ReportWire

Tag: Politics Channel Featured Experts

  • Expert: Auto workers’ strike could impact future labor organizing

    Expert: Auto workers’ strike could impact future labor organizing

    In an unprecedented move, unionized auto workers from General Motors, Ford and Chrysler owner Stellantis have joined forces to pressure Detroit’s big three automakers into increasing wages and benefits.

    Even before the United Auto Workers (UAW) walked out Sept. 15, 2023 had already been unofficially named “the summer of strikes” for the unusually high level of labor activity. That’s because the persistently tight labor market combined with growing frustration over wage inequality has encouraged workers across industries to fight back and organize, according to Jake Rosenfeld, an expert on labor unions and a professor of sociology in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis.

    Also fueling the trend: Support for unions is higher than it has been in nearly six decades. In a 2022 analysis for The Washington Post, Rosenfeld wrote, “The recent successes of organizing drives at Starbucks, Amazon, Trader Joe’s and elsewhere suggest unions are capitalizing on worker support and finding ways to overcome the barriers that have diminished their ranks in recent decades. The rising popularity of unions will probably bolster these efforts. After all, labor organizing is impossible if there is no support for unions.”

    With 13,000 auto workers in Missouri, Michigan and Ohio now on strike and others positioned to join them — including the union that represents autoworkers in Canada — the outcome of the UAW strike has the potential to impact future labor activity in the U.S., according to Rosenfeld, author of “You’re Paid What You’re Worth and Other Myths of the Modern Economy” and “What Unions No Longer Do.”

    “Past research has shown that successful strikes can prove contagious and spread to other industries,” he said. “But the strikes have to be successful. It’s important to keep in mind we have ongoing strikes out west in Los Angeles with writers, screen actors and hotel workers that unions are also watching closely. If these strikes fail, that could dampen enthusiasm for further action just as quickly as a successful strike could increase enthusiasm.”

    Below, Rosenfeld answers some of the common questions associated with the UAW strike.  

    Some have criticized the UAW’s demands as unreasonable. What’s your take?

    It’s hard to know without being privy to the inside negotiations which of the union’s demands are bargaining chips and which are non-negotiable. Certainly, they are asking for a lot, but the broader context here is important. For decades, the companies have eroded autoworkers’ contracts, claiming doing so was necessary to maintain competitiveness and — in the aftermath of the Great Recession — to stay afloat financially. The union is trying to claw back a lot that was lost during those lean years now that the companies are enjoying record profits.

    Do you think the current political environment has emboldened the auto workers?

    I think broader public sentiment certainly buttresses the union’s case here. But probably more importantly is the economic environment: You’ve got record-low unemployment combined with an auto sector that is thriving, making it the perfect opportunity for auto workers to ask for a share in the revenue.

    Will the work stoppage be long? What factors could affect that?

    Nobody wants a long strike, so certainly the incentives — and increasing pressures — are on both sides to find a deal. It does seem that both sides are actively negotiating, which hopefully indicates that they can find a solution in relatively short order.

    Last December, President Joe Biden and his administration played a role in preventing a railroad strike that would have devastated the economy. How might the Biden administration get involved in this strike?

    Whether or not the Biden administration gets involved likely depends on the duration of the strike and the broader devastation a long strike could play in key — politically speaking — state economies. But for now, what I’d expect is that the administration lets this play out while offering mediation as needed and requested by both sides.
     

    Washington University in St. Louis

    Source link

  • Trump’s mug shot expression was a calculated move for his presidential campaign strategy, says experts

    Trump’s mug shot expression was a calculated move for his presidential campaign strategy, says experts

    For the first time in United States history, a former president has their mug shot taken and released to the public in connection to criminal charges. Donald Trump surrendered at the Fulton County Jail in Georgia last night and was booked on felony charges alleging he participated in a criminal conspiracy to illegally overturn his 2020 election loss in Georgia.

    Virginia Tech political science and public relations experts alike, believe there was a calculated effort by the former president and his team in regards to how he should look in the mug shot.

    “Trump’s mug shot expression tries to convey strength and defiance, likely a strategy used to rile up his base,” says Chad Hankinson, a political science expert at Virginia Tech. “The likely interpretation for them is that he is fearless, powerful, confident, and undeterred by efforts to undermine him.” 

    Trump’s campaign released the photo while requesting donations. Hankinson believes he’s trying to capitalize on this to raise more campaign funds. “Overall, he views this as a win that will net him more campaign contributions and supporters, and further the narrative that he is the target of politically motivated investigations that are meant to derail his chances of regaining the presidency.”

    “Former President Trump has long been said to claim that any publicity is “good” publicity,” says Virginia Tech political expert Karen Hult. “This is another historic “first” for U.S. presidents and arguably another step along the path of a collapsing constitutional republic.”

    Cayce Myers, a public relations professor in the School of Communication says mug shots have become a defining visual for news coverage of arrests. 

    “Often thought of as a degrading experience, mug shots frequently are thought to be unflattering and frequently present the subject as a guilty person who got caught,” says Myers. “In high profile cases there is a strategy for taking a mug shot where the person arrested attempts to send a message to the public with their picture.”

    “Trump’s expression in his Fulton County Jail mugshot expresses a certain disgust and contempt, which helps promote his narrative that this is an unjust, politically motivated arrest,” says Myers. “Trump’s mug shot may become a defining visual for the 2024 presidential campaign, perhaps not surprisingly on both sides.”

    While pundits predicted that such images would be used to undermine Trump’s credibility in 2024, Myers agrees with Hankinson that it is Trump who is likely to use the visual to promote his own campaign. “His indictments have become a rallying cry and platform for his 2024 presidential campaign, and polling in the Republican primary shows that his sizable lead has not diminished despite these legal problems.”

    Virginia Tech

    Source link

  • Eagleton Institute of Politics Experts Available to Discuss Donald Trump’s Third Indictment

    Eagleton Institute of Politics Experts Available to Discuss Donald Trump’s Third Indictment

    John Farmer, director of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University, Ashley Koning, director of the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling, and Robert Kaufman, a distinguished professor of political science at the Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences, are available to comment on the latest indictment of Donald Trump.

    The following quotes are available for pick-up:

    John Farmer

    “The latest federal indictment of former President Trump is as significant for what it does not charge as for what it does.  In accusing the former president of obstructing the congressional process for transitioning power, conspiring to defraud the government, and conspiring to deprive the rights of others, the Special Counsel has avoided charging him with what the January 6 select committee clearly preferred: conspiracy to cause an insurrection, a charge that would have disqualified Trump, if convicted, from seeking elective office. That would have been an exceedingly difficult charge to prove, and would have reinforced the former president’s narrative that such charges would themselves have been an assault on democracy.  In my view, the charges in this indictment reflect the exercise of sound prosecutorial discretion. They do, however, raise the question: What took so long?” 

     

    Ashley Koning

    “In the short term, this latest indictment against former President Trump will simply rally his most ardent supporters, which makes up more than a third of all Republicans.  Trump’s mounting legal issues in the past several months have often given him a subsequent bump in primary polling, and his strongest competitor, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, remains a distant second. But partisans across the board have taken the events of January 6th seriously since the beginning, and while Republicans’ views have become more complicated and divided on the issue over time, recent polling shows that an increasing number of Republicans view Trump’s involvement negatively. Piling indictments may eventually spell trouble for Trump in general with the kinds of voters he needs most: Independents and the quarter of Republicans who want anyone but him.”

     

    Robert Kaufman

    “The indictment of Donald Trump for disrupting the peaceful transfer of power in 2021 carries with it the risk of deepening the political polarization that afflicts our society. But a failure to hold him legally accountable would pose an even greater risk to American democracy, by allowing an attack on free elections to go unpunished.”

    Rutgers University-New Brunswick

    Source link

  • What to know about the state of voting rights ahead of 2024

    What to know about the state of voting rights ahead of 2024

    CHICAGO –– In a pair of decisions this summer that surprised some voting rights advocates, the U.S. Supreme Court went against the trend of recent decisions weakening the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

    As the anniversary of the landmark civil-rights legislation approaches on August 6, Manoj Mate, an associate professor with DePaul University College of Law, discusses the details and implications of these recent court rulings for the 2024 elections and the broader challenges facing voters. Mate is the faculty director of the Racial Justice Initiative, and his interdisciplinary research focuses on public law, constitutional law, election law and voting rights, and comparative constitutional law. 

    How did the Supreme Court rule this summer?

    First in Allen v. Milligan, the court ruled that Alabama’s 2022 congressional redistricting plan violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by packing a large bloc of Black voters into one majority-minority district. This divided up and diluted the voting power of the remainder of Black voters among surrounding districts. As a result of the decision, Alabama must now draw a second majority-minority district.

    In the second ruling for Moore v. Harper, the Supreme Court rejected the extreme version of the independent-state-legislature theory, a fringe legal theory that would have limited state courts’ powers to review electoral work of state legislatures.

    The power to draw legislative maps has become central to the elections process. Why is the Moore v. Harper case so important for voting rights and democracy?

    Moore is important because it preserves a pathway for challenging partisan gerrymanders through state courts. In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the Supreme Court held partisan gerrymandering claims are political questions that cannot be adjudicated by federal courts, but they held that state courts could still review partisan gerrymandering claims under state constitutional law. While affirming the power of state courts to review partisan gerrymanders under state constitutions, the Supreme Court in Moore v. Harper held that state court decisions would still be subject to review by federal courts.

    What is the likely impact of the case going forward?

    The impact of the Supreme Court’s decision is still uncertain given the lack of clarity surrounding the new standard for reviewing state court decisions. However, under the new standard, federal courts will have the power to review state supreme court decisions on redistricting, as well as state regulations of voting and elections involving federal elections.

    These federal court decisions could have significant impacts on voting rights and federal elections as early as 2024. In applying the Moore standard, federal courts could potentially overturn state supreme court decisions invalidating partisan gerrymanders based on scrutiny of state courts’ interpretation of state constitutional provisions codifying voting rights, equality, and democratic principles. These decisions could have a significant influence on state Congressional maps, potentially affecting which party wins a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

    What is happening at the state level?

    States continue to impose restrictions on voting rights through voter suppression policies. These include passing voter identification and felony disenfranchisement laws, restricting early voting and vote by mail, and reducing the number of polling places in major cities and population centers.

    In addition, election denial strategies are targeting election administration, including attacks on election workers, efforts to challenge certification of elections, and the creation of ‘election fraud’ policing units. All of these present significant threats to voting rights and elections.

