturation of streaming TV releases, has come to a crossroads in its otherwise unimpeded path of commercial success. There are, as of this writing, 33 films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and nine streaming series recognized as canon.
Image: Remedy Entertainment/505 Games via Polygon
That’s a lot of “homework” for anyone who wants to stay up to date with the latest Marvel developments. Remedy Entertainment’s shared universe doesn’t suffer from this same level of fatigue-inducing scale — as of this moment, there are only three games (Alan Wake, Control, and Alan Wake 2) to play in order to be caught up with what’s going on (leaving aside the many subtle connections to and Easter eggs from Max Payne, Max Payne 2, and Quantum Break). And for those that really couldn’t give a toss about the interconnected plot threads between Control’s corner of the Remedy Connected Universe and Alan Wake’s, the two series are still distinct enough that you could easily enjoy one or the other on its own merit.
For instance: Did you know that Freya Anderson, the mother of Alan Wake 2 protagonist Saga Anderson and daughter of Old Gods of Asgard member Tor Anderson, was first name-dropped in a collectible FBC document in the AWE DLC for Control, three years before the release of Alan Wake 2? Or that Sheriff Tim Breaker and Jesse Faden, who are played by Shawn Ashmore and Courtney Hope, are implied to be alternate-reality versions of Jack Joyce and Beth Wilder, the protagonists of 2016’s Quantum Break, who are also played by Ashmore and Hope? Probably not. Could this be important to the future of the story of either Control or Alan Wake? Sure, maybe — but only for those who care. The point is to reward those players who like to dive a little deeper in order to draw out those lesser-known connections. Best of all, these kinds of Easter eggs don’t come at the expense of what’s unique or enjoyable about either Control or Alan Wake.
Image: Remedy Entertainment/Epic Games Publishing
Earlier this year, Remedy Entertainment announced its transition to a multi-project studio, with over five games currently in production, including a sequel to Control, a four-player player-versus-environment co-op game set in the world of Control, and a combined remake of Max Payne and Max Payne 2, each roughly scheduled to come out with a year between one another. Even if each of these releases were to be a touchstone in the Remedy Connected Universe going forward, audiences would only need to play one game a year, at most, in order to keep up with the evolving narrative of either Control or Alan Wake.
I totally get the trepidation at the prospect of following yet another shared-universe narrative, especially when there’s no real stated end goal at this early point in the Remedy Connected Universe. Will Saga Anderson cross paths with Jesse Faden at some point in the future? Maybe! Will Quantum Break at some point be retroactively acknowledged as a canon part of this shared fictional universe? Who knows? For now, I’m just along for the ride — and as long as Remedy continues to iterate on its past success, and continues to develop idiosyncratic games with interesting characters and compelling storylines, I’m more than happy to follow the developer down whichever narrative rabbit hole it goes down next.
According to the UN, the world today is home to 1.9 billion young people, most of whom live in developing countries. Young people today continue to be disproportionately impacted by the multifaceted crises facing our world, ranging from COVID-19 to the climate crisis. Around the world, young people are taking ownership and initiating ideas and innovations to help achieve the 2030 Agenda and accelerate COVID-19 recovery efforts. Credit: United Nations
Opinion by Simone Galimberti (kathmandu, nepal)
Inter Press Service
So far, initiatives have been fragmented with each agency and programs doing a bit on its own, mostly through symbolic and tokenistic ways.
Dr. Felipe Paullier of Uruguay, the recently appointed first Assistant Secretary-General for Youth Affairs, instead, has an opportunity to significantly change this current situation.
He could start from reviewing the role and functions of some existing mechanisms, proposing ways to strengthen them, bringing coherence, stopping overlapping and inefficiencies, revamping the way the UN works and making it more youth-centric as one of his major goals.
Then, there is another area where the Assistant Secretary-General can make a difference: ensure that youths have a role and voice on the table when we talk about localizing the SDGs.
This is a domain that could truly bring transformative changes in the way governments, at local and central level, works. Potentially this is where youths can take a role in how decisions are made.
One key question that must be addressed relates to the links between a future Townhall mechanism and the reinforcement and strengthening of the Forum. The potential of the Forum is also highlighted in the Policy Brief and surely there is wide scope to strengthen it.
Certainly, the Forum could definitely be made more fit for its purpose as it only meets for few days every year and is just a consultation exercise without real power. Can it be turned into something truly permanent, a sort of parliament of youths with his own secretariat?
Besides trying to reform the UN governance system and making it more youth centric, Mr. Paullier should focus on effective mainstreaming of meaningful youth engagement and youth centered activities throughout each UN entity.
That’s why it is really indispensable assessing what each agency, program and department of the UN have been doing with and for youth.
Does it make sense to maintain this mechanism? How effective has been so far? Which major outcomes were brought and joint initiatives forged and facilitated by the IANYD?
Dr Paullier could initiate some consultation on the future the Network, possibly through an open process that would engage youths based civil society across the world. At minimum, the UN Youth Office should be leading this group that could be turned into a forum and knowledge creator on all matters related to young people.
It will also be interesting how he will work with The Major Group for Children and Youth or MGCY. This is a mechanism that supposedly acts as “a bridge between young people and the UN system”.
It has an extremely complex governance that lacks visibility and its levels of openness and inclusiveness should be analyzed. Related to this, Dr. Paullier should engage Children and Youth International, the legal entity behind the MGCY, towards a possible process of reform and organizational development.
A Global Board of Advisors that trickles down
I have no doubt that the new Assistant Secretary-General will prioritize the creation of a global board of advisors. This is a great idea but such mechanism should have linkages or spilled over effects and real implications on the ways the UN works with youths locally around the world.
The focus should be especially on how youths can interact and engage with the Resident Coordinators and all agencies and programs at country level.
The bottom line is that the value of any future work of the UN Youth Office is going to be judged in terms of how much transformational is going to be in changing the working paradigms of the UN around the world.
The new UN Youth Office can make the UN at local level more inclusive, open, accessible by enabling youths to have a role to play locally. That’s why it is going to be paramount to closely engage the offices of UN Resident Coordinators that should be asked to better share their best practices and new ideas and proposals to have local youths’ voice heard and visible.
Multilevel governance and localizing the SDGs
Ultimately the agenda of localizing the SDGs could be the gamechanger for meaningful youth participation. It offers the best pathway to ensure real youth engagement all over the world.
As far now the process of localizing the SDGS greatly highlighted the role of local governments, from cities to regional administrations.
There is no doubt that cities and regional bodies must have a much stronger saying, a voice on the table when discussions on implementing the goals happen. It is also unquestionable that having a saying also implies much more resources.
Yet, truly and effective localization won’t happen only with more budget allocation from the central governments and a better recognition of local governments.
That’s why all the talks about “multilevel” governance that has been proposed, though still in vague terms, require a clear blueprint on how youths must be enabled to be part of the policy formulation process.
Involving them in the NVRs and LVRs, the former used by central government and the latter by local governments, including municipalities, to report on their progress towards the SDGs is not enough.
These two reporting mechanisms should become planning exercise to whom youths have not only easy access to but they are welcome to participate in. That’s why we need to make the discussions on multilevel governance tangible and concrete.
Clear proposals, in collaborations with United Cities and Local Governments or UCLG and the Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments, must be tabled on forecasting how such multilevel governance can unfold in practice by involving and engaging youths.
It is really about re-imagining the way local governments work and youth should not only be part of the discussions. This is also one of the recommendations of the latest progress report on implementing the UN Youth Strategy that was published over the summer.
Any new template to make cities and local governments more effective and efficient policy making engines, must necessarily involve the citizens. It could start from finding new venues to bring on board the youth.
The fact that, the Mayor of Montevideo, Carolina Cosse has tons of influence in the UCLG (after all, she is its outgoing President) could help, considering that Dr. Paullier had several high-level positions in the government of the capital of Uruguay.
Conclusions
There is no doubt that there is a lot on the plate of Dr. Paullier. Not all the proposals made in this piece can be made easily actionable.
Mr. Guterres and the Ms. Amina J. Mohammed, the Deputy Secretary General, should become his most important allies. It will take time to build alliances but, one year from now, there will a unique opportunity: the Summit of the Future.
There it is where the new Assistant Secretary-General will have to make his case for truly radical reforms to meaningfully engage and involve youths. This should happen, not only within the UN level and other international institutions like multilateral banks but also within local and national governments.
Re-booting the governance systems around the world, making youth centric, is going to be one of the most consequential challenges we must tackle. That’s why the work of Dr. Paullier and his office could really be transformational.
This is the second and final piece on a series of op-ed essays focused on the recent appointment of Dr. Felipe Paullier of Uruguay as the first Assistant Secretary-General for Youth Affairs. The series offers some ideas and advice on how this new position within the UN System can truly be transformative.
Simone Galimberti, based in Kathmandu, is the Co-Founder of ENGAGE and The Good Leadership. He writes about reforming the UN, the role of youth, volunteerism, regional integration and human rights in the Asia Pacific region.
Every Saturday night, Ari Wasserman and David Ubben react to the weekend’s slate of games on “Until Saturday.” On Mondays, they revisit the biggest takeaway from Saturday night’s instant reaction. This week: Ari commends Michigan for its big win over Penn State but makes it clear that no one is feeling sorry for the Wolverines.
Most of us have seen the brief clip of Sherrone Moore breaking down on the field during his postgame interview following Michigan’s win at Penn State on Saturday afternoon. It was intense.
In case you haven’t, the Michigan offensive coordinator-turned-acting head coach started bawling on television. He began by thanking God, then proceeded to profess his love to Michigan head coach Jim Harbaugh — with the help of a few F-Bombs. Moore thanked university president Santa Ono, athletic director Warde Manuel, his players and the school’s alumni. But the most pointed message was directed at Harbaugh.
“I f—— love you, man, ” Moore said to Harbaugh through the television cameras. “I love the s— out of you, man. We did this for you.”
Sherrone Moore’s post game interview is everything. Chills
It’s understandable why Moore would be so emotional. He was thrust into this role for the second time this year, and this time it was done at the 11th hour. Michigan was on the plane to State College when the news broke that Harbaugh would be suspended amid this cheating probe. The Wolverines were playing on the road against a one-loss Penn State team still trying to claw its way into the Big Ten Championship Game.
