Search Results

CMC students’ well-intentioned efforts to combat prejudice have veered into the realm of counterproductive activism, which inadvertently harms the very communities they aim to uplift. It's time to take a step back and ask ourselves: Have the fiery debates, finger-pointing, and self-congratulatory events truly ameliorated the social divide at CMC, or have they merely created the illusion of progress? Campus climate surveys reveal an unsettling truth: while the majority of students report positive interactions with their peers, there is a pronounced gap between this widespread satisfaction and the experiences of Black, Latino, and LGBTQ+ students. These disparities demand attention. However, the current state of campus activism might be hindering, rather than helping, progress on this front. Activism should not be about participation prizes or padding one's resume but about making a tangible difference in the lives of marginalized communities. Unfortunately, the focus on optics and self-promotion detracts from the actual work that needs to be done. The college community must remember that all students attend classes, eat in dining halls, and have real emotions. Verbal attacks only foster division and create hostility, hindering genuine progress. Accusations of insufficient DEI efforts, followed by demands to set ego aside, lead to unproductive and hypocritical situations. The college should promote open and honest dialogue. Rather than addressing the systemic issues at hand, some individuals resort to personal jabs and character attacks, undermining their own credibility and distracting from the real concerns. Such juvenile tactics only serve to further polarize the campus community and foster an environment of hostility and mistrust. Isn't the goal to build an inclusive and just campus for all? If so, I am not sure how attacks or even rewards in the name of false progress are helping. Consider the recent case of a student who received additional compensation for work she had already been paid to complete as an elected ASCMC officer. No other officers were given additional pay, as it should be—extra pay for fulfilling one's duties is unjustifiable. That money could have supported an affinity group, but instead, it ended up in a student's pocket. Remember, these stipends are funded by your student fees. CARE events, designed to raise awareness and promote social justice, often attract the same attendees time and time again. While it's commendable that a core group of individuals is dedicated to these causes, the question arises: Are we genuinely reaching the people who need to hear these messages the most? Or are we just reinforcing our beliefs in an echo chamber? ​​Not everyone feels comfortable attending niche events, and this isn't a failure of the wider community. Whether you like it or not, Brad and Chad are not coming to those events, and no effort is made to meet them where they're at. Instead of approaching disagreements with pitchforks and torches at the ready, the campus community must foster an atmosphere of understanding and cooperation. By engaging in respectful conversations, the college can address the concerns of marginalized communities more effectively and create genuine change on campus. This op-ed isn't meant to silence student activists or brand them as "uncivilized." Instead, it seeks to boldly expose the unspoken hypocrisy, unmasking actions that masquerade as virtuous but are, in reality, mere signaling. Some will attack this article because being antagonistic often seems easier than admitting one's own shortcomings. We have reached a point where it is deemed acceptable to call someone a "prick" in a public meeting or to demand a public apology from an ASCMC officer of color for expressing legitimate concerns about safety at a Halloween event. The fact that these ideas are likely to be met with hostility only serves to prove the point that there is a need for a more constructive, respectful approach to activism on our campus. The college community must work together to ensure that its activism creates a legacy of genuine progress, rather than becoming an empty performance that ultimately harms the communities it aims to support. So, let's take a deep breath, put down the megaphone, and start talking to each other like humans.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the GOP has been largely defined by a struggle between populism and ‘establishment’ conservatism. During Pat Buchanan’s 1992 primary challenge, he skewered the incumbent George H.W. Bush as a “globalist” who was helping “bureaucrats in Brussels” to pursue a “European super-state” and undermine national identity. Bush – and the ‘establishment’– ended up prevailing narrowly in those primaries. But Buchanan did not go away, and neither did his ideas for many Republican voters. Donald Trump’s 2016 election represented a triumph of Buchanan’s ideas and the GOP's populist wing. After two impeachments, a failed coup, abysmal midterm results, a looming DOJ probe, and criminal charges for the former President, the Republican future remains in doubt. Is the GOP moving back towards the kind of establishment conservatism that dominated in the post Reagan years? Or will there be a new path that fuses elements of the Trump-era populism with more familiar tenets of conservative philosophy? Or is the future just more Donald Trump? At the beginning of the year, Ron DeSantis looked as if he might provide an answer. The Florida Governor gained national notoriety for his stance on issues that unified the party’s populist base with its older-guard establishment, all without eliciting meaningful resistance from Florida Democrats. This confluence of base and establishment appeal in a key battleground state made DeSantis a natural figure to lead a post-Trump Republican coalition. After his nearly 20-point reelection margin in 2022, and a poor performance for Trump-endorsed candidates across the country, the Governor seemed poised to assemble all of the various conservative factions skeptical of Trump under his banner. Until he didn’t. What went wrong? The issue that put DeSantis on the national political map was COVID. He established a national reputation by challenging restrictions, garnering praise from conservatives and becoming a regular guest on Fox News. He championed in-person learning and maintained open schools, while also prohibiting mask mandates for Florida's approximately 3 million public K-12 students. He also engaged in high-profile disputes with the Biden administration regarding vaccine requirements for workers. DeSantis' approach encountered significant controversy in 2020, but the tides shifted in his favor throughout 2021 and 2022. A combination of evolving circumstances and shifting perspectives on COVID propelled DeSantis to emerge as a winner in public opinion on the issue. Net migration to Florida sharply increased from 2020 to 2021, one study found. But in terms of electoral politics, the problem is precisely that DeSantis won and nobody is focused on COVID policy anymore. The other issues DeSantis banked on as unifying for the right – woke culture, abortion, and immigration – haven’t served him in the same way. Now, the Governor’s coalition is fracturing. Where