    As faculty director of the Racial Justice Initiative, you bring together students, lawyers, researchers, policymakers and activists to collaborate on community-driven solutions to advance racial justice. Why is voting rights a priority for your work?

    Policies that seek to curtail or restrict voting rights have disproportionate impacts on minority communities and their power and influence in our democracy. Protecting voting rights and preserving and expanding access to the vote is essential to advancing legislation and policy reforms in the area of racial and social justice through the political process.

    DePaul University

    Source link

  • GW Experts Available: White House Announces AI Safety Pledge with Top Tech Companies

    GW Experts Available: White House Announces AI Safety Pledge with Top Tech Companies

    Seven leading companies building artificial intelligence – including Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta and Chat GPT-maker OpenAI – have agreed to a voluntary pledge to mitigate the risks of AI, according to an announcement by the White House. The companies committed to allowing independent security experts to test their systems before they’re released and to develop systems that will alert the public when content is created by AI, through a method known as “watermarking,” among other pledged steps. 

    GW faculty experts are available to offer insight, analysis and commentary on responsible and trustworthy AI as well as efforts by lawmakers and the Biden Administration to regulate artificial intelligence.

    David Broniatowski, an associate professor of engineering management and systems engineering, is GW’s lead principal investigator of a newly launched, NSF-funded institute called TRAILS that explores trustworthy AI. Broniatowski is leading the institute’s third research arm of evaluating how people make sense of the AI systems that are developed, and the degree to which their levels of reliability, fairness, transparency and accountability will lead to appropriate levels of trust. He can discuss the risks and benefits of AI development and what developing trustworthy AI means and looks like.

    Broniatowksi says watermarking is a useful tool, but there is no evidence that it will mitigate risks of AI harms on its own.

    Susan Ariel Aaronson, research professor of international affairs, is the director of GW’s Digital Trade and Data Governance Hub and co-PI of the TRAILS Institute. Under the TRAILS research initiative, Aaronson is using her expertise in data-driven change and international data governance to lead one of the institute’s research arms in participatory governance and trust. In all, her research focuses on AI governance, data governance, competitiveness in data-driven services such as XR and AI and digital trade. She can discuss the latest efforts to regulate artificial intelligence.

    George Washington University

    Source link

  • Baodong Liu and his role in landmark voting rights case

    Baodong Liu and his role in landmark voting rights case

    Newswise — University of Utah political scientist Baodong Liu served as an expert witness in a consequential voting rights case decided on June 8 by the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision in  Allen v. Milligan rejected Alabama’s congressional redistricting map because it disenfranchises African-American voters.

    In a surprise 5-4 ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court agreed with Liu’s premise that the new voting districts, redrawn after the 2020 Census, packed a large portion of Alabama’s Black voters into a single district, thus diluting their voice in the six other districts.

    Roberts was joined by fellow conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the court’s three liberal justices in upholding a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

    Central to the case was Alabama’s history of “racially polarized voting,” according to Liu, a professor of political science, as well as of ethnic studies in the U’s School for Social and Cultural Transformation. His analysis found the state’s Black voters tend to overwhelmingly favor Democratic candidates, while White voters lean heavily Republican.

    While Alabama’s voting population is nearly 27% Black, just one of its seven congressional seats is held by an African-American, Democrat Terri Sewell. The other six are held by White Republicans.

    This is largely the result of a voting-district map that packs many of the state’s Black residents into Sewell’s Birmingham district, while the others are spread out among the other districts in a way that virtually ensures their preferred candidate won’t stand much chance of winning election, according to Liu, who teaches political science in the College of Social and Behavioral Science.

    Similar legal challenges are targeting congressional district maps in other Southern states. This week, the Supreme Court affirmed a federal court’s decision that Louisiana’s six-district congressional map is racially gerrymandered to favor White voters.

    An immigrant from China, Liu is a U.S. citizen and a Utah voter. What follows is a Q&A with Liu conducted by U science writer Brian Maffly, edited for length and clarity.

    What is at stake in the Alabama case?

    As a state in the South, Alabama is growing in terms of population. We have the requirement every 10 years to do the census, which gives us the overall look at the balance of power in Congress in terms of which states get more seats, and which states get fewer seats. Southern states tend to get more seats, but if they have more seats, will they get more representation for only the White majority and not minorities.

    This case is about the Voting Rights Act, arguably, the most significant and successful civil rights law in U.S. history. It was such a significant law that had never taken place in human history, where the minorities of a nation can have access to not only representation at the highest level, but also state and local governments, all due to the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965.

    It’s a huge accomplishment in our history. All of us should be very proud of it. However, more recently the political atmosphere has changed. The division has gone deep and the nation has revisited all kinds of laws, the Voting Rights Act being one of those. It’s up to the court to tell us how we should interpret the Voting Rights Act, and more importantly, how should we implement it. This Alabama case put everything at the center. Should we explain the Voting Rights Act in a way that fits our fundamental desire for not only majority rule, but also equality under law for all? This case has everything at stake in terms of not only politically, who gets elected and who represents who, but also how the democracy itself should represent in the future.

    The idea of “racially polarized voting” is central to this case. What is it and why does it matter?

    The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Voting Rights Act concerning Section 2 is what we call the Gingles precondition. The Supreme Court’s 1986 Gingles decision made it clear in order to make a Section 2 claim, which is the vote dilution of a state entity against certain minorities, it is based on the tests that the Supreme Court set up. The centerpiece of the Gingles tests is called “racial polarized voting.” What does that mean? On the surface it is very intuitive, meaning different racial groups are polarized in their choices of voting. It’s American voters’ right to choose whoever they want to vote for. However, if racial groups do not agree with each other consistently then it has a profound impact on election outcomes.

    If this racially polarized voting takes place again and again and again, one has to ask, who will be elected? Intuitively it’s White voters’ choice that will prevail because they are the super majority of the state and they can form a formidable bloc to defeat any minority candidate, which leads to a scenario  where White voters dictate the election outcome, a phenomenon of tyranny of majority that our Constitution tries to correct.

    How did you become involved in the Alabama case?

    I am an immigrant myself. Back in China, I never had a chance to vote for anything. There was no election in China in a substantive way. As a graduate student coming to the U.S. studying American voting, it was always my desire to learn the mysteries surrounding it, but also for the incredible achievement of American democracy. That is, everybody has a right to vote, and collectively they decide based on their individual choices, who should represent them, but also for the most powerful position in human history, that is the U.S. president.

    When I was a graduate student in New Orleans, the question was at the mayor level. Was it possible for White voters to cast their vote across racial lines for Black candidates? I wrote a dissertation about the conditions under which White voters were willing to vote for black candidates [for mayor]. For that, I won the American Political Science Association dissertation award. And within just a few years beyond my Ph.D., the whole nation was faced with the choice of Barack Obama [the first African American elected president]. After I became an assistant professor, I was asked by voting groups to help analyze data. So starting from Obama’s election all the way to this current case in Alabama, I’ve been practicing as an expert witness for more than two decades.

    What did you document about Alabama’s new congressional districts during your investigation?

    What I have done in this case was to collect data in real elections. There are two parts to it. One is what we call “endogenous” elections. Those are the elections that deal directly with the elected offices under dispute in this case, congressional seats. I analyzed those elections from 2008 all the way to 2020. I analyzed seven congressional districts. That’s too few, so I analyzed a second group of elections called “exogenous” elections, which concern statewide offices, such as lieutenant governor and state auditor, to supplement the endogenous elections. In both groups of elections, I found racially polarized voting.

    I also compared the enacted plan, passed by the state Legislature and signed by the governor of Alabama, with the plan proposed by the plaintiffs in this case, the Legal Defense Fund and other organizations that provided competing maps. I evaluate which plans would give more equal access to minorities based on empirical data. I’m an empirical scientist, so everything I do is based on data and statistical analysis.

    Your take on Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion?

    In my view, this is one of the best written opinions ever because it shows at the Jurisprudence level, how the court’s majority opinion evaluated not only the claim of Alabama but also the plaintiffs who challenged Alabama’s plan based on court’s interpretation of our Constitution.

    It’s not in favor of either the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party. It’s written in a very objective tone. It has no accusation against any party. It is fully based on the facts that both sides presented and explains why the court has gone through vigorous tests in the facts itself. And most importantly the case sends a strong message of why the Voting Rights Act still holds true today in our great democracy. All that is not based on whether the chief justice is a conservative or not. It’s based on his read of our great constitution. For that I am forever grateful as an American.

    University of Utah

    Source link

  • Baodong Liu and his role in landmark voting rights case

    Baodong Liu and his role in landmark voting rights case

    Newswise — University of Utah political scientist Baodong Liu served as an expert witness in a consequential voting rights case decided on June 8 by the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision in  Allen v. Milligan rejected Alabama’s congressional redistricting map because it disenfranchises African-American voters.

    In a surprise 5-4 ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court agreed with Liu’s premise that the new voting districts, redrawn after the 2020 Census, packed a large portion of Alabama’s Black voters into a single district, thus diluting their voice in the six other districts.

    Roberts was joined by fellow conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the court’s three liberal justices in upholding a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

    Central to the case was Alabama’s history of “racially polarized voting,” according to Liu, a professor of political science, as well as of ethnic studies in the U’s School for Social and Cultural Transformation. His analysis found the state’s Black voters tend to overwhelmingly favor candidates from their own racial group, while White voters vote as a bloc for White candidates.

    While Alabama’s voting population is nearly 27% Black, just one of its seven congressional seats is held by an African-American, Democrat Terri Sewell. The other six are held by White Republicans.

    This is largely the result of a voting-district map that packs many of the state’s Black residents into Sewell’s Birmingham district, while the others are spread out among the other districts in a way that virtually ensures their preferred candidate won’t stand much chance of winning election, according to Liu, who teaches political science in the College of Social and Behavioral Science.

    Similar legal challenges are targeting congressional district maps in other Southern states. This week, the Supreme Court affirmed a federal court’s decision that Louisiana’s six-district congressional map is racially gerrymandered to favor White voters.

    An immigrant from China, Liu is a U.S. citizen and a Utah voter. What follows is a Q&A with Liu conducted by U science writer Brian Maffly, edited for length and clarity.

    What is at stake in the Alabama case?

    As a state in the South, Alabama is growing in terms of population. We have the requirement every 10 years to do the census, which gives us the overall look at the balance of power in Congress in terms of which states get more seats, and which states get fewer seats. Southern states tend to get more seats, but if they have more seats, will they get more representation for only the White majority and not minorities.