Despite all of that, Michigan unequivocally proved it was the better team and handed Penn State a demoralizing 24-15 loss.
Nobody is telling Moore not to be emotional. It was his team and his players who won a hard-fought game on the road. They should be ecstatic. And Michigan fans have every right to feel an extra sense of pride in their team.
But the rest of us? Let’s not let the tears and the emotion emanating from Moore and the rest of this Michigan team blind us from one inarguable truth: This is Michigan’s fault.
Moore acted as though Harbaugh were in the hospital or dealing with some sort of tragedy outside of his control. No. Harbaugh was down the street from Beaver Stadium sitting at the hotel and watching the Michigan game on television.
Michigan may say it’s winning for Harbaugh while wearing shirts that read “Michigan vs. Everybody,” but this situation isn’t the Wolverines fighting through adversity or winning in spite of some terrible, random circumstance. Michigan is paying a consequence for breaking the rules, and there’s an ongoing investigation into this sign-stealing scandal to see how deep it goes. Some may tell you it was a marginal competitive advantage, but others will tell you the Wolverines were flat-out cheating to win games this year and in the past.
GO DEEPER
Michigan should be punished, say 94% of CFB coaches in our poll. What else did it reveal?
Michigan isn’t a heart-warming story as it fights a legal battle to get its coach back on the sidelines in time for the Ohio State game in two weeks. This is the Big Ten holding the program accountable for transgressions, levying a penalty on the head coach as the figurehead of the entire program.
Ono, the university’s president, posted to his public X account (formerly Twitter) Sunday morning: “Countless members of the University of Michigan family have reached out to me over the weekend and I wanted to express my appreciation. Like any community, we face our share of challenges and adversity. There have been many such moments in our history. But as our team showed so clearly yesterday, we will respond to any challenge head on with a conviction to do better and to emerge even stronger. Go Blue!”
Challenges and adversity? I guess so, if challenges and adversity can be self-inflicted. That’s the type of social media post you’d expect from a university president after a tragedy.
Yes, there is some debate as to whether the Big Ten should have suspended Harbaugh on Friday. I wrote after the announcement late last week that my preference would have been for the Big Ten and/or the NCAA to punish Michigan once the investigation was complete. The counterargument to that was the Big Ten unequivocally had enough evidence to discipline the program for cheating, but the punishment — agree or disagree — was weak. Harbaugh is suspended but can still recruit and coach the team during the week? Whatever.
GO DEEPER
Meek: The Big Ten has a Michigan Problem. The Wolverines are angry, unapologetic — and keep winning
Michigan is lining up lawyers to fight this in court. While I understand the notion that the penalty was premature — again, I wrote that it was four days ago — I’m not sure the public should take the bait that Michigan is a victim here. You know how you don’t get punished? By not having a staffer develop an illegal sign-stealing scheme that included buying tickets for peers to record future opponents’ signals. Or by not having that staffer (probably) dress up in Central Michigan coaching attire and standing on the sideline for the Michigan State game.
The questions that still need to be answered are robust. How much did Harbaugh know? Did anyone else on the staff know? How much of a competitive advantage did Michigan gain this year? I need the answers to those questions before the hammer comes down.
But Harbaugh isn’t a victim.
And Michigan isn’t a victim.
Don’t let the tears fool you. Michigan is no longer the lovable underdog trying to win a national title despite not recruiting like Alabama, Georgia and Ohio State. At least one person on the Wolverines staff went outside the rules in an attempt to even the playing field.
Because of that, Michigan is a villain.
GO DEEPER
Behind the AP Top 25 ballot: There’s still hope for compelling rankings drama
(Photo: Joe Robbins / Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)
Source: Reported estimates from various sources with links provided in text.
Opinion by Joseph Chamie (portland, usa)
Inter Press Service
PORTLAND, USA, Nov 14 (IPS) – Tragically, the numbers of deaths of men, women and children in Israel and the Gaza Strip have surged to unprecedented levels following the Hamas attack on Israel on 7 October 2023.
After more than a month of fighting, the reported numbers of deaths are evolving and being constantly revised and updated as the war has continued.
The estimated numbers of deaths between 7 October and 13 November provide a preliminary assessment of the extent of the death toll for Israelis and Palestinians in the Gaza Strip as well as for others (Table 1).
Source: Reported estimates from various sources with links provided in text.
According to the Israeli officials, the revised number of Israeli deaths – with about 70 percent of them having been identified as civilians – resulting from the Hamas attack in southern Israel is estimated at approximately 1,200.
Those killed in Israel on 7 October also include some foreigners and dual nationals. At least 31 U.S. citizens, 39 French citizens and 34 Thai citizens were killed during the attacks, according to authorities in those countries. The Israeli military has also reported that 1,500 Hamas fighters were killed during the 7 October attack.
On the 7 October attack, Israeli authorities have reported that more than 240 individuals from more than 40 countries, including young children and the elderly, were taken hostage and believed to be held by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups in Gaza.
An estimated 20 hostages are reported to have subsequently died as a result of the conflict. In addition to those estimated deaths, at least 46 Israeli soldiers are reported to have been killed in combat since the ground invasion began.
With a total population of approximately 9.8 million, the Israeli death rate resulting from the current Israel-Hamas conflict is approximately 13 deaths per 100,000 population.
In response to the 7 October Hamas attack, the death toll in the Gaza Strip from Israeli military operations is estimated as of 13 November at 11,240 Palestinians with an estimated 4,630 being children, according to health officials in Gaza.
However, the number of deaths in the Gaza Strip could even be higher than being cited, given its dense confines and with approximately 2,700 people reported missing.
With an estimated total population of 2.2 million in the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian death rate for the population of Gaza due to the Israeli-Hamas conflict is approximately 510 deaths per 100,000 population.
Besides the Israeli and Palestinian deaths in Israel and Gaza since 7 October, others have been killed. Nearly 200 Palestinians in the West Bank are reported to have been killed amid an increase in Israeli military raids and incursions.
Also, 101 employees of the United Nations have been killed since the Israeli-Hamas war began, according to the United Nations Palestinian refugee agency (UNRWA). The agency stressed that it is the deadliest conflict ever for the United Nations in such a short period of time.
In addition, at least 42 journalists and media workers reporting on the conflict have been killed.
The various estimated numbers of deaths resulting from the Israel-Hamas conflict that are presented above continue to be revised and updated. After the current Israel-Hamas hostilities have concluded, a comprehensive assessment will be necessary to provide a more accurate and detailed picture of those who have died as a result of the conflict.
Tragically, the death toll resulting from the Israel-Hamas conflict is already too high. As some have remarked, far too many have been killed and far too many have suffered from this current round of fighting. Also importantly, as many around the world are urging, the time for Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate “???????“ ,“????”, or a “peace” solution is now.
Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Population Levels, Trends, and Differentials”.
As our country continues to struggle with historic teacher shortages, we ought to consider an untapped pool of aspiring teachers: Young immigrants who want to become educators.
They can connect with other newcomers by sharing their stories and serving as role models, like the ones I had when I arrived in Queens from Ecuador at the age of 14.
The bustling pace of rush-hour commuters, the tangled mix of languages and the loud rhythm of a sleepless city disoriented me for months.
Thanks to Mr. Bello, my supportive math teacher at Newcomers High School in Queens, I was able to quiet the cacophony with the anonymity of numbers.
Mr. Bello taught me much more than trigonometry and geometry. He taught me about probability, and helped me see that I could succeed as an undocumented student despite the uncertainty of my status.
Mr. Bello, himself an immigrant from the Dominican Republic, helped me build confidence in my potential, which allowed me to face a higher education and workforce system that systemically shuts doors to undocumented immigrants.
Another teacher, Mr. Palau, an immigrant from Paraguay, patiently guided me through my college application process. He made sure I understood that I was eligible for the in-state tuition rate despite my undocumented status.
Eventually, I qualified for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. That allowed me to get a work permit and pursue a career in the immigration research field.
Today, I am the project director at the Initiative on Immigration and Education at the City University of New York (also known as CUNY-IIE), which produces research and resources that center the strengths of immigrant communities.
In this role, I see firsthand the importance and urgent need in our schools for more teachers like Mr. Bello and Mr. Palau.
Congress’s inability to pass any kind of immigration reform that would help undocumented immigrants become teachers makes easing the path of immigrants into educator roles a tough ask, especially as the 11-year-old DACA program is in peril of being eliminated for good by judicial decree.
Currently, immigrant educators may be granted work permits only if they qualify for DACA or Temporary Protected Status (TPS), which has been extended to people from 16 countries. State and local lawmakers and policymakers can and should be creative in expanding options.
The situation is urgent. According to New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, the state needs to hire 180,000 new teachers over the next decade to keep up with the demands of the workforce. Enrollment in New York State’s teacher education programs has declined by 53 percent since 2009.
Congress’s inability to pass any kind of immigration reform that would help undocumented immigrants become teachers makes easing the path of immigrants into educator roles a tough ask.
Most disconcerting for our newest students: There is a significant shortage of bilingual teachers. In 2022-23, approximately 134,000 students who were enrolled in New York City’s public schools identified as English Language Learners, yet the United Federation of Teachers reported that the school system had fewer than 3,000 certified bilingual educators.
This shortage intersects with a political and social upheaval in the city. Since April 2022, New York has received more than 116,000 asylum seekers, including approximately 20,000 children who have now entered the public school system.
The majority of these students are from Latin America and the Caribbean and speak languages other than English.
Bilingual education is considered the best approach for immigrant students, according to Tatyana Kleyn, professor of Bilingual Education & TESOL at The City College of New York. Kleyn favors bilingual education because it allows students to continue learning in their home language while they also learn English.
For all New York teachers, an initial certification is valid for just five years. From there, they are expected to get a professional teaching certificate. For a while, DACA beneficiaries were not eligible for professional certification.
In 2016, the New York State Education Department began to allow undocumented students who are DACA beneficiaries to get professional teaching certificates.
