Who would have guessed the author of the Gettysburg Address was a white supremacist? Sic semper tyrannis indeed.
Lindsay Marchello writes:
It began with Confederate monuments, but it was only a matter of time before the history of everyone ever commemorated in America was in dispute. Even Abraham Lincoln.
The statue of the 16th president and liberator of slaves at the top of Bascom Hill is one of the most beloved sites on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus. Graduating students and their families wait in line for hours in the spring to have their pictures taken in Lincoln's lap.
Wunk Sheek, an indigenous student group, does not share this sentiment. The group has charged that a statue of Lincoln has no place on campus.
"Everyone thinks of Lincoln as the great, you know, freer of slaves, but let's be real: He owned slaves, and as natives, we want people to know that he ordered the execution of native men," Misha Johnson, co-president of fiscal relations for Wunk Sheek told the Daily Cardinal, one of the student newspapers. "Just to have him here at the top of Bascom is just really belittling."
View this article.
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content.
Today California Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed Senate Bill 169, which would have codified the Obama-era Education Department's guidance for how college campuses should deal with sexual misconduct.
What's more, he vetoed the bill on explicit due-process grounds. Accused students, guilty or not, "must be treated fairly and with the presumption of innocence until the facts speak otherwise," he wrote in a statement.
Brown's veto comes at a time when the new Education Department, led by Betsy DeVos, is revising the guidance. The Obama-era approach had prompted college officials to adopt investigatory procedures that imperiled free speech and due process. DeVos' department recently formally rescinded the most onerous of the dictates.
The California legislature tried to ensure that schools keep doing things the old way. But as Brown noted:
Thoughtful legal minds have increasingly questioned whether federal and state actions to prevent and redress sexual harassment and assault?well-intentioned as they are?have also unintentionally resulted in some colleges' failure to uphold due process for accused students. Depriving any student of higher education opportunities should not be done lightly, or out of fear of losing state or federal funding.
Given the strong state of our laws already, I am not prepared to codify additional requirements in reaction to a shifting federal landscape, when we haven't yet ascertained the full impact of what we recently enacted. We have no insight into how many formal investigations result in expulsion, what circumstances lead to expulsion, or whether there is disproportionate impact on race or ethnicity.
Brown isn't wrong to suggest that the softening of due process protections for accused students might have disproportionately affected students of color. As Emily Yoffe discussed in a thoroughly reported series for The Atlantic, there are good reasons to think minority students are much more likely to run afoul of the campus anti-rape bureaucracy.
Extraordinary message from Gov. Jerry Brown, as he vetoes bill that sought to codify Obama-era TIX guidance. Stresses due process concerns. pic.twitter.com/XvO8kNmnsD? KC Johnson (@kcjohnson9) October 16, 2017
I'm pleasantly surprised that Brown vetoed this bill and released such a strong statement reaffirming the importance of due process protections. It's a brave stance that makes him an outlier within the Democratic Party, whose leaders have been far more likely to condemn DeVos for trying to tamper with the system.
Is Harvey Weinstein the embodiment of Hollywood sleaze, or the last straggler in a bygone age of pervasive sexual harassment? Reason's Nick Gillespie, Katherine-Mangu Ward, and Matt Welch join Andrew Heaton to discuss how social media is bringing an end to open secrets.
Also, President Obama's Iran nuclear deal is now in limbo. Is it inevitable that Iran will get the bomb? Can nuclear proliferation actually make the world safer?
Other topics: the latest threats to the First Amendment, and how Donald Trump is changing American health care.
Some relevant links from the show:
Reason's Ed Krayewski: "Trump Kicks Iran Deal Decisions Over to Congress"
Jonathan Tepperman for Newsweek: "How Nuclear Weapons Can Keep You Safe"
Mamta Badkar for Business Insider: "Here's Why Sanctions Don't Work"
David Harsanyi for Reason: "Even if Trump's Threat Against NBC Isn't Serious, It's Still Destructive"
The New York Times: "The Times Issues Social Media Guidelines for the Newsroom"
Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey for the The New York Times: "Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accusers for Decades"
Maureen Dowd for the The New York Times: "Harvey Weinstein, Hollywood's Oldest Horror Story"
Reason's Peter Suderman: "Trump's New Executive Order Makes It Easier to Buy Insurance Outside of Obamacare"
Reason's Peter Suderman: "By Cutting Off Obamacare's Insurer Subsidies, Trump Might Help More People Get Health Coverage."
