Greg Olear noticed Jared Kushner’s new role as a financier and his success at staying far, far away from his father-in-law’s trial in New York City. He also noticed that Jared had replaced Michael Cohen as Trump’s liaison with David Pecker and the National Enquirer. Naturally, he wonders why Jared is not being called to testify.
In a historic first, a Qatari Minister agreed to be interviewed by Israeli journalists. The interview is fascinating because the minister is directly involved in negotiations between Hamas and Israel. The interview appeared in Haaretz. You will find more critical views in Haaretz than in American media.
DOHA – Dr. Majed Al-Ansari, adviser to the Qatari prime minister and spokesperson for Qatar’s Foreign Ministry, has become a well-known figure in recent months.
In a special interview – the first he has given to an Israeli news outlet, he says – Al-Ansari discusses Qatar’s frustration with both Hamas and Israel’s conduct in talks to reach a cease-fire/hostage release deal, and the need to reach an agreement as soon as possible to prevent further harm to the hostages.
The conversation in Doha, which took place after the Qatari prime minister said he was “re-evaluating” the country’s role in negotiations, occurred amid reports in Israel that another proposal is being examined by both Israel and Hamas, amid fierce demonstrations within Israel designed to pressure Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to show greater flexibility and go for a deal.
The interview with Al-Ansari took place at a complex located not far from where Israel’s delegation has gathered in recent months for negotiations.
The decision to be interviewed by Haaretz at this moment (alongside an interview with Israeli news outlet Kan), and to allow a journalist with Israeli citizenship to have his passport stamped at the local airport, indicates a change in direction: Amid a tainted relationship with Netanyahu, Qatar is showing increased openness to engaging in direct dialogue with the Israeli public.
In your opinion, is it still possible to reach a hostage release deal?
“Well, you know, we’ve been working tirelessly from day one on this. We reached out directly on October 8 to both sides. As soon as we knew that there were hostages, as we knew that there were lives at stake, we immediately reached out to both sides, and since that day, our negotiations have not stopped. Looking for every possible way, every possible venue for every idea.
“Also in the first deal that collapsed after seven days, we understood that we needed a more robust agreement between both sides that would return all the hostages back home to their families and help us save lives on both sides, and we were hoping to see much more flexibility, much more seriousness, much more commitment on both sides, all through the the process, from day one.
“And I think we’ve been positively engaging with the negotiating teams here in Doha. We believe that there was a lot of sincerity in the process itself, in offering ideas and understanding ideas and taking back ideas. Sadly, that did not materialize to this day, and that certainly led us to reassess our mediation, reassess the commitment to both sides, and reassess the seriousness of both sides.”
Al-Ansari declines to assess the chances that talks will move foward.
“Let me tell you what I can share on this. We are now at the point where the talks have effectively stopped and both sides are entrenched in their positions, and therefore it would be very difficult to get any calculations on the numbers or other things right now. But if there is a renewed sense of commitment on both sides, I’m sure we can reach a deal that would be able to bring more people home to their families.”
When you say you are re-evaluating your role in the talks, do you really think it’s possible that Qatar will step back from the part it plays in the mediation efforts between Israel and Hamas?
“Well, in the end, our role is based on finding a way to reach a deal between both sides, to reach peace, and to end this discomfort. We have been doing this since 2006 when the U.S. approached us and asked us to open a channel of communication with Hamas, especially and precisely for this kind of scenario. We’ve conducted countless mediations since then, especially since 2014.
“We absolutely understand that a paradigm shift has happened since the attacks of October 7 and this is a totally different reality. But we believe that the way towards peace is through talking, is through mediation, and through getting the hostages back to their families. This can only be done through our efforts in the mediation process with all our partners in the region.
“However, if we see that it’s a hopeless endeavor, then we need to reassess our position and see how we can be useful in the process itself. Because to be honest, we do not want to be used as part of prolonging this conflict.”
Do you feel that you’ve been used?
“Of course. As I said, we are reassessing the commitment of both sides, and one of the main reasons for this is that we’ve gotten all of these statements that contradict the show of commitment to the talks themselves.
One of the critics of your conduct is the prime minister of Israel.
“I don’t want to talk about certain individuals, because I think this is bigger than the people themselves. We were surprised by a lot of the statements coming out, because most of them came from people who know the process, who know our role in the process, and for years those people have worked with us on it, it has accomplished a lot of peace throughout the years and has accomplished the return of 109 hostages during the current conflict.”
Al-Ansari did not directly name Netanyahu as the object of criticism at any point during the interview, but the strained relationship between the Israeli prime minister and Qatar’s leadership has become visible in recent months. Netanyahu’s public calls to urge Qatar to exert pressure on Hamas are seen in Doha as an expression of ill faith in their efforts thus far.