Last year, the state expanded that guidance, allowing undocumented students without a social security number (and who are not DACA holders) to do fieldwork in certain schools and obtain initial certification.
However, undocumented educators who are not DACA holders can’t make use of their education degree and initial certification because they do not have access to work permits.
In addition, some undocumented immigrants just missed the cutoff for DACA or have not been allowed to apply due to the litigation battles about the program.
Our working group, UndocuEdu, produced a report in 2021 titled “The State of Undocumented Educators in New York” that outlines the challenges undocumented educators face navigating teacher education programs.
One suggestion in the report is to eliminate testing fees for NYS certification exams for those in financial need.
Another recommendation is for policymakers to create municipal or state exceptions so that our city’s schools can hire educators who have training and certification but lack a work permit.
State legislators and advocates in New York are already discussing the creation of municipal work permits for recently arrived asylum-seekers.
We urge the city and state to embrace these types of solutions and find others to address the current educational need. It’s time to give more opportunities to a group of trained educators who are already in our communities.
Now more than ever, we need to expand our teaching pool for students who urgently need help. Undocumented teachers can become the Mr. Bellos and Mr. Palaus that every immigrant student deserves.
Daniela Alulema is project director of the CUNY-Initiative on Immigration and Education in New York City.
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.
Missile strikes on Gaza are continuing. Credit: UNICEF/Eyad El Baba
Opinion by Alon Ben-Meir (new york)
Inter Press Service
NEW YORK, Nov 13 (IPS) – Unless Israel establishes an exit strategy and an end-game that will lead to a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in full coordination with the US and Saudi Arabia, the war against Hamas will only be another brutal violent episode that will prepare the ground for the next conflagration that will engulf the West Bank and potentially set the entire region on fire.
What Is Israel’s End-Game in Gaza?
As the Israel-Hamas war grinds on, the international call for a ceasefire or at a minimum a pause in the fighting for a couple of days to allow for the delivery of badly needed necessities is absolutely essential at this juncture. It is glaringly evident that there is growing international sympathy towards the Palestinians, given the magnitude of destruction and loss of life.
This humanitarian crisis of such incredible scale is overshadowing the unconscionable slaughter of 1,400 people in Israel and the kidnapping of 248 others. Sadly though, although Israel has the right to self-defense, the campaign to eradicate Hamas is increasingly resembling a war of revenge and retribution. It has caused tremendous destruction and human suffering.
After only four weeks, nearly 11,000 in Gaza are dead, one-third of them children under the age of 18, there is a horrifying scarcity of food, medicine, water, and fuel, and nearly half the population is now internally displaced.
This calamity is unfolding in front of our eyes and must stop, even temporarily, to help save the lives of many of the tens of thousands who are wounded, bury the dead, and avert wide-spread starvation. And even though a temporary cessation of hostilities benefits Hamas, it is still worth undertaking not only to alleviate the horrifying suffering of the entire population in Gaza, but also to open a window for negotiating the release of as many hostages as possible, especially all women and children, in exchange for the pause in fighting.
Whereas Israel’s stated goal from the onset was and still justifiably is the destruction of Hamas, Israel has not offered as yet any clear exit strategy nor endgame. Once Hamas is completely defeated, which is still a tall order, Israel with the support of the US and Saudi Arabia in particular will have to offer a sound alternative that meets the Palestinians’ aspiration and render Hamas irrelevant.
President Biden should demand that Prime Minister Netanyahu and his military brass develop, in coordination with the US, a clear exit strategy and an end-game consistent with Israel’s, the Palestinians’, and the US’ national interests.
The protests that have taken place across major cities in the US over the weekend, including Washington, DC, are arguably some of the biggest that we’ve seen in a long time. These calls for a ceasefire or a pause in the fighting for humanitarian reasons are exerting pressure on Biden to change his near-unconditional support of Israel’s war efforts, which he can no longer ignore. This is particularly important because the US’ unwavering support of Israel makes the Biden administration complicit to the unfolding tragedy, which is intensely criticized from the ranks of leading Democrats as well.
What should be the end game? I believe there are three possible scenarios, two of which are impractical in a sense that they will not lead to a permanent solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Israeli control over Gaza
First, Netanyahu is claiming that he wants to maintain security over Gaza, but he’s not saying who will govern and administer the Strip. Does he want to reoccupy all of Gaza or just the northern half, which may explain why he wanted the Palestinians to head south. President Biden is very correct to suggest that the reoccupation of Gaza, be that in part or in full, will be nothing short of a disaster for Israel and will only guarantee the prolongation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Moreover, it should be emphasized here that given Israel’s experience in the occupied West Bank, maintaining security was only marginally successful at best as evidenced by the continuing violence between Israeli forces and Palestinians, which has been increasingly escalating.
Netanyahu is a fool to assume that he can maintain control over Gaza by establishing a security apparatus when the Hamas-affiliated militants in Gaza will subject the Israeli forces to terrorist attacks that will exact a heavy toll in blood and treasure. The violence in the West Bank will pale in comparison to what Hamas’ militants in Gaza will still be capable of doing against Israeli forces without an end in sight.
Resettling Palestinians in Egypt
The second option, which Netanyahu has been exploring with Egypt, would allow the settling of a few hundred thousand Palestinians in the Sinai; Egypt would assume administrative responsibility in Gaza while Israel maintains security. Egyptian President Sisi flatly rejected any future involvement with the Palestinians in Gaza, other than facilitating through the Rafah crossing the passage of people for justifiable reasons as well as the transfer of goods.
The Egyptian government considers Hamas a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is outlawed in Egypt. For this reason, Egypt has also blockaded Gaza to prevent the infiltration of Hamas militants into the country.
Moreover, Egypt has troubles of its own. The economy is in a dire situation, and its concerns over security are mounting. Egypt simply does not want to add more to its domestic problems. Thus, they are not interested in any solution that will burden them with the Palestinians. That said, President Sisi was clear that regardless of how this war ends, a framework for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be established, otherwise it will be only a question of time when this war will invite another.
Transitional period for Gaza with UN supervision
The third option may well be more viable as it would entail a transitional period whereby the United Nations would assume responsibility. Administratively, as is well known, UNWRA has been on the ground for decades, providing aid and development services, including education, healthcare, microfinance, and job training.
Although it has not been involved in the running of Gaza itself, UNWRA is very familiar with the scene in Gaza. It is familiar with the population’s needs, the prevailing socio-economic conditions, and the day-to-day problems Gazans face. UNWRA is in the best possible position to assume greater responsibility under a modified and expanded mandate, provided that it receives the manpower and the funding necessary.
In conjunction with UNWRA’s added administrative responsibilities, it will be necessary to establish a peacekeeping force to be in charge of security. This force ought to be comprised exclusively of the Arab states that are at peace with Israel, namely the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, and Morocco, as well as Egypt.
It should be made clear that although post-Hamas the West Bank and Gaza should be governed by the Palestinian Authority (PA), this should not and in fact cannot happen for at least a year to 18 months following the establishment of a UN administrative authority in Gaza.
During this period, the Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza would prepare themselves politically for a new election. The current PA is corrupt to the bone; President Abbas is rejected and despised by the majority of Palestinians and must go. Only a new, fresh, and uncorrupt newly-elected leadership that enjoys the confidence of the people can succeed.
On the Israeli side, no one should hold their breath waiting for Netanyahu and his gang of zealous coalition partners to agree on anything that even resembles an independent Palestinian state. Once the war ends, Netanyahu will face an inquiry about the unprecedented disaster that took place under his watch and he will have to resign or be ousted. Here too, a new government will have to be established in Israel which must commit itself from the onset to a two-state solution.
Once the above two prerequisites are in place, the UN administrative authority will then relinquish its role and responsibility to the PA.
The Arab states should condition their commitment to provide a peacekeeping force upon Israel’s acceptance of a two-state solution. That is, once such a peacekeeping force is created, the process of peacebuilding ought to commence in earnest toward that end. Any interim solution must be used only as a vehicle toward a final resolution, otherwise it would serve as nothing less than a respite from waiting for another disaster to unfold.
The role of the US and Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia and the US can play a major, in fact indispensable, role in this regard: The US has and continues to be the ultimate guarantor of Israel’s national security, and President Biden has done more than any of his predecessors in this regard and demonstrated that in the most unambiguous way by his unflagging support of Israel.
He must make it very clear (and is in a position to do so) to Netanyahu or his successor that the US’ unwavering support bears considerable political cost to America both domestically as well as internationally. Many countries around the world view the US as complicit to the unfolding horror in Gaza. President Biden must put in place a framework for a two-state solution, which he has been advocating for many decades.
The negotiating peace process will certainly take more than year to complete. 2024 is an election year in the US, but regardless of who the next president might be, Biden will have to stick to the plans because another Israeli-Palestinian conflagration will inescapably involve the US. It’s time for the US to put its foot down, no longer give Israel carte blanche to do as it pleases, and condition further support, financial and military, to genuine efforts to negotiate in good faith and reach a peace agreement.
Saudi Arabia can complement the US initiative with its own most significant role by seizing on the breakdown in the Israeli-Palestinian relations and offering an unprecedented breakthrough to bring an end to the conflict. The Saudis should make it clear that once the war ends, they will be ready to normalize relations with Israel on the condition that a new Israeli government agree to a two-state solution and negotiate continuously until an agreement is reached.
This war must end, leaving Hamas dramatically weakened and in disarray. But Hamas’ ultimate defeat will not be on the battlefield, it will be by creating an alternative to Hamas’ governance from which the Palestinians will greatly benefit. That contrast ought to be made clearly and immediately to demonstrate to the Palestinians that Hamas was not only the enemy of Israel but the enemy of ordinary Palestinians. Yes, all Palestinians in Gaza want to live in peace and prosper but were deprived of living a normal life because of Hamas’ violent resistance to Israel, squandering every resource to fight Israel while leaving the people despairing and hopeless.
Israel should not prolong this tragic war by even one unnecessary day. Indeed, if this war lasts another month or two, it is almost certain that 20,000 to 30,000 Palestinians, mostly innocent civilians, and scores of Israeli soldiers will be killed. The continuation of the terrifying death and destruction in Gaza along with Israeli losses will only deepen the hate, enmity, and distrust between Israel and the Palestinians and make a solution to the conflict ever more intractable.
