Scot Wilson, Author at Close Up Foundation

What Is Happening in Ukraine?

Posted on January 26, 2022October 24, 2023 by Scot Wilson

President Joe Biden has ordered the Pentagon to put 8,500 U.S. troops on heightened alert for a possible deployment to Europe.¹ And the State Department has told the families of U.S. diplomats in Ukraine to leave the country as the possibility of a Russian invasion increases.² So, what is the situation in Ukraine?

Background on Ukraine

Ukraine is the second largest country in Europe, after Russia, and gained its independence in late 1991 after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It maintains deep ties to Russia, and many Russian leaders regret the separation. Ukraine’s leadership used to be aligned with Russia, but its top trading partner is now China and more than half of Ukraine’s population supports joining the European Union.³

Controlling Ukrainian territory has many advantages. It has some of the world’s most fertile soil and it’s located along the route of Russian oil and gas pipelines to Europe. Russia supplies Europe with 40 percent of its natural gas and 25 percent of its oil.⁴

In 2014, after Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, an ally of Russia, was forced out of office and a pro-Western candidate was elected in his place, separatists in eastern Ukraine began to rebel with Russian military aid. That war has killed over 15,000 people in the Donbas region. Russia also invaded the Crimean Peninsula that year and now controls it.⁵

The Role of Russia

Russia recently moved 100,000 troops and arms toward Belarus, a Russian ally and a neighbor of Ukraine, for military exercises. Russian President Vladimir Putin insists that he is not planning an invasion of Ukraine. Instead, he claims that the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are trying to destabilize the region by sending in weapons and military advisors.⁶ Putin has spoken out against NATO before; in 2008, he warned that steps to bring Ukraine into the alliance “would be a hostile act toward Russia.”⁷

The Role of the United States

President Biden was vice president when the Russian military took control of Crimea, and he has said that Putin may try to “test the West” with another invasion. President Biden sent $650 million in defensive military aid and helped Ukraine procure missiles and aircraft. So far, no one has said the troops on alert would go directly to Ukraine; rather, they would be posted to support NATO members such as Poland or those in the Baltics.⁸

The United States has imposed economic sanctions on Russia since 2014. However, experts have debated their efficacy, since Russian oil and gas are essential to U.S. allies in Europe. The Biden administration is also considering using the “foreign direct product rule,” which would prohibit U.S. tech companies from exporting goods to Russia.⁹

READ MORE: This isn’t President Biden’s first foreign policy dilemma; read on the blog about the U.S. exit from Afghanistan

The Role of NATO

NATO was founded in 1949 in response to the Cold War between the West and the Soviet Union. By signing the treaty, member states agree to defend each other if any are invaded. After the Soviet Union dissolved, several former Soviet republics began the process of joining NATO, which Russia opposed. Ukraine has applied to be a member, but it is not one yet.¹⁰

Putin has demanded assurances that Ukraine will not join NATO and an end to military exercises near its border. For his part, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has said that Russia has no say over who is allowed to join NATO.¹¹

The Situation in Ukraine

Recent elections indicate that Ukrainians prefer closer cooperation with the West than with Russia.¹² Ukraine has criticized as premature the United States and other countries pulling diplomats’ families from embassies. A spokesperson for Ukraine’s foreign ministry said, “The threat of a new wave of Russian aggression has been permanent since 2014, and the build-up of Russian forces on the state border began in April of last year.” Despite this confidence, there is concern that the Russian military build-up is meant to threaten the internal stability of Ukraine.¹³

Attempts at Diplomacy

Last week, Blinken met with Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov in an attempt to defuse the situation in Ukraine. Blinken and Lavrov left the meeting affirming plans to continue speaking, and they said that a talk between the presidents of the two countries is possible. This statement came before the announcement that U.S. troops could be headed to the region or that more severe sanctions could be coming.

Discussion Questions

Why might Russia be taking aggressive steps against Ukraine?
Does the United States have a responsibility to protect other sovereign nations from invasion? Why or why not?
What do you think the United States’ foreign policy priorities should be in the region?
How would you advise President Biden to achieve those priorities?
What factors are complicating the U.S. response to the situation?

Other Resources

Read the whole letter from Putin
Map of the former Soviet Union (the second picture with the map of former socialist republics and their flags)
NATO and Ukraine Cooperation Framework

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Hannah Dormido

[1] Burns, Robert, and Lorne Cook. “U.S. Puts 8,500 Troops on Heightened Alert Amid Russia Tension.” Associated Press. 24 Jan. 2022. Web. 24 Jan. 2022.

[2] Bowman, Emma. “State Department Orders Families of Embassy Staff to Leave Ukraine.” NPR. 23 Jan. 2022. Web. 24 Jan. 2022.

[3] Masters, Jonathan. “Ukraine: Conflict at the Crossroads of Europe and Russia.” Council on Foreign Relations. 2 Dec. 2021. Web. 19 Jan. 2022.

[4] Ibid.

[5] U.S. Department of State, Office of the Spokesperson. “Fact vs. Fiction: Russian Disinformation on Ukraine.” 20 Jan. 2022. Web. 21 Jan. 2022.

[6] Cooper, Helene. “U.S. Considers Backing an Insurgency if Russia Invades Ukraine.” New York Times. 14 Jan. 2022. Web. 19 Jan. 2022.

[7] Masters, Jonathan. “Ukraine: Conflict at the Crossroads of Europe and Russia.” Council on Foreign Relations. 2 Dec. 2021. Web. 19 Jan. 2022.

[8] Burns, Robert, and Lorne Cook. “U.S. Puts 8,500 Troops on Heightened Alert Amid Russia Tension.” Associated Press. 24 Jan. 2022. Web. 24 Jan. 2022.

[9] Nakashima, Ellen, and Jeanne Whalen. “U.S. Threatens Use of Novel Export Control to Damage Russia’s Strategic Industries if Moscow Invades Ukraine.” Washington Post. 23 Jan. 2022. Web. 24 Jan. 2022.

[10] NATO. “What is NATO?” Web. 24 Jan. 2022.