During a meeting with the families of hostages in January, Netanyahu claimed that Qatar was more problematic than the UN and the Red Cross, and said that he did not trust them. In February, he called on the leaders of Jewish communities in the U.S. to pressure Qatar to use its leverage over Hamas.”Qatar has the ability to put pressure on Hamas more than others. They host Hamas’ leaders, Hamas depends on them financially,” Netanyahu said at the time.
Do you feel that Netanyahu or other senior Israeli officials are trying to scapegoat Qatar because the deal is not progressing?
“Well, there is a lot of political posturing and I can say very clearly that our feeling is that a lot of these statements have to do with very narrow political ambitions, and that Qatar is being used as a political punching bag for those who are looking either to safeguard their political futures or to find more votes in the next elections.
“Sadly, while we have in front of us and as the main driver behind everything we do human lives that are being lost as a result of this conflict, we believe at times that narrow political calculations deliver these statements, with disregard for the lives of both Israeli and Palestinians.”
In February, you harshly criticized Netanyahu, claiming that his calls to urge Qatar to exert pressure on Hamas were “an attempt to prolong the fighting for obvious reasons.” What did you mean?
“Well, as I said, these statements are impeding the mediation. I mean, I could tell you that since we started working with both sides on this for many years now. And our relationship, especially with the security establishment in Israel over mediation and over ending all of these conflicts and escalations that have taken place throughout the years, has always been productive.
“We have always been able to engage in a very open way and engage very sincerely, but right now, what we are seeing is that every time we get close to a deal, every time we find new ideas to present to the table, there is sabotage talking place, and that sabotage is in the form of statements or actions that, of course, impede the message.”
From the Israeli side?
“From both sides. And this is why we were hoping that with our help, and with the help of the international community, we could pressure both sides.”
But do you also believe that Netanyahu prefers to continue the war rather than reach an agreement at this point in time?
Al-Ansari considers his answer.
“If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck. It the end, these statements do not show us a real commitment to end this conflict as soon as possible.
“I don’t think [this current conflict is] in anybody’s interest. It’s not in the interest of the Israeli people, its not in the interest of the Palestinian people, not in the interest of all the peace-loving people in the region here for this war to continue, or for a regional spillover to result in the region.
“It is all of our duty together to our peoples to end this conflict in a peaceful manner and to reach a situation where the security of the Israeli people and the security of the region as a whole is the paramount concern, not narrow political calculations.”
Al-Ansari expressed great concern in the inteview over the possibility that an Israeli operation in Rafah will cause harm to the Israeli hostages and the mass killing of innocent people in the area.
“We have the same point of view that we have always had all through this process: Every escalation on the ground impedes the process. Every escalation on the ground puts the hostages lives at risk. Every escalation on the ground means more death for civilians in Gaza.
“We know for sure that such an operation will result in countless civilian deaths, and we have voiced our concern along with our partners in the U.S., and Europe, all around the world, that this needs to stop now.
“This needs to stop now and there is no other option than sitting around the table and getting a deal done.”
Qatar-based Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh speaks to journalists in Doha in December.Credit: Iranian Foreign Ministry/AFP
Is Hamas interested in a deal?
“We were hoping to see more commitment and more seriousness on both sides. We are, with the help of our international partners, hoping that we can pressure both sides to an agreement, but right now we are seeing from both sides a lot of lack of commitment to the process itself and to the mediation.”
Senior Israeli officials portray Qatar as a terror-supporting country.
“We did not enter into a relationship with Hamas because we wanted to. We were asked by the U.S. We reviewed that request in 2006.
“At the time, it was very clear to us that this was a role that could only be done by us. That there was very little appetite for everybody else to enter into that arena, and that if we shy away because of narrow political calculations from our side – although we understood the heat that would come as an result of this – this would mean less chance for peace, and more conflict and more escalation in the Palestinian territories and Israel.
“As a result, we took – and, I think, our leadership – a brave decision to take on the political responsibility of being mediators and the channel of communication between both sides. That has accomplished and affected [things] so many times right now, so it has proved its success, and it is the only option we have right now.”
How does Qatar define Hamas’ attack against Israel on October 7? Is it terrorism? Is Hamas a terrorist organization?
“We have made it very clear since the beginning of this that we condemn any targeting of civilians in any way, anyhow, for any reason. There is absolutely no possible justification for killing civilians in any kind of conflict, regardless of who is doing the killing or who is being killed. A human life is a human life. Whether it is Israeli, Palestinian, or anywhere else.
“We cannot accept in our country – this is a peaceful country, one of the most peaceful countries in the world. We cannot accept the images of civilians being killed as the result of political conflict, military conflict or otherwise, and therefore we have made it very clear that we condemn these attacks and we condemn the killing of civilians, as we are condemning now the killing of Palestinian civilians in the war.”
Al-Ansari rejects the claims made by Netanyahu and other senior Israeli officials that Qatar needs to increase pressure on Hamas in the negotiations and that it is not doing enough to encourage the organization to be flexible and adopt the proposals that have put on the table thus far.
