Author: Ashleigh Barber

Reparations and the Demands of Justice

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

Old political cartoonIn January 2019, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) introduced H.R. 40: The Commission to Study and Develop Reparations Proposals for African Americans Act.1 Reparations for slavery, Jim Crow, and systematic segregation and racism in major U.S. institutions is not a new idea, but it has never gained the type of traction that it currently has. In June, the House Judiciary Committee held hearings to begin exploring the idea.2

This bill would not automatically establish reparations. Instead, the bill would “establish a commission to study and consider a national apology and proposal for reparations for the institution of slavery, its subsequent de jure and de facto racial and economic discrimination against African Americans, and the impact of these forces on living African Americans, to make recommendations to the Congress on appropriate remedies.”3

WATCH: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) responds to the bill

WATCH: Ta-Nehisi Coates, author of “The Case for Reparations,” testifies before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties

Discussions about race, racism, and racial justice are becoming more central parts of our political discourse. The rising tide of white nationalism and white supremacy,4 including their increasing visibility in public spaces,5 has helped spur discussion about the legacy of racism in the United States. Movements and organizations such as Black Lives Matter and the Equal Justice Initiative, as well as publications such as Between the World and Me, The New Jim Crow, and the 1619 Project, have focused attention the legacies of slavery, Jim Crow segregation, economic exclusion, and mass incarceration.

In this social and political environment, the debate over reparations is taken more seriously—but is also more contentious—than it has been at other times.

Arguments in support of the bill:

The text of the bill contains arguments—findings—that support passage of the bill. Among those findings are:

  • Approximately 4,000,000 Africans and their descendants were enslaved in the United States and colonies that became the United States from 1619 to 1865.
  • The institution of slavery was constitutionally and statutorily sanctioned by the government of the United States from 1789 through 1865.
  • The slavery that flourished in the United States constituted an immoral and inhumane deprivation of Africans’ life, liberty, African citizenship rights, and cultural heritage, and denied them the fruits of their own labor.
  • Following the abolition of slavery, the U.S. government, at the federal, state, and local levels, continued to perpetuate, condone, and often profit from practices that continued to brutalize and disadvantage African Americans, including sharecropping, convict leasing, Jim Crow, redlining, unequal education, and disproportionate treatment at the hands of the criminal justice system.
  • As a result of the historic and continued discrimination, African Americans continue to suffer debilitating economic, educational, and health hardships, including but not limited to having nearly 1,000,000 black people incarcerated; an unemployment rate more than twice the current white unemployment rate; and an average of less than 1/16th of the wealth of white families, a disparity which has worsened, not improved over time.6

Arguments opposing the bill:

  • Charles Lane, a columnist for the Washington Post, argues that reparations may be unconstitutional because black people living today cannot show direct injury from slavery in the same way that other groups—such as Japanese Americans who lived through internment—have been able to do.7
  • Kevin Williamson, writing in National Review, argues that reparations would not accomplish what they are intended to accomplish and that the policies that would most help African Americans, and all Americans, would be economic and educational reform aimed at creating a dynamic and growing economy.8
  • Coleman Hughes, an African-American writer and student, argued against reparations before a congressional subcommittee, saying that reparations “would insult many black Americans by putting a price on the suffering of their ancestors. If we were to pay reparations today, we would only divide the country further, making it harder to build the political coalitions required to solve the problems facing black people today.”9
  • Representative Mike Johnson (R-La.) has spoken of “the injustice of monetary reparations from current taxpayers for the sins of a small subset of Americans from many generations ago.”10

The debate over this issue is taking place in the primary campaigns of Democratic presidential hopefuls, and Congress will continue to consider and possibly vote on the bill.

 

Discussion Questions

  1. What do you view to be the strongest arguments for and against the idea of reparations?
  2. If you were a member of Congress, what more would you want to know before voting on this bill?
  3. Setting aside the question of reparations, do you think that establishing a commission to investigate the impacts of slavery, segregation, and systemic racism is a good idea? Why or why not?
  4. If you are opposed to the idea of reparations in the form of cash or a check, do you think something else should be done to address the legacy and injustice of slavery and segregation? If so, what? If no, why not?

 

How to Get Involved

Students can continue to follow the bill on GovTrack.

Students can weigh in—as a group assignment or individually—by visiting this page.

Students can also research their member of Congress to see which committees they sit on. If their representative sits on the Judiciary Committee, they should consider contacting that member while the bill is still in committee.

 

Further Reading

 

Sources
Featured Image Credit: 19th Century Engraving via New York Public Library Digital Collection (Public Domain) and Wikipedia
[1] Congress.gov: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/40/text
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] ABC News: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-supremacy-white-nationalism-entered-political-conversation/story?id=64998396
[5] Inside Higher Ed: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/06/27/white-nationalist-propaganda-rise-college-campuses
[6] Congress.gov: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/40/text
[7] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/would-reparations-for-slavery-be-constitutional/2019/08/12/76677182-ba10-11e9-b3b4-2bb69e8c4e39_story.html
[8] National Review: https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/05/case-against-reparations-kevin-d-williamson/
[9] BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48665802
[10] Ibid.

 

Religious Freedom or the Right to Discriminate?

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

Protestors in Washington, DCOn August 15, the Department of Labor published proposed changes that would expand federal contractors’ ability to claim a religious exemption to equal opportunity and anti-discrimination rules.1 The proposed rule change, as written, could allow employers with federal contracts to fire or refuse to hire LGBTQ employees, and could even be used to fire unmarried pregnant women if an employer claimed that it was against their religion to support having sex out of wedlock.

The Department of Labor cites recent Supreme Court cases, such as Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014)2 and Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018).3 In each of those cases, the Court allowed businesses to claim that the U.S. right to religious freedom exempted them from certain state or federal regulations. (Masterpiece Cakeshop was decided on narrow grounds and the Court cautioned that it should not necessarily be read as precedent.)

Drawing on opinions expressed by the Supreme Court in those cases and in other cases, the Department of Labor’s rule change would allow groups and companies with federal contracts that identify as religious to “make employment decisions consistent with their sincerely held religious tenets and beliefs without fear of sanction by the federal government.”4

The proposed rule is stirring controversy, as many civil rights activists see the change as discriminatory. Patricia Shiu, who oversaw the federal contracting office under President Barack Obama, told Vox that the new rule has the potential to be interpreted very broadly. As Shiu explained to Vox: “The new rule would gut anti-discrimination protections in a ‘major and transformational way.’ While the rule seems to target LGBTQ individuals … it’s so broad that it creates a loophole for employers to discriminate against anyone. … [Companies] could ask for a religious exemption so they don’t have to hire women, by saying that their religion dictates that women cannot work outside the home.”5

Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), warned that the rule “authorizes discrimination in the name of religion.”6 The ACLU also tweeted, “Nearly one-quarter of employees in the United States work for an employer that has a contract with the federal government. This rule seeks to undermine our civil rights protections and encourages discrimination in the workplace—and we will work to stop it.”7

Sarah Warbelow, legal director of the LGBTQ rights advocacy organization Human Rights Campaign, called the rule “a license to discriminate.”8

An official with the Department of Labor defended the rule, explaining to ABC News: “The Department’s regulations for a long time have allowed religious organizations to take applicants’ and employees’ religion into account when making employment decisions, that’s not new. This proposal only seeks to clarify who qualifies as a religious organization and what religion means under the law. That’s it.”9

In addition, acting Secretary of Labor Patrick Pizzella told The Christian Post, “Today’s proposed rule helps to ensure the civil rights of religious employers are protected. As people of faith with deeply held religious beliefs are making decisions on whether to participate in federal contracting, they deserve clear understanding of their obligations and protections under the law.”10

 

Discussion Questions

  1. Do you think that business owners and employers should have the right to refuse to hire someone on religious grounds? Why or why not?
  2. Are there some types of organizations (such as religious charities) that should have the right to use religion in their hiring and firing practices? Should that same right extend to all employers?
  3. How does this controversy connect to other issues you have heard about in the news? In history?
  4. Do you think the Department of Labor should adopt this new rule? Why or why not?