[11] Lee, Matthew, and Lorne Cook. “US, NATO Rule Out Halt to Expansion, Reject Russian Demands.” Associated Press. 7 Jan. 2022. Web. 19 Jan. 2022.

[12] Masters, Jonathan. “Ukraine: Conflict at the Crossroads of Europe and Russia.” Council on Foreign Relations. 2 Dec. 2021. Web. 19 Jan. 2022.

[13] Schwitz, Michael, and Steven Erianger. “NATO Steps Up Readiness in Eastern Europe to Reassure Allies.” New York Times. 24 Jan. 2022. Web. 24 Jan. 2022.

Another Hot One: 2021

Posted on January 18, 2022November 22, 2023 by Scot Wilson

It’s official: 2021 was either the fifth or sixth hottest year on record, depending on who you ask.

On January 13, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued reports saying that 2021 was the sixth hottest year ever recorded, going back to when record-keeping began in 1880.¹ Earlierin the week, the Copernicus Climate Change Service, whose researchers are based in the European Union, released its own analysis, calculating 2021 temperature records to be the fifth hottest history.² Although there are variations in the rankings based on how the averages were calculated, the overall data still align and reach the same conclusion: 2021 was yet another hot one.

This distinction comes as no surprise to climate scientists, whose analyses have shown that global temperatures have continued to break records in recent years. The year 2020 tied with 2016 as the hottest years, according to NASA.³ NASA’s data shows that “Earth’s average temperature has risen more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.2 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century” and that human activity—namely greenhouse gas emissions—is the root cause of this change.⁴

This is part of a broad trend of record-breaking temperatures. The previous seven years have been the seven hottest on record.⁵ And according to the NOAA, July 2021 was the single hottest month ever recorded.⁶ NOAA administrator Rick Spinrad characterized this data as a continuation of “the disturbing and disruptive path that climate change has set for the globe.”⁷

The effects of climate change can be seen around the world in extreme heatwaves, droughts, wildfires, and other severe weather events such as storms, hurricanes, and tornados, which increase in strength and frequency due to warmer temperatures. “We do not live in a stable climate now,” said Robert Rohde of Berkeley Earth, an organization focused on climate science. “We will expect to see more extremes and more all-time records being set.”⁸

U.S. 2021 Climate Crisis and Billion-Dollar Weather

This fall, the United Nations Climate Change Conference, known as COP26, met in Glasgow in what its organizers dubbed the “last, best hope to save the planet.”⁹ It ended with an agreement between more than 200 countries to come back in a year with stronger, concrete plans on how to mitigate the effects of climate change and the recognition that wealthier nations need to increase their funding for these efforts.¹⁰ There was also consensus about the urgency of the issue and ongoing conversations about what should be done, such as curtailing methane emissions and ending deforestation.¹¹ However, nations disagreed about how quickly they need to reduce emissions and by how much—information that is vital to address climate change on a global scale.¹² Nineteen-year-old environmental activist Greta Thunberg criticized the apparent lack of action in a tweet: “The #COP26 is over. Here’s a brief summary: Blah, blah, blah.”¹³

Discussion Questions

Have you seen or experienced any effects of climate change in 2021?
On a scale of 1-5 (with 1 being “not important” and 5 being “extremely important”), how important is the issue of climate change to you and your community?
How seriously do you think elected leaders in the federal government take the issue of climate change? In your state or local government?
Considering the enormous scale of the issue, how do you think the U.S. government should respond to climate change?

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Sky News

[1] Los Angeles Times: https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2022-01-13/2021-was-earths-6th-hottest-year-nasa-and-noaa-say

[2] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/10/climate/2021-hottest-year.html

[3] NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/2020-tied-for-warmest-year-on-record-nasa-analysis-shows

[4] Ibid.

[5] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/13/climate/cop26-climate-summit-takeaways.html

[6] NOAA: https://www.noaa.gov/news/its-official-july-2021-was-earths-hottest-month-on-record

[7] Ibid.

[8] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/12/climate/nyt-climate-newsletter-temperature-records.html

[9] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/13/climate/cop26-climate-summit-takeaways.html

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Twitter: https://twitter.com/gretathunberg/status/1459612735294029834?lang=en

The Great Resignation

Posted on January 13, 2022April 28, 2023 by Scot Wilson

Across the United States, towns and cities are flooded with “Help Wanted” signs on business doors. The U.S. job market has seen its share of ups and downs over the last two years, but 2021 was a year of record-breaking highs in many categories. The two most important: record-breaking quits and record-breaking new job openings.

According to the most recent Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) released by the Department of Labor, a record high of 4.5 million Americans quit their jobs in November 2021 alone.¹ This number contributes to the 20 million people who resigned during the second half of 2021. ²

Economists and the media have dubbed this phenomenon “The Great Resignation” or “The Big Quit.” These numbers starkly contrast with the early months of the pandemic, when nearly 22 million people lost their jobs in only two months.³

Source: https://www.ziprecruiter.com/blog/december-2021-jobs-report/

$Source: https://theconversation.com/the-great-resignation-historical-data-and-a-deeper-analysis-show-its-not-as-great-as-screaming-headlines-suggest-174454 \$

Along with record-high job turnover, we are simultaneously experiencing record-high job openings across the nation. The job market reached historical pinnacles in 2021, with a record 6.4 million job openings (the highest number in history for one year) and an unemployment rate of 3.9 percent.⁴ For some perspective, this is 51 percent higher than the booming 4.3 million jobs added in 1946 following World War II.⁵ Furthermore, it took three times as long (three years total) to add the same number of jobs during the recovery from the Great Recession.⁶ It is possible to assume that we are just getting back jobs lost during the hot months of the pandemic, but as the chart below shows, the U.S. economy has 50.6 percent more positions open now than before the pandemic began.⁷ Meanwhile, in November 2021, the number of hires held steady at 6.7 million across all U.S. industries and regions.⁸ It seems we have the jobs, but not the workers.

With more jobs available than workers, people ask: “How do we bring even more people to work?” Economists and experts from employment-focused companies such as Linkedin and ZipRecruiter have conducted surveys and analyzed employment data to try and discover what is driving the wave of resignations and what employees are looking for in opportunities.