Topic ideas for next week? You can tweet suggestions and links to @Reason #ReasonPodcast
Subscribe, rate, and review the Reason Podcast at iTunes. Listen at SoundCloud below:
Don't miss a single Reason podcast! (Archive here.)
Subscribe at iTunes.
Follow us at SoundCloud.
Subscribe at YouTube.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
California will become the first U.S. state to allow a nonbinary sex or gender designation on all standard state documents, including drivers licenses and birth certificates. Democratic Gov. Gerry Brown signed the bill on Sunday, meaning Californians will be able to choose "X" as their official sex or gender.
"For too long society has forced people into gender boxes," said state Sen. Scott Weiner (D?San Francisco), who co-sponsored the legislation with state Sen. Toni Atkins (D?San Diego). "It's time for government to get out of the way and let people live their lives authentically as who they are."
The new law also makes it easier to apply for a gender change on official documents, removing a requirement that applicants must have undergone physician-certified medical treatment toward a gender transition.
"I have dear friends in San Diego and around the state who have been waiting a long time for this," Atkins said after the signing. "I'm happy I was in a position to move this forward."
Atkins thanked Brown for recognizing "how difficult it can be for our transgender, nonbinary, and intersex family members, friends, and neighbors when they don't have an ID that matches their gender presentation" and said she hopes the change will "eliminate unnecessary stress and anxiety for many Californians."
The law goes into effect in January 2019.
Earlier this year, Oregon became the first state allow a nonbinary option on driver's licenses, becoming the first state to do so. For more on why libertarians should appreciate the change, see:"The Case for Gender Anarchy" "California May Add Gender Category 'X' to State IDs. Good?Your Gender Isn't the Government's Business."
Here's hoping more states follow California and Oregon's lead.
Secretary of Energy Rick Perry has ordered the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to save the coal mining industry by massively subsidizing conventional coal-fired electricity generation plants. That's not the way he put it, of course. But Perry's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Grid Resiliency amounts to that, argues Steve Huntoon*, former president of the Energy Bar Association.
In "Cash for Clunkers Redux," an article for RTO Insider, Huntoon makes the case that the Trump administration is engaged here in pure crony capitalism, using the excuse that subsidies to uneconomic coal and nuclear power plants are needed to stabilize the electric power grid.
If Perry's policy is enacted, Huntoon predicts that federal subsidies would bring some 71 gigawatts of recently retired power generation back from the dead. He doesn't expect the subsidies to stop there. Piling subsidies on top of already uneconomic power plants will drive down the price of electricity, which in turn will force formerly profitable power onto the dole. Eventually it'll be subsidies all the way down. Huntoon calculates that such subsidies for conventional generation could eventually rise to as much as $88 billion a year, forever. (For comparison, the Institute for Energy Research estimated that federal renewable energy subsidies amounted to $13.2 billion in 2013.)
Would requiring newly subsidized power plants to maintain 90-day supplies of coal and nuclear fuel really increase grid resiliency? The DOE cited the power outages in that occurred during the 2014 polar vortex, which froze the mid-Atlantic states. Yet Huntoon notes that the generation emergencies in question aggregated just 20 hours."What is magic about 90 days (other than being tailored to the average coal plant stockpile)?" he asks.
Furthermore, Huntoon points out, "Here's a fun fact you won't find in [Perry's proposed rulemaking]: Baseload (combined cycle) natural gas plants average lower forced outage rates (4.29%) than baseload coal plants (7.71%), and have about the same as nuclear plants (3.51%). It's these overall forced outage rates that matter?not a single metric like fuel supply on site." Baseload coal plants are more unreliable than other types of power generators.
Disturbingly, it appears that FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee is receptive to Perry's proposal.
"There is no free market in the energy industry," Perry declared in a recent speech. Over at the R Street Institute, a free-market think thank, energy analyst William Murray countered:
The truth is that free and unfettered price discovery in electricity markets is the most important element in grid resiliency. Perry is involved in a subterfuge, a deception that even someone of his legitimate political skills has trouble pulling off. The administration is in the position of being forced to come up with creative ways to fulfill promises made directly by President Donald Trump to coal mine owners during the election campaign, even at the cost of free markets?a supposed core belief among Republicans and conservatives of all strips.
As I argued when the Secretary of Energy unveiled his subsidy proposal: "Maintaining grid resilience is a real issue, but there is more than a whiff of crony capitalism about Perry's initiative to establish capacity payments for conventional power generators. Better to roll back market distortions than to pile new distortions upon the old."