“One needs to understand the role of a mediator in any kind of mediation. If you are impartial in mediation, then obviously it will succeed.
“You need tactical neutrality, you need to be able to show both sides that you are addressing their concerns, that you understand their point of view and you are working to reach a situation where both sides can sit at the table and agree on a formula that will not be the formula that both sides are asking for.
“Your job is not to push one agenda over the other. Your job is to find a way of reaching a deal that will protect people’s lives.
“I don’t think that language is suitable within the mediation process. We are applying all the pressure that we can as mediators on both sides. We don’t have special leverage over Hamas or special leverage over Israel. The only leverage we have is the fact that we are willing to undertake the mediation and pay the political cost for this mediation.
“But we have been doing all that we can. I mean, if you talk to our negotiating team, they have been working 24/7, day and night, for more than six months now, with very little time off. The only time they get to go back to their families is when the talks stop. We have been totally invested in this process and we hope that we find the same sincerity and the same commitment from both sides as we have seen in our negotiating team.”
Have you asked yourself, with hindsight after October 7, whether the money you transferred to the Gaza Strip for many years was a mistake? Was the money ultimately used for terrorist activities?
“First of all, let’s clarify a couple of things: One is we have never been passive mediators. The easiest way of doing mediation is by doing absolutely nothing except for exchanging messages between both sides.
“When we mediated for peace in Lebanon, part of the deal that we reached was Qatar committing to reconstruction in south Lebanon. When we mediated between the separate and central government in Khartoum, part of the agreement that was reached was Qatari reconstruction and social programs, and development programs in that form.
“And when we started mediating between Hamas and Israel, part of the commitment from our side was to help reconstruct Gaza and to provide the Palestinians with a future of hope, living in peace and prosperity, and that was done, of course, through the reconstruction committee in Gaza.
“When it comes to our aid to Gaza, it was done in complete coordination with the Israeli government and institutions, and the consecutive administrations that have come through since we started these programs agreed that construction funding would be done through two avenues.
“One was buying fuel – which was done in coordination with the international agencies where fuel was bought in Israel – which then goes into Gaza. There were technicalities that guaranteed that none of that fuel gets misplaced. It goes directly to the electricity stations, and it’s sealed and opened there. And the fuel guarantees that the two million people living in Gaza have electricity for more than a couple of hours, which would happen if that fuel did not go in.
“The other side of it was the humanitarian system that was given to the most needy families, which amounted to $100 per family – which barely sustains the life of a family of three in any place in the world. That money was also carried out through Israel and in coordination with the Israeli government and across Israeli institutions.
“Every family was vetted by the Israeli side before it got the funding, and proof of receipt of the funding was sent back immediately to the Israeli side, and that process was overseen by Israeli institutions for many years. As a matter of fact, we were asked to increase that aid, and on a number of times, we were asked to continue that aid when we were reconsidering providing aid to Gaza by the Israeli government.
“I would be very surprised if people who had been party to this process throughout the years would criticize the process itself when they were overseeing it as it was happening.
“You know, as I said, many times before: If you are going to attack Qatar by saying that Qatar funded Hamas – our partner in this funding was the Israeli government. And therefore questions need to be also asked over, but then, we believe in our role.
“We believe in the aid that was entered into Gaza and we believe that it has helped sustain the lives of innocent individuals and civilians in Gaza, and that as a result of having that reconstruction and that aid, lives but also hope in Gaza were saved. For people without hope.”
Still – did the money end up in the wrong hands?
“We are completely confident in the process that was in place. We believe that the checks that were in place were sufficient and that, as I said, the oversight by the Israelis and international agencies guaranteed that none of that money was leaked anywhere, and as I said, we stand by our policy, a policy based on humanitarian reasons.”
Al-Ansari speaks in general terms only when he tries to explain how Qatar sees the leadership in Gaza the day after the war.
“We have a long-standing commitment to the two-state solution as the only way to end this conflict. We believe in the two state solution, we believe in the peace process. We have been party to the Arab peace solution and the other peace initiatives. And I believe that the only way forward out of this is not more conflict, because our main concern here is the security of the people in the region – the security of our people, and the people of Israel and the Palestinians is based on finding an end to this conflict.
“There were a lot of ideas that were thrown out throughout the past years. What we see right now makes it very clear that we need an end result, we need to end this conflict and we need to provide the Palestinians with hope and Israelis with security, for all of us in the region to enjoy the security and the prosperity that we need.”
So you don’t see it happening in the near future, as opposed to the possibility that Saudi Arabia may join the agreements?
“If there is a partner for peace, and if from the terrible events of what we have experienced now we can come up with a new chance for peace – everything is possible.”
I was invited by KPFT, a Pacifica station in Houston, to discuss the state takeover of the Houston Independent School District.
This is a better link.
The host of the show is Paul Castro, who has taught in HISD and in an open enrollment charter school.