The most straightforward answer would be that the unemployment benefits from the COVID-19 pandemic are driving people toward the Great Resignation. However, both data and expert opinion suggest that this is an oversimplification of the current situation. Many people are not returning to the same or any workplace once benefits have ended. For example, a restaurant owner from Greenville, South Carolina, told 60 Minutes in an interview that his employees who never returned found other jobs that better aligned with their wishes and goals.⁹

WATCH: Reps. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa., and Greg Murphy, R-N.C., debate the causes and remedies for the Great Resignation in a video from our partners, A Starting Point.

Many experts believe it is about more than money; it is about quality of life. Anthony Klotz, the man credited with coining the term “The Great Resignation,” told NBC in an interview that it’s not that people have stopped working. Instead, he said, they are making a change. “This great resignation and the turnover that goes along with it is individuals taking their futures, their careers into their own hands and trying to craft a life that is more meaningful for them and their families,” he said.¹⁰ In addition, people working in lower-wage jobs may find that quitting allows them to find higher wages with less potential exposure to COVID-19. Since the pandemic, many employees are looking for more flexibility in hours, remote work options, safety measures, reduced exposure to COVID-19, and good pay/benefits for work they find meaningful.¹¹

On the other end of the spectrum, some people argue that there is no Great Resignation happening at all; this is simply how the job market flows. These people say that the quit rate isn’t that big of a deal because many people have been quitting their jobs for years. While comparatively high for a standard year (about five percent higher than an average number of quits per year), the rates are likely similar to workforce quits seen during other significant moments in history, such as pre-and post-World War II, but quits data was not being collected then.¹² These people argue that the hype makes it seem like more people are leaving jobs across industries than is actually happening. While all job sectors have seen increases in resignations, a handful make up a large portion of those numbers (e.g., accommodation and food service, which makes sense given the parameters of COVID-19).¹³ (For information on specific quit rates, see the chart above.)

Whatever the reason for the open jobs and resignations, most people believe the tables have turned in favor of employees—for now. As such, if employers want to fill open positions, it may require an adjustment to what work looks like moving forward.

Discussion Questions

From what you already know and what you have read, does it seem like a Great Resignation is going on in the United States? Why or why not?
What impact, if any, do you think having too many jobs available and not enough employees could have on the economy?
Why do you think so many people are quitting their jobs during the pandemic? Have you heard of anyone leaving their job or starting a new career? What were the reasons they gave?
How, if at all, do you think this change in the workforce and power shifting to the employee might impact the nature of work moving forward?
Do you view the Great Resignation as a problem? Why or why not?
If you think it is a problem, do you think there is a role for government in addressing it? If so, what role?

For More Information

A list of the highs in the labor market for 2021 from ZipRecruiter
More from ZipRecruiter on how companies are responding
The JOLTS site on the Bureau of Labor Statistics for more ongoing data

Additional Charts and Tables

Source: https://www.ziprecruiter.com/blog/remote-work-demand-outstrips-supply/

Source: https://www.ziprecruiter.com/blog/the-big-quit-and-the-tightest-labor-market-ever/

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!

Sources

Featured Image Credit: The 1E Solutions Blog

[1] Bureau of Labor Statistics: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm

[2] CBS News: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/great-resignation-60-minutes-2022-01-10/

[3] Ibid.

[4] Today: https://www.today.com/video/american-workers-are-becoming-their-own-bosses-through-the-great-resignation-130454597857

[5] The ZipRecruiter Blog: https://www.ziprecruiter.com/blog/december-2021-jobs-report/

[6] Ibid.

[7] The ZipRecruiter Blog: https://www.ziprecruiter.com/blog/december-2021-jobs-report/

[8] Bureau of Labor Statistics: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm

[9] CBS News: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/great-resignation-60-minutes-2022-01-10/

[10] Today: https://www.today.com/video/american-workers-are-becoming-their-own-bosses-through-the-great-resignation-130454597857

[11] The ZipRecruiter Blog: https://www.ziprecruiter.com/blog/remote-work-demand-outstrips-supply/; Vox: https://www.vox.com/recode/22841490/work-remote-wages-labor-force-participation-great-resignation-unions-quits; USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2022/01/04/great-resignation-number-people-quitting-jobs-hit-record/9083256002/

[12] The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/the-great-resignation-historical-data-and-a-deeper-analysis-show-its-not-as-great-as-screaming-headlines-suggest-174454

[13] Ibid.

Build Back Better Stalls, Maybe for Good

Posted on January 4, 2022January 31, 2024 by Scot Wilson

Already facing the enormous challenge of addressing spiking cases of COVID-19 due to the Omicron variant, President Joe Biden’s administration was presented with a new challenge when Senator Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., announced that he would not support the $2 trillion spending plan known as Build Back Better Bill. Citing concerns over the level of spending on social safety net programs and climate policies, Manchin said he could not find a way to support the bill that would be consistent with what he believes his constituents in West Virginia want.¹

If passed by Congress, the Build Back Better program plan would allocate significant funding to a wide range of programs, including:

$555 billion to combat climate change, by providing incentives to businesses to switch to renewable energy and creating a Civilian Climate Corps that would employ people to revitalize natural resources (such as forests and wetlands) to help reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
$200 billion in child tax credits for parents and another $200 billion for a national paid family/medical leave system.
$165 billion to reduce the cost of health insurance.
$150 billion for affordable at-home medical care.
$150 billion for affordable housing projects.