DeSantis has faltered is in finding ways to unite Republicans who don’t like Donald Trump but may agree on little else. DeSantis' inclination to play to Trump’s right has caused more problems for him in the Republican primary than it did when he only had "woke" Democrats as antagonists. While there is enough space to situate himself to attack the "woke" without alienating the right-wing base, trying to be further right than Trump on such issues exposes DeSantis to risks with both the general electorate and his more moderate supporters. Last year, DeSantis signed HB 7, known as the Stop W.O.K.E. Act and officially called the Individual Freedom Act – an educational gag order. Among other things, it prevents teachers from discussing advantages or disadvantages based on race. Discussion of systemic racism is considered “critical race theory” and not allowed. In the 2021-22 school year, PEN America documented 565 books banned in Florida schools. DeSantis’s legislative attacks on ‘woke culture’ have begun to cost him. A top Republican donor, Thomas Peterffy, said he had paused plans to fund Ron DeSantis’s expected presidential run because of the governor’s “stance on abortion and book banning.” Abortion presents a similar conundrum for him. DeSantis has taken considerable heat from his own party since signing a bill that would ban abortions after six weeks. It’s a microcosm of the bigger problem facing the GOP as the 2024 election looms: Republicans lawmakers are divided on a post-Roe, national approach to abortion, and DeSantis’s positioning on the issue is unpopular to a clear majority of voters who are seeking a middle ground on the issue. DeSantis does not seem cognizant of the delicate balancing act he faces and has committed errors as a result. His strategic illogic is best illustrated by his approach to Ukraine. The GOP has two diverging and dominant views on Ukraine. The first view, espoused by GOP party leaders and figures such as Nikki Haley and Tim Scott, maintains that Russia's assault on Ukraine poses a threat to the liberal world order, and frames support for Ukraine as in America's vital national interest. The second view, championed by the populist wing, argues that the US has no vital national interests in Ukraine. Tucker Carlson has expressed indifference about Putin's actions in Ukraine, while Trump has suggested that the conflict will persist so long as the US continues to provide aid. DeSantis' lenient stance on the invasion has cost him support from the neoconservative right, which cares deeply about containing Russia, and would likely be needed as part of any successful anti-Trump coalition. DeSantis need not be a neocon to win this support, but neither can he reject U.S. support for Ukraine in the way he did. A Republican primary contest between populism and a more traditional brand of conservatism makes for a tidy ideological narrative. But 2024 is not shaping up that way. The dominance of Trump's supporters, their unwavering loyalty to him, and his confrontational political style seem to be preempting any effective challenge from democracy-supporting GOP governors, who might consider entering the campaign. DeSantis still looks like the only plausible challenger. And so far, his challenge to Trump doesn’t look very challenging.

Jamal Bowman (D-NY) and supporters of TikTok hold signs during a rally to defend the app at the Capitol in March. Image Creator: J. Scott Applewhite | Credit: AP Throughout American history, free speech has been tested in times of global conflict. During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson signed laws that criminalized core First Amendment speech. It took the Supreme Court decades to reverse course and advance a broad vision of free speech protections. It remains to be seen how those broad protections will be applied to a rapidly changing social media landscape. China is infamous for using communication networks and tech companies to get ahead of its overseas competitors. This makes the data privacy practices of TikTok—an app with 80 million active American users—and its ties with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) a national security concern for the United States. Avril Haines, President Biden's Director of National Intelligence, has warned about China using TikTok to “build frameworks for collecting foreign data” … and “target audiences for information campaigns.” FBI Director Chris Wray has highlighted the app’s capacity to advance Chinese “influence campaigns” and espionage efforts. Politicians from both parties want to restrict TikTok. Last year, lawmakers barred TikTok on government-owned devices. Montana recently became the first state to pass a market ban. Many lawmakers are pushing to halt TikTok’s operation in the United States altogether. Opposition to a TikTok ban comes mainly from the progressive Left and the libertarian Right. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and fellow “squad” members such as Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) have hundreds of thousands of followers and remain active on the platform. Rand Paul (R-KY) worries that a ban will alienate young social media users from the Republican Party. But even if these positions reflect elements of political self-interest, they appear to be right on the legal merits. An outright ban on TikTok is likely incompatible with the First Amendment and there’s little reason to believe that the courts would uphold one, should Congress pass it. A TikTok ban would fly in the face of jurisprudence supporting the right of the citizens to receive ideas, even from governments hostile to the United States. In Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965), the Supreme Court struck down a statute that empowered the Postmaster General to control the flow of foreign “communist political propaganda” through the mail. The plaintiff was Corliss Lamont, a socialist philosophy professor at Columbia. Even in the midst of the Cold War, the court unanimously ruled that Lamont had a right to receive ideas from the Soviet Union. The Supreme Court hasn’t wavered in applying such protections to social media. In Packingham v. North Carolina (2017), the justices ruled unanimously that a law prohibiting sex offenders from using social media violated the First Amendment. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, noted that individuals’ right to participate in political debate trumped even the government interest in preventing pedophilia. Under the Constitution, a law cannot broadly ban access to digital “public forums” for speech. In the final year of his presidency, Donald Trump tried to restrict both TikTok and the Chinese messaging app WeChat using emergency economic powers. A federal court ruled against him on First Amendment grounds. There is little reason to think that the Montana law, SB 419, will fare any better. If the law takes effect as intended next year, Montanans will be prevented from participating in protected forms of expression on the platform. Moreover, individuals from other states who use TikTok as a medium for self-expression will be unable to connect with an audience in Montana. These consequences establish a direct suppression of speech, which warrants strict scrutiny from courts. To say that a ban on TikTok would implicate the First Amendment does not necessarily mean that it violates it. But a ban would have to satisfy First Amendment scrutiny to survive a constitutional challenge. Montana’s uphill battle to justify its constraints on free speech rests on its ability to convincingly argue that the ban is narrowly tailored to protect users from Chinese government influence campaigns and data collection. Precedent protects an influence campaign as long as it does not amount to direct, foreign interference with an election. Data collection raises a more novel question. As Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman wrote in Bloomberg last week, “I can't think of another example in First Amendment history where the government tried to assert that reading or viewing some content would hurt you, not because the content itself is dangerous but because someone else might spy on you while you are consuming the content.” Montana’s forceful crackdown on TikTok coincides with the Biden administration’s ongoing negotiations with the company regarding its future in the United States. In April, White House officials directed TikTok to sever ties with its Beijing-based parent company, ByteDance, or else face a nationwide shutdown. However, for Washington to defend such a drastic measure, concrete evidence demonstrating TikTok to be a genuine threat is crucial. While there is good reason to be concerned about TikTok and user privacy, mere “potential” threats would likely fall short in a courtroom. Ban supporters highlight a 2017 Chinese intelligence law requiring private companies to hand over customer data to the government if Beijing ever requests such information. However, TikTok says it wouldn’t comply. In any case, the government would face a high burden of justification for an outright ban. Should judges decide that a TikTok ban represents a prior restraint on the speech of its users, the Biden Administration would have to prove an “exceptional government interest” to justify a ban. If a court determines that a ban is based on viewpoints espoused by TikTok — a real possibility, given the stated purpose of preventing Beijing from using the app to conduct covert influence campaigns — the administration would need to prove a “compelling government interest.” And even if judges were to rule that a TikTok ban was neutral regarding content and viewpoint – possible – the government would have to prove that its remedy was narrowly tailored. What arguments might the government use to navigate around these obstacles? Some proponents of a ban say the Packingham precedent doesn’t apply because legislation would target a company, not individual users. For example, the FCC banned Chinese-owned communications companies like Huawei, China Telecom, and ZTE from entering U.S. networks. The D.C. Circuit upheld banning all those companies from American markets without mentioning the First Amendment. The difference is that those companies sold communication equipment, whereas 80 million Americans practice speech on TikTok. The Huawei ban prevented US companies from using Huawei equipment. It didn't apply to consumers who owned Huawei products and didn't prevent them from buying new ones, either. Montana’s SB 419 goes out of its way to punish not the app’s users but Apple and Google if they leave TikTok available to purchase in the state. Constitutionally, that doesn't make an actual difference, and it wouldn’t for a federal ban either. Imagine a law barring cable providers from working with CNN. Targeting the cable providers wouldn't make it any less of an infringement on CNN’s speech. Like it or not, the First Amendment gives TikTok and its users the same protection. It seems that TikTok influencers, who make a living off the app, may have some breathing room before they have to find real jobs.

Footage courtesy of C-SPAN In April, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre got into a tense clash with New York Times reporter Michael Shear (CM '90). Shear suggested the Biden administration was being selectively silent in response to legal issues involving former President Donald Trump. Note: This debate occurred in response to former President Trump's indictment in Manhattan. However, neither the White House press office nor the President has commented on Trump's recent indictment on 37 federal charges, either. With a former President facing criminal charges in multiple jurisdictions, American politics are in entirely uncharted territory. As these cases progress, there will be more pressure for the Biden Administration to respond. Biden's advisors privately acknowledge that their reason for not responding is political. Any remarks the Administration makes will give Trump ammunition for his claims of political persecution. If Biden comments, you can bank on Trump using the clip in his campaign ads. Still, it is unclear how not commenting helps Biden. Support for Trump’s arrest breaks down on partisan lines. Even though Trump was charged by an independent prosecutor, much of the public assumes the President to be behind charges issued by the Department of Justice. Republican lawmakers and Presidential hopefuls continue to disparage the rule of law. The President, whose constitutional oath is to uphold those laws, seems intent on doing so in silence. But the silence isn’t painless for Biden. As Shear wrote last week, “It prevents the president from defending the government’s legal system against Mr. Trump’s relentless, yearslong attacks, which are now amplified and echoed by his Republican allies.” — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Click here to read a recent piece by Shear and his colleagues on how President Biden’s age is playing out in the 2024 Election. Click here to keep up with Shear’s day-by-day White House coverage for the New York Times.

Michael Waldman’s new book, The Supermajority, provides a compelling chronicle of how the American right captured the country’s highest court — culminating over three days in June 2022 when the six conservative justices issued a series of decisions that dramatically upended long-settled aspects of American law and society. During those three days, the court ended the national right to abortion, expanded gun rights, and restricted the federal government’s ability to regulate emissions that are worsening climate change. Waldman deconstructs the judicial philosophy of ‘originalism’ animating these decisions, and questions the supermajority’s fidelity to ‘textualism’ when it does not serve their desired outcomes. Before Waldman takes a closer look at those rulings, he paints a brief picture of the Court's history from the last two centuries. He begins with Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) and Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), two disastrous decisions, before moving to the “Black Monday” rulings that gutted major components of FDR’s New Deal, followed by the “switch in time that saved nine” which saw them upheld under the taxation power. He then takes readers all the way up to Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and through to Obergefell v Hodges (2015), which established marriage rights for gay couples. Waldman, a former speechwriter