It was a good exchange. We talked about The state-appointed superintendent Mike Miles, about charter schools, and about Governor Abbott’s determination to get a voucher bill passed by the next legislature. I explained what a voucher program would mean and what has been learned from the experience of other states.
You have to search the website to find the program. It aired April 26 at 9 am.
“Amplified Houston” Friday
Host:Paul Castro
Guest:Diane Ravitch
Topic
Public school reform and HISD Takeover
Amplified Houston for Fri., April 26, 2024, focuses on public school reform and the HISD takeover. Dr Diane Ravitch, Founder and President of the Network for Public Education (NPE) will guest. NPE is the single largest organization of parents and teachers and other citizens working to stop the privatization of public education and the misuse of standardized testing.Diane Ravitch’s Blog is dianeravitch.net. Her two most recent books are EdSpeak and DoubleTalk:A Glossary to Decipher Hypocrisy and Save Public Schooling and The Death and Life of the Great American School System.
Friday, April 26, 2024 9:00 am30:07
Scott Maxwell, columnist for The Orlando Sentinel, wrote about the state’s callous indifference to the neediest of the state’s children. These are the children who are not included in Ron DeSantis’s commitment to “right to life.” He cared about them when they were fetuses but neglects them now. Their lives don’t matter.
Maxwell writes:
Last week, the Orlando Sentinel shared a gut-wrenching story about the parents of some of this state’s sickest children either losing Medicaid coverage or bracing for losses.
Keep in mind: We’re not talking about kids with sniffles and headaches, but toddlers with traumatic brain injuries who need feeding tubes, wheelchairs and round-the-clock care. And kids who are nonverbal with challenges so severe that their parents take days off work just to care for them.
They are Florida’s most vulnerable residents.
The story was depressing, yet merely the latest in a long string of stories about various vulnerable populations. Consider other recent headlines:
That last headline was actually from last year. Now, we’re one of only 10 states rejecting billions of federal dollars meant to help struggling families.
Each of those stories has its own complexities involving different segments of families in need. But I submit the common theme boils down to a single, soul-defining litmus test:
When you see a paralyzed or terminally ill child or an impoverished family, you either believe we have a collective, societal obligation to help them … or you don’t.
I submit this state has too many of the latter in charge. And too many people who just breeze past the dire headlines, because they have the luxury of doing so. Because they aren’t personally affected.
Like many of you, I was dealt a relatively good hand in life. My wife and I are healthy. So are our kids. But I still believe we have an obligation to care for those who aren’t, particularly those who can’t care for themselves.
I think most people agree. On tough issues — like abortion, taxes or the death penalty — reasonable people can reach different conclusions. But throughout time, most civilizations have agreed on this point.
In Florida, however, the state leaves children born with severe disabilities — without the ability to feed themselves or ever live on their own — languishing on waiting lists for services. The average wait is seven to 10 years. Some kids die before they’re served.
Again, either you think that’s OK or you don’t. The leaders of this state haven’t fully funded that Medicaid waiver program since Jeb Bush was in office.
Now, if you’re healthy and wealthy, the term “Medicaid waiver” may be unfamiliar. The health care landscape is littered with a dizzying array of jargon. There are Medicaid waivers, iBudgets, the Medikids program, Healthy Kids, the Children’s Medical Services Health Plan.
It all makes most people’s eyes glaze over. But each program serves a different population and has two common themes: Most are incredibly difficult to navigate. And most leave many people struggling to get the services they need … often by design.
Nowhere is that more evident than in this state’s steadfast refusal to accept federal dollars to expand Medicaid.
The expansion was created under the Affordable Care Act to provide coverage to millions more low-income Americans and hundreds of thousands more Floridians. A slew of organizations and think tanks have said Florida should do so for both moral and economic reasons.
Health care experts say it would save lives. Hospitals say it will create jobs. The Florida Chamber of Commerce says it will boost our economy by tens of billions of dollars.
GOP lawmakers, however, have steadfastly refused — as part of a decade-long tantrum against “Obamacare.” To hell with those who need coverage and for whom the money is there. These politicians say they’re unconvinced the program will work or that the state’s costs won’t rise.
But remember: Florida Republicans are an outlier. The vast majority of states — including dark red ones led by hard-core conservative leaders — have already accepted the money.
“It’s pro-life, it’s saving lives, it is creating jobs, it is saving hospitals,” Arizona’s former governor, Jan Brewer, said when she took the money back in 2013. “I don’t know how you can get any more conservative than that.”
Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson said: “We’re a compassionate state, and we’re not going to leave 220,000 people without some recourse.”
Florida Republicans, however, are fine with abandoning those low-income people. And sick kids. And those with profound disabilities. Re-read the headlines.
After reading all this, if you believe this state should do better by its most vulnerable residents, do me a favor, will you? Don’t send me an email telling me you agree. While I enjoy hearing from readers, I’m not the one who needs to hear this.
Send your thoughts to your state legislators. Or to the House speaker or Senate president. (Their contact info can be found at www.leg.state.fl.us) Or use the governor’s website at www.flgov.com/email-the-governor to share your thoughts there.