The bulk of the funding for these programs would come from a corresponding increase in taxes paid by corporations and by wealthy individuals (people earning $10 million or more per year).²

The Build Back Better plan was conceived as a second phase of new federal government spending following the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill that passed into law in mid-November. Promising to get the Build Back Better plan and its climate and social initiatives passed had been a source of contention between progressive Democrats and the rest of their party in Congress. Many of these progressives refused to support the infrastructure bill but enough of them, and enough Republicans, were willing to vote to secure its passage.³

The reason why Manchin’s refusal to support the Build Back Better Bill means it is likely dead because of the precarious hold that Democrats have on the Senate. Using a process called “budget reconciliation,” Build Back Better could have passed the Senate with only 50 votes (the Senate usually requires 60 votes). Democrats currently have only 50 members in the Senate. In the event of a tie, Vice President Kamala Harris casts the tie-breaking vote, effectively giving Democrats a 51-50 majority. However, Manchin and his fellow Senator Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., are considered more conservative than most of their Democratic peers, having expressed many concerns over the level of government spending in the Build Back Better program and the effects such spending would have on rising inflation. This led to weeks of negotiation between Manchin and Sinema and their fellow Senate Democrats, as well as with President Biden. While it seemed that Sinema was warming to the idea of voting for the Build Back Better Bill, the bill would likely be defeated 49-50 in the Senate without Manchin’s support.⁴

This represents a major setback for the Biden administration and is likely to result in significant backlash from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, who are growing increasingly frustrated with the party leadership’s unwillingness or inability to address the concerns they have surrounding climate, housing, social services, and health care. And with Democrats holding slim majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives ahead of the November 2022 elections, a major legislative defeat could result in huge losses and a return to Republican control in one or both chambers.⁵

Discussion Questions

Do you agree with any of the provisions of Build Back Better? Do you oppose any?
Why do you think it is so difficult for Democrats and Republicans to support the same legislation?
Do you think the government is prioritizing the kinds of changes you would like to see in the United States or in your community?
Recent studies have shown that 52 percent of young people (aged 18-29) feel as the though the United States is a failing or already failed democracy. Do you agree with this assessment? What impact do you think the failure of efforts to reform, such as Build Back Better, has on these impressions?

Related Posts

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Flickr/CC BY-SA 2.0

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/19/sen-joe-manchin-says-he-wont-vote-for-bidens-build-back-better-act.html

[2] https://time.com/6121415/build-back-better-spending-bill-summary/

[3] https://www.vox.com/2021/12/19/22845190/progressives-build-back-better-act-squad-joe-manchin

[4] https://www.kawc.org/politics/2021-11-05/arizona-edition-sen-sinema-on-build-back-better-and-critics

[5] https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/586572-democrats-descend-into-finger-pointing-after-build-back-better

The COVID-19 Omicron Variant

Posted on December 9, 2021November 22, 2023 by Scot Wilson

On November 26, 2021, the World Health Organization announced the discovery of a new COVID-19 variant in South Africa. The same day, President Joe Biden closed the borders to travelers from South Africa and seven nearby nations (Namibia, Botswana, Lesotho, Eswatini, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and Malawi) in the hope of slowing the spread of the variant to the United States. In a speech to the American public on November 29, President Biden addressed the closing of the border, saying, “Closing the borders cannot prevent the spread, but … it gives us time to take more actions, to move quicker, for people to get the vaccine.”

In that same speech, President Biden stated that there were three messages he wanted to make clear to the American people:

(1) “This variant is a cause for concern, not a cause for panic. … We have more tools today to fight the variant than we’ve ever had before. … We are learning more about this new variant every day and as we learn more we will share that information with the American people candidly and promptly.”

(2) “The best protection against this new variant or any variant out there is getting fully vaccinated and getting your booster shot. … Go get the booster today. … A fully vaccinated booster person is the most protected against COVID. Don’t wait. … If you are not vaccinated, please go and also take your children to be vaccinated now. … Please wear your mask indoors, it protects you and protects those around you.”

(3) “In the event, hopefully unlikely, that updated vaccines or boosters are needed to respond to this new variant, we will accelerate their development and deployment with every available tool. … We do not yet believe that additional measures will be needed, but so that we are well prepared, if needed, my teams are already working with Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson to develop contingency plans for vaccines or boosters, if needed. I will also direct these vaccines to be approved quickly without cutting corners.”

The president also said that he would be putting out a detailed plan for how the United States will fight COVID-19 this winter. He said it would not involve shutdowns but, instead, more widespread vaccination.

President Biden said that to beat the pandemic, however, we need to vaccinate not just our nation but the rest of the world. He spoke about how it protects Americans to vaccinate the world, noting that both the COVID-19 delta and omicron variants originated in other countries. He said that the United States has shipped, for free, more doses of the vaccine to other nations than all other contributing countries combined—over 270 million doses to more than 110 countries.

s of December 8, 2021, the COVID-19 omicron variant had been detected in 19 U.S. states and 50 countries around the world.¹ Scientists and public health officials state that it is too early to say how severe the variant is, but early data suggests that it is more contagious than other variants while causing milder symptoms.² Still, officials are urging caution, patience, and vaccination.

Discussion Questions

Do you agree with President Biden’s decision to close borders to travelers from the countries where the omicron variant originated? Why or why not?
How, if at all, do you think the introduction of travel bans might impact the reporting of variants by nations in the future?
Do you believe the federal government is doing the right things to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic? What about the right things to address this new variant? If not, how should things be handled differently? What else do you think should be done?
Do you believe vaccination should be mandatory for all U.S. citizens? Why or why not?
Do you believe that private companies should be able to require their employees to get vaccinated? Why or why not?

Other Resources

WATCH President Biden’s full speech.

LISTEN to Dr. Anthony Fauci discuss the omicron variant.

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!

Sources

Featured Image Credit: The Washington Post

[1] NPR: https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/12/07/1062158951/omicron-updates-states-symptoms-south-africa-texas

[2] USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/12/07/omicron-coronavirus-variant-more-contagious-less-dangerous/8886726002/

The Infrastructure Bill: What It Includes and What Remains To Be Done

Posted on November 22, 2021November 12, 2023 by Scot Wilson

On November 15th, President Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The bill represents the culmination of months of negotiations between House Democrats and Republicans as well as within the two parties. The goal of this US infrastructure bill is to significantly revitalize and modernize American infrastructure – the various systems, equipment, and structures that make modern life possible. Although significantly less than the original bill, the $1.2 trillion package represents one of the most significant investments by the federal government in infrastructure since the Great Depression.¹