for President Bill Clinton, is president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, a law and policy institute that focuses on improving systems of democracy and justice. Perhaps surprisingly for a liberal critic of the court, he casts a critical eye on what he views as liberal excess in the actions that helped create the current right-wing judicial reaction. In his view, it is the backlash to the liberal judicial overreach of the 1960s that has produced a reaction in the form of the overwhelming organizational energy of the American right over the past 60 years – the huge infrastructure of think tanks, political action committees, and distinctly conservative news outlets. Waldman criticizes the Warren Court — which presided over landmark cases in the mid-20th Century that expanded rights in areas such as school desegregation, criminal defendant protections, and contraception — for losing its grounding in the law and public opinion, paving the way for the conservative resurgence that followed. Waldman writes that the decision in Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that established a nationwide right to abortion, was poorly reasoned and needlessly galvanized opposition by grounding its ruling “penumbras” rather than other possible bases, such as the Ninth Amendment, which says that all the rights not listed in the Constitution belong to the people, not the government. This sentiment is echoed by many pro-choice legal scholars, including Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who would have preferred to see abortion rights protected under equal protection for women. According to RBG, Roe vs. Wade “became a storm center because the court ventured too far in the change it ordered.” Rather than resolve the issue, the court’s broad ruling “halted a political process that was moving” to liberalize abortion already, she said, and instead launched “the mobilization of the right-to-life movement” that changed American politics. In a broader sense, Waldman charges the Left of that era with prioritizing individual rights over other social goods, resulting in a decline in notions of equality. He criticizes liberalism for relying so heavily on the Court to advance progressive policies. This, he writes, led to the weakening of the Left's political position and the strengthening of the Right’s. “The backlash to the 1960s lasted much longer than the 1960s did,” Waldman observes. “Most of us have spent most of our lives living in it.” Make no mistake, Waldman’s skepticism about the reasoning in Roe does not imply he doesn’t share the outrage over what can only be described as an act of judicial activism in overturning it. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood, it repudiated the very idea that America’s highest court exists to protect people’s fundamental liberties from legislative majorities that would infringe on them. By overturning Casey, it called into question the core idea that the justices follow precedent. Casey stood for the idea that the court would uphold its past decisions absent a major, transformative reason to do so. Under Casey, lower courts would leave precedents in place. That norm is now gone, and it’s open season on fundamental rights. Parts of the book read like recaps of already well-reported stories. These sections may feel familiar to readers who keep up with the news about the court — Clarence Thomas’s wife Ginni texting White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to stand with the President in attempting to overturn the 2020 election result; the confirmation hearings for Ketanji Brown Jackson in which Republicans attacked her record on pedophilia cases (an allegation the conservative National Review called “meritless to the point of demagoguery”); the Dobbs decision leak; unreported gifts by Justices recently reported by ProPublica, and so on. Nonetheless, Waldman’s takedown of originalism as deployed by the conservative justices is powerful and persuasive. He isn’t blind to why it can be a useful exercise to consider the meaning of the Constitution at the time it was written, and appreciates that in the hands of a witty and charming Justice like the late Antonin Scalia, originalism can be a compelling method of jurisprudential analysis. Originalism arose to limit and constrain judges interpreting the Constitution by making sure they would apply only the law as it was originally intended. Using originalism is meant to curb judicial overreach by making judges into neutral, objective decision-makers who only have to answer the question of what the words of the Constitution originally meant. The Supreme Court in Dobbs was not even pretending to follow a doctrine of originalism. It was using a different interpretive approach, historicism, coined by the German legal theorist Friedrich Carl von Savigny in 1814. The gist of historicism is to draw on historical legal materials to evolve the law in the “spirit of the nation” — Volksgeist in German. This historicism used in Dobbs does not constrain judges nor make them neutral or objective. It empowers them to interpret history to make laws in line with their own ideas about tradition. Turning the tables on the conservative justices, Waldman applies originalism himself to critique Scalia’s reading of the Second Amendment as conferring an individual right to gun ownership. Waldman makes the familiar claim that “bear arms” actually meant to serve in the military at the time of the founding, and cites regulations on gun ownership that date back to the colonial era and continued into modern American history. Clarence Thomas’s opinion in Bruen blatantly ignores this history and instead cherry-picks from dictionaries that didn’t even exist when the country was founded to extend Scalia’s understanding of the 2nd Amendment. Waldman uses textualism to critique the decision in West Virginia vs. EPA. That case concerned the interpretation of the amended Clean Air Act, which authorizes the EPA to regulate power plants by setting a standard of performance for their emissions. The statute read that EPA can regulate new and existing plants with different standards, but in each case, the standard should be “achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction.” The supermajority rejected the plain text of the statute in favor of a “major questions doctrine” – nowhere to be found in the words of the constitution — that says Congress cannot delegate broad power to the executive branch in policy areas that are subject to rigorous public debate and skepticism (AKA almost every issue that relates to politics). Needless to say, that is utter nonsense. Throughout the book, Waldman describes how earlier extreme decisions of the court provoked enormous national backlashes. The greatest backlash of all was the Civil War, which arrived just three years after the hateful decision in Dred Scott v. Stanford. Concluding that the court has once again become a serious threat to American democracy, Waldman sees the tides turning again. Democratic successes in last year’s midterms – many based on rage over the fall of Roe v Wade – point to a new backlash in the making. This time the target is the conservative revolution that the court’s supermajority now incoherently pursues.