You can also ask them some basic questions.
Ask them if they believe it’s acceptable for 22,000 families with profound disabilities to face a 7- to 10-year wait for getting Medicaid waivers.
Ask if they believe the state did the right thing by removing 1.3 million people, including families with terminally sick children, from the state’s Medicaid roll.
Or just copy all those headlines above and ask: “Do you really believe all of this is OK?”
I’d like to believe most decent people don’t. But the headlines keep coming.
The founding myth of the corporate reform movement is the rebirth and transformation of the public schools of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Most of the city’s public schools suffered physical damage because of the horrendous storm. Large numbers of the students and teachers were scattered after the storm. The state of Louisiana moved in aggressively: it lowered the bar at which a school was deemed to be failing. It took control of most of the public schools and turned them over to charter operators. It fired all of the teachers, most of whom were African-American, disbanding the teachers’ union. The charter operators hired large numbers of Teach for America recruits. The media hailed the experiment in privatization as a success story. Numerous states followed the lead of New Orleans, turning over their lowest-performing schools to charter operators. Michigan created the Education Achievement Authority. Tennessee created the Achievement School District. North Carolina and Nevada launched similar but smaller experimental districts. All of them failed.
Now comes a report that the nearly all-charter New Orleans district did not live up to its hype.
Dr. Barbara Ferguson
Research on Reforms, Inc.
April 2024
Following Hurricane Katrina, a newly enacted state law identified schools that scored below the state average as failing and subject to take-over. The state then took-over 107 of New Orleans’ 120 public schools and turned them into charter schools. Last year’s scores showed that 56 of New Orleans’ 68 public schools had scores below the state average.*
Thus, after nearly twenty years, over 80% of New Orleans schools are still below the state average. This charter school experiment has been a failure.
Of the five worst performing high schools taken-over, only one now scores above the state average. Two are still below the state average. Another was closed and then reopened as a campus to expand the Willow selective admission charter school. The status of the other, Walter Cohen, is unclear. Recall that the New Orleans College Prep Charter took-over Cohen High School, operating its selective charter school on one floor, while leaving the failing Cohen students on the other floors. Thus, we learned that the take-over of a failing school simply meant taking-over the building, not the failing students in the building.
Of the five highest performing high schools taken-over, they continue to be the highest performing except for one, McDonogh #35, which is now below the state average. These schools, except for McDonogh #35, collectively received over $5 million in Charter School Grant Funds. The five worst performing high schools received nothing in Charter School Grant Funds following the takeover.The Louisiana law, which termed charter schools “an experiment,” also stated that they were to “serve the best interests of at-risk” children and youth.
But the legislative auditor found in 2022 that for the past six years, more than 1 in 5 charter schools failed to meet requirements on enrollment of children from low-income families.
Louisiana’s “state takeover” law required schools below the state average to be taken-over. Thus, half of the schools should have been taken-over because half are below the state average and half are above. Yet, only the New Orleans’ schools below the state average were taken-over. Targeting New Orleans seems to again be popular with our new governor.
Research on Reforms, Inc. consistently reported on the status of the state-takeover through its website and a published book, “Outcomes of the State Takeover of the New Orleans Schools.” This will be the final of its outreach, which ends with hope that our legislature will one day enact laws that provide equity and excellence in education for our New Orleans children and youth.
Barbara Ferguson, Attorney and Co-founder
Charles Hatfield, Co-founder
Research on Reforms, Inc.
Comments to
The American Civil Liberties Union issued a statement to advise college and university presidents about responding to student protests.
We write in response to the recent protests that have spread across our nation’s university and college campuses, and the disturbing arrests that have followed. We understand that as leaders of your campus communities, it can be extraordinarily difficult to navigate the pressures you face from politicians, donors, and faculty and students alike. You also have legal obligations to combat discrimination and a responsibility to maintain order. But as you fashion responses to the activism of your students (and faculty and staff), it is essential that you not sacrifice principles of academic freedom and free speech that are core to the educational mission of your respected institution…The American Civil Liberties Union released a statement describing how universities should react to demonstrations on campus.
The statement begins:
Schools must not single out particular viewpoints for censorship, discipline, or disproportionate punishment
These protections extend to both students and faculty, and to speech that supports either side of the conflict. Outside the classroom, including on social media, students and professors must be free to express even the most controversial political opinions without fear of discipline or censure. Inside the classroom, speech can be and always has been subject to more restrictive rules to ensure civil dialogue and a robust learning environment. But such rules have no place in a public forum like a campus green. Preserving physical safety on campuses is paramount; but “safety” from ideas or views that one finds offensive is anathema to the very enterprise of the university.