What the 2021 Infrastructure Bill Includes

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act invests billions of dollars into a wide range of areas: roads, bridges, ports, railways, water systems, power grids, and internet access. This includes money for the construction of electric vehicle charging stations and $5 billion for electric and hybrid school buses, $15 billion for replacing toxic lead water pipes, and investments to help reach the 19% of American homes that still lack internet access.² These elements represent only a small part of the overall scope of the bill which the White House has compared to the Transcontinental Railroad or Interstate Highway system in its importance for the future.³

A Long Fight, Far From Over

Originally the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 had been part of the broader Build Back Better plan – a three part series of new legislation which aimed to help the US recover from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. This effort began with the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan passed earlier in the year but continued efforts stalled as additional legislation faced staunch Republican opposition as well as opposition from senators and representatives within the Democratic Party. In an effort to build support, the IIJA was separated from the additional $1.75 trillion investments in families, climate, health and other areas which now make up the pending Build Back Better Act which has still not been passed.⁴

Ultimately, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passed the Senate in a 69-30 vote, receiving the support of 19 Republicans while it passed the House 278-206, with support from 13 Republicans and opposition from 6 Democrats.⁵ The Republicans who voted for the bill argued that it was beneficial to the interests of the people they represent and helpful to the country in many ways. These 13 Republicans in the House and many of the Republican Senators who supported the 2021 infrastructure bill have subsequently been ridiculed by many of their fellow Republican members and have received numerous death threats.⁶

Meanwhile, the US infrastructure bill was opposed by 6 Democrats on the grounds that they were not guaranteed the additional investments represented by the Build Back Better Act would be passed into law. Critics also noted that while the bill has a $1.2 trillion price tag only $550 billion of that is new spending.⁷ Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has publicly committed to passing both bills though exactly what will be included in the Build Back Better Act after more negotiations remains unknown.⁸

Discussion Questions

What needs do you see in your own community that you think should be priority for government investment/funding?
What is the most pressing issue that you feel the government should be addressing? Are there any areas covered in the IIJA that you feel the government shouldn’t be investing in or hasn’t invested enough in?
Should the federal government be responsible for making the kinds of investments detailed in the IIJA? Should some or all of these investments be left to states or even to private businesses instead?
Consider the length of time it has taken to get the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 passed, the closeness of the votes, and the threats received by those who supported it. What does this process indicate about the state of American government and democracy?

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!

Sources

Featured Image Credit: CNN/KKTV 11

[1] https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-technology-business-broadband-internet-congress-d89d6bb1b39cd9c67ae9fc91f5eb4c0d

[2] https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/eighth-broadband-progress-report

[3] https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-technology-business-broadband-internet-congress-d89d6bb1b39cd9c67ae9fc91f5eb4c0d

[4] https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/whats-bidens-175-trillion-build-back-better-package-2021-11-05/

[5] https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/05/politics/infrastructure-bill-house-democrats-voted-no-republicans-voted-yes/index.html

[6] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/10/us/politics/republicans-backlash-infrastructure-bill.html

[7] https://www.vox.com/22770447/infrastructure-bill-democrats-biden-water-broadband-roads-buses

[8] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/28/us/politics/pelosi-infrastructure-house-vote.html

Indian Boarding Schools: The Truth and Healing Commission

Posted on November 9, 2021October 30, 2023 by Scot Wilson

In September 2021, a bipartisan group of senators and representatives reintroduced the Truth and Healing Commission on Indian Boarding School Policies in the United States Act, which would establish a commission to “investigate, document, and acknowledge past injustices of the federal government’s Indian Boarding School Policies.”¹ The Truth and Healing Commission would use its findings to recommend actions to best redress the historical trauma and long-term impacts of those policies.

In the late 1800s, more than 350 US Indian boarding schools (also known as residential schools) were established.² Native children—some as young as three years old—were forcibly taken from their families and compelled to attend. Families who refused to give up their children were denied food, supplies, and other critical support by the Bureau of Indian Affairs—all things that should have been guaranteed by treaties.³

Once in the schools, Native children were required to assimilate to the ideals and norms of mainstream white society.⁴ Instead of being focused on education, they were Indian reeducation schools. The children were denied traditional meals and clothing, required to cut their hair, and punished for speaking their native languages, thus effectively stripping them of their culture.⁵

The white Americans who operated the schools viewed Native culture as inferior—something to be “corrected” by being erased. Quite simply, their mission was to “kill the Indian, save the man,” a phrase which is attributed to Lieutenant Colonel Richard Henry Pratt, the founder of the first US Indian boarding school.⁶ These actions, coupled with instances of neglect and abuse, have been condemned as human rights violations and acts of “cultural genocide” that have never been fully acknowledged or healed.⁷

Substandard medical care left Native children exposed to disease and death; those who died were often buried anonymously in shallow graves, their families denied closure and accountability. Numerous survivors have shared their own stories of psychological, physical, and sexual abuse they faced while at the boarding schools.⁸ Recently, non-Native Americans have become more aware of the scope of trauma and tragedy with the discovery of hundreds of graves on the grounds of former boarding schools, including more than 170 graves recently discovered in Carson City, Nevada.⁹ Thousands of graves of Native children were identified at former boarding schools in Canada as well.¹⁰ Preston McBride, a researcher at the University of Southern California, estimates that there could be up to 40,000 such graves across the United States.¹¹

The Truth and Healing Commission on Indian Boarding School Policies in the United States Act would build upon investigations announced this summer by Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland to search for children’s remains at former boarding schools.¹² Haaland has her own connection to this issue, as her grandparents were forced to attend boarding schools. As a former U.S. representative herself, Haaland first introduced a version of the Truth and Healing Commission bill in the previous Congress.¹³

Although these boarding schools have not been in operation for decades, their effects linger in Native communities and in the conscious of our country. “The U.S. Indian Boarding School Policies stripped children from their families and their cultures—actions that continue to impact Native American, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian communities today,” said Representative Sharice Davids, D-Kan., one of the bill’s cosponsors. “Our country must do better to acknowledge its legacy and understand the full truth of these policies. This commission is a critical step to allow Native families and communities to begin to heal from the intergenerational trauma.”¹⁴

Discussion Questions

For some non-Native Americans, the first time they heard about Indian boarding schools was though news coverage of mass graves found across Canada and the United States. Did you see these reports over the past year? Had you learned about Indian boarding schools prior to those discoveries?
What might be some benefits of having a commission established by Congress in addition to the investigations that have already been launched by the Department of the Interior?
What actions do you think a potential Truth and Healing Commission on Indian Boarding School Policies in the United States might recommend, based on the issues it seeks to address?
The last Indian boarding school closed in 1996.¹⁵ Although their practices were sanctioned by the U.S. government and documented for decades, why do you think it took so long to raise awareness about and take steps to address these wrongs?