    This case is about the Voting Rights Act, arguably, the most significant and successful civil rights law in U.S. history. It was such a significant law that had never taken place in human history, where the minorities of a nation can have access to not only representation at the highest level, but also state and local governments, all due to the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965.

    It’s a huge accomplishment in our history. All of us should be very proud of it. However, more recently the political atmosphere has changed. The division has gone deep and the nation has revisited all kinds of laws, the Voting Rights Act being one of those. It’s up to the court to tell us how we should interpret the Voting Rights Act, and more importantly, how should we implement it. This Alabama case put everything at the center. Should we explain the Voting Rights Act in a way that fits our fundamental desire for not only majority rule, but also equality under law for all? This case has everything at stake in terms of not only politically, who gets elected and who represents who, but also how the democracy itself should represent in the future.

    The idea of “racially polarized voting” is central to this case. What is it and why does it matter?

    The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Voting Rights Act concerning Section 2 is what we call the Gingles precondition. The Supreme Court’s 1986 Gingles decision made it clear in order to make a Section 2 claim, which is the vote dilution of a state entity against certain minorities, it is based on the tests that the Supreme Court set up. The centerpiece of the Gingles tests is called “racial polarized voting.” What does that mean? On the surface it is very intuitive, meaning different racial groups are polarized in their choices of voting. It’s American voters’ right to choose whoever they want to vote for. However, if racial groups do not agree with each other consistently then it has a profound impact on election outcomes.

    If this racially polarized voting takes place again and again and again, one has to ask, who will be elected? Intuitively it’s White voters’ choice that will prevail because they are the super majority of the state and they can form a formidable bloc to defeat any minority candidate, which leads to a scenario  where White voters dictate the election outcome, a phenomenon of tyranny of majority that our Constitution tries to correct.

    How did you become involved in the Alabama case?

    I am an immigrant myself. Back in China, I never had a chance to vote for anything. There was no election in China in a substantive way. As a graduate student coming to the U.S. studying American voting, it was always my desire to learn the mysteries surrounding it, but also for the incredible achievement of American democracy. That is, everybody has a right to vote, and collectively they decide based on their individual choices, who should represent them, but also for the most powerful position in human history, that is the U.S. president.

    When I was a graduate student in New Orleans, the question was at the mayor level. Was it possible for White voters to cast their vote across racial lines for Black candidates? I wrote a dissertation about the conditions under which White voters were willing to vote for black candidates [for mayor]. For that, I won the American Political Science Association dissertation award. And within just a few years beyond my Ph.D., the whole nation was faced with the choice of Barack Obama [the first African American elected president]. After I became an assistant professor, I was asked by voting groups to help analyze data. So starting from Obama’s election all the way to this current case in Alabama, I’ve been practicing as an expert witness for more than two decades.

    What did you document about Alabama’s new congressional districts during your investigation?

    What I have done in this case was to collect data in real elections. There are two parts to it. One is what we call “endogenous” elections. Those are the elections that deal directly with the elected offices under dispute in this case, congressional seats. I analyzed those elections from 2008 all the way to 2020. I analyzed seven congressional districts. That’s too few, so I analyzed a second group of elections called “exogenous” elections, which concern statewide offices, such as lieutenant governor and state auditor, to supplement the endogenous elections. In both groups of elections, I found racially polarized voting.

    I also compared the enacted plan, passed by the state Legislature and signed by the governor of Alabama, with the plan proposed by the plaintiffs in this case, the Legal Defense Fund and other organizations that provided competing maps. I evaluate which plans would give more equal access to minorities based on empirical data. I’m an empirical scientist, so everything I do is based on data and statistical analysis.

    Your take on Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion?

    In my view, this is one of the best written opinions ever because it shows at the Jurisprudence level, how the court’s majority opinion evaluated not only the claim of Alabama but also the plaintiffs who challenged Alabama’s plan based on court’s interpretation of our Constitution.

    It’s not in favor of either the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party. It’s written in a very objective tone. It has no accusation against any party. It is fully based on the facts that both sides presented and explains why the court has gone through vigorous tests in the facts itself. And most importantly the case sends a strong message of why the Voting Rights Act still holds true today in our great democracy. All that is not based on whether the chief justice is a conservative or not. It’s based on his read of our great constitution. For that I am forever grateful as an American.

    University of Utah

    Source link

  • Gun Violence: Can Research Help?

    Gun Violence: Can Research Help?

    Newswise — The problem of gun violence in America can at times seem utterly intractable.

    The horrific frequency of mass shootings (almost 300 in the first six months of 2022, according to the Gun Violence Archive), the tragic daily toll of firearm-related deaths (124 per day on average, according to the CDC), and the inability of politicians to implement effective gun control measures have had devastating personal consequences for individuals and families and pose a significant public health challenge for the nation.

    The CDC reports that firearm-related injuries rank among the five leading causes of death for people ages 1 to 44 and are now the leading cause of death for children and adolescents, killing more people ages 1 to 19 than car accidents, drug overdoses, or cancer.

    But for epidemiologist and gun violence expert Charles Branas, PhD, the Gelman Professor of Epidemiology and chair of the Department of Epidemiology in the Mailman School of Public Health, the scope and recalcitrance of the problem only heighten the urgency of answering one basic question: “What do you do about it?”

    Toward that end, in 2020 Dr. Branas helped launch the Columbia Scientific Union for the Reduction of Gun Violence, or SURGE, a coalition of faculty, students, and alumni from across the university dedicated to finding creative scientific solutions to gun violence.

    The need for such interventions is especially pressing given the difficulty of enacting gun control at the state and national levels, despite research by Dr. Branas and others showing that stricter gun control laws do in fact reduce gun violence. (The bipartisan gun safety legislation passed by Congress in June supports some existing evidence-based measures, but in limited fashion.)

    Efforts to find solutions have been hindered by a lack of government funding for scientific research into gun violence. Federal funding dried up in 1996 after Congress passed the Dickey Amendment, which barred the CDC, and later the NIH, from spending money to promote gun control and dissuaded many young scientists from pursuing careers in gun violence research.

    Recently, however, SURGE and other groups persuaded Congress to renew federal funding. And Dr. Branas hopes that fresh grants from the CDC and the NIH, coupled with opportunities for networking and collaboration provided by SURGE, will encourage a new generation of researchers to develop innovative, evidence-based interventions to prevent gun violence. 

    Dr. Branas sees signs that this is already happening.

    Junior faculty, including Ashley Blanchard, MD, a pediatric emergency physician at VP&S, are investigating novel interventions with the support of fellow SURGE members. And the coalition is helping senior faculty like Dr. Branas and Paul Appelbaum, MD, the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine and Law, engage with like-minded colleagues from a variety of disciplines. Other SURGE members are from Columbia’s schools of law, nursing, and social work and from Teachers College and Barnard College.

    “I remember walking into the room during our first meeting and just being in awe that there was this larger campus consortium of people interested in doing this type of work,” says Dr. Blanchard, assistant professor of pediatrics (in emergency medicine). “As a junior investigator, I can’t navigate the path to a firearm-related research career without having that mentorship. Having that room, and those groups of people, has really been incredible.”

    DEEP ROOTS

    If SURGE represents a new path to novel solutions to gun violence, it builds on decades of work by VP&S physicians. SURGE member Danielle Laraque-Arena, MD, a pediatrician and professor of clinical epidemiology and pediatrics at the Mailman School and VP&S, helped pioneer place-based gun violence interventions while working at Harlem Hospital from 1986 to 2000, a period that coincided with a national spike in gun violence.

    During that time, Dr. Laraque-Arena and Barbara Barlow, MD, then chief of pediatric surgery at Harlem Hospital, partnered with city agencies and community members to reduce injury rates among children and adolescents in central Harlem.

    Data collected through the Northern Manhattan Injury Surveillance System, a population-based survey developed by the Mailman School to tally severe injuries, indicated that adolescents represented 89% of gun-related deaths. Many of the deaths involved unintentional firearm injuries or individuals caught in crossfire, and the vast majority of fatalities occurred before hospitalization, which suggested that only prevention could significantly reduce firearm fatalities among young people in the area. 

    Dr. Laraque-Arena and her colleagues focused on implementing programs designed to create safe spaces and activities for children and adolescents, including several locations that involved rehabilitating and greening public spaces such as parks and playgrounds. The goal was to reduce the risk of intentional and unintentional injuries alike; an analysis showed that such broad-based, environment-oriented projects did significantly reduce firearm injuries.

    Decades later, Dr. Branas tested the power of place-based interventions through citywide experiments conducted in Philadelphia, Detroit, and New Orleans. Among other things, he and his colleagues showed that rehabilitating abandoned buildings and vacant lots, which function as storage lockers for illegal firearms, can reduce gun violence by as much as 39%.

    Dr. Branas is in talks with the parks department and other city agencies to bring similar programs to New York City. Together with SURGE member Sonali Rajan, PhD, an associate professor of health education at Teachers College, Dr. Branas leads a nationwide case-control study of firearm violence prevention tactics and policies in K-12 schools. The study, which is funded by the NIH, will examine 650 schools, comparing the safety measures (metal detectors, active shooter drills, armed school personnel) in place at schools that have experienced shootings with those that have not.

    RIGOROUS SCIENTIFIC APPROACH

    Dr. Appelbaum, who has for many years explored the relationship among mental health, gun violence, and gun policy, and Dr. Blanchard bring a similarly rigorous scientific approach to understanding—and preventing—gun violence.

    In a series of studies examining the relationships among gun ownership, gun violence, and mental illness, Dr. Appelbaum has debunked the notion, often floated by politicians in the wake of mass shootings, that such events can be prevented by addressing serious mental illness.

    “As human beings, we have a natural inclination when we see an act that is incomprehensible to assume that the person who did it must be, in lay terms, crazy,” Dr. Appelbaum says. The data suggest that most of those who commit these acts are not mentally ill. “They’re angry, they’re isolated, they’re frustrated, but they are not suffering from psychosis or other severe mental disorders.”

    Dr. Appelbaum points out that the situation is different for suicide. Depression, substance use, and other mental disorders are strong risk factors for self-harm. As a result, efforts to identify and treat people suffering from such disorders can indeed prevent suicides if done effectively.

    Nonetheless, he says, the most effective way to prevent gun violence, whether directed at others or at oneself, is to limit access to firearms.