First, university administrators must not single out particular viewpoints — however offensive they may be to some members of the community — for censorship, discipline, or disproportionate punishment. Viewpoint neutrality is essential. Harassment directed at individuals because of their race, ethnicity, or religion is not, of course, permissible. But general calls for a Palestinian state “from the river to the sea,” or defenses of Israel’s assault on Gaza, even if many listeners find these messages deeply offensive, cannot be prohibited or punished by a university that respects free speech principles.
Schools must protect students from discriminatory harassment and violence
Second, both public and private universities are bound by civil rights laws that guarantee all students equal access to education, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. This means that schools can, and indeed must, protect students from discriminatory harassment on the basis of race or national origin, which has been interpreted to include discrimination on the basis of “shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics,” or “citizenship or residency in a country with a dominant religion or distinct religious identity.”
So, while offensive and even racist speech is constitutionally protected, shouting an epithet at a particular student or pinning an offensive sign to their dorm room door can constitute impermissible harassment, not free speech. Antisemitic or anti-Palestinian speech targeted at individuals because of their ethnicity or national origin constitutes invidious discrimination, and cannot be tolerated. Physically intimidating students by blocking their movements or pursuing them aggressively is unprotected conduct, not protected speech. It should go without saying that violence is never an acceptable protest tactic.
Speech that is not targeted at an individual or individuals because of their ethnicity or national origin but merely expresses impassioned views about Israel or Palestine is not discrimination and should be protected. The only exception for such untargeted speech is where it is so severe or pervasive that it denies students equal access to an education — an extremely demanding standard that has almost never been met by pure speech. One can criticize Israel’s actions, even in vituperative terms, without being antisemitic. And by the same token, one can support Israel’s actions in Gaza and condemn Hamas without being anti-Muslim. Administrators must resist the tendency to equate criticism with discrimination. Speech condoning violence can be condemned, to be sure. But it cannot be the basis for punishment, without more.
Schools can announce and enforce reasonable content-neutral protest policies but they must leave ample room for students to express themselves
Third, universities can announce and enforce reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on protest activity to ensure that essential college functions can continue. Such restrictions must be content neutral, meaning that they do not depend on the substance of what is being communicated, but rather where, when, or how it is being communicated. Protests can be limited to certain areas of campus and certain times of the day, for example. These policies must, however, leave ample room for students to speak to and to be heard by other members of the community. And the rules must not only be content neutral on their face; they must also be applied in a content-neutral manner. If a university has routinely tolerated violations of its rules, and suddenly enforces them harshly in a specific context, singling out particular views for punishment, the fact that the policy is formally neutral on its face does not make viewpoint-based enforcement permissible.
Open the link to finish reading the statement.
Indiana has plunged headlong into privatization of its-once-beloved public schools.
Fortunately, there is a knowledgeable candidate for Governor who has promised to stop the destruction of public education.
Jennifer McCormick is a career educator who began as a special education teacher, then became a language arts teacher, a principal and a district superintendent.
She was elected Indiana State Superintendent of Public Instruction in 2016; she ran as a Republican. She served out her four-year term and switched parties in 2021.
McCormick wrote on Twitter:
Indiana GOP’s school privatization efforts have diverted 1.6B of tax dollars away from public schools, and the majority of communities do not have families and/or private schools participating. As governor, I will champion for Indiana to pause funding school privatization.
At the NPE conference in D.C. in 2023, JenniferMcCormick and me.
Rick Wilson, a Never-Trump Republican and a founder of The Lincoln Project, warns about the danger of normalizing Trump:
I’m seeing a lot of traditional, DC “bothsides” reporting lately, arguing that this is at some level a “normal” election between a center-left Democratic party and a center-right Republican party.
This morning, Axios published a piece by Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei titled “Behind the Curtain: America’s reality distortion machine,” which caused a stir in political media circles.
It leads out with a question: “Here’s a wild thought experiment: What if we’ve been deceived into thinking we’re more divided, more dysfunctional, and more defeated than we actually are?” and proceeds to make some pretty good arguments about why we’re not a dystopian hellscape. I think they missed the big point, and this piece will stand out as a Washington Normalcy Bias exemplar for a long time.
My friend Molly Jong-Fast lit them up on Morning Joe,
She had precisely the right response: “But you understand that the conventional framing elevates the autocrat.”
No, not every American — in fact, not even a majority — is locked in the day to day of political struggle. Yes, there are silos. Yes, the algorithmic hypnosis of social media is real.
I cede all those points. America is a nation filled with hundreds of millions of people who aren’t partisan jihadis, left or right. There really is a desire for basic decency, decoupled from political rage, induced or not.
They’re not wrong to make these points, and the America they describe is one we should crave—not being involved in politics every moment of the day is a luxury only present in stable democracies.
But they ignore the existential issue underpinning this all.
We aren’t in a nation where the sensible center will survive if Donald Trump wins.
Only one side of the political argument wants their president to govern like a dictator. Only one side believes that the President is above the law — if his name is Donald Trump. Only one side of the political equation mounted an armed attack on the United States Capitol.