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Carlisle Indian School Digital Resource Center via MDPI

[1] Senator Elizabeth Warren: https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/warren-davids-cole-reintroduce-bipartisan-bill-to-seek-healing-for-stolen-native-children-and-their-communities

[2] Reno News & Review: https://reno.newsreview.com/2021/08/15/stewart-indian-schools-200-unmarked-graves/

[3] Teen Vogue: https://www.teenvogue.com/story/indian-residential-schools-graves

[4] Reno News & Review: https://reno.newsreview.com/2021/08/15/stewart-indian-schools-200-unmarked-graves/

[5] NPR: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2021/08/28/1031398120/native-boarding-schools-repatriation-remains-carlisle

[6] Ibid.

[7] Reno News & Review: https://reno.newsreview.com/2021/08/15/stewart-indian-schools-200-unmarked-graves/

[8] The Week: https://theweek.com/us/1002172/deb-haaland-indigenous-boarding-schools

[9] Reno News & Review: https://reno.newsreview.com/2021/08/15/stewart-indian-schools-200-unmarked-graves/

[10] Teen Vogue: https://www.teenvogue.com/story/indian-residential-schools-graves

[11] NPR: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2021/08/28/1031398120/native-boarding-schools-repatriation-remains-carlisle

[12] The Week: https://theweek.com/us/1002172/deb-haaland-indigenous-boarding-schools

[13] Ibid.

[14] Senator Elizabeth Warren: https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/warren-davids-cole-reintroduce-bipartisan-bill-to-seek-healing-for-stolen-native-children-and-their-communities

[15] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/23/us/indigenous-children-indian-civilization-act-1819.html

Brackeen v. Haaland, Part 2: Challenging the Indian Child Welfare Act

Posted on November 4, 2021November 12, 2023 by Scot Wilson

Part 2: The Current Debate Facing the U.S. Supreme Court

For more information about the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) of 1978 and the history of its enactment, please read part one of this series.

Brackeen v. Haaland is a complex case that challenges the constitutionality of the ICWA. In the opinion of some, the case also questions the validity and legality of the sovereignty of Native nations (their ability to govern themselves independently of the U.S. government).

The Indian Child Welfare Act establishes guidelines for how states should handle issues regarding Native children in the child welfare system. The guidelines include addressing child abuse and neglect cases, foster and adoption cases, removal, and out-of-home placement.¹ The law gives Native communities a seat at the decision-making table when placing Native children in homes. And not unlike the traditional child welfare system, it prioritizes keeping Native children with members of their tribe whenever possible. The goal of the law is to keep families together, protect the rights of Native people to govern themselves, and support their cultural independence following decades of forced separation and assimilation attempts by the U.S. government.

What Is the Case About and What Questions Are Being Asked of the Court?

The plaintiffs brought the lawsuit in Brackeen v. Haaland in January 2020. The plaintiffs include several couples who hope to adopt or foster children from Indian nations, a woman who wishes for her child of Native descent to be adopted by non-Native people, and the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Indiana which believe the ICWA to be unconstitutional.²The defendants in the case are the United States, federal agencies (including Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland), officials responsible for administering the ICWA, and several Indian tribes which stepped in to support the ICWA.³

The case began with a married couple from Texas. The couple fostered multiple non-infant children from the Cherokee Nation over several years. Behavioral issues among those children led the couple to seek to foster and adopt a baby boy, whom they eventually renamed Antonio. Antonio is a baby boy from the Cherokee Nation whose mother had issues with drug addiction—an issue in Native communities that often goes hand-in-hand with generational poverty and systemic oppression. After fostering for a year, the Brackeens decided to adopt with the blessing of the baby’s mother. However, the ICWA gives Native nations the ability to locate a family within the tribe before allowing for adoption by non-Native families. This rule prevented the Brackeens’ adoption from happening because the Cherokee Nation found a family willing to adopt the baby. Dissatisfied with this rule, the Brackeens decided to go to court to fight the ICWA adoption decision. With the support of the attorney general of Texas and others, the couple fought the law.

The primary issue in the case is whether the ICWA is unconstitutional. The two major questions are: (1) Is the ICWA unconstitutional on the basis of racial discrimination, because it favors Native families in the adoption of Native children? (2) Is this favoring granted by the ICWA an overreach of Congress’ powers in Article I because it impedes the right of states to set standards for placement of children in the child welfare system?⁴

What Has Already Happened in the Case and Where Is the Case Now?

The first decision in the case came in August 2018, when a judge’s ICWA ruling stated that it’s unconstitutional because it treats Native children as a different “race.” The defendants appealed the decision.

On April 6, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit released an en banc decision following a hearing by 16 federal judges in Brackeen v. Haaland. En banc is a term used when all judges from a particular court hear a case (in this instance, all judges from the Fifth Circuit).⁵ The decision document that was released is more than 325 pages long, further demonstrating the complexity of this issue. The decision determined that some portions of the ICWA are constitutional and, as such, should be upheld. However, other parts (like the regulations put into effect by the federal government’s Bureau of Indian Affairs) were found to violate the “anticommandeering” policy of the Constitution “because it forces states, their child welfare agencies, and their courts to act in a certain way.”⁶

Following this most recent decision, the parties have appealed to the Supreme Court in the hope that the Court will review the ICWA ruling and decide its overall constitutionality. The Court will look over the details, decide if it wants to review the case, and, if so, which parts of the issue it wishes to review. The Court is expected to announce whether it will take the case sometime in December 2021 or January 2022.⁷ Up to this point, the Court has received three amicus (friend of the court) briefs from 180 tribal nations, 35 Native organizations, 25 states and the District of Columbia, Casey Family Programs, and ten child welfare and adoption organizations urging the Court to review and uphold the ICWA.⁸ These briefs are essentially supportive statements by parties not involved in the case to demonstrate that a decision one way or the other will impact parties outside of the present case.⁹

What Are Some Arguments For and Against Upholding the ICWA?