Every Israeli should ask him/herself the painful question: do we want to memorialize the death of 1,400 innocent Israelis butchered by Hamas by killing, however inadvertently, 20,000 Palestinians? Is that how the Israeli victims should be commemorated? This is something that every Israeli needs to think about.
Yes, Israel can and will win every battle against Hamas, but it will lose the war unless a peace process between Israel and the Palestinians begins once the war comes to an end, under the auspices of the US and Saudi Arabia, which must lead to a two-state solution.
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 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00438200211066350
“The Case for an Israeli-Palestinian-Jordanian Confederation: Why Now and How?”
Dr Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies. [email protected]
As tuition and related fees skyrocket, finding ways to keep a college degree within reach for anyone willing to work toward one is imperative. Offering every high school student access to college-level courses while in high school is one critical way to do so.
Students who are able to take college-level courses, through Advanced Placement or dual enrollment, can get a head start on college — entering with credits in hand that reduce their tuition costs and shorten their path to a degree.
The courses can also provide a confidence boost to young adults uncertain whether college is for them.
Data and research show that access to college coursework while in high school increases college enrollment, success and graduation rates and has a positive impact on academic performance.
Yet undocumented students, often called Dreamers, are too often excluded from such coursework, particularly dual enrollment.
This lack of access to dual enrollment is just one of the persistent barriers that immigrant students encounter in their pursuit of higher education and career success.
In some instances, state tuition and financial aid policies explicitly exclude undocumented students; in others, length of residency requirements exclude recent immigrants, recent reporting by The Hechinger Reportrevealed.
Undocumented students are eligible for admissions and aid in a growing number of states, including 24 that offer in-state tuition and 18 that provide state aid to undocumented students. Yet too many other states limit undocumented students’ access to in-state tuition or even enrollment in public institutions.
Advocating for policy change is essential. Too often, though, that advocacy for the future overshadows immediate opportunities to expand Dreamers’ college access despite state and local policies.
It is just as important to elevate the visibility of these opportunities so that today’s learners can strengthen their own futures and the futures of their communities and the workforce.
The philanthropy Modern States Education Alliance, whose mission is to make college accessible and affordable for all, has for several years worked with TheDream.US, the nation’s largest college and career success program for undocumented immigrant youth, to ensure that undocumented students are not left out of free precollege opportunities.
Modern States offers a library of 32 online courses is designed to teach learners what they need to know to pass the College Level Examination Program (CLEP) exams. Nearly 3,000 colleges and universities accept passing scores on CLEP exams for college credit, in much the same way they accept passing grades in Advanced Placement and dual-enrollment courses. Modern States explicitly serves all people, including Dreamers, with some 500,000 registered users.
The organization has made 150,000 CLEP exams free for learners so far — with every 10 exams passed equivalent to one free year of college.
Too often, advocacy for the future overshadows immediate opportunities to expand Dreamers’ college access.
Through partnership with TheDream.US, Modern States has already provided multiple years’ worth of free college for Dreamers.
This approach complements the core scholarship program at TheDream.US, which provides exceptional opportunities to participating students but has nowhere near enough resources to support the college aspirations of all undocumented high schoolers.
Our work is an example of the type of multifaceted strategy that we as a nation require to address the needs of an increasingly large and integral group of students in our higher education system.
Immigrant-origin students, inclusive of Dreamers, comprised 31 percent of college students in 2021, a significant rise from 20 percent in 2000, a recent report based on data from the Migration Policy Institute found.
As the population of immigrant-origin students in college grows, maintaining barriers to their success is increasingly damaging to individuals and our nation. Let’s commit to removing those barriers and creating opportunity for all learners.
And in the meantime, let’s not forget the ways we can support young people now, so that today’s learners do not miss their shot at the life they want to live.
Chris Aviles is the senior program manager, Partner College and Scholar Supports, for TheDream.US. Jefferson Pestronk serves as executive director of Modern States Education Alliance. The organizations have partnered since 2018 to support Dreamers in their quest for an affordable and equitable education.
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.
Lamine Zarrad is CEO and founder of StellarFi, a credit-building tool helping Americans boost their credit scores and overall financial health.
My journey from being a humble immigrant to becoming a marine and, subsequently, a successful entrepreneur is a testament to the American Dream in action.
According to the SBA, veterans are roughly 45% more likely to form their own business compared to people who haven’t served in the military. Veterans own almost 2 million businesses and employ over 5 million Americans.
These statistics beg these questions: Are veterans naturally bred for entrepreneurship, or is there a profound connection between their military service and entrepreneurial success? Is there a unique synergy between the discipline, adaptability, resourcefulness and leadership skills instilled in service members and the qualities required to be a successful startup founder?
The short answer: Yes. But fair warning for the veteran readers — don’t let that inflate your ego and convince yourself you’re a shoo-in. My advice for aspiring veteran founders goes beyond echoing the well-documented parallels between military service and entrepreneurship.
As a fintech founder, I leverage technology to help others find economic stability, something my family lacked for many years. I was born in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan SSR, a former republic of the USSR. When the Soviet Union fell, my family was forced to flee to Moscow, narrowly escaping the ongoing ethnic war on Armenians. After spending six years in Moscow as refugees, my family immigrated to the United States where I finished high school and then joined the marines.
The marines provided a jump-start to my trajectory of creating solutions for much larger problems like access to banking in the cannabis and freelancing industries to now building StellarFi, the third fintech I’ve founded, designed to address a problem that plagues half of the American population: poor credit.
Like many veterans, my enlistment was equally inspired by the desire to gain access and opportunities to achieve that American Dream and a deep sense of gratitude to the country. But my experience as a marine helped me understand that, much like the most crucial missions, the path to entrepreneurial success hinges on a combination of four vital elements: learning to disrupt the norm; maintaining an unwavering, resilient mindset; seeking partners who are akin to wartime allies; and tapping into the rich tapestry of veteran resources and networks.
Always have the audacity to challenge the status quo and create solutions to combat it
George S. Patton once said, “Take calculated risks. That is quite different from being rash.”
During my deployment in Iraq, I encountered an inefficient supply chain at our base. We had waterlines that were constantly compromised, so we flew in water from somewhere else, then managed that infrastructure in a very inefficient way. We hired U.S. contractors who had no idea what they were doing rather than the locals who had worked on this base for years.
According to the SBA, veterans are roughly 45% more likely to form their own business compared to people who haven’t served in the military.
Running the risk of cleaning latrines for the rest of the deployment, I pitched the colonel who ran the base on a way to fix it. He pulled me from my unit to implement my ideas and run infrastructure for the 20,000-personnel installation. Finding deficiencies and optimizing processes became a part of my daily thoughts and motivations.
Years later, as a federal bank regulator for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, I found myself challenging the status quo again in the way we supported and advised banks in optimizing their operations.
In that setting, the status quo prevailed and I found myself frustrated. From this need to create solutions, my first startup, Tokken, was born.
Forget the no-fail mission. You will fail. Get back up.
Before you become an entrepreneur, ask yourself if there’s something else that you could do for a living. If the answer is yes, then do yourself a huge favor and pursue that other thing. If the answer is I absolutely can not do anything else but be an entrepreneur, then go for it.
Tokken was profiled on the front page of the New York Times DealBook while still in beta mode. The problem we solved was payments and banking for cannabis dispensaries. The solution we created was to build our own rails using cryptocurrencies that would completely circumvent traditional financial rails.
We had a meteoric rise in terms of traction and growth. Then the political climate around the industry became unstable and we lost many partners on the banking side. Tokken was dead in the water.
In the spirit of the Marine Corps’ unofficial slogan, I had to improvise, adapt, and overcome after Tokken. Instead of ending my entrepreneurial journey and going back to the Treasury or some other financial services job, I decided to take the learnings from Tokken and start my second company, Joust, a neobank for freelancers.
Find the investors you would go to war with
After leaving the marines, I served as a contractor for the Corps’ special-operations command. My job was to facilitate unconventional-warfare simulations.
During these role-play exercises, I would lead small teams of “local rebels” composed of volunteer marines. The special-ops teams would then attempt to befriend us, train us, and develop a coalition of rebels that would engage in combat with our common enemy. This strategy, otherwise known as asymmetric warfare, allowed us to reduce the number of actual marines who would go into battle, optimizing U.S. resources.
Through my experience building three companies, I’ve learned that being a founder and building disruptive solutions means being a rebel. And rebels need wartime-ally investors who support their mission with guidance and resources while respecting their autonomy.
They demonstrate loyalty and risk tolerance, particularly in dire circumstances. They possess an identical mindset to those special-op marines. They are willing and eager to “embed” with the founder and the startup team, and understand how the business is run and why it thrives.
When looking for investors, find the ones who value an authentic, collaborative arrangement grounded in mutual respect and tolerance.
The veterans before you have built a network to help you succeed. Use it.
My last piece of advice is pragmatic. Find programs and people that will help you start and scale your business.
There are countless programs for veteran entrepreneurs that can connect you to information, resources, and large networks of investors and fellow founders. Here are a few notable ones:
While statistics affirm the connection between military service and entrepreneurial success, it’s imperative for aspiring veteran founders not to let this statistic inflate their egos, but rather to recognize that the entrepreneurial path, like military service, is fraught with formidable challenges.
These pillars not only support your journey as a founder but also empower you to overcome obstacles, adapt to change, and achieve remarkable outcomes in the realm of entrepreneurship, potentially impacting thousands of lives in the process.
6.5% of the population of Latin America and the Caribbean suffers from hunger, or 43.2 million people. Credit: FAO
Opinion by Mario Lubetkin (santiago)
Inter Press Service
SANTIAGO, Nov 10 (IPS) – Mario Lubetkin is FAO Assistant Director-General and FAO Regional Representative for Latin America and the CaribbeanThe figures published by the latest Regional Overview of Food Security and Nutrition 2023 are cause for great concern. The document is clear: hunger continues to significantly affect Latin America and the Caribbean.