Israel lacks a formal written constitution. Instead, it operates based on "Basic Laws" that have been in effect for more than 65 years and are interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court. A vote on Monday by the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, to amend those laws and limit the power of the court has thrown the country head-on into a political crisis. In response to the vote, demonstrators occupied central areas in Israel's biggest cities last night, with police efforts to disperse them using water cannons proving ineffective. In a national address Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu urged calm, while also steadfastly defending his stance. Netanyahu saw passage of the law as so critical that he left the hospital less than 24 hours after emergency heart surgery to vote in the Knesset. Similarly, Israeli progressives saw the prevention of the law as so crucial that around 20,000 of them braved extreme heat to march the 40 miles from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem over the weekend. From a legal perspective, the vote on Monday removes the Supreme Court's power to strike down laws and government appointments deemed 'unreasonable.' This standard, incorporated into Israeli law during the 1980s, often served as a de facto system of checks and balances. Yet, Netanyahu's right-wing coalition partners criticized the court’s exercise of this authority as anti-democratic, arguing that it is merely a linguistic construct. Monday’s vote has triggered a full-scale confrontation between left and right, secular and religious, dove and hawk, over the soul and identity of the Jewish state. Many Israeli civil society groups have called on the Supreme Court to overturn the new law — a move that would all but guarantee a constitutional crisis. When Israel was founded in 1948, it went without a constitution because its early leaders — primarily secular Jews from Eastern Europe — could not reach consensus on the role of religion in relation to democracy. In the 1950s, the Knesset began introducing “Basic Laws," which were meant to serve as groundwork for a future constitution. In 1980, Supreme Court Judge Aharon Barak, a strong advocate of human rights, introduced the concept of 'reasonableness' as a criterion for invalidating government decisions. In 2018, the court upheld a nation-state law declaring Israel a nation-state for Jewish people. Critics said it further downgrades the status of Israel’s Palestinian minority, which makes up about 20 percent of the country’s population. Although the 2018 ruling reflected a rightward shift in the Israeli electorate, the court's application of the reasonableness doctrine has more often led to progressive outcomes. The doctrine has been employed to compel the army to prosecute a colonel whose soldiers mistreated Palestinian detainees, to order the attorney general to press charges against bankers in a share price manipulation case, and to ban Arye Deri –– leader of the ultra-Orthodox Shas party who was serving as interior and health minister –– from government after an indictment for corruption. The new law could pave the way for Deri to lead three ministries in Netanyahu’s government despite his past imprisonment, to inhibit the court from blocking settlement-building and annexation of Palestinian land, and to aid the Netanyahu government in removing Israel’s current attorney general, Gali Baharav, who has overseen the prosecution of Netanyahu on charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. This week’s vote was only one of a series of proposed changes that would point Israel in a more populist and authoritarian direction. Netanyahu’s justice minister, Yariv Levin, wants to grant the Knesset more authority in selecting judges. A separate law that would prohibit all public demonstrations of support for the Palestinian cause received its preliminary reading yesterday. President Biden has been reserved in his criticism of the new law, perhaps because he lacks personal influence with Netanyahu and his team. However, a Trump-era legacy might provide an unexpected counterbalance. The Abraham Accords, which Israel signed with Bahrain, Morocco, and the United Arab Emirates, are now potentially jeopardized. The two Gulf countries – the UAE especially – have repeatedly and openly condemned Israeli leaders and policies In mid-March, a senior United Arab Emirates government official met with Netanyahu and reportedly warned him that the Israeli government’s conduct was straining ties between the countries. “The direction of this government goes completely against the Abraham Accords,” the official was quoted as having told Netanyahu. In light of straining ties with the US, Israel can ill afford to lose the security agreement. For now, Netanyahu appears to be acting against his own interest. Whether or not ensuing protests and unrest may cause him to back down, remains to be seen.

In an office where I was working at the Salvatori Center, I found what must have been a retired CMC professor's rolodex. It was a kind of time capsule, with names and phone numbers of famous conservatives — Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, and Francis Fukuyama. But the name that really caught my eye was John C. Eastman. CMC has always had a more conservative tilt in its faculty relative to comparable liberal arts colleges. Henry Salvatori (namesake of the Salvatori Center) was one of Reagan's first supporters for governor of California, serving as state finance chairman for his 1966 campaign and as part of Reagan's "kitchen cabinet." Many liberal-minded students, myself included, applied to CMC not in spite of a conservative presence here, but because of it. It's rare for any liberal arts college to have as diverse of an intellectual or political culture as CMC does. But when some of those conservative professors ally with attempts to undermine the very foundation of America's constitutional democracy, how should we respond? The value of open debate reaches a logical extreme around attempts to override or overthrow democracy itself. January 6th was not an impromptu outburst of violence. Nor was it merely egged on by Trump's tweets. Jan. 6th was the result of a meticulously orchestrated campaign aimed at overturning the results of the 2020 election, and thus overturning American democracy itself. John Eastman and some of his CMC faculty colleagues, have left our college embarrassingly linked to the attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of presidential power. After all that we've learned about Eastman's brazen effort, the fact that some CMC professors remain associated with him and the Claremont Institute is a source of shame. Although the Claremont Institute has no formal affiliation with any of the Claremont Colleges, it was founded in 1979 by students of the late political theorist Harry V. Jaffa, a professor emeritus at CMC. According to historian Kevin Starr, in his history of CMC's first 50 years, Jaffa's arrival at CMC in the 1960s contributed to the College's prominence in conservative political circles. "Through the writings of Arthur Kemp in Modern Age and Harry Jaffa in National Review," Starr writes, "CMC emerged in the 1960s as one of the headquarters of the conservative intellectual revival then under way in the United States." Professor George Thomas, who arrived at CMC long after Jaffa had retired, remembers Jaffa still visiting campus from time to time: "Some graduate students at neighboring CGU still revered Jaffa in a manner that tended toward idolatry," Thomas writes in an essay. Jaffa at Honnold-Mudd. Photo courtesy of CMC. Jaffa was a Straussian, a follower of the political philosopher Leo Strauss. In his 1959 book, Crisis of the House Divided, Jaffa offers a moral and philosophical reading of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Jaffa characterizes the debates as "identical with the issue between Socrates and Thrasymachus" from Plato's Republic. That is, while Lincoln argued for