 

How to Get Involved

This proposed rule change is open for public comment until September 16, 2019. Anyone can submit a comment, and these comments must be reviewed and considered by the executive branch before it makes the change official.

Read the full proposed rule and submit a comment here:

Implementing Legal Requirements Regarding the Equal Opportunity Clause’s Religious Exemption

Consider having students work in small groups or individually to submit a comment supporting or challenging the proposed rule.

 

Other Resources

 

Sources
Featured Image Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
[1] U.S. Department of Labor: https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20190814
[2] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/hobby-lobby-case-supreme-court-contraception.html
[3] Axios: https://www.axios.com/supreme-court-masterpiece-cakeshop-decision-dc2d9a59-76ce-40a3-8311-9da845d1ed9c.html
[4] U.S. Department of Labor: https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20190814
[5] Vox: https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/8/16/20806990/trump-religion-lgbtq-discrimination-rule
[6] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2019/08/14/trump-administration-proposes-protecting-federal-contractors-who-fire-or-hire-workers-based-religious-beliefs/
[7] United Press International: https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2019/08/14/New-Labor-Dept-rule-would-exempt-religious-contractors-from-bias-claims/1031565800736/
[8] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2019/08/14/trump-administration-proposes-protecting-federal-contractors-who-fire-or-hire-workers-based-religious-beliefs/
[9] ABC News: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-administration-rule-religious-litmus-test-federal-contractors/story?id=64976149
[10] The Christian Post: https://www.christianpost.com/news/labor-dept-new-rule-protect-religious-liberty-federal-contractors.html

 

 

Democratic Candidate Highlights: Part 1—The Early Announcers

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

The 2020 United States Presidential election is on Tuesday, November 3, and there are 20+ Democrats who have announced their campaign to run. As promised in our earlier post (found here), this post will be the first of several where we take a closer look at a few candidates—who they are and their stances are on some of the issues they prioritize. We will be going in order by candidacy announcement date.

Most of the information will come from the candidates’ own campaign sites, as the point of these posts is to give readers an idea of what each candidate’s platform is and how the candidates are presenting themselves to voters.

This post will include a closer look at some lesser known, but early announcing, candidates: John Delaney, Andrew Yang, and Tulsi Gabbard.

Candidate: Former Representative John Delaney, D-Md.
Slogan: Focus on the Future

Short Bio (excerpted from campaign site):

John Delaney’s grandparents came to the United States from Ireland and England, and found jobs in Jersey City, N.J., where one grandfather worked in a pencil factory and the other was a dockworker. He grew up in a blue-collar family in Wood-Ridge, New Jersey. With help from his father’s labor union, he was able to attend and graduate from Columbia University and Georgetown University Law Center. After law school, he decided to take a chance and start his own businesses. By 40, he had launched and led two companies that created thousands of jobs and were publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange. He was the youngest CEO on the NYSE with his first company. In 2004, he was named an Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year, and his businesses were voted to be among the best places to work. He was also the only former CEO of a publicly traded company serving in the House of Representatives during his three terms. In 2012, he took congressional office serving the Sixth District of Maryland and since then has introduced large-scale bipartisan legislation on infrastructure, tax reform, social security, and impact investing. On foreign policy, his work has centered on a strong national defense, strengthening alliances, and cutting sources of terrorism funding. He believes that the best policymaking focuses squarely on the future and gives that as the reason for founding the Artificial Intelligence Caucus and helping found the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus. In 2017, he was named to Fortune’s list of the “World’s 50 Greatest Leaders.” He says that his campaign commitments are the same as they were when he first ran for Congress: advance progressive values, find solutions and common ground, bring new ideas, and create forward-looking policies that help everyday Americans.

Issue: Candidate’s Stance According to Campaign Site:
A National AI Strategy
Learn more		  

The United States must create a government strategy that will provide the tools and skills needed for the country to win the international AI race. For that to occur, the United States must prioritize resources to eliminate gaps in national abilities compared to other high-tech countries, invest in areas of research that deserve additional funding, develop incentives for high-tech professionals to work for the government, support an immigration system that values high-tech professionals, and crack down on international intellectual property (IP) theft.
Climate Change and Climate Corps
Learn more		  

Delaney proposes a $4 trillion climate change plan—a comprehensive roadmap of policy solutions to address the climate change crisis by focusing on six areas: A carbon fee and dividend direct air capture/negative emissions technology (NET); increasing the renewable energy research budget five-fold; challenge grants; a climate corps; and a carbon throughway. Most notably, Delaney proposes the creation of the Climate Corps as part of his National Service Program. The new program would provide opportunities for recent high school graduates to work in low-income urban and rural communities where Corps members would support these communities’ transition to a green economy, work on environmentally friendly projects, and fight climate change by working on the ground.
Department of Cybersecurity
Learn more		  

In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the government created the Department of Homeland Security. In response to continued cyber attacks, Delaney wants to create a Department of Cybersecurity with a sole focus on coordinating and implementing U.S. cybersecurity strategy, led by a cabinet-level secretary.
Other Issues
Learn more		  

Delaney has addressed 18 other issue areas in detail on his campaign site. Visit his site to further research his platform: John Delaney’s Policy Platform

Candidate: Attorney and entrepreneur Andrew Yang
Campaign Slogans: Humanity First; Make America Think Harder (Math); Not Left, Not Right, Forward

Short Bio (excerpted from campaign site):

Andrew Yang was born in upstate New York in 1975. His parents immigrated from Taiwan in the 1960s and met in graduate school. His dad was a researcher at IBM who generated 69 patents in his career, and his mom was the systems administrator at a local university. He studied economics and political science at Brown and went to law school at Columbia. After a brief stint as a corporate lawyer, Yang ran a national education company that grew to become a national leader. His education company was acquired, and he decided to take the earnings and commit to creating jobs in cities hit hard by the financial crisis. By that time, Yang says he understood the power of entrepreneurship to generate economic growth, so he founded Venture for America, an organization that helps entrepreneurs create jobs in cities like Baltimore, Detroit, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland. In its first year, VFA trained 40 fellows; by 2017, more than 500 VFA fellows and alumni had launched dozens of companies and helped create over 2,500 jobs across the country. Yang received several awards from the Obama White House, being named a Champion of Change in 2012 and a Presidential Ambassador for Global Entrepreneurship in 2015. He believes that VFA resonates with so many people because it’s clear that there’s a growing problem in the United States: automation is destroying jobs and entire regions are being left behind. He says that together we can build a new type of economy: one that puts people first.