**Disclosure: I am proud to say that Steve Huntoon has been my friend ever since we met at the University of Virginia as undergraduates. In addition, I was a mid-level bureaucrat at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for three years in the late 1970s and early 1980s.*
Connecticut has long been one of the richest states in the union, but its bloated public sector has now engulfed it in a fiscal crisis.
The rising cost of public employees' retirement benefits has prompted the state to raise taxes three times in the last eight years. The public employee unions are adamant that the problem can be solved only by more taxation, and they have threatened to sue if any changes are made to the present payouts. Gov. Dannel Malloy and the General Assembly haven't been able to agree on what to do, leaving the state without a budget for more than 100 days.
The state is $74 billion short of what it needs to fund those retirement benefits and the state's bonded debt obligations. As of 2014, according to The Wall Street Journal, Connecticut ranked 48th in pension funding, meeting only 50 percent of its obligations. The state is looking at a budget deficit of $3.5 billion, out of a budget of about $19 billion.
The last time Connecticut faced financial difficulties of this size was in 1991. From 1984 and 1990, the cost of state pensions increased by 119 percent, according to The Connecticut Mirror. That led the state to impose its first-ever income tax. But the income tax revenue?$126 billion over the following 25 years?did little to restrain spending, and funding for pension programs is still inadequate. Retirement costs and debt services were 12 percent of the state budget 20 years ago. In this fiscal year, they will be 31 percent.
State workers in Connecticut make about 42 percent more than equivalent jobs in the private sector?the widest such gap in the country, according to a 2014 American Enterprise Institute study. Their retirement health benefits were the equivalent of an individual employee getting an additional 18 percent in wages for each working year.
A JP Morgan report published last year said that to fully meet its unfunded liabilities, Connecticut has four options: It can pay 35 percent of state revenues toward its debt for 30 years, it can cut the state budget by 14 percent, it can increase taxes 14 percent, or it can increase worker contributions to their pensions by 699 percent. None of those choices are palatable to most lawmakers.
In September enough Democrats joined their GOP colleagues to pass the state's first Republican budget in years. The Democratic governor vetoed it, citing its cuts to state pensions as one of his concerns. Until Connecticut gets a budget, Malloy is managing the state finances by executive order.
Comedian James Corden is doing a little Twitter apology tour after joking about Harvey Weinstein's decades of sexual misbehavior at the amfAR gala this weekend:
To be clear, sexual assault is no laughing matter. I was not trying to make light of Harvey's inexcusable behavior, (1/2)? James Corden (@JKCorden) October 15, 2017
But in fact, for years the only people who managed to speak the truth in public about Weinstein were jokesters:
[email protected] Love's advice in 2005: "If Harvey Weinstein invites you to a party at the Four Seasons, don't go." pic.twitter.com/I1Zq0WvVNM? HannahJane Parkinson (@ladyhaja) October 14, 2017
Tina Fey, now a Hollywood power player in her own right, has been making Harvey Weinstein jokes for years:
In a later season, the same character jokes: "Look, I get it. I know how former lovers can have a hold over you long after they're gone....In some ways, I'm still pinned under a passed-out Harvey Weinstein and it's Thanksgiving."
Fey also made jokes about Bill Cosby's reputation for sexual assault before it was cool, on Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update and in a 30 Rock episode featuring a confrontation with a Cosby impersonator:
Jack Donaghy: I've arranged for one of Tracy's childhood idols to reach out to him.
Tracy Jordan: Hello?
Jack Donaghy: Tracy, this is Jack, I have someone here who wants to speak with you.
Rick: Tracy, this is Bill Cosby...
Liz Lemon: [whispering] Really? This is your strategy?
Jack Donaghy: [whispering and smiling] I heard him do this at a party!
Rick: ...I want you to come back to the TGS for the people who like the jokes and the things.
Tracy Jordan: Bill Cosby, you got a lotta nerve gettin' on the phone wit' me after what you did to my Aunt Paulette!
Rick: I think you're confusing me with someone else.
Tracy Jordan: 1971. Cincinnati. She was a cocktail waitress with the droopy eye!
Rick: I'm the guy... with the pudding...
In fact, the final (please God, let it be final) downfall of Cosby was ultimately triggered by a comedian, Hannibal Buress, who in 2014 urged people to google "Bill Cosby rape" during a standup routine that went viral.