natural right, Stephen Douglas argued for "popular sovereignty" concerning the expansion of slavery into western territories. For Jaffa, Lincoln insisted that slavery was morally wrong, while Douglas argued that such moral questions depended on the judgment of the people by way of popular sovereignty. Jaffa casts Lincoln as arguing that the moral principles of the Declaration required citizens to recognize the wrong of slavery and to eradicate it, fulfilling the moral and political principles set in motion by the American regime – as Straussians like to call systems of government. So far, so good. But many of Jaffa's disciples at the Claremont Institute have gone much further, arguing that the way to fulfill Lincoln's vision was by fighting, by any means, against the forces of progressivism. In their interpretation, liberals are the legatees of Douglas who succumb to the claims of human will (progressivism) in defiance of natural right. Over the years, numerous CMC alumni and professors have been associated with the Claremont Institute. CMC professor Charles Kesler is currently a senior fellow at the Institute, and the founding editor of its signature publication — The Claremont Review of Books. Kesler receives a six-figure salary (in 2022: $241,000) from the Claremont Institute on top of his compensation from CMC. Kesler Introduces Jaffa. Photo courtesy of The American Mind. CMC Professor Mark Blitz (who, for the record, is my advisor on paper but has no idea who I am) is also a fellow of the Claremont Institute. As a Government student at CMC, you are required to take Intro to Political Philosophy. Between Blitz and Kesler there's a pretty good chance you'll end up taking it with a 'Claremonster.' Overall, the Trump era has been a boon to the Claremont Institute. In the leadup to the 2016 election, the CRB published the infamous 'Flight 93 Election' essay under a pseudonym. The article seized the imagination of the audience by likening the choice between Clinton and Trump to that faced by Flight 93 passengers, who wrested control of the plane from Al Qaeda hijackers on 9/11. Right-wing radio hosts promptly alerted their audiences of the must read essay from the CRB. The audience grew. In the most recently available fiscal year (ending June 2021), the institute reported over $8 million dollars in donations. The author of 'Flight 93 Election' was eventually revealed to be Michael Anton, a former student of Kesler's who went on to work in the Trump administration. "Never Trumpers," then and now, arguably constitute the dominant strain of conservative intellectual sentiment. Yet, here was Anton, a member of a prestigious Straussian wing of the intellectual right making a positive case for a nominee that most conservative intellectuals dismissed as a clown and a surefire loser. According to the article, a Hillary Clinton win would mean certain death of the republic. By contrast, electing Trump was merely risky — "you may die anyway" — but clearly preferable to certain death at the hands of terrorists. If Clinton won, progressivism would destroy the American regime. This vision found its ultimate expression in the attempt to overturn the 2020 election. Eastman, who is a founding director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence — a subsidiary of the Claremont Institute — provided both incitement to the insurrection and legal cover. In a hysterical speech to the crowd on January 6th, Eastman shouted: "So we get to the bottom of it, so that the American people know whether we have control over the direction of our government or not! We no longer live in a self-governing Republic if we can't get the answer to this question! This is bigger than President Trump! It is the very essence of our Republican form of government and it has to be done. And anybody who is not willing to stand up and do it does not deserve to be in the office. It is that simple!" The backdrop to that unhinged performance was Eastman's promulgation of the myth that there were legal pathways to overturn the results. In December 2020, he filed a brief on Trump's behalf in a Texas lawsuit challenging Biden's win before the Supreme Court. The court threw the case out, but Eastman kept up his efforts. Later that month, he wrote and circulated a series of memos espousing the theory that the vice president is "the ultimate arbiter" of the election and had the power to delay Congress' count of Electoral College votes. In the memos, Eastman outlined the way that Vice President Mike Pence, while presiding over the electoral vote count in Congress on January 6, could reject the election results of seven states because of supposed "ongoing disputes" over state electors and thereby exclude the electoral votes from those states. "When (Pence) gets to Arizona," Eastman wrote, "he announces that he has multiple slates of electors" and "(a)t the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed by those States." This was not a long-shot theory but an attempted fraud. The election results of every state were certified by December 9. On December 14, the Electoral College convened and all 538 electors cast the electoral votes for president, with Joe Biden receiving 306 electoral votes to Trump's 232. At that point, Trump had already lost 60 different lawsuits alleging 'voter fraud.' While the Claremont Institute was not affiliated with Eastman's efforts to upend the 2020 election results, the arguments he advanced reveal a shared genealogy of belief – a version of the Flight 93 argument all over again. Eastman's memo essentially argues that any random group of persons in a state can submit a paper to Congress claiming to be the true electors of a state, and that the Vice President can then use that as a basis to throw out the votes of those states. Another pillar of Eastman's memo is the idea that Pence could simply declare that Trump was re-elected President. Eastman outlines how, after Pence rejected the votes from the seven states, Trump would then have the majority of electoral votes: "Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected," Eastman writes, adding later that the vice president is "the ultimate arbiter." This is not true. In fact, there's never a time the presiding officer of the Senate gets to make a final substantive decision about any matter. The 12th Amendment outlines the vice president's role in the certification process on January 6 as largely ceremonial. As the President of the Senate, the Vice President "shall… open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted," according to the 12th Amendment. To be clear, not "certified," but "counted." The votes were already certified a month earlier and no state legislature or judiciary had filed formal requests for them to be recertified. During the Jan. 6 Committee hearings in 2022, Pence lawyer Greg Jacob explained that in the days leading up to Jan. 6, Eastman proposed two paths for Pence to keep Trump in power. Pence could outright reject the electors and their votes, or he could delay the certification for ten days, which would give state legislatures time to send Trump-friendly electors for a later vote count. Eastman's theories were rejected at every turn by principled conservatives including Pence and the federal courts. Even Eastman knew his proposals were not just absurd but potentially criminal, which is why he subsequently sought a presidential pardon. Both Jacob and retired conservative judge J. Michael Luttig testified before the Jan 6 committee that both of Eastman's avenues were illegal. Jacob said Pence never considered either option. Rep Pete Aguilar (D., Calif.) also produced a pre-election memo in which Eastman himself acknowledged that those pathways were not legal. Jacob testified that Eastman switched back and forth over which route he recommended, noting that the second might be more "politically palatable," because the ten day window would provide time to build public acceptance for the move. Despite Pence never entertaining Eastman's suggestions, Eastman pushed