Issue: Candidate’s Stance According to Campaign Site:
Universal Basic Income (UBI)
Learn More		  

The most direct and concrete way for the government to improve your life is to send you a check for $1,000 every month and let you spend it in whatever manner will benefit you the most. The government is not capable of a lot of things, but it is capable of sending large numbers of checks to large numbers of people promptly and reliably. The United States has plenty of resources; they’re just not being distributed to enough people right now. As president, Yang will implement the Freedom Dividend, providing universal basic income (UBI) of $1,000/month to all American adults over the age of 18 so that we may all share in the prosperity we have contributed to and participate in the new economy. UBI is a version of Social Security in which all citizens receive a set amount of money per month, independent of their work status or income. Everyone from a hedge fund billionaire in New York to an impoverished single mom in West Virginia would receive a monthly check of $1,000. If someone is working as a waitress or a construction worker making $18,000 a year, he or she would essentially be making $30,000 with UBI. UBI eliminates the disincentive to work that most people find troubling about traditional welfare programs—if you work, you could actually start saving and get ahead. With the growing threat of automation, the concept has gained renewed attention, with trials being run in Oakland, Canada, and Finland as well as in India and other parts of the developing world. Today, people tend to associate UBI with technology utopians. But a form of UBI almost became law in the United States in 1970 and 1971, passing the House of Representatives twice before stalling in the Senate.

 
Medicare for All
Learn More		 Health care should be a basic right for all Americans. Right now, if you get sick, you have two things to worry about—how to get better and how to pay for it. Too many Americans are making terrible, impossible choices between paying for health care and other needs. Yang wants to provide high-quality health care to all Americans and believes that a Medicare for All system is the most efficient way to accomplish that. He believes such a system would be a massive boost to the economy, as people will be able to start businesses and change jobs without fear of losing their health insurance. In addition to creating a Medicare for All system, Yangs wants to shift the way doctors are compensated to promote holistic and empathic care and create incentives for, and invest in, innovative treatment methods and methodologies.

 
Human-Centered Capitalism
Learn More		 Americans need to make the markets serve them rather than the other way around. Profit-seeking companies are organized to maximize their bottom line at every turn, which will naturally lead to extreme policies and outcomes. Americans need government leaders who are truly laser-focused on the public interest above all else and will lead companies to act accordingly. As president, Yang will change the way the United States measures the economy, from GDP and the stock market to a more inclusive set of measurements that ensures humans are thriving, not barely making it by. New measurements like median income and standard of living, health-adjusted life expectancy, mental health, childhood success rates, social and economic mobility, absence of substance abuse, and other measurements will give Americans a much clearer and more powerful sense of how they are doing both individually and as a society. Yang also wants to rein in corporate excesses by appointing regulators who are paid a lot of money—competitive with senior jobs in the private sector—but then will be prohibited from going to private industry afterward. Regulators need to be focused on making the right decisions and policies for the public with zero concern for their next position. The government’s goal should be to drive individuals and organizations to find new ways to improve the standards of living of individuals and families on these dimensions. In order to spur development, the government should issue a new currency—the Digital Social Credit—which can be converted into dollars and used to reward people and organizations who drive significant social value. This new currency would allow people to measure the amount of good that they have done through various programs and actions.

 
Other Issues: Yang has addressed 104 issue areas in detail on his campaign site. Visit his site to further research his platform: Andrew Yang’s Policy Platform

 

Candidate: Representative Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii
Campaign Slogan: Lead with Love

Short Bio (excerpted from campaign site):

Polynesian-Caucasian, Tulsi Gabbard was born in 1981 in Leloaloa, American Samoa, the fourth of five children born to Carol and State Senator Mike Gabbard. She grew up in Hawaii after moving there at two years old. Gabbard graduated from Hawaii Pacific University with a degree in International Business. At the age of 19, she co-founded Healthy Hawaii Coalition (HHC), a nonprofit grassroots organization whose mission is to protect the environment and improve individual and community health. In 2002, at 21 years old, she became the youngest person ever elected to the Hawaii State Legislature, where she served on the Education, Higher Education, Tourism, and Economic Development Committees. In 2004, when Gabbard’s fellow soldiers from the 29th Brigade were called to war in Iraq, she volunteered to join them. In 2006, she went to Washington, D.C., to serve in the Senate as a legislative aide to Senator Daniel K. Akaka, D-Hawaii. There, she advised Senator Akaka on issues relating to energy independence, homeland security, the environment, and veterans affairs. After returning home from her second deployment to the Middle East in 2009, Gabbard offered to serve on the Honolulu City Council and was elected on November 3, 2010. She served as chairperson of the Safety, Economic Development, and Government Affairs Committee, as vice chair of the Budget Committee, and as a member of the Zoning and Public Works Committee. In 2012, Gabbard ran for the House of Representatives for Hawaii’s Second Congressional District and defeated the former mayor of Honolulu in an upset victory in the Democratic primary. She went on to win the general election. When she took office in 2013, she became one of only two female combat veterans in the House and the first American Hindu ever elected to Congress.

Issue: Candidate’s Stance According to Campaign Site:
The War on Terror
Learn More		  

To defeat ISIS and other jihadist groups that have declared war on the United States, Gabbard believes the United States must do four things: Immediately end the illegal and counterproductive war to overthrow the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad; defeat ISIS militarily; find a political solution; and defeat ISIS and other Islamist militants ideologically.

 
Universal Healthcare
Learn More		 Gabbard believes that our present health care system is organized for the benefit of big insurance and pharmaceutical companies, and not for the American people. While the Affordable Care Act was a step in the right direction, many issues remain with it, including escalating costs and high copayments/deductibles. Most importantly, 27 million Americans are still uninsured. All Americans should have access to affordable health care through Medicare or a public option. Gabbard believes we must ensure universal health care and empower the government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies to bring down the price of prescription drugs.

 
Campaign Finance Reform
Learn More		 Gabbard is committed to campaign finance reform, taking big-money superPACs out of politics, and empowering the people and their voices in our democracy. Some ways she suggests doing this include: Fighting to establish a system to provide public funds that will amplify small donations to federal candidates who agree to lower contribution limits, working to reduce barriers to the ballot box and increase turnout, supporting meaningful contribution limits so a wealthy few cannot use their economic power to shut out ordinary citizens, and working to strengthen disclosure requirements for outside groups.

 
Other Issues: Gabbard has addressed several other issue areas on her old campaign site (from her run for Congress). So, until her presidential site is updated, visit this site to further research her policy ideas: Tulsi Gabbard on the Issues (Congressional Election Site)

 

Discussion Questions

  1. Had you heard of any of these candidates prior to reading this? If not, why might that be? If so, in what context had you heard about them? If not, why might that be?
  2. Looking at this list, do you notice anything interesting about the candidates? Are there any noticeable trends in their platforms, backgrounds, campaign language, stances on issues, etc.?
  3. Are there any candidates from this list who immediately jump out at you as someone you agree with on any specific issues?
  4. Of the candidates listed here, are there any that you think would have a chance of winning the Democratic nomination? Or a chance of defeating President Donald Trump? Why or why not?
  5. Imagine that a less well-known candidate (like one of the three above) won the Democratic nomination. Do you think choosing a relatively unknown candidate to face President Trump would be a good or bad strategy for the Democratic Party? Why?
Sources
Featured Image: WhiteHouse.gov

 

Should Washington, DC, Become a State?