The reasons are varied; consequences of the pandemic, armed conflicts, climate crisis, economic slowdown, rising food inflation, and income inequality have all generated a difficult scenario that requires immediate action.
Our region has an opportunity that we must not miss. Only with stability and peace will it be possible to achieve development and resolve food insecurity.
According to the Regional Overview 2023, although Latin America and the Caribbean registers a slight drop of 0.5% in hunger levels when compared to the previous measurement, it is essential to remember that, despite this progress, we are still 0.9 percentage points above the hunger levels of 2019, prior to the outbreak of COVID-19.
But hunger does not affect the region uniformly. In South America, there was a reduction of 3.5 million hungry people between 2021 and 2022, but there are still 6 million additional undernourished people compared to the pre-COVID-19 period. In Mesoamerica, the prevalence of hunger has barely changed, affecting 9.1 million people in 2022, representing 5.1%.
The situation is worrisome in the Caribbean, where 7.2 million people experienced hunger in 2022, with an alarming prevalence of 16.3% of the population. Between 2021 and 2022, hunger increased by 700,000 people, and compared to 2019, the increase was 1 million people, with Haiti being one of the most affected countries.
While hunger figures continue to concern us, overweight in children under five years of age continues to rise, exceeding the global estimate, and a quarter of the adult population lives with obesity.
FAO recognizes the urgency of addressing this issue and is committed to updating the CELAC FNS Plan for food and nutritional security. The recent Buenos Aires Declaration of the VII CELAC Summit reaffirmed the commitment of the 33 member states to food security, agriculture, and sustainable development.
This declaration emphasized the importance of updating the plan in accordance with the new international context and the challenges facing the region, with the technical assistance of global organizations like FAO and regional organizations such as ECLAC, IICA, and ALADI, to achieve a comprehensive solution.
The update of the food plan takes into account national commitments related to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, evidence-based policies and good practices in the region, providing a mechanism that contributes to the eradication of poverty, hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition.
Eradicating hunger is a shared responsibility, and together we must redouble our efforts to ensure that no citizen of Latin America and the Caribbean goes hungry. Food security is essential for the well-being of our communities and the sustainable development of the region, and we must continue to work together, leaving no one behind. FAO is fully committed to this challenge.
NEW DELHI, India, Nov 10 (IPS) – For a long time, the agriculture sector has been heralded as a success story for India. Spurred by the Green Revolution, it provided a path-breaking solution to feed the country’s burgeoning population starting in the 1960s.
However, in recent decades, intensive land use and inequitable water resource management, compounded by a swelling population, prevailing poverty, depletion of natural resources, and a rapidly changing climate have put tremendous pressure on the country’s agricultural output.
The 2023 Global Hunger Index ranked India 111th out of 125 countries, indicating a serious level of hunger, with concerns growing about the possibility of long-term food scarcity. And earlier this year, The Women and Child Development Ministry found that nearly 8% of the country’s children were malnourished.
A similar situation pervades in various parts of the world:?139 million people?plunged into acute food insecurity in 2021, and in 2022, an estimated?2.4 billion people worldwide did not have regular access to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food.
The Famine Early Warning Systems Network has projected approximately 100 million people worldwide will need food assistance through early 2024, in large part because of the El Niño.
Credit: UNICEF/Safidy Andriananten
The food crisis continued to worsen last year, as the tremors of the Russo-Ukrainian War and its trade policies and the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic were felt across the globe. As of October 30, 2023, 19 countries have implemented 27 food export bans, and seven have implemented 15 export-limiting measures.
At the upcoming COP28 (30 November- 12 December in Dubai), governments must commit to taking serious action to curb the impacts of our food and land use systems on our climate. This includes: (1) urging nations to include emissions from food systems in their climate commitments; (2) addressing poor water management; and (3) adopting climate-resilient agriculture practices.
Agriculture and GHG emissions
A lack of sustainable agriculture production has made the food and land use sector a major contributor to total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Global food systems account for?31% of global emissions?and could become a major factor in exceeding 1.5°C of warming between 2051 and 2063.?
Moreover, agricultural?land today takes up 38 percent of the global land surface. Nearly one-third of this is used as cropland, while the remaining two-thirds consist of meadows and pastures for grazing livestock. This comes at the cost of extensive deforestation and biodiversity loss. ?Agriculture accounts on average for? 70%?of all freshwater withdrawals globally.
The challenge is even more acute for India, which accounts for about 17% of the world’s population but only 4% of the world’s freshwater resources. In fact, nearly 55% of Indians are dependent on agriculture. With the Indian population estimated to reach 1.67 billion by 2050, the demand on water, food and energy is only expected to increase.
Addressing Poor Water Management
Climate change has substantially impacted agricultural productivity, making better water management a necessity. India’s chief crop produce—rice, wheat, and sugarcane—consume the most water. Indian agriculture accounts for 90% water use due to fast-track groundwater depletion and poor irrigation systems. Due to an inept water resource management system and persistent climate change, the country faces regular water shortages.
Distorted water pricing has compounded the issue and is chiefly responsible for the over-extraction of India’s groundwater. Furthermore, subsidized electricity to farmers for pumping water for agricultural activities has led to instances of increased groundwater extraction, and shifting cropping pattern towards more water-intensive crops, like the rice paddy.
Efficient irrigation systems should be developed and implemented to economize water and reduce crop vulnerabilities. The use of water-saving technologies and conservation agriculture technologies, such as drip sprinkler irrigation and sub-soil irrigation, have proven extremely effective in both water conservation and increasing crop yields.
Alternate wetting and drying (AWD) and Direct Seeded Rice have also demonstrated success as water management techniques for rice plantations, whereas efforts to expand the use of millets, a highly nutritious crop that can grow on arid lands and is resilient to climate changes, in emerging economies should also be accelerated.
Climate Resilient Agriculture
It is well established that climate change is a threat to agriculture, and resilient agriculture practices forged through efficient technologies, innovations, and circular economy practices must be incentivized and scaled.
Despite being the world’s leading producer in jute, milk, wheat sugarcane, vegetable, and rice, India continues to face post-harvest losses. A 2022 study revealed that between harvesting and consumption, the country lost 5-13% of its fruits and vegetables and around 3-7% of crops that included oil, seeds, and spices.
In particular, the significant use of chemical fertilizers by Indian farmers due to huge subsidies given by the government is a major contributor not only to emissions and environmental pollution, but to the degradation of soil.
Sustainable alternatives, such as nanofertilizers and bioinoculants like mycorrhizaes should be explored to both reduce burdens on the government as well as curb the environmental impacts of traditional fertilizers. Combined agro-waste (crop-residue and livestock manure) management and increasing the use of biogas plants can also help to reduce carbon emissions and produce more resilient crops.
The world is ready to make a transition towards sustainable food and land use practices, and national leaders should seize this opportunity to intensify their fight against climate change. COP28 offers an important platform to accelerate the transformation of our food and land-use systems towards a better, progressive future.
Vibha Dhawan is Chair of SDSN South Asia and Director General of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI)
The college football world viewed Colorado’s decision to hire Deion Sanders as a major risk. Athletic director Rick George was smart enough to see through the reasons for hesitation. There was an element of blind faith that had to exist, sure, but George knew Sanders was the lightning rod necessary to revive a program on life support. Guess what? It worked. And in a matter of months.
Sanders has so many qualities that cannot be matched. His star power cannot be duplicated. His vision to promote his program on YouTube is something that would make other coaches cringe. And he speaks with conviction about everything. The best part? Sanders follows through on what he says. He’s a doer. He said he was bringing his Louis Vuitton luggage to Boulder, then proceeded to engineer the biggest roster flip the sport has ever seen. Colorado progressed from a one-win team in 2022 to a four-win team (and counting?) that is battling for bowl eligibility.
There’s one quality Sanders lacks, though.
Patience.
That has to be the reason Colorado’s head coach made the knee-jerk decision last week to take primary play-calling duties away from offensive coordinator Sean Lewis and hand them to former NFL coach Pat Shurmur. Lewis was perhaps Sanders’ most important coaching addition during the offseason, and he was largely credited for being the reason the Buffaloes put up so many points early in the season despite having an obvious deficiency on the offensive line. Lewis left a head coaching job at Kent State to call plays at Colorado and seemed destined to be an attractive candidate for a Power 5 job in the offseason.
CU averaged 32.1 points and 408.7 yards in eight games with Sean Lewis as the primary play caller. Last year, the Buffs averaged 15.4 points and 281.3 yards per game. (Dustin Bradford / Getty Images)
Then Sanders took the play sheet out of Lewis’ hand and replaced him with a coach who hadn’t been an assistant at the college level for 25 years. Shurmur, who was on Sanders’ staff as an analyst, isn’t some genius play caller who could solve all of Colorado’s problems in a week. Let’s be honest: Fans of the Cleveland Browns and New York Giants could give a detailed PowerPoint presentation of all the things that went wrong when he was the head coach of those franchises.
The results of this change were exactly what you’d expect. Colorado lost to Oregon State on Saturday night 26-19. The offense managed only 238 total yards, a chunk of which occurred late in the game when the Buffaloes were trying to erase a two-score deficit and were facing a soft Beavers defense.
Quarterback Shedeur Sanders still got beaten up. And Colorado’s offense rushed for minus-7 yards.
How did we get here? How did Sanders feel strongly enough to fix the one thing that, frankly, wasn’t broken?
“We’re not going to demean Sean Lewis, we’re not going to take that tone,” Sanders said. “Sean is a good man. I think he’s a good play caller. We just needed change at the time, we just needed to try something else at the time and that’s what we did. I don’t look back on it, I don’t second-guess myself whatsoever. Because there’s more to it than what you may know, so let’s just trust the process. Let’s just trust the process.”
Did more happen behind the scenes? Lewis and Sanders must have had a fundamental disagreement about how much Colorado was attempting to run the football. Maybe it was something to do with how well the quarterback — Sanders’ son — was being protected.
Sanders didn’t offer much insight as to how he arrived at the decision, but he did acknowledge that we might not understand it.