    REDUCING ACCESS

    Measures aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of high-risk groups include red flag laws that allow the authorities to temporarily confiscate firearms from individuals who represent a threat to themselves or others; safe storage options, such as gun safes and trigger locks; and child access prevention laws that penalize adults for failing to store firearms safely and allowing children access to them.

    Such measures have been shown to reduce firearm injuries and deaths and could play a particularly important role in preventing suicides. Studies show that most people who attempt suicide do so on impulse, moving from decision to action in less than an hour.

    “There’s good evidence to show that especially in adolescents, the transition from contemplating suicide to action is very short-lived and transient and therefore utilizes whatever means are easily available,” Dr. Blanchard says. 

    The extraordinary lethality of guns means that someone who decides to commit suicide and has access to a firearm is much more likely to succeed than someone who does not. Research indicates that acts of suicide involving a firearm are fatal 90% of the time, compared with 13.5% for self-poisoning.

    “The gun doesn’t give you a second chance,” says Dr. Laraque-Arena.

    As a result, taking firearms out of the equation immediately reduces the likelihood that a suicide attempt will succeed. In keeping with that logic, Dr. Blanchard is conducting a pilot feasibility study of a tablet-based tool called Lock and Protect intended to increase safe storage or removal of guns and other lethal means by parents whose adolescents are at increased risk of suicide.

    The tool is being studied in the pediatric emergency department at NewYork-Presbyterian’s Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital, where Dr. Blanchard and her colleagues often see patients who engage in predictors of suicide such as suicidal ideation and self-harm. The primary goal of the study, which involves experts from the departments of emergency medicine and psychiatry and the Irving Institute for Clinical and Translational Research’s Implementation Science Initiative, is to determine the feasibility of implementing the tool and expanding a trial for a larger emergency department population.

    Patients and their parents enroll in the study together. The tool evaluates suicide risk using questionnaires such as the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale and guides parents through the process of identifying the lethal means in their homes (guns, medications, ligatures) and understanding how they can best keep their children safe.

    The tool was designed to take into consideration factors such as the cost of safe storage and the values of parents, including those who feel strongly about gun ownership. At tool completion, a safety plan is provided to parents to implement at home. Dr. Blanchard and her team follow up with parents at two weeks and with patients and parents at four weeks, with the long-term objective of understanding if the tool helps change home storage of guns and other lethal means.

    Lock and Protect is precisely the kind of innovative gun violence intervention that Dr. Branas hoped SURGE would produce, and he is certain that more will be developed as the coalition continues to grow.

    “We are two years into this,” he says. “We’ve done quite a bit, but we’re still building.”

    Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons

    Source link

  • Will clean energy incentives, EV tax credits survive debt ceiling showdown?

    Will clean energy incentives, EV tax credits survive debt ceiling showdown?

    As the nation prepares for a showdown between President Biden and House Republican leadership over the impending default date of the federal debt ceiling, a House Republicans’ proposal to avoid the country’s first default could raise the federal debt limit but would undermine President Biden’s climate law— the Inflation Reduction Act.

    Joshua Basseches, a climate change policy and politics expert at Tulane’s School of Liberal Arts, believes a big part of the Republican’s proposed solution is to speed up the permitting process for fossil fuel projects and control the energy supply. 

    “When you step back and look at the big picture, this is an effort to undermine the goals of the Inflation Reduction Act. This is a way to keep the fossil fuel industry afloat. But even if the Republicans were to get this through, which I don’t think they will in its current form, it would not undo all the positives from the Inflation Reduction Act.”

    “The bill also contains the full text of the energy package the GOP passed in March, which would expand domestic energy production by allowing more oil, gas and mineral exploration on public lands and make dramatic changes to the National Environmental Policy Act by speeding up permitting for energy projects.”

    Basseches can speak on the following:

    -The potential effects of the GOPs debt-limit plan on the clean energy transition

    -Permitting reform, its opportunities and pitfalls

    -The Inflation Reduction Act’s impact on electric vehicles, clean electricity and ongoing state-level climate policy efforts

    Tulane University

    Source link

  • Fed-Predicted Recession More Likely Severe than Mild

    Fed-Predicted Recession More Likely Severe than Mild

    Newswise — As recent survey results from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago reinforce Fed economists predicting a mild recession from the recent banking crisis, finance professor Albert “Pete” Kyle at the University of Maryland agrees a recession looms –- but more likely as severe. 

    The crisis, fueled by SVB’s fast collapse, indicates a costly failure – “likely to show up as a recession which is severe, not mild,” says Kyle, Charles E Smith Chair in Finance and Distinguished University Professor for UMD’s Robert H. Smith School of Business.

    Regulatory Failure

    Kyle says SVB’s failure resulted from bank supervision. “The Dodd-Frank Act focused more on heavy-handed regulation than on higher capital requirements to make banks financially healthy. Bank regulators must have known about the unrealized losses on mortgage and Treasury securities which crippled SVB’s balance sheet. These are transparently obvious from cursory oversight. They apparently did not do enough to force SVB to recapitalize until it was too late. As a result of this regulatory forbearance, the FDIC, which ultimately uses the money of taxpayers to take over failed banks, faces billions of dollars in losses.

    The regulatory failure was not the result of exempting banks like SVB from stress tests. Ordinary bank regulatory oversight, operating independently from stress tests, certainly picked up the problems at SVB well before it collapsed.

    The idea that uninsured depositors will monitor banks adequately is known not to work well. Its mechanism of enforcement is bank runs, which—once started—spread to the entire banking system and rapidly send an economy into a recession. The government knows that steep recessions are an absurdly high price to pay for bank monitoring. The entire purpose of the Dodd-Frank Act was to provide a regulatory system which would prevent bank failures without causing recessions. Therefore, it is surprising that the government even thought about wiping out uninsured depositors of SVB as a mechanism of maintaining financial discipline in the banking sector.

    Commercial Real Estate Disaster

    The commercial real estate sector of the U.S. economy is facing a disaster, Kyle says, as office space lease rates are falling, commercial real estate debt is coming due, and many commercial real estate ventures will likely be insolvent when loans fall due. “This disaster is unfolding slowly because leases and loans typically last five to 10 years,” he explains. “It becomes apparent when leases do not roll over and loans cannot be repaid.”

    Much of the risk has probably found its way into the banking system, especially into the portfolios of medium-sized banks, he says. “Since regulators failed to force SVB to fix obvious problems with SVB’s balance sheet, investors and bankers alike are likely to infer that regulators will also fail to force banks burdened with less obvious bad commercial real estate debt to recapitalize promptly.”

    Perspective from Previous Crises

    As the 2008 financial crisis was largely triggered by bad residential mortgage loans, the bad commercial real estate loans will potentially drive another crisis, Kyle says. “I expect a recession to unfold if and when it becomes apparent that banks are too undercapitalized to function properly. This recession might resemble the recession in the early 90s, which was a delayed response to banking problems within the savings and loan industry.”

    Whether this recession unfolds sooner or later depends on the speed with which the government acts to force banks to recapitalize, he adds. “The Fed’s prediction of a mild recession this year suggests they will do too little, too late. Immediate action might trigger a more severe recession now, which would be a small price to pay for a healthy economy a few years later.”

    Why ‘Sooner Rather Than Later’

    In addition to weakly capitalized banks, the Fed’s commitment to bring the inflation rate down to two percent annually “will exacerbate the debt burden of commercial real estate borrowers because the value of their collateral will fall faster with a lower rate of inflation and high interest rates needed to bring inflation down will make rolling over debt more costly,” Kyle says. However, the Fed’s action is inevitable because (unlike government regulators’ commitments to require banks to be well-capitalized) “if the Fed is unable to rid the economy of inflation, the Fed itself will become obviously insolvent and lose so much credibility that the independence of the Fed will be threatened.”

    Underlying Problem

    Heavy-handed government regulation leading to regulatory capture represents the underlying problem, Kyle says. “The more that is at stake, the more resources regulated entities devote to influencing government policy. The Dodd-Frank Act, rather than creating a healthy banking industry, has created a noncompetitive, undercapitalized banking system, which has captured its regulators and is prone to collapse.” If governments subsidize risk-taking by allowing banks or other companies to function as if things are normal when they are inadequately capitalized, he adds, “the banks or other companies will embrace poor capitalization because they believe they can keep their gains but dump their losses on taxpayers.”

    Warnings from History

    Ultimately, many banks and other companies will fail because their bets did not work out, Kyle says, and these failed companies will be nationalized by the FDIC or other government agencies. “During the past financial crisis, the government quickly sold off nationalized companies like General Motors and AIG. It gave banks generous bailouts to avoid formally nationalizing them. When banks and other firms start failing again, we do not know whether the government will hold the failed firms as nationalized companies or let them go public again.”

    He adds: “In my opinion, the government allowed banks to remain in the private sector last time because bailing out banks (with cheap equity from the TARP program) did not cost taxpayers too much out of pocket: Bank stocks rebounded quickly from their depressed prices. By contrast, in the savings and loan debacle, getting out from under government ownership took more than a decade because the industry did not rebound as a whole. If regulators allow the banking system to become too undercapitalized, the hole to dig out of will become so big that nationalization may not be followed by quick privatization. The road to socialism is paved with debt.”

    Finally, Kyle warns that the collapse of the commercial real estate sector may be accompanied by the collapse of the finances of some big cities. “As the politics of many cities–such as Chicago, San Francisco, and New York–moves to the left, many high-income taxpayers are migrating from these cities to other cities with lower taxes and more business-friendly environments. Some of these cities may face major financial stress in coming years, and this will exacerbate their commercial real estate problems.”

    University of Maryland, Robert H. Smith School of Business

    Source link

  • Judicial reform and protests in the Middle East; expert available to discuss political implications

    Judicial reform and protests in the Middle East; expert available to discuss political implications

    Labor strikes and protests by Israeli military officers have decried moves by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin (“Bibi”) Netanyahu to overhaul the judiciary system, potentially reducing the power of the country’s Supreme Court. After firing a defense minister who opposed the overhaul last week, Netanyahu agreed to delay the judicial review for now. While calls for judiciary reform have been long standing, critics say the Prime Minister aims to protect himself from the outcome of his corruption trial.

    Ariel Ahram, chair of Virginia Tech’s government and international affairs program, offers his perspective on what the controversy means for the country and the Middle East.

    Q: Are the calls for reforming the power of the judiciary in Israel something new?