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

Washington DC License PlateIf you visit Washington, DC, one of the things you may notice is the license plates on local vehicles.

While the inhabitants of the District of Columbia pay federal taxes, they do not have voting representation in Congress – just one delegate whose votes do not count. So since 2000, after approval by the Mayor and City Council, DC residents have had a choice to use their license plates as a form of protest. “Taxation Without Representation” harkens back to the causes of the Revolutionary War and the principles under which it was fought.

The creation of a federal district was outlined in the Constitution, Article I, Clause 17 which allows Congress “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be…” This allowed Congress to create a federal district over which they had power as it would not be part of a state.

As Washington, DC has grown, so has the frustration of its population. Its citizens were not allowed the right to vote in the Presidential election until the passage of the 23rdAmendment in 1961 which gave the District three Electoral Votes for President. But still, they have no voting representation in Congress.

Activists in Washington, DC are now trying to get the city approved as the 51st state. With a population (estimated at 693,000 in 2017) greater than Vermont or Wyoming, its residents argue that they deserve two Senators and a Representative as much as any states are entitled to them. They argue that the residents pay taxes, serve in the military and contribute to the welfare of the nation as a whole, so they should be entitled to the same rights.

Those who oppose Washington, DC becoming a state explain that there was a reason that the framers of the Constitution did not want the federal district to gain too much power. In Federalist #431, one of the authors of the Constitution and future President James Madison, explained that if the capital were in a state, that state would have too much power as members of Congress would be beholden to it as part-time residents.  However, Madison also writes that while not part of a state, the federal district’s citizens “will have had their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them.” This part of Federalist #43 is used by supporters of DC having representation in Congress to show that it wasn’t the intent for them to be disenfranchised.

In the election of November, 2016, DC voters overwhelmingly approved a referendum to make Washington the nation’s 51st state.2 To get around the Constitutional requirement that the federal district be under the control of Congress, the referendum carved out the area of the city with the White House, Congress and many of the federal departments as “federal district.” But the rest of the city would become the state of “New Columbia” with two Senators and a Representative. The referendum passed with over 78% of the vote.3

While she can’t vote on legislation, Eleanor Holmes Norton, DC’s delegate to the House of Representatives, did introduce a bill, H.R.51, the “Washington D.C. Admission Act” which would admit Washington, minus the federal properties, into the Union as the 51st state. While it is very unlikely it will pass through Congress right now, the groundwork is being laid for the possibility that the State of New Columbia will add its star to the American flag sometime in the future.

 

Discussion Questions

  1. Is using a license plate an appropriate form of protest? Why or why not?
  2. What are the strongest arguments in support of Washington DC becoming a state?
  3. What are the strongest arguments against Washington DC becoming a state?
  4. Do you support statehood for Washington? Why or why not?
  5. There is an argument that in order for Washington DC to become a state with representation, a Constitutional Amendment would need to be adopted allowing such a change. Do you think the current proposal, to carve out a federal district out of the federal buildings downtown and let the rest of the city become the new state, is allowable or do you believe the Constitution would have to be amended?  How do you support your position?

 

Sources
Featured Image: A sign supporting D.C. statehood on display outside an early voting site in Washington. (Susan Walsh/AP)
[1} Madison, James. Federalist #43. (1788) http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed43.asp
[2] Davis, Aaron C, “District voters overwhelmingly approve referendum to make D.C. the 51ststate.” Washinton Post, 8 November 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/district-voters-overwhelmingly-approve-referendum-to-make-dc-the-51st-state/2016/11/08/ff2ca5fe-a213-11e6-8d63-3e0a660f1f04_story.html?utm_term=.4e6629923c72
[3] “Washington, DC Statehood Referendum (November 2016). Ballotopedia. https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_D.C.,_Statehood_Referendum_(November_2016)

 

Trade War: What Is It Good For?

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

This past Friday, President Trump announced a new round of tariffs on $200 billion dollars’ worth of goods from China, increasing the rate from 10% to 25%. On Sunday, China announced retaliatory tariffs on $60 billion dollars’ worth of US goods increasing to a rate of 20-25%.1 The so-called ‘trade war’ between the US and China has been ongoing since the summer of 2018 and there is no clear end in sight. So, what does all of this mean?

 

Trade War: What Does It Mean?

A trade war usually centers on two nations with a trade imbalance. A trade imbalance occurs when Nation A imports more from Nation B than Nation B imports from Nation A.  Such imbalances are normal since it’s impossible for any trade relationship to ever be 100% balanced. However, when the imbalance gets too extreme it can start having a negative effect on the economy of whichever country is importing more goods. Generally speaking it essentially means that one country is getting more benefit out of the trade relationship than the other.

One way to offset this imbalance is by imposing tariffs. Tariffs are a fee that countries can place on certain goods, typically on imports. For example, let’s say a shopper who lives in Nation A goes to the supermarket to buy apples. Apples from Nation A are $2.50/lb while apples from Nation B are $2.00/lb. Naturally, the shopper buys the cheaper apples from Nation B, as do most other shoppers. As a result, Nation B’s apple growers make money, Nation A’s apple growers do not.

To address this problem the government of Nation A might impose a 30% tariff on apples from Nation B. When that shopper goes back to the grocery store to buy apples, Nation A’s apples are still $2.50/lb but now Nation B’s apples are $2.60/lb. That shopper now chooses to purchase Nation A’s apples, along with most other shoppers, and now Nation A’s apple growers make money while Nation B’s do not.

A trade war occurs when rather than yield to the pressure of tariffs, a country imposes its own tariffs instead. In our example, after Nation A imposes the tariff on Nation B’s apples, Nation B responds by placing a similar tariff on Nation A’s oranges. Both countries try to get the other to back off from tariffs by making it too costly to continue.

 

The US-China Trade War

With the US and China now embroiled in a trade war the question becomes: ‘Why?’ The Trump Administration has argued that tariffs on Chinese goods are necessary to decrease the trade imbalance between the US and China and will have the effect of growing the US agricultural industry and creating job opportunities in the US.2

However, many experts are skeptical of this plan. The President’s own economic advisor, Larry Kudlow, has stated that while the tariffs will ultimately do more damage to China’s overall economy, the US agricultural industry has been and will continue to be directly damaged as farmers are no longer able to sell soy beans, corn, and pork to Chinese markets.3 Many economists also point to the fact that whatever the goals of a trade war, the immediate result is that prices for consumers rise in both countries, meaning for most Americans the only observable effect of the tariffs will be that their grocery bills cost more.4

The trade war has also produced a precipitous effect on the stock market which opened at a two-month low on Monday as a result of China’s retaliatory tariff announcement. However, many economists argue that these dips in the stock market are usually only short-term.5

Ultimately though, the President’s trade war may be poorly timed if the goal is to restore balance in the US-China trade relationship. While China continues to depend on foreign exports for things like steel, oil, and heavy industrial goods (airplanes, cars, etc.) the Chinese government has also been laying the groundwork for a massive shift away from an export-driven economy to a domestic-focused economy as Chinese consumers gain more wealth and ability to purchase goods.6 While the trade war may be accelerating their timeline and making the transition more risky, the decline in access to foreign goods may wind up boosting Chinese domestic industries as the Chinese government had planned.