“I’m not going to disclose all my thoughts,” Sanders said. “My thoughts are my thoughts. I’m not going to disclose when I make a decision. Just know when I make a decision to do something, I don’t stumble or stutter and I don’t look back. It is what it is, and that’s what it’s going to be. … I made a decision to help this team win. You guys don’t know all the intangibles just from the outside of the crib looking in. I got tinted windows and you can’t even see in the house, but you’re making conclusions on what I should and should not do.”
Maybe Sanders’ house has tinted windows, but there has been no other football program more exposed to public viewing than Colorado. A large chunk of the day-to-day of Colorado’s football is posted on YouTube. That’s part of Sanders’ genius of promoting the brand and the players who wear Colorado’s uniform.
But this is problematic.
From the outside looking in, it seems as though Sanders made a rash decision. That decision didn’t lead to some offensive renaissance, and it most assuredly feels like Lewis will be one-and-done in Boulder.
This is the type of move a desperate coach would make. But what was the reason for Colorado’s desperation? There are still three games remaining in the regular season and Colorado has already (easily) surpassed last year’s win total. By all accounts, Colorado has been a resounding success this year, in large part because it has been so entertaining to watch Shedeur Sanders, Travis Hunter, Jimmy Horn and Dylan Edwards cook … on offense.
Sanders seems to be concerned about how people view his decision to “demote” Lewis. He doesn’t want anyone to look down on Lewis’ ability or to “demean” anything Lewis has accomplished.
“You’ve got to understand, you only get so many coaches in college football, so when you make a move like we made, that means someone has to … I don’t call it demotion, I say move,” Sanders said. “I think everybody’s making the same amount of money. When you get demoted, that’s a hit on your check. It’s a movement that we had to make.”
Had to? Maybe we’ll have to blindly trust Sanders on this one. He’ll tell you repeatedly to trust the process. And to his credit, the process has resulted in more improvement in a short amount of time than most people expected.
But the move is concerning. Sanders, more than anyone, had to understand that Colorado is dealing with personnel issues on the offensive line that coaching can’t fix. He literally spoke about it last week and indicated that improving the talent level up front is the chief offseason task. Heck, Colorado even hosted five-star offensive lineman Jordan Seaton for an official visit for the Oregon State game.
Sanders has given us very little reason to doubt him and his build during his first year as Colorado’s coach. Even losses were expected. But for a first-time Power 5 head coach, this move makes you scratch your head.
It makes you wonder if these are the types of decisions that could derail such a promising start to a program build that may have been hopeless for any other coach.
SAN FRANCISCO, USA, Nov 09 (IPS) – The governments of Israel and the United States are now in disagreement over how many Palestinian civilians it’s okay to kill. Last week — as the death toll from massive Israeli bombardment of Gaza neared 10,000 people, including several thousand children — top U.S. officials began to worry about the rising horrified outcry at home and abroad. So, they went public with muted misgivings and calls for a “humanitarian pause.” But Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made clear that he would have none of it.
Such minor tactical discord does little to chip away at the solid bedrock alliance between the two countries, which are most of the way through a 10-year deal that guarantees $38 billion in U.S. military aid to Israel. And now, as the carnage in Gaza continues, Washington is rushing to provide extra military assistance worth $14 billion.
Days ago, In These Times reported that the Biden administration is seeking congressional permission “to unilaterally blanket-approve the future sale of military equipment and weapons — like ballistic missiles and artillery ammunition — to Israel without notifying Congress.” And so, “the Israeli government would be able to purchase up to $3.5 billion in military articles and services in complete secrecy.”
While Israeli forces were using weapons provided by the United States to slaughter Palestinian civilians, resupply flights were landing in Israel courtesy of U.S. taxpayers. Air & Space Forces Magazine published a photo showing “U.S. Air Force Airmen and Israeli military members unload cargo from a U.S. Air Force C-17 Globemaster III on a ramp at Nevatim Base, Israel.”
Pictures taken on Oct. 24 show that the military cargo went from Travis Air Force Base in California to Ramstein Air Base in Germany to Israel. Overall, the magazine reported, “the Air Force’s airlift fleet has been steadily working to deliver essential munitions, armored vehicles, and aid to Israel.” And so, the apartheid country is receiving a huge boost to assist with the killing.
The horrific atrocities committed by Hamas on Oct. 7 have opened the door to protracted horrific atrocities by Israel with key assistance from the United States.
Oxfam America has issued a briefing paper decrying the Pentagon’s plans to ship tens of thousands of 155mm artillery shells to the Israeli military. The organization noted that “Israel’s use of this munition in past conflicts demonstrates that its use would be virtually assured to be indiscriminate, unlawful, and devastating to civilians in Gaza.”
Oxfam added: “There are no known scenarios in which 155mm artillery shells could be used in Israel’s ground operation in Gaza in compliance with international humanitarian law.”
During the last several weeks, “international humanitarian law” has been a common phrase coming from President Biden while expressing support for Israel’s military actions. It’s an Orwellian absurdity, as if saying the words is sufficient while constantly helping Israel to violate international humanitarian law in numerous ways.
“Israeli forces have used white phosphorus, a chemical that ignites when in contact with oxygen, causing horrific and severe burns, on densely populated neighborhoods,” Human Rights Watch senior legal adviser Clive Baldwin wrote in late October. “White phosphorus can burn down to the bone, and burns to 10 percent of the human body are often fatal.”
Baldwin added: “Israel has also engaged in the collective punishment of Gaza’s population through cutting off food, water, electricity, and fuel. This is a war crime, as is willfully blocking humanitarian relief from reaching civilians in need.”
At the end of last week, the Win Without War organization noted that “senior administration officials are increasingly alarmed by how the Israeli government is conducting its military operations in Gaza, as well as the reputational repercussions of the Biden administration’s support for a collective punishment strategy that clearly violates international law. Many worry that the U.S. will be blamed for the Israeli military’s indiscriminate attacks on civilians, particularly women and children.”
News reporting now tells us that Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken want a bit of a course correction. For them, the steady large-scale killing of Palestinian civilians became concerning when it became a PR problem.
Dressed up in an inexhaustible supply of euphemistic rhetoric and double-talk, such immoral policies are stunning to see in real time. And, for many people in Gaza, literally breathtaking.
Now, guided by political calculus, the White House is trying to persuade Israel’s prime minister to titrate the lethal doses of bombing Gaza. But as Netanyahu has made clear in recent days, Israel is going to do whatever it wants, despite pleas from its patron.
While, in effect, it largely functions in the Middle East as part of the U.S. war machine, Israel has its own agenda. Yet the two governments are locked into shared, long-term, overarching strategic interests in the Middle East that have absolutely no use for human rights except as rhetorical window-dressing.
Biden made that clear last year when he fist-bumped the de facto ruler of oil-rich Saudi Arabia, a dictatorship that — with major U.S. assistance — has led an eight-year war on Yemen costing nearly 400,000 lives.
The war machine needs constant oiling from news media. That requires ongoing maintenance of the doublethink assumption that when Israel terrorizes and kills people from the air, the Israeli Defense Force is fighting “terrorism” without engaging in it.
Another helpful notion in recent weeks has been the presumption that — while Hamas puts out “propaganda” — Israel does not. And so, on Nov. 2, the PBS NewsHour’s foreign affairs correspondent Nick Schifrin reported on what he called “Hamas propaganda videos.”
Fair enough. Except that it would be virtually impossible for mainstream U.S. news media to also matter-of-factly refer to public output from the Israeli government as “propaganda.” (I asked Schifrin for comment, but my several emails and texts went unanswered.)
Whatever differences might surface from time to time, the United States and Israel remain enmeshed. To the power elite in Washington, the bilateral alliance is vastly more important than the lives of Palestinian people. And it’s unlikely that the U.S. government will really confront Israel over its open-ended killing spree in Gaza.
Consider this: Just weeks before beginning her second stint as House speaker in January 2019, Rep. Nancy Pelosi was recorded on video at a forum sponsored by the Israeli American Council as she declared: “I have said to people when they ask me — if this Capitol crumbled to the ground, the one thing that would remain is our commitment to our aid, I don’t even call it aid — our cooperation — with Israel. That’s fundamental to who we are.”
Even making allowances for bizarre hyperbole, Pelosi’s statement is revealing of the kind of mentality that continues to hold sway in official Washington. It won’t change without a huge grassroots movement that refuses to go away.
Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of many books including War Made Easy. His latest book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, was published in summer 2023 by The New Press.
Pedestrian crossing at an intersection in Tokyo. Credit: Unsplash/Ryoji Iwata
Opinion by Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana, Natalia Kanem 2 (bangkok, thailand)
Inter Press Service
BANGKOK, Thailand, Nov 08 (IPS) – Asia and the Pacific is an economic powerhouse, fuelled by its vibrant and diverse population. Comprising 60 per cent of the world’s population, this region is bursting with both a wealth of experience and untapped potential.
Exciting advancements have been made here, in education; health care, including sexual and reproductive health; jobs, and sustainable development. Yet there is a catch: this progress has not been evenly distributed. In fact, inequity pervades the region, especially within individual countries.
Women still lose their lives during childbirth at alarming rates, and in many countries we have seen limited progress in reducing maternal mortality in the past decade. In several countries, less than 30 per cent of women of reproductive age use contraception. Unemployment rates among young women remain high, reaching up to 25 per cent in some places.
Women are still struggling for a seat at the political table, with less than a quarter of national parliamentary seats being occupied by women in 35 countries across the region. Progress towards gender equality and women’s empowerment has been sluggish, creating a roadblock to sustainable development.
The region is particularly susceptible to the effects of climate change and environmental degradation, with disasters claiming 2 million lives since 1970. Financial losses from these calamities add up to $924 billion every year, eating up nearly 3 per cent of the region’s GDP. Humanity’s environmental footprint has expanded dramatically. The region’s greenhouse gas emissions have risen by 54 per cent since 1990, largely due to the energy and agricultural sectors.
Population ageing is another mega-trend affecting this part of the world. More people are enjoying longer and healthier lives, and in this new reality we need policies that adapt to these shifts and invest in every stage of life. Rather than perceiving older persons as a drain on resources, we should recognize them as individuals with human rights who make important contributions to society in various ways all the time.