Thanks to Twitter, we can all be pundit-comedians about the latest scandal. But top-of-the-market comedians are in a better position than most of us to know about and expose pernicious open secrets in Hollywood. This can get tiresome, of course, when it's not done judiciously (cough, Daily Show, cough). And it can be disastrous if done to an ordinary person on the basis of bad facts or misunderstandings. But when it comes to exposing the misdeeds of powerful people who have plenty of lawyers, more jokes are better than no jokes.
This isn't about the First Amendment or censorship; the legal right to make such jokes?outside of the workplace, anyway?is clearly established. It's about where we make space in our culture for this type of humor. Where there are powerful people doing bad things (read: all times and all places), there must be comedians, pranksters, and satirists.
We have to leave space to talk about horrible things in a funny way, because sometimes that's the only way we can talk about them at all. It's no good tsk-tsking at comedians for making light of sexual assault when dozens or hundreds of very serious and important people who knew the same information offered only silence. Under the right circumstances, literally everything is a laughing matter.
One of the most profound changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act is that it drove thousands of independent doctors to throw in the towel and join large hospital networks. This is particularly true of primary care doctors. As the rules involving medical records, billing codes, and prior authorizations have gotten more complex, physicians find they can't survive without joining large health care networks. And they're becoming increasingly demoralized.
Today there's a small but growing movement of doctors who are opting out of the traditional health care system by no longer accepting insurance. This new approach is is called "direct primary care," but it's essentially a throwback to an era before insurance companies were responsible for covering routine services like ear infections or strep cultures.
Click here for full text and downloadable versions.
Subscribe at YouTube.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.
View this article.
A.J. Burgess, a 2-year-old boy born without functional kidneys, is in desperate need of a transplant. His father, Anthony Dickerson, a perfect match, was prepared to undergo transplant surgery until he was arrested for violating his parole.
Dickerson was "in possession of a firearm or knife during the commission of or attempt to commit certain felonies," according to WGCL-TV. He's been released from prison, but the hospital won't perform surgery until his parole officer gives the okay.
That could take three to four months?the hospital wants to revisit the issue in January. Of course, there's no guarantee Burgess will live that long. He has to undergo dialysis every day. His body is failing. He has to have bladder surgery. He needs a kidney now, and a highly motivated donor?his father?is willing to give him one.
What dad's criminal record has to do with it is anyone's guess. The hospital has declined to answer reporters' questions, citing patient privacy laws.
Dickerson has made some bad personal choices in his life?he's been in and out of jail for years. Now he's trying to do something positive, and the hospital won't let him, primarily because he was involved with a weapon when he shouldn't have been.
Not to put too fine a point on this, because there's plenty else going on?it sounds like Dickerson was involved in criminal activity, independent of his illegal gun possession?but I suspect liberals like to imagine stricter gun control means a peaceful and voluntary gradual disarmament of a gun-weary citizenry.
Maybe that's gun control in theory. In practice, stricter gun control means giving the government more reasons to interfere in the lives of black and brown people who are already wary of the police. It mean rap sheets of low level offenders become lengthier?they did something bad, and they happened to have a weapon while they did it, even though one had nothing to do with the other. It means more people in color getting caught up on technicalities that ruin their lives and endanger the lives of their children.
Burgess's mother has set up a GoFundMe page for him here.
A man who was arrested for possession of "methamphetamine" that turned out to be donut glaze recently received $37,500 from the city of Orlando for his trouble. The payment settles a lawsuit that Daniel Rushing, a 65-year-old retiree who used to work for the city's Parks Department, brought after a traffic stop that illustrates the limits of drug field tests and the cops who perform them.
Cpl. Shelby Riggs-Hopkins pulled Rushing over on the afternoon of December 11, 2015, ostensibly because he did not make a complete stop as he pulled out of a 7-Eleven parking lot and subsequently exceeded the speed limit. But those offenses seem to have been pretexts. Riggs-Hopkins had been keeping an eye on the convenience store because of "citizen complaints about drug activity" and thought it was suspicious that Rushing, who was giving a lift to a friend, left without buying anything, in the company of a "black female employee of the 7-11."
When Rushing opened his wallet to retrieve his driver's license, Riggs-Hopkins noticed that he had a concealed-carry permit and asked if he was armed. He said he was, and she asked him to get out of his car "for my safety." At that point Riggs-Hopkins "observed in plain view a rock-like substance on the floor board where his feet were." The eagle-eyed, street-savvy cop recalled that she "recognized, through my eleven years of training and experience as a law enforcement officer, the substance to be some sort of narcotic." The suspect "stated that the substance is sugar from a Krispy Kreme Donut that he ate," but Riggs-Hopkins knew better: Two field tests of the "rock-like substance" gave "a positive indication for the presence of amphetamines."