 

Discussion Questions

  1. Do you think the government should be involved in regulating trade between countries?
  2. Under what conditions, if any, is it acceptable for the government to impose tariffs?
  3. If it means the economy of the country as-a-whole will improve is it acceptable for the administration to continue the trade war even if it has a negative effect on a specific industry/group (ex. farmers)?
  4. Should the goal of the government always be to protect domestic industries or to pursue policies which make goods cheaper and the economy more efficient?

 

Sources
Featured Image: Associated Press; Andy Wong
[1] Swanson, A., Bradsher, K., & Sullivan, E. (2019, May 13). China Retaliates With Higher Tariffs as Trump Defends U.S. Approach. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/us/politics/us-china-trade-tariffs.html
[2] Trade wars, Trump tariffs and protectionism explained. (2019, May 10). Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-43512098
[3] Newburger, Emma. (2019, May 12). Kudlow acknowledges US will pay for China tariffs, contradicting Trump. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/12/kudlow-says-us-will-pay-for-china-tariffs-contradicting-trump.html
[4] Trade wars, Trump tariffs and protectionism explained. (2019, May 10). Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-43512098
[5] Wearden, G. (2019, May 13). Trade war: China hits back with new tariffs on US goods – business live. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2019/may/13/trade-war-investors-china-retaliation-us-tariffs-growth-stock-markets-business-live
[6] China showing some steel as industry avoids effects of trade war tariffs. (2019, February 14). Retrieved from https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/2186142/us-china-trade-war-having-no-effect-china-steel-amid-surging

 

A Flood of Democratic Candidates

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

The 2020 United States Presidential election is on Tuesday, November 3, 2020 (or 553 days from the publishing of this post) and already there are 21 Democrats who have formally begun their campaigns. Over the next several months, we will take a dive into who the candidates are and what they prioritize. In each candidacy post, we will work in order of when the announcement for president was made and briefly explore a few candidates at a time to make the information easier to digest.

Below is a chart of all current Democratic candidates and a link to their campaign site.

Candidate Title (current or former) Official Start
Date		 Campaign Site
John
Delaney		 a former U.S. representative from Maryland August 10, 2017 https://www.johndelaney.com/
Andrew
Yang		 an entrepreneur and author from New York November 6, 2017 https://www.yang2020.com/
Tulsi
Gabbard		 a U.S. representative from Hawaii January 11, 2019 https://www.tulsi2020.com/
Julián
Castro		 a former U.S. secretary of housing and urban development and San Antonio mayor January 12, 2019 https://www.julianforthefuture.com/
Kirsten
Gillibrand		 a U.S. senator from New York January 15, 2019 https://kirstengillibrand.com/
Kamala
Harris		 a U.S. senator from California January 21, 2019 https://kamalaharris.org/
Pete
Buttigieg		 the mayor of South Bend, Indiana January 23, 2019 https://peteforamerica.com/
Marianne Williamson an author and lecturer January 28, 2019 https://www.marianne2020.com/
Cory
Booker		 a U.S. senator from New Jersey February 1, 2019 https://corybooker.com/
Elizabeth Warren U.S. senator from Massachusetts February 9, 2019 https://elizabethwarren.com/
Amy
Klobuchar		 a U.S. senator from Minnesota February 10, 2019 https://amyklobuchar.com/
Bernie
Sanders		 a U.S. senator from Vermont February 19, 2019 https://berniesanders.com/
Jay Inslee the governor of Washington March 1, 2019 https://www.jayinslee.com/
John
Hickenlooper		 a former governor of Colorado March 4, 2019 https://www.hickenlooper.com/
Wayne
Messam		 the mayor of Miramar, Florida March 13, 2019 https://wayneforusa.com/
Beto
O’Rourke		 former U.S. representative from Texas March 14, 2019 https://betoorourke.com/
Mike
Gravel		 a former U.S. senator from Alaska April 2, 2019 https://mikegravel.com/
Tim Ryan a U.S. representative from Ohio April 4, 2019 https://timryanforamerica.com/
Eric
Swalwell		 a U.S. representative from California April 8, 2019 https://ericswalwell.com/
Seth
Moulton		 a U.S. representative from Massachusetts April 22, 2019 https://sethmoulton.com/
Joe Biden a former vice president of the United States April 25, 2019 https://joebiden.com/

 

Within the Democratic Party, there are significant differences of opinion on key issues. At times, this is discussed as a contest between progressive Democrats and centrist Democrats.1 Some argue that there are more than two “camps,” dividing the party into three or four factions.2 Regardless of the labels or number of different camps, it is clear that this will be a hotly contested primary that will highlight divisions—and key commonalities—among the Democratic candidates. Already, proposals such as Medicare for All, a living wage, the Green New Deal, and free public college are becoming litmus tests for candidates to show where they stand.3 (NOTE: See our previous blog posts about the Green New Deal and tuition-free public college.) In the coming weeks, less well-known candidates will be struggling to win a place on the debate stage and to win that place securely. There are two ways to ensure a place in the Democratic party debates, and candidates want to meet both thresholds in order to show their strength. Candidates can secure debate spots by receiving at least one percent support in three approved polls or by securing at least 200 donors per state in at least 20 states. Several of the announced candidates are in danger of missing the first debate in late June.4

 

Discussion Questions

  1. How might the number and types of candidates from one political party impact the election overall? How might it impact the chances of that party winning the presidency?
  2. If you were in charge of the Democratic Party, would you make it more difficult for candidates to secure a position in the debate? Easier? What would you change, if anything?
  3. Looking at this list, do you notice anything interesting about the Democratic candidates who have announced their campaigns? Are there any noticeable trends?
  4. Are there any candidates from this list who immediately jump out at you because of something you know about them? Is what you know about them something having to do with their political views, something personal about them, or both? Does what you know about them make you more or less likely to support their candidacy for President? Why?
  5. Are there any candidates whom you have never heard of before or whom you know very little about their political views? What are some strategies you could use to learn more about those candidates? Why, if at all, is it important to learn more about those candidates?
  6. Of the candidates listed here, are there any that you initially think could have a good chance of defeating President Trump in the 2020 election? Why or why not?

 

Sources
Featured Image: New York Times “Who’s Running for President in 2020?” https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/2020-presidential-candidates.html
[1] Ed Kilgore. “What is a Centrist Democrat, Anyway?” New York Magazine. August 10, 2018. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/08/centrists-progressives-and-other-democratic-labels.html
[2] Noah Redlich. “The Four Democratic Parties.” Harvard Politics. March 19, 2018. https://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/the-four-democratic-parties/
[3] Jennifer Earl. “Three Bernie Sanders Policies Now Embraced by the Democratic Field.” Fox News. April 11, 2019. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bernie-sanders-policies-now-embraced-by-the-democratic-field AND Rashaan Ayesh. “Where the 2020 Presidential Candidates stand on the Green New Deal.” Axios. April 29, 2019. https://www.axios.com/2020-presidential-candidates-green-new-deal-22faff60-3fee-45f3-8636-09e437c82431.html
[4] Maggie Astor, Denise Lu & Matt Stevens. “Who’s in the Democratic Debates, and Who’s in Danger of Missing Them.” The New York Times. April 29, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/29/us/politics/democratic-primary-debates-2020.html?mtrref=www.google.com

 

Should Public College Be Free?