Only one side has welcomed the “no enemies to our right” philosophy, which means their party winks and nods at the alt-reich, the white nationalists, and the rest of the Daily Stormer crowd. Only one side is banning books, diving deeply into the seas of culture war cruelty and persecution.
Only one side backs America’s enemies abroad and promises to hand Europe over to Vladimir Putin on a plate. I could recite the Bill of Condemnation all day, but you understand the point.
The political movement that embraces the aforementioned horrors is MAGA, and its sole leader is Donald Trump.
Once again, the world is playing chess, and Donald Trump is eating the pieces and crapping on the board, and instead of horror, the reaction is a shrug.
This isn’t a regular election with typical outcomes.
Ordinary people living ordinary lives who think politics doesn’t matter and that the world will go on as it has can’t grapple with what happens in a post-American Presidency. It seems a lot of Washington reporters can’t either.
Normalcy bias is the best friend of authoritarians. If you think the algo-driven bubble on social media is robust, nothing tops normalcy bias. This cognitive bias can play into the hands of authoritarian regimes or leaders in a few ways:
It plays to the natural tendency for people to underestimate the possibility of a disaster, dictator, or disruptive event coming to the fore. It lets people assume that things will continue as normal because they’ve always been that way. (Berlin, 1936, anyone?)
It lulls people into complacency: they assume things will continue as they always have, and like frogs boiling in a slow pot, they may fail to recognize creeping authoritarianism and the erosion of democratic norms and civil liberties until it’s too late.
It makes people—even people reporting on it professionally—miss clear signals that a movement or regime is becoming more authoritarian, even when its leaders lay out their plans in broad daylight.
Once you say, “It can’t happen here,” there’s a high likelihood it’s already happening.
The normalcy bias makes people slow to react and resist authoritarian encroachments because they don’t perceive the seriousness of the threat until it’s too late.
Normalcy bias also rears its ugly head after the damage is done. Authoritarian actions are emergencies, you see. “The Caravan! Antifa! Transing the kids!” demand temporary measures lulling citizens into acceptance of the worst…and the temporary measures seem to last forever.
People convinced that the current system is immutable are less likely to make contingency plans or organize resistance against potential authoritarianism taking root. Trust me, the Never Trump folks screaming into the void for the last decade can tell you all about this one.
It’s tempting to hope that societal inertia in the center will overcome the energy and danger on the MAGA flank.
It hasn’t, and it won’t.
Jess Piper lives in rural Missouri. She is a fearless progressive and a fighter. She has repeatedly called on the Democratic Party to contest every seat, even in rural areas, where voters usually have no choice. She will be a featured speaker at the next convening of the Network for Public Education in April 2025 in Columbus, Ohio.
“You don’t like it? Move.”
This sort of advice is often given to me in online spaces when I say something truthful about Missouri that irritates folks on the right. When I talk about abortion bans, I should move to California. When I talk about funding schools, I should move to New York. When I speak out against harmful policies, I’m just an out of place, out of touch, liberal.
I’ve been told to move to California or New York many times, and while I have visited both states, and appreciate the CA beaches and the NY atmosphere, I wouldn’t move to either state for two very important reasons: 1) This is where my children and grandchildren live. 2) This is my state too.
Here’s something that may interest you; I hear the same rhetoric, although presented in a much more caring way, from progressives in states with better representation. My blue state friends have given me the “just move” advice on several occasions. They fear that I am in danger or that specific policies will hurt my family. They are justified in thinking I should move, but what they don’t realize is that moving will eventually harm them. If all of the like-minded congregate in progressive states, we will all eventually be overwhelmed by the regressive states.
If we don’t contest and protest in every GOP-dominated state, the bad policies will leach into all the states.
I will preface this essay by saying that I understand that not all folks have the privilege I have to stay and fight. Those with trans children, those impacted by our state healthcare failings and childcare issues, those dealing with things I can’t even begin to understand have every reason to flee states like Missouri. I make absolutely no judgment on those who choose to leave. I am in solidarity with them.
If you’ve done the reading, you know that our country is slowly being swallowed up by right-wing billionaire rhetoric and policies. You likely know the long-game for this takeover was hashed out decades ago, and the way the extremists were able to do this was by taking over state legislatures and positions like the Secretary of State and the Attorney General. They have bankrolled the campaigns of State Reps and Senators, and even dip their toes into school board races.
In my state, the evolution is complete. Missouri went from a bellwether state to a radical state bent on stripping the rights of over 1/2 of the population and passing policies meant only for the wealthy. But, my leaving this state would be detrimental to other states and here’s how: GOP-dominated states create the policies that would overcome the country if left unchecked and uncontested.
None of us is safe so long as there are folks living in states that are unsafe. They will roll over us first, and you next.
The billionaires are using my state AG and other regressive state AGs to file suit to dismantle public schools. They sue to ban abortion and the medicine for self-managed abortions. They sue to stop college loan forgiveness. They sue to overturn civil rights and anti-discrimination policies. My former AG, Eric Schmitt, even sued Missouri public schools to make them stop masking procedures during a global pandemic. The worst part? He was then elected as our Senator.