Rushing said Riggs-Hopkins initially was not sure what "sort of narcotic" she had discovered. "I kept telling them, 'That's?glaze from a doughnut," Rushing told the Orlando Sentinel. "They tried to say it was crack cocaine at first. Then they said, 'No, it's meth, crystal meth.'"
Adding insult to injury, Rushing was accused of possessing meth "with a weapon" (his legally carried handgun), which made a third-degree felony, punishable by up to five years in prison, into a second-degree felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison. He was handcuffed and taken to the county jail, where he was strip-searched and locked up for 10 hours before being released on $2,500 bail. Three days later, after a lab test found no illegal substance in the evidence recovered by Riggs-Hopkins, the charges against Rushing were dropped. The lab test was not specific enough to identify which brand of donut the glaze came from, so we'll just have to take Rushing's word that it was indeed a Krispy Kreme.
Rushing told the Sentinel he had tried to start a security business but could not find work because "people go online and see that you've been arrested." The Orlando Police Department (OPD) initially defended the arrest. But according to the Sentinel, the OPD "ended up training more than 730 officers on how to properly use the field test kits," and "Riggs-Hopkins was given a written reprimand for making an improper arrest."
In addition to the city of Orlando, Rushing sued the Safariland Group, which made the test kit used by Riggs-Hopkins. Although the OPD evidently attributes the two false positives that preceded Rushing's arrest to Riggs-Hopkins' inept performance of the drug test, such field kits are notoriously unreliable and may react to a wide range of legal substances. Faulty field tests were at the center of a 2012 Kansas marijuana raid triggered by loose tea, a case that last summer resulted in a rebuke by a federal appeals court panel. One of the judges faulted "junk science" as well as "an incompetent investigation" and a thirst for publicity.
Next year California's bookstores will once again be able to host author signing events without fearing an expensive lawsuit.
The threat of those suits sprang from a 2016 law that tried to crack down on sales of fake autographed memorabilia by requiring retailers to provide certificates of authenticity for any autographed merchandise worth more than $5. Last week Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill that loosened the new rules: The threshold will now be updated to $50 for most autographed memorabilia. Autographed books, fine art, furniture, and decorative objects will be excluded from the certificate requirement, according to The Los Angeles Times.
"The law was ostensibly passed to protect people from fraud. But it made little sense when applied to stores like Book Passage, which sell books that are autographed in the consumers' presence?and thus present no risk of fraud," notes Anastasia Boden, an attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which had sued to stop the original law.
As I reported when that lawsuit was launched, the list of criteria for the certificates of authenticity was absurdly long. The law specified that those certificates must contain a description of the collectible and the name of the person who signed it, the purchase price and date, and an "explicit statement" of authenticity. It must also indicate how many items were signed, whether they are numbered as part of a series, and whether any more might be sold in the future. There also has to be proof that the seller is insured. And of course there has to be a certificate number provided by the State Board of Equalization. There's a separate requirement for an "identifying serial number," which, naturally, has to match the serial number of the receipt?a receipt that must be kept by the seller for no less than seven years after the transaction. Finally, the certificate of authenticity has to say whether the author provided his John Hancock in the presence of the dealer, or another witness, and include the name of the witness. (There is no requirement that the witness' first born must also sign the form.)
A single mistake or omission could cost book stores huge sums of money: up to 10 times the purchase cost, plus damages, plus court costs, plus attorneys fees, plus interest, says Boden. The law led the Easton Press?a publisher that counts novelist Neil Gaiman, pop astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, and humorist Carol Burnett among its authors?to stop shipping signed books to Califorinia stores. That decision was made to avert potential suits, but it further hurt small stores like Eureka Books in San Francisco.
The consequences for bookstores may have been unintended, but they were anything but unexpected. Reason's Brian Doherty, covering the original bill's passage in September 2016, warned that it could "if fully enforced squash, among other things, the practice of author book events." That's exactly what happened.
The Supreme Court agreed today to hear and rule whether the federal government can demand access to emails and other data files when they are stored in another country.
In United States v. Microsoft Corp., the Department of Justice has been trying since 2013 to get access to emails of a Microsoft customer, looking for evidence this person was involved in drug trafficking.