The same applies to persons with disabilities, migrants and other groups who have much to contribute, yet too often face stigma and discrimination. Let us build societies for people of all abilities and ages.
Over 60 per cent of the population in the Asia Pacific region has access to the internet, and this has turbocharged development across many sectors. Nevertheless, these technological advances bring new challenges, from the digital divide between the haves and the have-nots, to privacy violations and a disturbing rise in technology-facilitated gender-based violence.
While it is important that we celebrate the region’s many achievements, we must simultaneously confront its population and development challenges. We have a unique opportunity to do so as we mark 60 years since the first Asian and Pacific Population Conference and 30 years since the International Conference on Population and Development – two important milestones on the path towards sustainable progress.
At the midpoint of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as countries seek to accelerate action towards our global goals, we urgently need comprehensive, forward-thinking, intergenerational approaches to harness the opportunities of population dynamics for sustainable development. To be effective, such approaches must be based on individual human rights and rooted in evidence and data.
Innovative solutions, financing and political commitment through inclusive partnerships are our path forward. Let us ensure young and older persons have a voice in decision-making and in designing solutions. Let us tap into the goldmine of shared knowledge and proven methods we have built over the past few decades.
Investing in people, through improved health, education and training, while providing social protection for all to retain development gains, lays the foundation for inclusive, just and sustainable societies. It is also our route to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.
The Seventh Asian and Pacific Population Conference taking place this week is the perfect launchpad for collective action. Governments, civil society, young people and others can come together and make a real difference, building on their collective investments and successes to date. Together, we can protect people and the planet and ensure prosperity for all, now and in the future.
Let us refocus our actions to ensure human rights and choices for everyone, driving us closer to peace and a sustainable future for this generation and those that follow.
Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana is UN Under-Secretary-General and Executive Secretary of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP); Natalia Kanem is UN Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).
Seeing as Britney had spoken out about ways that her body and mind were controlled by her father’s conservatorship, not to mention the toll a secret abortion had on her, it’s even more hurtful that words of physical restraint like “muzzle” were used. She fought hard enough to be free, and men who are supposed to support her are still talking about holding her back. It’s an example of a larger problem – men using misogynistic language to limit women’s power when it comes to their story, their bodies, their sexuality.
Since then, Timbaland has taken to TikTok to apologise for his words. “I’m sorry to all the Britney fans, even to her,” he said, calling attention to how inappropriate the word “muzzle” was. Obviously.
“I’m sorry, because muzzle was — no, you have a voice. You speak what you want to speak. Who am I to tell you what not to speak? And I was wrong for saying that. I was looking at it from a different lens and what I am is a reconcile person. I’m not a person who takes sides… I apologise to the Britney fans and her.”
In direct response to allegations of the sexism around his “muzzle” comment, Timbaland said: “And, uh, yes, you know, about respecting women, hell yeah.”
While we respect the public apology and all, it’s very disappointing and rather telling that it was necessary in the first place. Considering the fact that Britney’s memoir specifically describes her being institutionalised unneccessarily as a means of control, why would anyone see fit to use the word “crazy” to describe her? It’s infantilising, it’s insulting to her mental state – it’s demeaning to a woman who has fought for her mental and physical freedom.
Britney’s book was her opportunity to offer her side of the story when it came to her relationship with Justin Timberlake, after years of his narrative being used to further his career. The fact that a collaborator (of both Britney’s and Justin’s, we might add) chose to make disrespectful, misogynistic comments about limiting her freedom to speak proves how much further we have to go when it comes to empowering women to speak their truth about their relationships and bodies.
Kevin Winter
What we would like to see is men – inside and outside of the music industry – putting their “respect for women” into practice, and into their words. Calling out sexist and abusive behaviour, not contributing to it. Empowering survivors of abuse like Britney Spears, not tearing them down to further their own patriarchal agenda. Believing women, not suggesting they’re speaking out for money and fame.
While an apology is great and all, each of Timbaland’s words carry a lot of weight. Perhaps he should choose them more carefully next time.
The end of affirmative action has triggered a reconsideration of legacy admissions. When universities extend advantages to the families of donors and alums, they discriminate against others, especially lower-income and Black students.
Legacy admissions began to get more attention after the Department of Education initiated a civil rights investigation in July 2023 into Harvard’s legacy practice. That was a good beginning, but donors and alums are also responsible for legacy preferences.
Let’s be clear: If it is wrong for universities to give preference to alums and donors, it is wrong for alums and donors to seek those privileges.
When donations to a university are followed by preferential admissions, donors are complicit in the discrimination, inequality and injustice that follow. When donors give with an eye toward future privileges for themselves or for their offspring, they may be engaging in moral licensing: doing good to do bad. Their generosity does not entitle them to advantages that deprive others of opportunities.
It is not surprising that many elite institutions still offer legacy advantages. The policy is a win-win — for donors, alums and the receiving institutions.
But there are losses for the students not admitted, for our sense of justice and for other universities that might have received the donations.
To be fair, not all donors are looking for a win-win. Some are guided by a moral compass. They give to colleges and universities that promote diversity and equality, with a focus on Black students and middle- and lower-income students.
In 2020 for example, MacKenzie Scott donated $560 million to 23 Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).
If it is wrong for universities to give preference to alums and donors, it is wrong for alums and donors to seek those privileges.
In August of that year, Jack Dorsey donated $10 million to Boston University’s Center for Antiracist Research — even though Dorsey didn’t finish college and didn’t attend Boston University.
In the fall of 2022, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation gave $100 million to the United Negro College Fund and to other institutions that promote higher education as a means to equality for lower income, Black, Latinx and Indigenous students.
This fall, Blue Meridian Partners’ gave $124 million to 40 HBCUs.
All of this hints at a change in giving norms.
Simply put: There are people in the world who will give generously to support racial equality in higher education. Their giving doesn’t target their alma mater. They don’t anticipate legacy advantages. Their gifts promote the right to education, and do so without deepening inequality.
When donors choose this path, their donations will have a positive impact on a greater number of students, many of whom have endured bias and discrimination. Although these donations cannot compensate for past wrongs, they can promote future good.
Philanthropy is an important mechanism for achieving justice. It gives those who have benefited from collective efforts an opportunity to give back, and some donors agree. As MacKenzie Scott said, “There’s no question in my mind that anyone’s personal wealth is the product of a collective effort, and of social structures which present opportunities to some people, and obstacles to countless others.”
This is not to say that it is always wrong to benefit from one’s charitable actions. Certainly, the warm glow of generosity is a reward in and of itself. But that is very different from a pay-to-play scenario in which giving entails a benefit to the donor at a cost to others.
It is true, however, that legacy preferences can build a sense of community and generate the donations universities need to do the work they want to do. Some donors might not give but for legacy advantages.
Also, an “all in the family” approach to admissions creates a community, one that enhances college life. But who is excluded from that community? And what are the consequences for those left out?
In other contexts, when a donation is linked to a wrong, or a human rights violation, the donor is seen as complicit in that wrong. Donors who give to anti-LGBTQ+ nonprofits are complicit in discrimination against members of the queer community, and those who give to the NRA share responsibility for gun violence.
In the case of legacy admissions, elite universities are effectively discriminating against less privileged students for the benefit of the wealthy — and some donors are enabling them.
Fortunately, some universities have already taken legacy preferences off the table. MIT and Wesleyan, for example.
Their actions and the recent donations to HBCUs signal an important change in giving norms and perhaps a bandwagon effect. Hopefully, others will follow the money and legacy practices will soon be a thing of the past. Donors are the engine that drive legacy admissions. They can end them swiftly. Why wait for universities to end legacy admissions, when donors have the power to do so?
Patricia Illingworth is a professor of philosophy at Northeastern University and a fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Her most recent book, “Giving Now: Accelerating Human Rights for All,” argues that philanthropy can and should protect human rights.
This story about donors and legacy admissions was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s newsletter.
Related articles
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.
Pamela Anderson is an icon, whether that’s with her signature “Pamcore” makeup – all pencil-thin brows, over-lined ’90s lips and smoky eyes – or without it, something that she proved by going makeup-free at Paris Fashion Week..
And yet for some reason, a woman in her 50s choosing not to wear makeup at a high-profile event, caused a furore on social media and in the press – and not always a pleasant one. Now Pamela Anderson has addressed her no-makeup moment. “I’m makeup free at home, so why not for Paris Fashion Week?” she told People in a new interview, adding that “chasing youth is futile” and that “I don’t have to be cool anymore. I can just be me. It’s very freeing to be comfortable in your own skin.”
As a beauty editor, I celebrate a natural beauty look and feeling empowered to be comfortable in your own skin. As a feminist, I support the right of women to smash through traditional beauty tropes and just be themselves – whether that means choosing to go bare-faced with just a face full of moisturiser or choosing to create a gorgeous makeup look. All that matters is that it is her choice.
At the time, detractors pointed out Pamela’s fine lines. But even comments by pro-agers left me feeling uncomfortable. “It actually takes a lot of work to look this good without makeup”, wrote one, as if only hard work somehow makes it OK for a woman to shun foundation and blusher. Others peddled the usual back-handed compliment that makeup-free Pamela “looks good for her age”.
Arnold Jerocki
Even celebrities waded into the argument. In an instagram post, Jamie Lee Curtis said: “THE NATURAL BEAUTY REVOLUTION HAS OFFICIALLY BEGUN! @pamelaanderson in the middle of fashion week with so many pressures and postures, and and and, this woman showed up and claimed her seat at the table with nothing on her face.” She concluded: “I am so impressed and floored by this act of courage and rebellion.” Selma Blair added in the comments: “Love this. Beautiful self-assuredness.”
NEW YORK, Nov 06 (IPS) – Since the 1967 Six Day War, many efforts have been made to reach a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians through mediation conducted by an impartial mediator, face-to face negotiations, international conferences, offering incentives, back-channel talks, interim agreements (in particular the Oslo Accords), and occasionally by an influential party exerting pressure on both sides, especially the US.