    “There have been discussions for decades about reforming the judiciary in Israel.  Israel does not have a written constitution like the United States, so the status of the supreme court was always up for question.  In the last twenty years, the Israeli Supreme Court has taken on a more assertive role, following the example of the U.S.  It has tried to position itself as the final arbiter on issues like civil liberties and individual rights.  Secular Israelis and Israeli Arabs have often look to the court to defend their status (although often with disappointment).  But critics say that the court is overreaching.  An unelected judicial body shouldn’t stop measures that are approved by the elected parliament.”

    Q: What has prompted this current push for judicial reform in Israel?

    “Netanyahu has a personal interest in weakening the court because he is under investigation for corruption and does not want the Supreme Court to disqualify him from office.  There are other members in his coalition who are similarly under indictment or even have even been convicted for corruption and so could be disqualified.  But many others in Israel, especially conservative and Jewish ethnonationalist groups, want to weaken or bypass the court because it stands in the way of their efforts to enforce their interpretation of Jewish law and encode Jewish supremacy in Israeli law.”

    Q: What’s the significance of the national protests against judiciary reform?

    “The labor protests are part of wider rebellion in Israeli society.  Even more important than the labor disruptions, hundreds of Israeli Army, Air Force, and Navy officers are refusing to serve in reserve duty.  These protests have really exposed deep divides among Israel’s Jewish majority.  Israeli Arabs — perhaps 20% of the population — are largely on the sidelines so far.”

    Q: Should the reforms go through, what will that mean for the Middle East?

    “It’s unclear.  Netanyahu is Israel’s longest serving prime minister, so he has a lot of experience in Middle Eastern politics.  While always on the right, Netanyahu usually been pragmatic.  He has blocked some of the more aggressive measures favored by his coalition partners.  Now, however, Netanyahu has very little leeway.  He needs the coalition to survive.  Netanyahu could thus take more aggressive postures toward the Palestinian territories, including annexation of lands and possible forced deportation of the Arab population, in order to maintain his coalition.”    

    About Ariel Ahram
    Ariel Ahram is professor and chair of the government and international affairs program at the Virginia Tech School of Public and International Affairs located in the Washington, D.C., metro area.  He is the author of War and Conflict in the Middle East and North Africa (Polity, 2020) that explores the causes and consequences of wars and conflicts in this troubled region, including in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Israel/Palestine, and Lebanon. More on his background here.


    Schedule an interview
    To schedule an interview, contact .

    Virginia Tech

    Source link

  • Daylight Savings Begins This Weekend, Hackensack Meridian Sleep Experts Available on Health Impact, How to Prepare Your Body for the Loss of Sleep and Why They Want US to Stop “Springing Forward” to Daylight Saving Time

    Daylight Savings Begins This Weekend, Hackensack Meridian Sleep Experts Available on Health Impact, How to Prepare Your Body for the Loss of Sleep and Why They Want US to Stop “Springing Forward” to Daylight Saving Time

    Newswise — Daylight saving time begins this weekend, meaning clocks will move ahead one hour this Sunday. This means while you will gain more hours of daylight for the spring and summer, people will initially lose an hour of sleep, and this can have big health impacts.

    Sleep experts say patients can prepare for the loss of sleep, by slowly shifting their bed time incrementally in the days leading up to daylight saving time on Sunday. 

    Adjusting your body to the time change will not fully blunt the impact of daylight saving time. Sleep experts believe it’s not just the loss of an hour of sleep but the long term impact of being on daylight saving time accounts for additional absences from work, increased incidence of atrial fibrillation and even car accidents. Daylight saving time disrupts the natural circadian rhythms of the body. Circadian rhythms not only control a person’s sleep schedule but it also impacts bodily hormones including thyroid and cortisol levels.

    There is legislation in Congress to make Daylight Saving Time permanent, meaning the clocks would remain on spring and summer time and not fall back for the fall and winter. While it may seem desirable to have more daylight hours while most Americans are awake, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine advocates we permanently stay on standard time, because it is more in line with a person’s natural bio-rhymes and produces less negative health outcomes. 

    Hackensack Meridian Health’s Director of Sleep Medicine, Adrian Pristas, M.D. is available for interviews on the dangers of Daylight Saving Time and how to prepare for it.

    Hackensack Meridian Health

    Source link

  • Connections with Jimmy Carter extend into West Virginia

    Connections with Jimmy Carter extend into West Virginia

    Newswise — Several West Virginia University faculty and staff members with a range of ties to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter cite his work in service and education as keys to his lasting legacy. 

    Quotes:

    Crissy Estep, director of the WVU International Studies Program, served as an election monitor on behalf of The Carter Center in Tunisia during the democratic election in 2014.

    After earning her doctoral degree at WVU, Estep spent one year teaching at a college in Tennessee where she and her then-fiancé Paul took a group of students on a trip to The Carter Center in Atlanta. Inspired by the work there, she and her husband would go on to name their first child William Carter Estep in honor of the former president. She has pictures of her son square dancing with President Carter and former First Lady Rosalynn Carter.

    “President Carter’s most impressive achievements are his accomplishments through The Carter Center. His post-presidency work was focused on the Center’s two-fold mission of peace and health programs. The health programs focus on neglected, yet preventable diseases, most notably the Guinea worm eradication program. The peace programs promote democracy in several ways, but mainly through helping to ensure elections represent the will of the people. It was my honor to serve as a short-term election observer for The Carter Center for the first presidential and parliamentary election in Tunisia after the Arab Spring. I don’t doubt that The Carter Center will continue to ‘wage peace, fight disease, and build hope’ to honor the legacy of President Carter.” — Crissy Estep, director, WVU International Studies Program, director, WVU Honors Experiential and Community Engaged Learning Program

    Jay Cole, who now serves as senior advisor to WVU President Gordon Gee, wrote his application for the Harry S. Truman Scholarship about Carter’s creation of a federal Department of Education.

    Cole has studied Carter’s presidency, particularly his education policy reforms and their long-term effects, at length.

    “By championing the creation of the U.S. Department of Education, President Carter affirmed the fundamental importance of education to our society. He also said that the federal government should be a ‘junior partner,’ not a ‘silent partner,’ with state and local governments on education. The creation of the Department of Education was controversial, and its continued existence remains a topic of political debate today. It is a valuable debate because it compels us to think about how we organize our educational system and also about how we calibrate the relationship between levels of government. I consider that ongoing debate to be one of President Carter’s most significant legacies.” — Jay Cole, senior advisor to WVU President Gordon Gee, Truman faculty advisor

    Jorge Atiles, dean of WVU Extension and Engagement, oversees efforts to support and advance the comprehensive land-grant mission of WVU in West Virginia’s 55 counties.

    WVU Extension includes the WVU Center for Community Engagement and AmeriCorps VISTA, which is integral to Energy Express, along with community development, engagement and service programs throughout the state.

    “President Jimmy Carter was instrumental to the success and widespread efforts of Habitat for Humanity. Extension housing and resource management specialists across the nation partnered with Habitat to help families access affordable housing in their communities. 

    “President Carter also exemplified civic engagement and showed the world how to promote democratic elections while serving as an international electoral observer for many nations.” — Jorge Atiles, dean of WVU Extension and Engagement

    West Virginia University

    Source link

  • After one year of war, how to break the stalemate in Ukraine?

    After one year of war, how to break the stalemate in Ukraine?

    February 24 will mark one year since Russian tanks rolled over the border into Ukraine. As it stands there is still no end in sight and the U.S. is facing increasing pressure to provide military aid in the form of high tech equipment such as F-16 fighters and M1 Abrams tanks.

    David Silbey is an associate professor of history at Cornell University where he specializes in military history, defense policy and battlefield analysis. He says the war in Ukraine is starting to resemble the kind of proxy conflicts we saw during the Cold War.

    Silbey says:

    “The United States is gaining a substantial geopolitical advantage at low cost to itself while the Russians are bleeding themselves dry against a defiant enemy.  

    “For 2023, I wouldn’t be surprised if the U.S. eventually sends fighter jets, though like tanks, it’s going to take them a while to get there and then train Ukrainians on them. They would be a substantial military help but also a challenging logistics burden for Ukraine.

    “I seriously doubt American forces will get sent to Ukraine. I suspect there may already be U.S. special forces in-country, (though I have no evidence). It would escalate the war massively if regular troops were sent in, which is something the U.S. doesn’t need to do at the moment.”

    Cristina Florea is an assistant professor and historian of Central and Eastern Europe.

    She says the Russian-Ukrainian war has become a war of attrition, where a Ukrainian victory is far from guaranteed.

    Florea says:

    “Despite Ukrainians’ unwavering will to fight, the fact of the matter remains that over one fifth of Ukraine’s territory is currently in Russian hands. What worries me is that after one year of fighting, the conflict will gradually recede into the background, and concern will give way to complacency.

     “The war’s end will be decided on the battlefield. Since there are no signs that Russian support for the war is any weaker today, it is imperative that the U.S. and NATO throw their weight fully behind Ukraine. Halfway measures will simply prolong the conflict and put Ukraine at risk of running out of military equipment before Russia does.”

     

    Cornell University has dedicated television and audio studios available for media interviews.

    -30-

    Cornell University

    Source link

  • State of the Union Coverage: Experts Available

    State of the Union Coverage: Experts Available

    Rutgers University–New Brunswick faculty experts are available before, during and after President Biden’s State of the Union address on Feb. 7. For interviews, please reach out to the listed contacts.

    David Greenberg, @republicofspin

    Expert on U.S. political and cultural history, including the presidency, campaigns and elections, political parties, political ideas, public policy, and a contributing editor to Politico. Greenberg can discuss past States of the Union, presidential history and rhetoric, and the impact Biden’s speech may have on current divisions in the United States. Professor of history and of journalism and media Studies.

    Ross Baker, @Rosbake1

    Expert in U.S. government, legislative politics, Congressional issues and the presidency. Baker can discuss coronavirus relief, bipartisanship and polarization in the House and Senate, and passing legislation. Distinguished Professor in political science.

    John J. Farmer, Jr.

    Expert on U.S. politics, redistricting, law, security and community protection for vulnerable populations. Farmer can discuss the U.S. Capitol riots, national security and how President Biden is working to bridge the partisan divide. Director of Rutgers’ Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers’ Miller Center for Community Protection and Resilience, and University professor of law.

    Ashley Koning, @AshleyAKoning

    Expert on U.S. public opinion, survey design, polling trends and mass political behavior. Koning can discuss President Biden’s approval rating and public opinion on COVID-19, the vaccination rollout and coronavirus relief, and the national political dynamic and polarization. Director of Rutgers’ Eagleton Center for Public Polling and Eagleton assistant research professor.