If we can’t stop these extremists in our states, they often go on to win higher office and harm the entire country.
The billionaires are also using GOP-dominated states to appoint Secretaries of States who will throw voting rights into the toilet. These SOSs have the ability to impact the nation and create the chaos we saw in the 2020 Presidential election with some states allowing fake electors that would have given the office to Trump.
And there’s this: On January 2, 2021, during an hour-long conference call, then-President Trump pressured Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to change the state’s election results from the 2020 presidential election. The country is lucky the GA Republican Secretary of State did not fold, but we may not always be so lucky.
Progressives fighting back in regressive states are fighting for all of us. They represent the tipping point for the nation. They contest seats, they protest human rights violations, and they show up to keep the red from leaching into the blue.
The real fight for democracy is at the state level. Activists in GOP-dominated states can’t just move…there is nowhere to go.
If we can’t stop the slow churn toward fascism in our states, there is little hope we can stop it nationwide. So, we stay. We stand up and talk back. We link arms and fight the local corrupt policies to stop national corrupt policies.
Just move? No. I can’t. I won’t.
This is my state too.
~Jess
Eva Moskowitz runs the most successful (when measured by test scores) and the most controversial charter chain in New York State. Controversial because her schools are highly regimented, “no excuses” schools where student behavior and dress are tightly monitored. Controversial because her schools have a high attrition rate and a high teacher turnover rate. Outspoken parents complain that their children were “counseled out” or pushed out due to their behavior, their test scores, or their special needs.
Eva expected to expand to 100 schools in New York City but she constantly must fight parents and community schools who oppose her methods. So long as Michael Bloomberg was mayor and Joel was chancellor of the schools, Eva got whatever she wanted. But when they left office a decade ago, Eva had to fight off her critics without the certainty that City Hall. Backed her.
Funding has never been a problem for Success Academy. The chain is a favorite of Wall Street billionaires. Eva is said to have a salary and bonuses that are nearly $1 million. She has purchased properties and leases space to her schools.
Now, Chalkbeat reports, it appears that Eva is pondering open Success Academy schools in Florida, where charter schools are booming.
Alex Zimmerman writes:
Success Academy, New York City’s largest charter operator, is considering an expansion to Florida, a major shift in strategy for the network.
Success founder and CEO Eva Moskowitz said Wednesday she is in search of friendlier terrain for expansion.
New York has been “a rather hostile political environment” for charter schools, Moskowitz testified at a Florida State Board of Education meeting Wednesday morning. She later added: “I want to be in a place that’s high-growth, that’s high-innovation, that is welcoming to parental choice.”
The network’s decision to contemplate expanding beyond New York is a notable shift, as Success has operated schools exclusively within the five boroughs since launching in 2006.
Moskowitz previously outlined aggressive plans to expand to 100 schools locally, roughly double the number that the network currently operates. But Moskowitz and other leaders have faced strong headwinds. Charter schools have fallen out of favor with many Democrats and the sector faces a strict cap on the number of schools that are allowed to operate in the state. The legislature recently allowed 14 new charters to open in New York City, but have not signaled any plans to allow dramatically more than that.
Plus, the city’s charter networks have struggled with declining enrollment in recent years, including Success, though preliminary state figures show the network now enrolls about 21,000 students, erasing pandemic-era enrollment losses. Success is currently looking to open six new schools, according to the SUNY Charter Schools Institute, which oversees Success.
Florida officials, meanwhile, are rolling out the red carpet. The State Board of Education voted Wednesday to designate Success as a “School of Hope” operator, a program designed to attract high-performing charters to the state, offering funding for construction and other startup costs.
Enrollment in Florida’s charter sector has steadily grown in recent years, educating nearly 14% of students, or roughly 400,000 children, state data show. Charters are publicly funded, but privately operated schools.
In her testimony, Moskowitz emphasized that the network’s students are overwhelmingly low-income children of color and their test scores far outpace the city’s district schools — and even affluent suburbs. She also highlighted the network’s track record of preparing students to attend competitive colleges.
“This is exactly what we were envisioning: To have a charter school network to be able to come in and really serve those populations that are in need of this kind of academic rigor, of this performance,” State Education Commissioner Manny Diaz, Jr. said at the Wednesday hearing.
But Success has also been dogged by persistent allegations that school officials push out children who are more difficult to serve, including suspending them or dialing 911when students are experiencing behavioral problems or emotional distress. In 2015, the New York Times reported that one of its Brooklyn campuses had created a “Got to Go” list of troublesome students. Success officials said the list was a mistake and have disputedthat they systematically push children out.
It’s not clear how quickly Success might move to open schools in Florida or even if they will ultimately move forward with plans to do so. A Success Academy spokesperson did not elaborate.
Open the link to continue reading.
Diane Ravitch's blog 