Some of the suspect's data was being stored on a server in Dublin, Ireland. Microsoft has turned over data stored within the United States, but argued, even with probable cause warrants, the feds did not have the authority to make them hand over foreign-stored info. Privacy advocacy groups, tech companies, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are on Microsoft's side here. The Department of Justice and 33 states (and Puerto Rico) are on the other.
Several court rulings have upheld Microsoft's argument, but the full 2nd Circuit Court ruling was split 4-4. This split keeps the ruling in Microsoft's favor, but there's a clear disagreement among judges about the limits of the authority of the Stored Communications Act?the 1986 federal law that oversees forced disclosures of data by third parties like tech companies.
The Justice Department, of course, went full 9/11, arguing limits to their warrant authorities would jeopardize terror investigations. Microsoft, meanwhile, worries about the reaction if the United States sets a bad example here. Via Reuters:
"If U.S. law enforcement can obtain the emails of foreigners stored outside the United States, what's to stop the government of another country from getting your emails even though they are located in the United States?" Brad Smith, Microsoft's president and chief legal officer, said in a blog post on Monday.
The Justice Department said in its appeal that the lower court ruling "gravely threatens public safety and national security" because it limits the government's ability to "ward off terrorism and similar national security threats and to investigate and prosecute crimes."
Reuters notes that tech companies are also concerned that customers may not trust the privacy cloud-based computing services if governments could seize their data.
The Justice Department, on the other hand, worries that companies would be able to deprive the government of access to domestic data and communications simply by storing it all overseas. That outcome, frankly, sounds kind of awesome.
This is a highly technical case that will probably produce a fairly specific ruling about Congress' intent with the Stored Communications Act and the limits of what that law authorizes. Do not expect a broad ruling about the either the limits of warrants under the Fourth Amendment nor a revised view of the limits of the Third-Party Doctrine that allows the government to access data about private citizens that is stored by tech companies and private firms.
Read the Justice Department's petition here.
An officer in Orange, New Jersey, was caught on video roughing up two girls outside a high school, tossing one of them by her hair, and also ticketing a school board member who tried to de-escalate the situation.
Officer Hanifah Davis was "relieved of duty" (that is, suspended), but city officials insist they haven't decided whether he'll be paid while on suspension or not (which means that he likely will be, and that the poverty-stricken city is seeking to avoid the bad publicity paying a toxic cop not to work could yield).
This was not Davis' first controversy. Though he's been on the job just three and a half months, he's already under investigation for an incident where he brandished his service weapon while trying to break up a crowd allegedly loitering and gambling. That investigation is still ongoing.
Ideally, departments could terminate officers who reveal themselves to be problem cops before they get too violent. A zero tolerance policy for police misconduct could get cops off the force before they're involved in major controversies.
Students organized a walkout Friday to protest the incident, chanting, "We want justice." The students should protest their school administrators too, for systematically relying on law enforcement for discipline.
Orange is a town of 30,000 with a per capita income of $20,000. The salary for principals in the area starts at more than $100,000. It should not be too much to expect that such school professionals should be able to keep order on school grounds without uniformed police officers. If they are unable to do that, they should step aside for someone who is.
Introducing police officers into schools isn't a solution to discipline; it's an abrogation of responsibility. In recent years especially, administrators have tended to seek out blanket policies they can defer to rather than making the informed decisions they ought to be expected to make as professionals.
The girls manhandled by Davis participated in the walkout. They say they'd like to see the cop fired and jailed. With the job protections enjoyed by most cops in New Jersey, that's unlikely to happen. But perhaps they could convince administrators to keep cops out of schools rather than inviting them in.
Watch footage of the altercation in the segment below:
What else can President Trump try to stop?
A. Barton Hinkle writes:
'It's frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write," said President Trump on Wednesday, "and people should look into it."
Amen, brother! It's downright abominable that people in the media can just spout off the first thing that comes into their heads with no concern for veracity or the potential for harm. What do they think this is, a personal Twitter account?
The president also is repulsed by those jerks in the National Football League who have different opinions than he does about certain issues, and who show it by not standing up for the national anthem the way they have been required to do since way back in 2009.
Trump deserves to have epic songs sung about him for demanding investigations into reporters and for suggesting that people he considers less patriotic than him should be fired. They say it's a free country and all that, but come on. You have to draw the line somewhere.
The president shouldn't stop there, though. Many other things are not just frankly disgusting, but honestly nauseating, and Trump should use his bully pulpit to draw more attention to them, too. And not just women's suffrage or this business about the "right" to a fair trial, either.
View this article.