None of the above approaches nor several others to reach a peace agreement have worked. The failures to reach an agreement are fundamentally attributed to the fact that both sides claim exclusive ownership to the entire land from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River, albeit they blame each other for failing to make the necessary concessions to reach a peace agreement.
While the prospect of a two-state solution was viable following the 1993 Oslo Accords, the outlook for such a solution became progressively dimmer as Israel moved to the right-of-center. Prime Minister Netanyahu, who was bent on sabotaging the Oslo Accords when he served as prime minister between 1996 and 1999, and has been in power for most of the past 15 years, made it clear repeatedly that there will be no Palestinian state under his watch.
The idea of a two-state solution was steadily losing traction in Israel, the occupation of the West Bank was normalized, and a de facto apartheid state was created, which became a way of life for most Israelis and Palestinians.
The changing dynamic of the conflict
It is well known in conflict resolution that sometimes it takes a major breakdown that precipitates an extraordinary crisis to change the dynamic of a conflict. The shockingly unexpected and devastating Yom Kippur War in 1973, which subsequently led to a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, offers a potent example.
As such, it made it simply impossible to return to the status quo ante. Indeed, neither Israel nor the Palestinians, including Hamas, will be the same following this most heinous and unprecedented massacre and Israel’s retaliation that has already exacted (as of this writing) more than 8,700 Palestinian casualties—not to speak of the unimaginable death and destruction that will occur as Israel undertakes its ground invasion of Gaza.
This unfolding horror should have been expected because of what was happening on the ground in the West Bank and Gaza over the past few years, especially in the last 10 months since the formation of the most extremist right-wing coalition government in Israel’s history (as I pointed out in my article published on October 3, 2022). Indeed, it did not take a prophet to augur what would happen next.
The increasingly violent flareups in the West Bank have been claiming hundreds of Palestinian lives, mostly under the age of 30, each year (so far this year over 300 West Bank Palestinians have already been killed, as of the time of writing, over 100 since October 7 alone). The frequent night raids, evictions, incarcerations, demolition of houses, and gross human rights abuses became the norm.
Despair, depression, and hopelessness swept much of the Palestinian population, akin to the gathering of a ferocious storm that successive Israeli governments led by Netanyahu chose to brush off. Moreover, it is the psychological dimension of the conflict that has now come into full display, exposing decades-old mental and emotional trauma the Palestinians have been experiencing to which the wright-wing Israelis were oblivious and which was bound to manifest in an unprecedented way.
The Palestinians’ resentment and hatred of Israel were intensifying. Since the new government could not formally annex Palestinians territories, it has resorted to intimidation and harassment of the Palestinians under the watchful eye of the criminal Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir, who gave the settlers free reign to rampage Palestinian communities in order to ‘encourage’ them to leave.
The Netanyahu government’s intent to slowly annex much of the West Bank became abundantly clear. Needless to say, none of the above can justify under any circumstances Hamas’ heinous attack on Israeli civilians. Hamas must pay for it dearly, and pay they will.
But such unthinkable carnage happened because of the perilous “strategy” that successive Israeli governments pursued that enabled Hamas and prevented the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. This also explains why Netanyahu consistently refused to negotiate with any prospective unity government between the PA and Hamas.
The creation of Hamas
Israel created Hamas to counter balance the secular national Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) movement led by Yasser Arafat, which was intended to divide the Palestinians into two camps and prevent the creation of a Palestinian state. The creation of Hamas by Israel, which has been confirmed by many top Israeli military and civilian officials over a number of years, is unquestionable.
Former Brig. Gen. Yitzhak Segev, who was the Israeli military governor in Gaza in the early 1980s, told a New York Times reporter that he had helped finance Hamas as a “counterweight” to the secularists and leftists of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Fatah party, led by Yasser Arafat, stating “The Israeli Government gave me a budget and the military government gives to the mosques.” And among many others, Avner Cohen, a former Israeli religious affairs official who worked in Gaza for more than two decades, told the Wall Street Journal in 2009 that “Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation.”
In a 2015 interview, Bezalel Smotrich, the current finance minister who is also in charge of Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), stated “The Palestinian Authority is a burden, and Hamas is an asset” . And in an article published in the New York Times on October 18, 2023, entitled “Netanyahu Led Us to Catastrophe. He Must Go.,” author Gershom Gorenberg stated that “Bringing Gaza back under the Palestinian Authority was apparently never part of the prime minister’s agenda. Hamas was the enemy and, in a bizarre twist, an ally against the threat of diplomacy, a two-state solution and peace.”
Indeed, no Israeli prime minister has pursued this disastrous policy of divide and conquer more vigorously than Netanyahu. Although he maintained the blockade over Gaza, he allowed the flow of hundreds of millions of dollars from Qatar and other countries into Hamas’ coffers, knowing full well that more than 50 percent of these funds were used by Hamas to buy and manufacture weapons, including tens of thousands of rockets, and build a massive network of tunnels with command and control while readying itself for the next war.
Gorenberg further stated that “In 2019, for instance, Netanyahu explained why he allowed the Hamas regime in Gaza to be propped up with cash from Qatar rather than have it depend on a financial umbilical cord to the West Bank. He told Likud lawmakers that ’whoever is against a Palestinian state should be for’ the Qatari funding…” Yuval Diskin, head of Shin Bet from 2005-2011, stated in January 2013 that “If we look at it over the years, one of the main people contributing to Hamas’s strengthening has been Bibi Netanyahu, since his first term as prime minister.”
And in a more telling statement from someone who has been deeply immersed in Israeli politics and governance, Ehud Barak stated in August 2019, “His strategy is to keep Hamas alive and kicking… even at the price of abandoning the citizens … in order to weaken the PA in Ramallah…”
Netanyahu’s ill-fated “strategy” was an illusion. He believed that he could control the monster that he nurtured over the years, which instead came back to slaughter hundreds of innocent Israelis who have been relying on their government for protection and were tragically let down.
They have been betrayed by a prime minister who has been fixated on bolstering Israel’s security in the West Bank while weakening the security of the southern front along the Gaza border. And while Netanyahu was sparing no efforts to ‘reform’ the judiciary, Hamas was planning, training, acquiring weapons, and perfecting the technique to wage an assault against Israel more daring than anyone could have possibly imagined.
It all happened under Netanyahu’s watch. And worse yet, how is it possible that the world’s most renowned intelligence agency, Israel’s Mossad, failed to detect the planning of an attack of such magnitude that it took perhaps more than a year to prepare? And why did Netanyahu ignore the warning of Egypt’s Intelligence Minister General Abbas Kamel, who personally called Netanyahu and warned him that Hamas was likely to do “something unusual, a terrible operation” only 10 days before the attack?
I do not suggest or even imply that Netanyahu knew what was going to happen but chose to ignore it, but rather that he was simply dismissive of what Hamas is capable of and believed that he had a good handle on what was happening in Gaza. He was preoccupied with passing legislation that would subordinate the Supreme Court and the appointment of judges to elected politicians, which would have destroyed Israel’s democracy and allowed him to assume authoritarian powers, to which he badly aspired.
Although the Palestinians on the whole, be they in the West Bank or Gaza, are innocent civilians, the extremists among them have committed many egregious acts of violence against Israel. The Palestinian leaders missed many opportunities to make peace, and made countless mistakes that aggravated their own situation.
Moreover, by threatening Israel’s very existence, extremist groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad allowed successive Israeli governments to make a strong case against the Palestinians by portraying them as an irredeemable mortal enemy that poses the greatest danger to Israel’s national security and hence, the Palestinians cannot be a party to peace.
With these perspectives established by the Israeli government, maintaining the occupation became the state policy, however unsustainable it has been deemed by any keen and informed observer.
What’s next
That said, once the war is over and the dust settles, a growing majority on both sides will come to recognize one irreversible fact. Co-existence is not one of many options, it is the only option, be that under conditions of peace or perpetual violent enmity. The two-state solution has come back to the table, as it has always been the only viable option. Both sides must now face this bittersweet reality.
The question is what will happen now that Israel and Hamas are engaged in fierce fighting on the ground that will surely exact an immense toll on both sides. I maintain that whether Israel limits its ground invasion of Gaza to its northern part, or continues its targeted bombing of Hamas’s encampments while seeking to decapitate as many of its leaders as possible, or simply stops the fighting, which is unlikely, and focuses on releasing the over 240 hostages, nothing will change in any substantial way the irreversible new paradigm that has bitterly awakened both sides to their miserable, unsustainable status quo.
To be sure, what option the Israeli government will choose to bring an end to the conflict will only define the length of time that that might take, the extent of difficulties in the negotiation, the modalities of the negotiating process, the level of public and international pressure to find a solution, and the likely intermittent violence. But none of these issues will change the fundamental point of departure that point to the endgame of a two-state solution, regardless of how many more hurdles might be encountered.
Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University (NYU). He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.
In one of my past startups, I had a co-founder who had a pretty clear goal for himself: he wanted to make $1 million for every year that he worked on this startup, and he wanted to leave a positive impact on the world.
I was struck by the clarity of that thought, and so I started asking other founders what their personal goals were. It turns out that a surprising number of startup founders aren’t really sure why they are running a company at all, let alone what their personal goals are.
In this world of metrics and goals, I was left astonished by that. This isn’t just about a cohesive business model or a solid plan for your product or service. As a founder, you need to go deeper; you must have a lucid understanding of your goals for starting a company.
The lure of entrepreneurship is undeniable: It offers the thrill of creating something new, the possibility of immense financial success, the chance to disrupt industries, or even the potential to change the world. Yet, the path is riddled with challenges and stress, which often make the comfort of a nine-to-five job seem immensely appealing.
So why take the plunge? Why walk the tightrope of startup life? The answer is probably tied to your personal goals.
If you’re looking to make a significant difference in the world, your startup could be the vehicle that drives that change. The world has witnessed the transformative power of startups like Facebook, Tesla and Airbnb. They began as small-ish initiatives driven by founders who wanted to alter the status quo. These entrepreneurs’ personal goals were not simply about profitability; they cared about creating a lasting impact.
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19103866/Control_Screenshot_06.png)
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25084292/AWII_Launch_052.jpg)