Those opposed to the ICWA believe that discrimination against non-Native families in the placement of children goes against the Constitution. They argue that the law harms the very children it is meant to protect, as it prevents them from being placed in permanent homes and keeps them trapped in the foster care system. Opponents of the ICWA maintain that the best interests of each individual child should be the only thing considered when it comes to their placement. Their status as Native Americans should have nothing to do with this process.

Those who support the ICWA believe the law protects Native children after years of intentional removal, separation, and displacement. They believe that Native status is a political distinction rather than a racial one.¹⁰ Supporters also argue that this is an issue much bigger than the ICWA itself. For example, the Cherokee Nation, the largest tribal nation in the country, tweeted about the issue in March 2019, stating, “If #ICWA opponents in Brackeen v. Bernhardt are successful, it will potentially impact the sovereignty of every tribe, because the plaintiffs view tribes as racial entities, not sovereign governments. #ProudtoProtectICWA #ICWAFact.”¹¹

Discussion Questions

What might be some arguments in support of the ICWA? What might be some arguments in opposition?
What do you think about this case? Do you believe that the ICWA should be upheld? Why or why not?
What do you think could be some potential consequences if the ICWA is found to be unconstitutional and overturned? What about possible results if it is upheld?
How does this controversy connect to other issues you have heard about in the news? In history?
If the Supreme Court reviews this case, how do you think it will rule? Why do you think so?

Other Resources

READ the Fifth Circuit’s decision.

READ more about the case, including amicus briefs.

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Native American Rights Fund

[1] ChildWelfare.gov: https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/diverse-populations/americanindian/icwa/

[2] Native American Rights Fund: https://www.narf.org/cases/brackeen-v-bernhardt/; Fifth Circuit Decision in Brackeen v. Haaland: https://narf.org/nill/documents/20210406brackeen-opinion5th.pdf

[3] Native American Rights Fund: https://www.narf.org/cases/brackeen-v-bernhardt/

[4] SCOTUSBlog: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/brackeen-v-haaland/

[5] Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/en_banc

[6] Indianz: https://www.indianz.com/News/2021/04/07/fifth-circuit-court-of-appeals-brackeen-v-haaland/; Indianz: https://www.indianz.com/News/2018/10/05/judge-strikes-down-indian-child-welfare.asp

[7] National Indian Child Welfare Fund: https://www.nicwa.org/policy-update/

[8] Native American Rights Fund: https://www.narf.org/icwa-brackeen/

[9] Smith Gambrell Russell Law: https://sgrlaw.com/ttl-articles/why-and-when-to-file-an-amicus-brief/

[10] Native American Rights Fund: https://www.narf.org/cases/brackeen-v-bernhardt/

[11] Cherokee Nation Twitter Feed: https://twitter.com/CherokeeNation/status/1105867500749754370[13] Native Times: https://www.Nativetimes.com/archives/46-life/commentary/14059-truth-and-reconciliationkill-the-indian-and-save-the-man

Brackeen v. Haaland: Challenging the Indian Child Welfare Act

Posted on October 27, 2021November 12, 2023 by Scot Wilson

The case of Brackeen v. Haaland is currently facing the U.S. Supreme Court. The case calls into question the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) of 1978. The two major questions in the case are: (1) Is the ICWA unconstitutional on the basis of racial discrimination because of its favoring of Native families in the adoption of Native children? (2) Is the ICWA an overreach of Congress’ powers because it impedes the right of states to set the standards for placement of children in their child welfare systems?¹

To understand Brackeen v. Haaland, it is imperative to first understand what the ICWA is and how it came to be enacted. That is what we will focus on in this first of a series of blog posts.

What Is the ICWA? Why Does It Exist?

The practice of removing Native children from their tribes started as far back as the birth of the United States (and some would argue before that). The first incidence of Indian child removal occurred during the Revolutionary War as a way to conquer Native nations.² It was generally believed that Native people needed to be “civilized” and assimilated (or conformed and adapted) to the “American” way of life. To achieve this, the U.S. government set up more than 350 boarding schools across the country, which were designed to systematically strip tribal culture from the Native children who were forced to attend them.³ The schools pushed Christianity, required the use of English, and restricted Native children from speaking their language, wearing cultural dress, using cultural practices, or even using their Indian birth names.⁴ The first of these boarding schools, the Carlisle School, was founded in 1872 by U.S. Army Captain Richard Henry Pratt. Pratt’s motto for assimilation was the now well-known phrase: “Kill the Indian in him, and save the man.”⁵ All Native boarding schools to follow would adopt Pratt’s model.⁶

When the Great Depression hit, there were fewer resources to go around, so the government began to close the boarding schools and created the Indian Adoption Project in their place. In this new program, which ran until the 1950s, Native children were forcibly removed from their families and placed up for adoption to white families who would assimilate them into “American” culture. The removal of children was justified by a loose definition of neglect, which was often based on the interpretation of social workers who were untrained in Native culture and who used an Anglo-Saxon lens for assessing family structure. In Native communities, for example, it was not uncommon for multiple extended families to live in the same house; it was very common to have a nontraditional family structure. The Indian Adoption Project used this difference in family structure to force families into giving their children up for adoption.⁷ By 1974, research found that between 25 percent and 35 percent of all Native children in the United States were in foster, adoptive, or institutional homes away from their tribes.⁸ These family separations had a devastating impact on Native culture and communities as a whole.