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

College has not only gotten expensive, but the cost becomes a burden for years. When graduating an undergraduate program, the average student leaves with over $37,000 in student loan debt. This is a $20,000 increase from 20 years ago. Over 70% of students today graduate with a significant amount of loans with an average of a $393 monthly payment.¹ What impact might this have on their lives as they start their careers?

The main cause of this student debt is the rise in tuition over the past three decades. While the average private college undergraduate tuition has climbed over $18,000, Four-year public colleges and universities now average over $10,000, tripling what they used to cost. While two-year institutions are a much lower $3660 per year, they have also doubled in price.

(Source: The College Board, https://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/cp-2018-figure-3.png)

To address this issue, two Democratic Senators running for President, Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT) and Elizabeth Warren (MA) have both produced proposals that would make higher education at public colleges and universities free to those who are accepted into the schools.

Bernie Sanders calls his “The College For All Act.” The legislation would:

  • Provide $47 billion a year to states to eliminate tuition at public colleges and universities.
  • The federal government would cover 2/3 of the cost while states would be required to provide 1/3 of the total cost.
  • The Act would cut student loan interest rates from 4.32% to 2.32% by changing the loan formula. Current student loans would be allowed to be refinanced.
  • Work-Study would be expanded so more students would qualify to work and earn money at school.
  • The proposal is paid through a “Robin Hood” tax on Wall Street. This tax would be imposed at a rate of 0.5% on stock trades and a 0.1% fee on bonds.

Elizabeth Warren’s proposal starts with student loan debt elimination and then eliminates public school tuition with her “Universal Free College” program. The proposal:

  • Cancels $50,000 in student debt for households with incomes under $100,000; This debt cancellation slowly lowers until households with over $250,000 in income do not get debt relief.
  • Splits the cost of tuition with states to make public 2-year and 4-year public colleges and universities free.
  • Adds an additional $100 billion to Pell grants to cover non-tuition expenses such as room, meals and textbooks.
  • Makes additional funding available to states that make dramatic improvements in graduating low-income students and students of color
  • While debt cancellation will be a one-time cost of $640 billion, Universal Free College will cost an estimated $1.2 trillion over 10 years. Warren plans on paying for that through an “Ultra-Millionaire Tax.” This would tax households with over $50 million in wealth an extra 2% per year, and those above $1 billion an extra 3%.

While both proposals address college tuition and college debt, they do so in different ways.

 

Discussion Questions

  • Have students examine the Sanders and Warren proposals more closely.
    • In what areas are they specific, and in what ways might one find them vague?
    • What questions do you still have after reading these proposals?
    • Which one do you think is stronger? Why?
  • First, read the following two quotes about free tuition proposals and discuss which quote is closest to your own view? Why?
    • “Going to college shouldn’t result in a lifetime sentence of student debt, but that is exactly what is happening and it’s only getting worse. [Tuition-Free College] would release Americans from their debt sentence so they can live their lives, care for their families and have a fair shot at the American dream.”  – Randi Weingarten, President, AmericanFederation of Teachers2
    • “People go to college, and often take on loans to do so, at least in part to greatly increase their lifetime earnings. It is unfair that they should not have to repay the taxpayers who had no choice but to give them that money, on the terms the borrowers voluntarily agreed to. Ending tuition and fees at public colleges would also be unfair, forcing taxpayers to fund the private gain of students, especially students from more well-to-do families, who tend disproportionately to go to college,”- Neil B. McCluskey, Director, Center for Educational Freedom at the CATO Institute.3
  • What are the benefits of providing tuition-free public college education? What are some of the problems with it?
  • Would you support a Tuition Free College proposal? Why or why not?  If no, do you think anything should be done about the rising costs of tuition and mounting student debt? If so, what would you propose?

 

 

Sources
Featured Image: Jeff Stahler, GoComics.com
[1] Hess, Abigail. “Here’s how much the average student borrower owes when they graduate.” Cnbc.com 18 February 2018. Retrieved 22 April 2019. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/15/heres-how-much-the-average-student-loan-borrower-owes-when-they-graduate.html
[2] Herndon, Astead W. “Elizabeth Warren’s Higher Education Plan: Cancel Student Debt and Eliminate Tuition.” 22 April 2019. The New York Times. Retrieved 22 April 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-student-debt.html
[3] Ibid.

 

 

Shifting Debate over Paid Family Leave

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

In the midst of economic policy debates on tariffs and trading gaps, one policy debate has continued for years in many different iterations: Paid Family Leave.  This week, the Senate introduced Bill 1174 as a companion bill to the House’s 2019 Federal Employees Paid Leave Act. Both bills support 12 weeks of paid leave for federal employees in cases of births, adoptions, fostering a child as well as taking time to support sick family members or long term illness of the employee.¹ The bill, sponsored by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) is not the first time that the House has tried to enter into deliberation over paid sick and parental leave for federal employees. There have been House bills introduced since 2009 with similar aims.  But this House bill does coincide with a vocal interest from the Trump administration to tackle family leave and a very high-profile interest from presidential daughter and advisor Ivanka Trump.² The House bill has bi-partisan support with 27 co-sponsoring the bill and now with the additional Senate bill, it seems that Congress is hoping the support from the President will be the push that the long-standing debate needs.

As Congress debates the leave policies for federal employees, what does this mean for other workers in the U.S.? Unlike any other industrial nation, the United States has no laws guaranteeing paid family leave. In the past few years, some states, including California and Connecticut, have enacted state laws regarding paid family leave, but currently there are no federal statutes that mandate any paid leave for new parents, employees who care for sick family members, or leave for elderly care.

A recent poll, cited by the Brooking Institution, shows that 84 percent of Americans support paid family leave. ³ Supporters span across the political spectrum from more liberal women’s rights advocates to more conservative family values groups.   There are also vocal opponents of paid family leave, who argue that paid leave will burden small business owners and impede the ability for employers to make the best decisions for their own organization and their own employees.

In 1993, the Family and Medical Leave act ensured unpaid leave and since that point, the debate over paid leave has continued in some form.  Many lawmakers, including the most recent bill’s sponsor, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, but also presidential hopeful Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and current House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer have tried unsuccessfully to introduce paid family leave legislation in the past.  Only now, when the Presidential Administration is lending more bipartisan support, does the bill have a chance of success.  Recently Ivanka Trump was quoted as saying “We are seeking to build consensus around policy that can garner enough votes to be passed into law.”₄

Time will tell if an all-encompassing paid leave law will be enacted to impact all U.S. workers, but a law that impacts federal workers is a good indication on how Congress is leaning on this issue.