the issue numerous times up through Jan 6. Eastman spoke alongside Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani at Trump's Jan. 6 rally at the Ellipse before rioters headed toward the Capitol. During the siege, he exchanged emails with Jacob. "The 'siege' is because YOU and your boss did not do what was necessary to allow this to be aired in a public way so that the American people can see for themselves what happened," Eastman wrote to Jacob. After the insurrection, which delayed the count beyond what is technically called for in the Electoral Count Act, Eastman tried at least once more to convince the Vice President to delay the certification. "Now that we have established that the Electoral Count Act is not so sacrosanct as you have made it out to be, I implore you to consider one more relatively minor violation and adjourn for 10 days to allow the legislatures to finish their investigations," he emailed Pence. Days later, Eastman emailed Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani asking to be placed on a potential presidential pardon list, the committee revealed, though he ultimately was not. Back to Claremont. In the Claremont Review's Winter 2020/21 edition, Kesler shared his thoughts on how January 6th could impact Trump's legacy. While he denounced the violence and criticized the Trump administration's unpreparedness for the day's events, Kesler only mildly questioned John Eastman's theory. Generally, the piece can be viewed as a strenuous attempt to justify Eastman's scheme: he defends Trump's speech on January 6th, critiques the second impeachment, and characterizes Eastman as a brilliant lawyer. Before Eastman's memos were published, Kesler sounded like he thought the theories they advanced were plausible. In "After January 6," he calls Eastman's theory "novel" and "complex," but does not reject it. "Trump was not asking for Pence to single-handedly reverse the election, but to pause the process of counting long enough for the state legislatures to clarify for whom their states had actually voted," Kesler writes. Kesler surprisingly leaves room for the possibility that Eastman and Trump's allegations of a stolen election had merit, even though no evidence had been presented and numerous people had scrutinized the matter (recall the 60 post-election lawsuits Trump lost). Kesler goes on to write, "Truth is, of course, that claims are 'baseless' only until such time as a base of evidence appears for them." Kesler's pivot here is a tell-tale sign of denialism: It's not made up if someday, somehow, there might be evidence for it. Kesler and flat-earthers can find common ground on this point. The essay continues in this vein for some time—highlighting counterfactuals giving credence to Trump and Eastman's underlying assumptions, and so on. But in the end, he does admit "there is persuasive evidence of a more normal sort" that Trump simply lost. It's unlikely Kesler expects that quote to be as funny as it is. More than a year and half passed before Kesler clearly expressed disagreement with Eastman's flawed legal viewpoints and Trump's lies about the 2020 election. "I disagree with John. I think it was a bad idea to give Trump that advice and an even worse idea to speak at the rally," Kesler told The Washington Post in an interview. What changed over that year and a half for Kesler? In his piece from January 2021, Kesler had already conceded the central flaw in Eastman's arguments, saying, "In any event, none of the state legislatures in question had actually filed a formal request to withdraw and reexamine their state's electoral votes." Kesler conceded that fact, but never pondered its significance to Eastman's larger argument, namely, that it was fraudulent because it lacked any factual basis. Eastman and Trump at Fulton County Jail. Photo Courtesy CNN. Given the damning trail of actions and communications, it's no surprise that Eastman finds himself indicted in the Georgia RICO case and implicated in the federal Jan. 6th indictment. Others who participated in the insurrection, or supported it, have already been punished in various ways. The Justice Department has secured hundreds of criminal convictions of Jan. 6 rioters, including seditious conspiracy convictions for leaders of the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys. Fox News, which amplified Trump's election lies, agreed to a stunning $787 million defamation settlement with Dominion Voting Systems, and multiple defamation cases continue against multiple right-wing media outlets. To be clear, this accountability has not come exclusively through the left — though the Biden administration and the Attorney General Merrick Garland deserve immense credit for their responses to Trump's insurrection, which have been firm without overreaching. Multiple Republicans joined with Democrats to pass Electoral Count Act reform, which would make a repeat of Trump's coup attempt far more difficult. Both conservative and liberal justices rejected the independent state legislature doctrine, which essentially argued that partisan legislatures could overturn the will of the voters. Conservative and liberal judges, including multiple Trump appointees, likewise rejected Trump's election challenges. Republican governors and other Republican elected officials in Arizona and Georgia withstood immense pressure from within their own party to uphold Joe Biden's election win. But while many Jan. 6 actors have paid the price, Eastman and Trump so far have not. For justice to be served, you can't just punish the foot soldiers. The generals and planners have to be held responsible too. Even if they might be friends with some of your teachers.

Sometimes you read a book, and seemingly invincible threads of conventional wisdom become unraveled. One such revelation emerged for me in Daniel Mornet's The Intellectual Origins of the French Revolution. Mornet astutely reveals that Enlightenment political thinking was not as influential within revolutionary ideology as we would assume. Mornet states that on the eve of 1789, no more than ten distinguished revolutionaries had read the political works of Rousseau. Perhaps the revolutionaries were not giants of political theory but simply hommes de lettres. Nevertheless, this shocking insight provoked me to contemplate Enlightenment thinking’s impact on the revolution with a greater focus on laïcité. In this article, I will illustrate how progressivism's interpretation within Enlightenment thinking manifests itself in laïcité by scrutinizing the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. Contrary to what one might expect, I will not reference great Enlightenment philosophers’ works, such as Candide, to discuss how Enlightenment thinking interprets progressivism. Instead, I will go back to Ancient Greece because if the Enlightenment is a product of Western thinking, I should question what progressivism is per Enlightenment in the origins of the Occident. To bolster this reasoning, Montesquieu's work on the separation of powers and Rousseau's social contract theory were adapted from the Ancient Greek interpretation of governance. Therefore, there's no better source to understand progressivism in Enlightenment philosophy than the myth of Prometheus. In the myth, Prometheus – a Titan in Greek mythology known for his cleverness and sympathy for humanity – defied the supreme god Zeus by stealing fire (representing intellect) from Mount Olympus and giving it to humans. Angered by Prometheus’s rebellion and fearing humanity's increasing power and potential, Zeus chained Prometheus to a rock in the Caucasus Mountains to suffer for all eternity. Each day, an eagle would come to eat Prometheus’s liver, which would regenerate overnight. The story presents two fundamental revelations. First, the West seeks progress in the clash between God and people, meaning progress cannot coexist with an idea of deity. Secondly, in Western thinking, to champion humanity as Prometheus did means to be punished by God. Enlightenment thinking is