    Saladin Ambar, @dinambar

    Expert on race and U.S. politics, the president and American governors. Eagleton associate professor of political science, senior scholar at the Eagleton Center on the American Governor.

    John Weingart

    Expert on U.S. politics and government, including history of relevant past elections, and the administrative functioning and inclusion of the public in government operations. Associate director of Rutgers’ Eagleton Institute of Politics and director of the Eagleton Center on the American Governor.

    Kristoffer Shields

    Shields researches and analyzes the office of the governor in a national context. He is an Eagleton Assistant Research Professor and Historian at the Eagleton Center on the American Governor.

    Debbie Walsh, @DebbieWalsh58 Expert on the modern history of women in politics, progress in political representation, women and the political parties, and campaign messaging for women candidates. Director of the Center for American Women and Politics, a unit of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers.

    Jean Sinzdak Expert on milestones in women’s political history, candidate recruitment and training, and state legislatures. Associate director of the Center for American Women and Politics, a unit of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers.

    Kelly Dittmar, @kdittmar Expert on gender and campaigning, women and institutions of government, current data and analysis on women’s representation, and women voters. Director of Research and Scholar of the Center for American Women and Politics, a unit of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers.

    Kira Sanbonmatsu Sanbonmatsu’s research interests include gender, race/ethnicity, parties, public opinion, and state politics. Professor of political science and senior scholar at the Center for American Women and Politics.

    Rutgers University-New Brunswick

    Source link

  • What Does the Debt-Ceiling Fight Mean to You?

    What Does the Debt-Ceiling Fight Mean to You?

    Hitting the debt ceiling – how much money the federal government can borrow to pay its bills – could lead to economic catastrophe if the situation isn’t handled appropriately, said John Longo, a professor of professional practice at Rutgers Business School.

    The U.S. government is borrowing up to the $31.4 trillion debt limit, which has prompted Senate and House discussions on whether to raise it or risk economic disaster.

    Finance and economic expert Longo explained what this means for the average taxpayer and who is the most vulnerable if there is a default.

    What is the debt limit and why does it have to be raised?

    The federal government runs a persistent budget deficit. That is, its annual inflows, which largely come from taxes and fees, are less than its yearly spending. The U.S. Constitution allows Congress to control the federal government’s finances. Therefore, it must approve federal debt increases, which may be viewed as the sum of our country’s annual deficit from its founding until the present. Unless Congress approves increasing the debt ceiling, there is a risk that the U.S. government cannot pay its bills, which would have severely negative economic implications. 

    So what does this mean for the average taxpayer?

    The odds are that it will mean nothing for the average taxpayer in the short run since the debt ceiling has been extended roughly a hundred times since it was instituted in 1917. If the taxpayer receives some payment from the federal government, there may be a delay in receiving a promised payment. 

    If the debt ceiling is not extended and the federal government defaults on its U.S. Treasury obligations, it may result in a crash in financial assets, severely impacting most taxpayers. In the long run, taxes may increase, or federal government spending must come down. This is because there is growing frustration on both sides of the political aisle with regularly facing the debt-ceiling issue. 

    Who will be most affected?

    The immediate effect will be on those reliant on the federal government for payments. There may be a delay in receiving promised payments or receiving less than what they are owed. First in line is likely external government vendors or contractors. Then it can get quite serious since U.S. military members and those receiving federal government entitlement benefits won’t get paid on time. These entitlement beneficiaries include those receiving payments from programs that support Social Security, Medicaid and food and housing assistance. Overall economic spending would be reduced, likely pushing the U.S. economy into a recession. 

    Perhaps most seriously, if the U.S. Treasury does not meet its debt obligations, it would result in a default on trillions of dollars of assets. These assets, currently considered high investment grade, would turn into “junk” bonds overnight and may result in a cascade of selling across many financial assets. The U.S. Treasury can utilize accounting gimmicks to postpone the day of financial reckoning for several months, but it cannot go on indefinitely. Congress knows these issues and usually agrees to a deal at the last minute. Since the federal government almost always runs a budget deficit, it basically amounts to kicking the can down the road, which is why the debt-ceiling issue resurfaces every year or two. 

    What does the fight over the House Speaker foreshadow about the debt-ceiling fight? 

    The majority of the House and Senate must approve the debt-ceiling expansion. The current speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, was barely elected after more than a dozen failed elections. A sizable contingent of those opposing his nomination want greater fiscal austerity and said they would not vote to raise the debt ceiling. Some congresspeople want concessions, primarily in the form of spending cuts or increased taxes, to vote for an extension of the debt ceiling. In short, there is often a lot of political wrangling going on behind the scenes before the limit is increased, yet again. 

    Why are politicians even fighting about this in the first place? 

    Congress controls the federal government’s purse strings. They won’t let the federal government run an unlimited budget deficit, so the debt-ceiling issue is likely to resurface every year or so. It is highly unlikely that the federal government will run a persistent budget surplus since most congresspeople like to spend money. An aspirational goal may be to have a balanced federal budget in the long run. Several states have operated on this model, so it is not an impossible task.

    However, I think the odds are we will continue to do what has happened since the current model was adopted in the early 1900s. We will continue to face this issue every year or two until there is bipartisan agreement on a more rational model. 

    Rutgers University-New Brunswick

    Source link

  • Rutgers Philosopher Argues for a “Realistic Blacktopia”

    Rutgers Philosopher Argues for a “Realistic Blacktopia”

    A philosopher weighs in on the rise of voter suppression, anti-protest legislation and efforts to roll back racial progress

    Fifty-six years after Martin Luther King, Jr., told students at Southern Methodist University that “we have come a long way but we still have a long, long way to go,” Rutgers philosopher Derrick Darby is making a similar argument.

    In his new book, A Realistic Blacktopia: Why We Must Unite to Fight, Darby draws on King, W. E. B. Du Bois and the black radical tradition to explore how to make progress in the antiracist struggle.

    Darby, a Henry Rutgers Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and founding director of the Social Justice Solutions Research Collaboratory, discusses alliances, voting rights, affirmative action and the limits of racial remedies.

    Martin Luther King Jr. argued that voter suppression undermines a citizen’s right to make choices, undermining their dignity. Equal voting rights is something King strived to get the nation to do. What would he think of voter access today?

    The forms of voter suppression seen across America would have been a major concern for Dr. King. Tactics include tougher photo identification laws, closing or reducing polling places, attempts to eliminate Sunday early voting and making vote by mail more difficult.

    It is doubly shameful in a democracy like ours that values equality and justice when it creates a significant burden for groups such as communities of color, seniors, young people and the poor.

    Members of these groups tend to have more limited opportunities to vote because of voter suppression and long wait times on Election Day. We saw this in Georgia in 2020 and during the recent midterm elections. During the 2020 election, Georgia criminalized the distribution of water or snacks to people waiting to vote. Dr. King would have been appalled. He would have supported efforts to make voting easier – including issuing a federal voting ID card, enacting automatic voter registration, expanding early voting and ensuring greater access to polling places and multilingual ballot support.

    During the civil rights movement, King recognized building interracial alliances to address social problems that disproportionately affected African Americans. What were some examples?

    Dr. King believed addressing voter rights and civil rights concerns was crucial to getting America to live up to its promises and potential. Relying on the power of nonviolence direct action by interracial alliances of people committed to these and other causes was vital to this effort. The 1963 March on Washington for jobs and freedom is the most well-known example of the power of such alliances.

    King and other prominent civil rights organizers such as Bayard Rustin believed freedom wasn’t just about racial and other forms of discrimination. It was also about freedom from poverty, hunger, joblessness, illiteracy, preventable illness, etc. Because these issues don’t recognize racial divisions, they provide a broader basis for building alliances.

    King’s support of striking sanitation workers in Memphis and his efforts to build the Poor People’s Campaign are examples of objectives that demanded broader alliances.   

    Although America is awash in race and race-relations discussions, antiracist books are everywhere and diversity seminars are hot tickets. Many efforts are underway to roll back the racial progress clock. What are some of these efforts?

    Following the senseless murder of George Floyd by the police, there was a massive public outcry and scores of organized Black Lives Matter protests around the nation. Protesters – a large and diverse group representing different races, ethnicities, sexual orientations, classes and religions – took to the streets to demand social justice and end police brutality. These protests sought racial progress.

    Some state legislators proposed, and in some cases enacted, anti-protest legislation in response. Alabama enacted a law in 2021 that upgraded obstructing a sidewalk during a protest to a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail. Mississippi has a pending bill that would make “violent or disorderly assembly” of seven or more people a felony and would apply to peaceful protesters who pose a danger to property, personal injury or obstruct law enforcement.

    In your opinion, affirmative action was once a way to provide African Americans with better educational opportunities, but that time has passed. What do you suggest in its place?

    Affirmative action – understood as a race-specific remedy – is unconstitutional. Existing efforts to promote diversity in schools have had to show that considering race as a plus factor among other factors is part of a holistic approach to ensuring diversity. The U.S. Supreme Court will soon rule on whether this practice, is permissible. I’m not optimistic about the outcome.

    Various alternatives have been proposed, such as targeting socioeconomic diversity and targeting top students in districts for admissions but the jury is out on whether they can achieve the relevant kind of diversity without triggering court challenges.

    Whatever the outcome, greater investment in preparing kids from disadvantaged communities and providing support for families seeking opportunities for educational enrichment for their children is part of a broader solution.

    You argue securing racial justice in America calls for “big tent” remedies. That is, antiracists must build partnerships among populations interested in issues that impact them collectively. Could you explain further with an example?

    Big-tent remedies involve paying attention to matters of economic justice in addition to racial justice and remaining mindful of their interconnectedness.

    Marginalized populations are disproportionately impacted by health crises such as COVID-19 because they typically have no health care or poor care. They typically work low-wage jobs with no benefits, sick leave and time off. Individuals in these populations also can’t work from home, as many work in the service industry. They must rely on public transportation, which disproportionately increases the risk of exposure and illness in poorer black and brown communities.

    Health concerns, getting paid decent wages, better working conditions, affordable child care and educational opportunities are among the issues of broader concern.

    Rutgers University-New Brunswick

    Source link

  • American University Experts Share Insights on 2nd Anniversary of January 6th Insurrection

    American University Experts Share Insights on 2nd Anniversary of January 6th Insurrection

    What:  As we reach the 2nd anniversary of the January 6th insurrection, American University has various scholars who are experts in extremism, far-right ideologies, white supremacy, militias and organized political violence. Below please find their insights on last year and their outlook for 2023. They are also available to comment on the January 6th hearings and the anniversary.