 

Questions 

  • Imagine a written policy  response to the Family Leave Act from differing organizations’ viewpoints:
    • Labor unions
    • Small Business associations
    • Doctors and healthcare workers
    • Religious leaders
    • Disability rights advocates
  • What are the main economic issues at debate?  The main societal issues?
  • Do you think that  policies are harder to debate when they include personal impact like issues of family and health?  Should Congress view the policy through a personal lens or focus only on the economic impact?
  • What is the role of the federal government in the employer/employee relationship? Should the government ensure fair treatment of employees through blanket legislation on family leave? Or does this type of legislation give government over-reach to meddle in contracts between employers and their employees?

 

Sources
Featured Image: Information source: U.S. Department of Labor; Bureau of Labor Statistics; Image from: https://bthechange.com/3-reasons-paid-family-leave-matters-863d08dd96a5
[1] Wagner, E. (2019, April 12). Senators Join In Renewed Efforts to Give Feds Paid Family Leave. Retrieved from https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2019/04/senators-join-renewed-efforts-give-feds-paid-family-leave/156289/
[2] House Democrats revive efforts to give federal employees paid family leave. (2019, March 06). Retrieved fromhttps://federalnewsnetwork.com/pay-benefits/2019/03/house-democrats-revive-efforts-to-give-federal-employees-paid-family-leave/
[3] Mathur, A., & Sawhill, I. (2018, September 09). A path forward on paid family leave. Retrieved from https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/405568-a-path-forward-on-paid-family-leave
[4] Salam, M. (2019, February 15). Could the U.S. Get Paid Family Leave? It’s Looking Better Than Ever. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/15/us/paid-family-leave.html

 

 

Should the US designate an official language?

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

The United States is one of a few nations in the world to have no official language designated. While the Constitution gives no reason for this, many reasons have been suggested by experts. Several bills have been introduced in Congress to designate English as the national language in the United States, but none have ever been successfully passed into law. This debate is open again because a new bill has been introduced in Congress. On February 6, 2019, Rep. Steve King (R-IA), who was stripped of his committee assignments after making comments supporting white supremacy and white nationalism1, introduced HR997 English Language Unity Act of 2019. If enacted, this bill would designate English as the official national language of the United States of America. As of this writing, the number of co-sponsors is at 11 and all are from the Republican party.2 The bill was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor and the Committee on the Judiciary.

 

A Brief Overview of Language in the United States

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, while the most widely spoken language in the United States is English (and that is the language used for most governmental functions), over 350 different languages are spoken in homes across the nation.3 This number has not changed significantly since the founding of the country, when almost 300 indigenous languages were spoken in North America4, but the composition of the languages has changed. Data from the American Community Survey shows that the types of languages spoken by residents vary by region and that there is the most diversity in metropolitan cities. In fact, over 91% of the population of non-metropolitan areas in the U.S. speaks English only.5For example, in the Washington DC metro area there are at least 168 spoken languages and 26% of the metro area population speaks a language other than English at home.2One of the smaller language groups found there is the collection of Amharic language speakers (the estimate is 43,125 residents).

 

A Brief Background of Related Legislation

The United States has never been a one language nation, but a debate has existed since our founding about whether we should be. For example, in 1755 (prior to the American Revolution), Benjamin Franklin wrote about his growing concern that German immigrants to Pennsylvania would eventually dominate the English with their customs and language.6 Later, in 1780, John Adams—who had written extensively on his belief that our new nation needed a common language7 — wrote to Congress to request the creation of “The American Academy, for refining, improving and ascertaining the English Language8.” Throughout the late 19thand 20thcenturies, the federal government operated boarding schools in which American Indian students were punished harshly for speaking or writing in their tribe’s language.9

In 1981, Senator Samuel Hayakawa (R-CA) introduced an amendment to the constitution entitled, the English Language Amendment (ELA). This amendment would have designated English the nation’s official language. Though it did not pass, Senator Hayakawa helped found an organization to keep the movement for English as the nation’s official language alive: US English, INC., which describes itself as “the nation’s oldest and largest non-partisan citizens’ action group dedicated to preserving the unifying role of the English language in the United States.10” Several of bills have been introduced since the ELA. While a few have been able to gain approval in either the House or the Senate, none have ever passed through both chambers of Congress and, as such, have died before passing into law.

Despite the introduction of many bills, Congress has never agreed to designate English as the official language of the United States. So what is the U.S. official language debate over?

 

Why Should English be The Official Language of The United States:

  • It promotes unity: Making the official language English “promotes unity and empowers immigrants by encouraging them to learn English, the language of opportunity in this country.”11
  • It protects English as the majority language: “English needs constitutional protection at this late date in our nation’s history because of the unique threat posed by the growing Spanish-speaking population of the United States.”12
  • It urges immigrants to assimilate more quickly to American life: “Bilingual education and multilingual [voting] ballots discourage rather than encourage assimilation, send mixed signals about what is important in American life, encourage separatism and hostility toward American ideals…”13
  • It does not violate freedom of speech because it is not required: “Because Official English legislation is a limitation on government, not private individuals, it does not violate the principle of freedom of speech.”14
  • There are too many languages to accommodate them all:There are over 350 languages spoken in the United States and we cannot create government materials for all of them.15

 

Why Shouldn’t English be The Official Language of The United States:

  • This legislation is not needed because English as the majority language is not under threat: While there may be a large number of people who speak languages other than English in the United States, the rate of English proficiency among foreign-born citizens is actually on the rise. The census data shows that “of those who spoke a language other than English at home, 59.7 percent also spoke English “very well.” This is a 2.6% increase from the 2007-2011 data.16
  • It is at odds with our ideals: It is a denial of the “essential ideals of tolerance and respect for diversity that underlie American democracy…and a return to racial and ethnic discrimination and the xenophobia that marked much of American history.”17
  • It is discriminatory: “H.R. 997 simply discriminates against those who have not yet learned English or those perceived not to be proficient in English, with damaging consequences for society as a whole.”18
  • It should be left up to the states: The States should have the right to choose (or not choose) an official language for themselves.
  • It is typically the home language that is lost through immigration: It is not English that is likely to die out, but the native language of immigrants as they attempt to assimilate. A pattern has been found that seems to repeat itself: the third-generation (the grandchildren of immigrants) will likely speak only English.  Their grandparents will attempt to learn English when they immigrate, their parents will be bilingual (English plus the home language), and by the third-generation the only language known is English.19
  • We should be taking an English Plus, not English Only approach:In an ever-increasing global community more language acquisition, not less, should be encouraged for U.S. residents.20

 

Discussion Questions

  • Do you think that the United States should designate an official national language? Why or why not? Shoud the U.S. designate multiple official languages?
  • Moving into the future, what specific impact (if any) would the designation of a national language have on the lives of everyday people? On the workings of the government? On some other area of U.S. life?
  • Do you believe that “all citizens should be able to read and understand generally the English language text of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance of the Constitution”?