In the 1960s and 1970s, social movements began to bring light to the issue of Native separation. Eventually, Congress decided to address the issue. After an investigation, Congress reported that “an alarmingly high percentage of families are broken up by the removal (often unwarranted) of their children by nontribal public and private agencies and an alarmingly high percentage of such children are placed in non-Indian institutions.”⁹ The report also found that state governments “often failed to recognize the essential tribal relations of Indian people.”¹⁰

In response, Congress passed the ICWA in 1978, declaring “that it is the policy of this Nation to protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families by the establishment of minimum Federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their families.”¹¹

The ICWA establishes guidelines for how states should handle issues regarding Native children in the child welfare system, including cases of child abuse and neglect, foster and adoption cases, removal, and out-of-home placement.¹² The law gives Native communities a seat at the decision-making table when placing Native children in homes. And not unlike the traditional child welfare system, it prioritizes keeping Native children with members of their tribe whenever possible. The goal of the law is to keep families together, to protect the rights of Native people to govern themselves, and to support their cultural independence following decades of forced separation and assimilation attempts by the U.S. government.

Although the attempts to assimilate and erase Native culture in the United States ultimately failed (proven by the fact that there are more than 500 sovereign Native nations recognized in the country today), it does not mean the generations of forced removal have not had a lasting impact on these communities.¹³ The next part of this series will discuss the complex issue of the ICWA adoption issues in modern times and the Brackeen v. Haaland Supreme Court case that questions its constitutionality.

Discussion Questions

What, if anything, did you learn from this post that you had not known about Native history previously?
What, if anything, surprised you in what you read? What about it moved you?
How do you believe Congress should have handled the issue of Native separation?
Do you think the creation of the ICWA was the right decision? Was it enough? Was it the best way address to the problem? Why or why not?
Should the status of a child as Native American impact who can adopt or not adopt him/her? Why or why not?
How does this controversy connect to other issues you have heard in the news? In history?
Do you think the ICWA should remain in place? Why or why not?

Other Resources

See the full detailed report from Congress on the ICWA.

For an in-depth investigation of this case from an indigenous perspective, listen to the second season of the podcast This Land, hosted by Rebecca Nagle.

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!

Sources

Featured Image Credit:Vision Maker Media

[1] SCOTUSBlog: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/brackeen-v-haaland/

[2] Huffington Post: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/indian-child-welfare-act-adoption_n_5dcb1fe8e4b098093b026b83

[3] George Mason University Social History Project: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/4929

[4] Huffington Post: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/indian-child-welfare-act-adoption_n_5dcb1fe8e4b098093b026b83

[5] Dickinson.edu: https://carlisleindian.dickinson.edu/teach/kill-indian-him-and-save-man-r-h-pratt-education-Native-americans

[6] Digital History: https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&psid=3505

[7] U.S. House of Representatives, 1978 Report on Establishing Standards for the Placement of Indian Children in Foster or Adoptive Homes to Prevent the Breakup of Indian Families and for Other Purposes: https://www.narf.org/nill/documents/icwa/federal/lh/hr1386.pdf

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/25/1902

[12] ChildWelfare.gov: https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/diverse-populations/americanindian/icwa/

[13] Native Times: https://www.Nativetimes.com/archives/46-life/commentary/14059-truth-and-reconciliationkill-the-indian-and-save-the-man

Should Facebook Be Regulated?

Posted on October 12, 2021October 30, 2023 by Scot Wilson

Last week, Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen, a former project manager for their Civic Integrity team, testified before Congress and criticized the social media company as a dangerous, unchecked force that was “buying its profits with our safety.”¹ Haugen faulted the senior leadership at Facebook for identifying safety risks yet refusing to make the necessary changes to address them. “I’m here today because I believe Facebook’s products harm children, stoke division, and weaken our democracy,” she told the committee, before providing a detailed account of the inner workings of the company.²

Frances Haugen’s whistleblowing testimony drew on her two years at Facebook, her experience as a data engineer, and thousands of pages of internal documents. She cited Facebook’s algorithm—the programming that chooses which content appears in a user’s news feed—as its biggest offense. The 2018 Facebook algorithm change prioritizes content that would be most likely to get reactions and engagements such as views, clicks, likes, and comments.³ This effectively made the news feed promote posts that are hateful, divisive, and polarizing while amplifying their messages and expanding their reach.⁴ This has created endless cycles where users get sucked into deeper rabbit holes the more they scroll, a process which Haugen says is driven by profit. “Facebook has realized that if they change the algorithm to be safer, people will spend less time on the site, they’ll click on less ads, [and Facebook will] make less money.”⁵

One key revelation relates to the negative effects of Facebook and its family of apps they have on the physical and mental health of young people. One internal study found that nearly 14 percent of teen girls on Instagram said their suicidal thoughts became “more frequent,” while 17 percent said their eating disorders became worse because of the Facebook-owned app.⁶ Thirty-two percent said that Instagram gave them a negative body image.⁷ Despite knowing the potential for harm, Facebook kept the studies hidden and allowed its algorithms to continue pushing damaging content.

Facebook controversy is not new. . Recently, the social media giant has been widely criticized for its data collection policies and for allowing misinformation related to COVID-19, vaccines, and elections to proliferate on its site. Facebook was also used to help organize an insurrection at the Capitol, incite genocide in Myanmar, and distribute Russian disinformation during the 2016 election.⁸

Although Democrats and Republicans are divided on many national issues, they are largely united in their belief that something should be done to rein in Facebook. There is agreement that there needs to be more transparency, accountability, reform, and congressional oversight to bring about change. “If you closed your eyes, you wouldn’t know if it was a Republican or a Democrat,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., after the hearing. “Every part of the country has the harms that are inflicted by Facebook and Instagram.”

Discussion Questions

What are your experiences with Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, and other social media apps? Have they been mostly positive? Mostly negative? How frequently do you use them and for what purposes?
The day before Haugen’s testimony, Facebook and its apps, including Messenger, Instagram, and WhatsApp, were offline for nearly five hours. How did this blackout affect you?
Have you seen content that could be considered hateful, misleading, or polarizing on your social media feed?
Why might someone want the federal government to regulate Facebook’s use of algorithms?
Why might someone not want federal government regulation of Facebook’s use of algorithms?
What do you think should be done regarding this issue?

As always, we encourage you to discuss whether or not Facebook should be regulated with your comments or questions below!

Sources