    When: Thursday, January 5, 2022 – ongoing

    Background:  American University experts who are available for interviews are:

    Kurt Braddock is an Assistant Professor of Public Communication in the School of Communication. His research focuses on the persuasive strategies used by violent extremist groups to recruit and radicalize audiences targeted by their propaganda. He is the author of Weaponized Words: The Strategic Role of Persuasion in Violent Radicalization and Counter-Radicalization.

    “2022 saw an intensification of far-right extremism in the United States, with motivations for violence evolving as the year progressed. In parallel with increased rhetoric by some far-right politicians and pundits about so-called “grooming”, attacks against LGBTQIA+ individuals grew over the course of the year. I expect this trend to continue through at least the first part of 2023, as some far-right politicians and pundits show no signs of abating their rhetoric in this regard. 

    White supremacy, white nationalism, and related topics are also likely to continue being key motivators of political violence, as communication surrounding these topics — by both extremists and some elected officials — shows no signs of abating. As these trends continue, I expect we will see continued — and possibly increasing — incidents of lone-actor plots and attacks against those they perceive as viable targets (e.g., the attack on Paul Pelosi).”


    Carolyn Gallaher     is an expert on extremism and the right-wing, organized violence by non-state actors and urban politics, including the politics, internal dynamics, and patterns of violence of militias, paramilitaries, and private military contractors, among others. Gallaher is the author of On the Fault Line: Race, Class, and the American Patriot Movement.

    Prof. Gallaher said: “In 2022, the January 6th Committee revealed how President Donald Trump inspired a failed insurrection that almost toppled 245 years of American democracy. Much of 2022 was spent on holding insurrectionists and other participants to account. The Department of Justice has arrested more than 900 people who participated in the assault and recently successfully prosecuted several members of the violent Oathkeepers militia, including two for seditious conspiracy. As 2023 begins, Trump’s star may be growing dimmer, but right-wing conspiracy theories, online disinformation, and a distressing lack of trust in the basic institutions of democracy continue apace. In particular, it will be important to see whether the Republican Party will reject those within its ranks who have embrace election disinformation and spread false claims about the so-called ‘deep state.’  The fate of the party, and American democracy may hinge on whether the party embraces or rejects right wing extremists within its ranks.”  


    Brian Hughes     is the Co-Founder and Associate Director of the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab (PERIL), where he develops studies and interventions to reduce the risk of radicalization to extremism. His scholarly research explores the impact of communication technology on political and religious extremism, terrorism, and fringe culture.

    Prof. Hughes said: “2022 saw a troubling continuation of ongoing trends in the radicalization of mainstream American politics. Anti-LGBTQ violence and antisemitism were on the rise, while racism, male supremacy, and other forms of extremism have not abated. Unfortunately, these trends are spurred on and exploited for profit and power by a large cohort of media and political figures. It is even more crucial that in 2023 we continue our work inoculating the public against their divisive, hateful, and manipulative rhetoric.”


    Janice Iwama     is an assistant professor in AU’s School of Public Affairs. Her research focuses on examining local conditions and social processes that influence hate crimes, gun violence, racial profiling, and the victimization of immigrants. Iwama has served as a co-principal investigator and lead researcher in projects funded by the Department of Justice Civil Rights Unit and the National Institute of Justice.

    Prof. Iwama said: “Following the recent spike in hate crimes, I expect federal and state legislators to introduce new legislation in 2023 that will actively seek to improve our data collection on hate crimes, develop better preventative measures against bias incidents, and improve law enforcement responses to hate crimes.”

     

    About American University

    American University leverages the power and purpose of scholarship, learning, and community to impact our changing world. From sustainability to social justice to the sciences, AU’s faculty, students, staff, and alumni are changemakers. Building on our 129-year history of education and research in the public interest, we say ‘Challenge Accepted’ to addressing the world’s pressing issues. Our Change Can’t Wait comprehensive campaign creates transformative educational opportunities, advances research with impact, and builds stronger communities.

     

    American University

    Source link

  • American University Experts Look Ahead to 2023

    American University Experts Look Ahead to 2023

    What: Uncertainty in the economy and a possible global recession, the quest for normalcy after the COVID-19 pandemic; the continued war in Ukraine; record numbers of migrants surging across the U.S.-Mexican border… As 2022 concludes, American University experts share their insights on this year’s headlines and their outlook for 2023.

    When: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 – ongoing

    Background:  American University experts who are available for interviews include those listed below as well as some who have provided insights.

     

    U.S. Politics & Elections

    David Barker is the Director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University’s School of Public Affairs. He is a nationally recognized expert on a broad range of topics, including American political parties, campaigns and elections, representation, culture and polarization, ideology and attitudes, information and communication, political institutions. His latest book is The Politics of Truth in Polarized America.

    Prof. Barker said: “Both at home and abroad, after several years of democratic backsliding, 2022 offered some modestly encouraging signs regarding democracy’s resilience and its prospects for renewal.  However, we cannot allow ourselves to become complacent.  Freedom is always precarious; it must be vigilantly protected and persistently pursued.”

    Amy Dacey is Executive Director of the Sine Institute of Policy & Policy at American University. For more than two decades, she managed prominent national organizations, advised leading elected officials and candidates, including President Barack Obama and Senator John Kerry, and counseled a variety of nonprofits and companies. During the 2016 presidential election, she served as the Chief Executive Officer of the Democratic National Committee.

    Amy Dacey said: “The midterms showed yet again that while all issues matter, certain issues motivate voters. The passion we saw from voters — and particularly young voters – about access to abortion, may have been what prevented the ‘red wave’ that so many observers predicted. But while campaigns are about contrasts, governing is about consensus. That won’t be easy in this age of extremism and political polarization. The number one task for 2023 is to keep our democracy intact and functional.”

    Dean Sam Fulwood, III of American University’s School of Communication is a prominent journalist, public policy analyst and author, whose work addresses key issues of media influences on American life. In addition to his work at SOC, Fulwood is a nonresident senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, where he was a senior fellow and vice president for race and equity programming.

    Dean Fulwood said: “Every sector of U.S. society remains in recovery mode from the aftershocks of the COVID pandemic. While most Americans are fatigued by the lingering restrictions the pandemic imposed, it’s perhaps a bit overly optimistic to expect that 2023 will bring an immediate return to past normalcy. In fact, the U.S. – and the world – are creating pathways to a new normal. This will continue well into the New Year.

    I think this emerging new normal will be evident both in our national and local politics and will be revealed primarily in our various media modes. 2023 will not be an election year for most Americans, but politics will continue to be front and center as presidential aspirants jockey for positioning to run in 2024. Campaigns are likely to be particularly contentious among GOP hopefuls as they navigate internal struggles and come to grips with the legacy of the Trump/MAGA hold over much of the party.”

     

    Economy & Finance

    Valentina Bruno is a professor of finance in the Kogod School of Business where she studies topics at the intersection of macroeconomics and finance and opened new lines of inquiry into how global financial markets interact with the real economy. Before joining American University, she worked at the World Bank in the Financial Sector Strategy and Policy Group and in the International Finance Team.

    Prof. Bruno said: “Many indicators point to a global recession coming in 2023. And yet, in the past recent weeks financial conditions have loosened, stocks have rallied, and mortgage rates have fallen from their recent peaks. The US dollar has reaffirmed its dominant role, and data shows that 88% of all foreign exchange transactions have the dollar on one side. And yet, emerging markets have been quite resilient so far. Consumer demand and a tight labor market have partially undone the actions of the Fed. As Chairman Powell said recently, we have a long way to go to get back to price stability. However, once inflation is under control, we will see the light at the end of the tunnel. A soft landing is still possible.”

    Jeffrey Harris is the Gary D. Cohn Goldman Sachs Chair in Finance at the Kogod School of Business. He has an extensive background in market microstructure and regulatory issues. Dr. Harris recently served as Chief Economist and Division Director for the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

    Prof. Harris said: “With higher rates in store, I expect variable rate mortgages to pinch consumer spending along with dismal house prices. These higher rates will likely tame inflation but will pinch the economy.  Most businesses will persevere, but the housing and financial sectors will slow. The uncertainty in Ukraine will continue to keep energy prices high, but this bodes well for the energy and defense sectors. I expect GDP growth south of 2% but a continuing strong job market as more boomers retire.”

    Dean David Marchick leads the Kogod School of Business to support more than 2,000 students and offer more than two dozen undergraduate, graduate degree, and certification programs. He previously was a managing director at the Carlyle Group and served as Chief Operating Officer of the US Development Finance Corporation during the first year of the Biden Administration, and also served in Clinton administration in various roles.

    Dean Marchick said: “The biggest uncertainty for the global economy is not based on what happens at the Federal Reserve but rather what happens with COVID in China. This month, in the wake of protests in China, Chinese authorities lifted the drastic COVID restrictions across the country.  Now the question is whether China will be shut down not based on policy, but disease. More than 600 million PRC nationals remain unvaccinated or unboosted weeks before the Lunar new year, when more than 300 million PRC nationals travel to see family and friends. Not only could we see a humanitarian crisis worse than the peaks in India, New York or Italy, but the crisis could further stress supply chains, exacerbate political instability and slow China’s economy. Since China accounts for almost 20% of global GDP, the level of China’s growth, or lack thereof, has global implications.  At 4.4% growth in 2023, China is projected to contribute 30% of aggregate global growth next year. But if China’s growth rate falls to zero, global GDP could drop by more than 1%.  Thus, the US and other countries have a deep interest in helping China avoid a humanitarian disaster, but also a self-interest in seeing China grow.”

     

    Extremism & Polarization

    Carolyn Gallaher is an expert on extremism and the right-wing, organized violence by non-state actors and urban politics, including the politics, internal dynamics, and patterns of violence of militias, paramilitaries, and private military contractors, among others. Gallaher is the author of On the Fault Line: Race, Class, and the American Patriot Movement.