 

Sources
Featured Image: William Thomas Cain, Getty Images (https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Famously-divisive-speak-English-sign-pulled-9976088.php#photo-9447584)
[1] Opsahl, Robin. “Everything That’s Happened with Rep. Steve King since His New York Times Comments.” DesMoinesRegister.com, Des Moines Register, 23 Jan. 2019, www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/16/iowa-4th-district-rep-steve-king-white-supremacy-nationalism-new-york-times-racism-timeline-explain/2592434002/
[2] Text – H.R.997 – 116th Congress (2019-2020): English Language Unity Act of 2019. (2019, February 06). Retrieved March 21, 2019, from https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/997/text.
[3] US Census Bureau. (2015, November 03). Census Bureau Reports at Least 350 Languages Spoken in U.S. Homes. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-185.html.
[4] Braun, David Max. “Preserving Native America’s Vanishing Languages.” National Geographic, National Geographic Society, 14 Dec. 2017, blog.nationalgeographic.org/2009/11/15/preserving-native-americas-vanishing-languages/
[5] Rumbaut & Massey (2013). Immigration and Language Diversity in the United States. Daedalus, 142(3). Retrieved March 22, 2019, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4092008/#.
[6] Wagner, S. T. (1981). America’s Non-English Heritage. Society,19(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02694611.
[7] Do you speak American? (2005). Retrieved March 22, 2019, from https://www.pbs.org/speak/seatosea/officialamerican/johnadams/.
[8] National Archives. (2019, January 18). Founders Online: From John Adams to the President of Congress, No. 6, 5 September 1780. Retrieved March 22, 2019, from https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-10-02-0067.
[9] Bear, Charla. “American Indian Boarding Schools Haunt Many.” NPR, NPR, 12 May 2008, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16516865.
[10] Our History. (2017, December 05). Retrieved March 22, 2019, from https://www.usenglish.org/history.
[11] Questions and Answers about Official English. (2017, December 05). Retrieved March 22, 2019, from https://www.usenglish.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/QandAaboutOE.pdf.
[12] Leibowicz, J. (1984). The Proposed English Language Amendment: Shield or Sword?Yale Law & Policy Review,3(2). Retrieved March 22, 2019, from https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylpr/vol3/iss2/9.
[13] Leibowicz, “Shield or Sword”, 1984.
[14] Questions and Answers, www.usenglish.org, 2017.
[15] U.S. Census Bureau, “350 Languages”, 2015.
[16] U.S. Census Bureau, “350 Languages”, 2015.
[17] Leibowicz, “Shield or Sword”, 1984.
[18] ACLU Washington Legislative Office. (2012, August 2). ACLU Statement for hearing on HR 997, the English Language Unity Act of 2011. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-statement-hearing-hr-997-english-language-unity-act-2011.
[19] Do you speak American? (2005).
[20] Linguistic Society of America. (1 July 1987). Resolution: English Only.Retrieved from https://www.linguisticsociety.org/resource/resolution-english-only.

 

Should the Federal Government Legalize Marijuana?

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

On Feb. 28, the day he introduced the Marijuana Justice Act, (S.597) Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) tweeted, “The failed War on Drugs has really been a war on people—disproportionately criminalizing poor people, people of color & people with mental illness. I’m reintroducing the #MarijuanaJustice Act to begin reversing our failed federal drug policies.”

The views expressed by Sen. Booker illustrate a growing movement to take Marijuana off the federal government’s list of dangerous drugs. From being a target during the War on Drugs, to full legalization of weed in several states, policy approaches to marijuana sales, possession and use have changed radically over the past decade. Despite many strong opponents of federally decriminalizing weed in any form, access for medical purposes up to full legalization has been gaining momentum in the states.

Should the Federal Government legalize Marijuana? As of now:

  • Marijuana is legal in 10 states plus Washington, DC
  • Thirty-two states, plus DC, allow access to marijuana for medical purposes
  • Thirteen states have decriminalized – but not legalized – marijuana possession
  • About 73% of Americans support Medical Marijuana access according to a 2010 Pew Survey1

Use this map to learn about marijuana laws in your state

The view of marijuana being legalized federally has not been consistent. Under former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Trump Justice Department took a hardline view of state marijuana laws, rescinding a guidance letter that basically stated that the federal government would not interfere with state marijuana laws. But the new Attorney General, William Barr, stated at his confirmation hearing and after that he would not meddle with states’ marijuana regulations.2 President Trump has indicated he would support the blanket federal legalization of weed.

Those opposed to making marijuana legal and more accessible have a number of arguments, but the two main ones are (1) Marijuana use leads to many detrimental health effects,4 and (2) Legal marijuana means the companies who are ready to take advantage of the newly legal product (“Big Marijuana”) will market the product aggressively both to those who already smoke it and those who are susceptible to advertising, leading to much greater use than under current conditions.5

However, Senator Booker and Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) want to not only federally decriminalize weed but to mitigate what they view as the harm caused by the War on Drugs and, specifically, the incarceration of those charged with possession of marijuana. According to NORML, and organization that seeks reform of the laws that regulate marijuana, the bill would:

  1. Remove marijuana from the US Controlled Substances Act, thereby ending the federal criminalization of cannabis;
  2. Incentivize states to mitigate existing and ongoing racial disparities in state-level marijuana arrests;
  3. Expunge federal convictions specific to marijuana possession;
  4. Allow individuals currently serving time in federal prison for marijuana-related violations to petition the court for resentencing;
  5. Create a community reinvestment fund to invest in communities most impacted by the failed War on Drugs.6

 

Discussion Questions

  1. What have you heard about the War on Drugs? Medical marijuana? Marijuana legalization?
  2. Why do you think these issues are so complicated?
  3. What are the reasons it might be better for drug-related laws to be written at the state level? What are reasons it might be better to set such policy at the national level? At which level do you believe policy regarding marijuana should be set? Why?
  4. What are some reasons marijuana should remain illegal? What are some reasons why marijuana should be legal and/or decriminalized? Do you think marijuana should be legal? Why?
  5. What are some reasons to support the Marijuana Justice Act? What are some reasons to oppose the Marijuana Justice Act?
  6. Which parts or goals of the bill do you think are most important? Why?
  7. If you were a Member of Congress and this bill came to a vote, would you vote for it or against it? Explain your vote.

 

Sources
Featured Image Credit: Joe Raedle/Getty Images
[1] Lopez, German. “Marijuana is legal for medical purposes in 32 states.” 14 November 2018. Vox.com Retrieved 3/17/2018. https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/8/20/17938366/medical-marijuana-legalization-states-map
[2] Lopez, German “The Trump Administration’s crackdown on marijuana might end with Bill Barr.” 28 January 2019. Vox.com. Retrieved 3/17/2019. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/28/18200982/marijuana-legalization-trump-jeff-sessions-william-barr
[3] Halper, Evan. “Trump says he is likely to support ending blanket federal ban on marijuana.” 8 June 2018. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 3/18.19.
[4] Nemko, Marty. “Legalize Pot? You Must Be High!” 7 November 2014. Time.comRetrieved 3/18/19. http://time.com/3573394/legalize-pot-you-must-be-high/
[5] Lopez, German. “The case against marijuana legalization.” 14 November 2018. Vox.com. Retrieved 3/17/19. https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/8/20/17938414/big-marijuana-legalization-corporations-advertising
[6] “Federal: The Marijuana Justice Act.” NORML Action Network. Retrieved 3/18/19. https://actionnetwork.org/letters/federal-the-marijuana-justice-act-of-2017-introduced