    Prof. Gallaher said: “This year, the January 6th Committee revealed how President Donald Trump inspired a failed insurrection that almost toppled 245 years of American democracy. Much of 2022 was spent on holding insurrectionists and other participants to account. The Department of Justice has arrested more than 900 people who participated in the assault and recently successfully prosecuted several members of the violent Oathkeepers militia, including two for seditious conspiracy. As 2023 begins, Trump’s star may be growing dimmer, but right-wing conspiracy theories, online disinformation, and a distressing lack of trust in the basic institutions of democracy continue apace. In particular, it will be important to see whether the Republican Party will reject those within its ranks who have embrace election disinformation and spread false claims about the so-called ‘deep state.’  The fate of the party, and American democracy may hinge on whether the party embraces or rejects right wing extremists within its ranks.”  

    Brian Hughes is the Co-Founder and Associate Director of the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab (PERIL), where he develops studies and interventions to reduce the risk of radicalization to extremism. His scholarly research explores the impact of communication technology on political and religious extremism, terrorism, and fringe culture.

    Prof. Hughes said: “This year saw a troubling continuation of ongoing trends in the radicalization of mainstream American politics. Anti-LGBTQ violence and antisemitism in particular were on the rise, while racism, male supremacy, and other forms of extremism have not abated. Unfortunately, these trends are spurred on and exploited for profit and power by a large cohort of media and political figures. It is all the more crucial that in 2023 we continue our work inoculating the public against their divisive, hateful, and manipulative rhetoric.”

    Janice Iwama is an assistant professor in AU’s School of Public Affairs. Her research focuses on examining local conditions and social processes that influence hate crimes, gun violence, racial profiling, and the victimization of immigrants. Iwama has served as a co-principal investigator and lead researcher in projects funded by the Department of Justice Civil Rights Unit and the National Institute of Justice. Prof. Iwama said: “Following the recent spike in hate crimes, I expect federal and state legislators to introduce new legislation in 2023 that will actively seek to improve our data collection on hate crimes, develop better preventative measures against bias incidents, and improve law enforcement responses to hate crimes.”

    Pamela Nadell is director of AU’s Jewish Studies Program and an award-winning historian and expert on the history of antisemitism in America and around the world. Nadell can provide commentary on current trends and problems of antisemitism.  

     

    Foreign Policy – War in Ukraine, Refugees & Immigration

    Ernesto Castañeda is Associate Professor of Sociology at American University and the Director of the Immigration Lab. He is an expert on international migration, borders, social movements, and ethnic and racial inequality. He is currently working on research projects about health disparities, Central American migration, and Afghan refugee integration.

    Garret Martin is the co-director of the Transatlantic Policy Center and Senior Professorial Lecturer at the School of International Service.  He has written widely on transatlantic relations and Europe, security, U.S. foreign policy, NATO, European politics, and European foreign policy and defense.

    Jordan Tama is an associate professor in the School of International Service, he specializes in U.S. foreign and national security policy, foreign policy bipartisanship, presidential-congressional relations, national security strategic planning, the politics of economic sanctions, the foreign policy views of U.S. elites, and the value of independent commissions. He is currently working on a book Bipartisanship in a Polarized Age: When Democrats and Republicans Cooperate on U.S. Foreign Policy.

    Joseph Torigian, assistant professor at the School of International Service, is an expert on politics of authoritarian regimes with a specific focus on China and Russia. His research draws upon comparative politics, international relations, security studies, and history to ask big questions about the long-term political trajectories of these two states.

    Guy Ziv is an associate professor at the School of International Service and expert in U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East, U.S.-Israel relations, and Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. He is the author of Why Hawks Become Doves: Shimon Peres and Foreign Policy Change in Israel.

     

    Media & Technology

    Dean Sam Fulwood, III of American University’s School of Communication.

    Dean Fulwood said: “For journalists and media observers, the runup to the 2024 presidential campaign will dominate much of the 2023 news cycles. While some stories are evergreen, journalists will continue struggle to find audiences as the new normal unfolds with changes in media delivery modes. Twitter, Facebook, Tik-Tok and other forms of social media will continue to erode advertising base for traditional, mainstream media outlets, exacerbating an ongoing trend toward declining local news and expanding news deserts in small American communities without comprehensive media presence.”

    Filippo Trevisan is an Associate Professor of Public Communication at American University’s School of Communication and Deputy Director of the Institute on Disability and Public Policy. His research explores the impact of digital technologies on advocacy, activism, and political communication.

    Prof. Trevisan said: “In a year without elections, no Olympics, and in which the pandemic seems to finally be waning, we likely need to wait until the next “crisis” to know what the media are going to focus on in 2023. The war in Ukraine is certainly going to stay at the top of the agenda and invite a fair bit of misinformation, especially if negotiations will start and each side will try its best to win the narrative “war.” A lot will also depend on what will happen to Twitter following Elon Musk’s takeover. Whether or not more companies will withdraw their advertising dollars from it, its brand is already badly damaged, which threatens to put the platform into a vicious circle. Musk’s seemingly erratic moves will continue as it’s one way to keep the company relevant in the news, but it may only be a matter of time before the news media stop reporting every one of his moves verbatim.”

    Sherri Williams is an assistant professor in the School of Communication, her interests are at intersection of social media, social justice, reality television, mass media and how people of color use and are represented by these mediums. Prof. Williams teaches journalism and focuses on how marginalized groups, especially women of color, are portrayed in the media.

    Prof. Williams said: “I hope that next year will include more national and local news coverage about how inequality is embedded into law. We are at a critical time in history where extremely conservative legislators are codifying discrimination into law. State legislation that discriminates against transgender youth, limits protests, restricts education about state and national legacies of oppression and bans abortion all essentially legalize discrimination. Journalism that explores how legislators can help close equity gaps with legislation is essential to helping Americans understand that discrimination is often legal and can be remedied with policy, like the Respect for Marriage Act that President Biden just signed. I also hope to see more reporters localize U.S. Supreme Court stories and translate the importance of the court to the public and what is on its docket.”

     

    Environment/ Sustainability 

    Paul Bledsoe is an adjunct professorial lecturer at the Center on Environmental Policy at American University’s School of Public Affairs at. He was director of communications of the White House Climate Change Task Force under President Clinton from 1998-2001, communications director of the Senate Finance Committee under Chairman Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and special assistant to former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt.

    Todd Eisenstadt, professor and Research Director at the Center for Environmental Policy at American University’s School of Public Affairs, is an expert on climate change policy. He recently co-authored Climate Change, Science, and the Politics of Shared Sacrifice and has written extensively on climate finance and adaptation in the developing world. 

    Jessica Gephart is a U.S. Department of State Science Envoy and Assistant Professor of Environmental Science. She focuses on the intersection of seafood globalization and environmental change, evaluating how seafood trade drives environmental impacts, and how environmental shocks disrupt seafood trade. Gephart is currently working on the development of a global seafood trade database.

     

    About American University

    American University leverages the power and purpose of scholarship, learning, and community to impact our changing world. From sustainability to social justice to the sciences, AU’s faculty, students, staff, and alumni are changemakers. Building on our 129-year history of education and research in the public interest, we say ‘Challenge Accepted’ to addressing the world’s pressing issues. Our Change Can’t Wait comprehensive campaign creates transformative educational opportunities, advances research with impact, and builds stronger communities.

     

    American University

    Source link

  • Student Loan Forgiveness on Ice: Insights for Borrowers

    Student Loan Forgiveness on Ice: Insights for Borrowers

    Newswise — With the proposed student debt relief program mired and stalled in legal battles, it’s now revealed that erroneous notices of student debt forgiveness application approvals were emailed to about 9 million Americans. At this point, says UMD Smith’s Samuel Handwerger, “the Biden administration might be asking themselves ‘Is the road to hell really paved with good intentions?’”

    Handwerger adds: “Whether the intent has been solely to boost the economy and promote higher educational achievement amongst Americans or a veiled political ad for Democratic votes in the latest election, find me an economist that believes an educated population is not good for the economy and I will show you that Joseph Stalin’s many 5-year plans really did succeed.”

    Handwerger, CPA and accounting lecturer for the University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business, gives more insights – especially for borrowers – in this Q&A:

    What are the essentials to know concerning the legal challenges?

    Handwerger: This boils down to two cases. First, in Texas, two individuals — backed by the conservative organization Job Creators Network Foundation — allege the forgiveness plan unfairly excludes them and shouldn’t be allowed. The other suit, “ Nebraska v. Biden,” comes from a group of states — Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas and South Carolina — claiming that the forgiveness would hurt them in the form of lost tax revenue. Normally, loan forgiveness results in taxable income for the individual whose loan has been forgiven. But based on the 2017 Trump Administration tax law, student loan forgiveness is not considered taxable income during the years 2018 thru 2025, after which that particular provision sunsets. Talk about a perfect storm of Republican and Democratic agendas.

    With another pause on repayments, is there anything different this time?

    Handwerger: Starting in 2020 under Trump, repayments for federal student loans have been in a state of suspended animation — no payments and no interest accruing. President Biden now has extended this original pause seven times with this latest move. But unlike previous extensions which expired by easily decipherable due dates, this latest extension almost requires a college degree to fully follow. But to put it as simple as possible, payments restart 60 days after whichever of the following scenarios happens first:

    • The lawsuits that have blocked the debt relief are resolved
    • Debt relief is implemented
    • The date is June 30, 2023

    In other words, if the debt relief is not implemented or the lawsuits are not resolved prior to June 30, 2023, then 60 days after this date, payments start to become due again and interest accrual resumes.

    Should borrowers make voluntary payments?

    Handwerger: Regarding this freeze-of-interest tolling, making voluntary payments in the interim is not an economically smart move, as normally one would be better served to earn some short-term interest on the funds. Even with a moving-target restart date making such financial planning tricky, the smart money move still is not to make payments while the freeze remains on. Adding to the efficacy of this argument is that the months during the pause still count as months with proper payment for many federal loan programs, where unpaid principal after a series of years is ultimately forgiven.

    How long before a resolution? What if Biden wins?

    Handwerger: It will be interesting to see how Biden will handle the applications for debt forgiveness if it legally can be resumed. Currently, loan forgiveness applications are suspended, and the government is not accepting any more applications. Originally the end date for applying was scheduled to be December 31, 2023. But the wheels on the legal process could go very slowly if the Supreme Court enters the picture. All of this makes for a lot of uncertainty for the 43 million-plus Americans holding unpaid student loan debt. The loan relief, in its original form, did not apply to loans originating after July 1, 2022. So, taking on more student debt needs to be carefully considered, as it always should be. My query: Would a win allowing for the loan forgiveness after a protracted legal battle entice Biden to expand the loans available for relief? I can’t wait for further developments to find out.

    University of Maryland, Robert H. Smith School of Business

    Source link