an extension of this mentality; therefore, I characterize the Enlightenment’s temperament as Promethean. Based on this framework, I now want to dwell on the relationship between enlightened (or Promethean) progressivism and laïcité, which I will further touch on when analyzing the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. As previously stated, enlightened progressivism believes that humanity’s advancement depends on its clash against “Zeus,” whether this “Zeus” is God or a monarch. In other words, I want to emphasize that the driving force behind enlightened progressivism is the idea of struggle with any establishment or taboo. Thus, per Promethean progressivism, when it comes to the advancement in the science of politics and governance, the Church is among the establishments that must be opposed. This mentality is the core of laïcité, but what are the implications? The impact of laïcité’s Promethean nature can be observed in the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, a controversial piece of legislation that defined the French State’s relationship with the Church until Bonaparte’s Concordat of 1801. The legislation reflects the revolution’s aim to subordinate the Church’s authority by attempting to integrate the revolution’s tenets, such as souveraineté populaire, l'État de droit, égalité, and nationalisme, into the religious sphere. For instance, Title I (Clause 4) states that any religious institution or citizen of France cannot oblige to the authority of a church whose essence is not Gallophile. The clause cements the employment of nationalism by revolutionaries to bolster the laïcité’s basis in French society. In other words, revolutionaries use nationalism to delegitimize any potential political mobilization against laïcité. The logic behind this strategy resides in the reality that as much as revolutionaries are polarizing to set an apparent dichotomy between their forces and the establishment, they need to appeal to unifying inspirations, in this case, nationalism, to expand their social base and legitimize their purpose. Similarly, the legislation’s Title II (Clause 21), which requires the bishop-elect to take an oath of loyalty to the French state, its constitution, and its National Assembly, reflects the revolutionaries’ efforts to undermine the idea of the Church’s inviolability by glorifying the popular sovereignty concept. In a nutshell, when the legislation is scrutinized, we observe that the policy’s main goal is to integrate laïcité – which seeks the progress of political governance in the separation of the Church and State – into French sociopolitical norms. However, in the socially conservative French society at the time, this could be achieved with the mentioned tenets that allowed to ease the deepened social cleavages. Beyond laïcité’s manifestation in the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, it is worth touching on the macrocosmic implications of the revolutionaries’ embodiment of laïcité. Undoubtedly, the most vital implication is that it confined the revolution’s sphere of influence since opposition associated revolutionaries with atheism by skewing the laïcité’s purpose. For example, this atheistic association limited the revolution’s propagation across conservative spaces such as Italy. Unhelpfully, atheistic cults like the Cult of Reason emerged during the revolution and radicalized the understanding of laïcité in public space. In conclusion, examining Enlightenment thinking, embodied as Promethean progressivism, and its connection to laïcité reveals a profound ideological underpinning of the French Revolution. Our critical analysis of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, demonstrates how the revolutionaries sought to redefine the relationship between the Church and the state, driven by the pursuit of progress and challenge to established authority. This essay has traced the roots of Enlightenment progressivism back to the myth of Prometheus, highlighting its intrinsic conflict with entrenched institutions and inclination toward struggle. Moreover, it has shed light on the macrocosmic implications of laïcité, demonstrating how it confined the revolution’s influence and gave rise to perceptions of atheism that limited its propagation. Radical interpretations, exemplified by the Cult of Reason, further complicated the narrative of laïcité during this transformative period. In essence, the French Revolution’s embodiment of laïcité, rooted in Enlightenment ideals, serves as a thought-provoking study of the interplay between progress, tradition, and the legacy of an era that sought to redefine political governance and religious influence. Cover Art: Prometheus Bound -- Peter Paul Rubens Begun c. 1611-1612, completed by 1618

When the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) released its college free speech rankings this week, Claremont McKenna College took a nosedive, dropping from 6th to 73rd place. Just two years ago, CMC secured the top spot and proudly promoted the achievement on its website. At a college that prides itself on nurturing a culture of open dialogue, what explains this dramatic change? The answer may have more to do with flawed methodology than anything being meaningfully different at CMC. The College Free Speech Rankings are determined by a composite score based on thirteen components. Six of those thirteen assess student perceptions. The other seven assess behavior by administrators, faculty, and students. Higher scores are meant to indicate a better climate for free speech and expression. The survey conducted for FIRE by a polling organization called College Pulse showed, for example, that a significant majority of CMC students censor themselves. Out of 176 students surveyed, only 5% stated that they never hold back their opinions during classroom discussions. Even fewer, just 3%, never self-censor during conversations with fellow students. This is a very strange criterion for evaluating free speech on campus. Some degree of self-censorship is natural, healthy, and wise. What socially aware person expresses every thought that crosses their mind – especially in a classroom where you're expected to defend your points? The choice of "never self-censor" as the highest-value response option seems crude and obtuse. Given CMC’s precipitous drop in the rankings, one would expect a significant change in CMC students’ survey responses between the 2022 and 2024 data. Yet, surprisingly, in question after question, the data show few substantial changes. There are only two questions where responses have changed by 10 percentage points or more. Given the small sample size and high margin of error, the significance of any 10% shift in a survey response given a year apart is hard to read into. Other criteria have nothing to do with college policy or campus climate. For instance, another of the questions asks whether students would feel comfortable sharing an unpopular political opinion on social media. “Yes” gets you a higher FIRE score. But “No” is a perfectly sensible answer here, regardless of how open or tolerant your school is. When a CMC student posts on Twitter – pardon me, X – it’s obviously visible to the whole world, not just fellow CMC students. Avoiding toxic interactions with online trolls hardly implies an undesirable degree of self-censorship. FIRE puts CMC’s viewpoint ratio of liberal to conservative students at 5:1. Happily, the school doesn’t ask applicants about their political views. In fact, CMC asks applicants to write about their commitment to viewpoint diversity, freedom of speech, and constructive dialogue. That a school known for its commitment to free speech still attracts so many liberal-minded applicants seems to me an extremely positive sign – both for the school, and the mindset of the liberal students who choose to attend. CMC retains a "green light" rating for its speech policies. However, FIRE penalized the school three times for instances involving the use of the n-word by professors in their classrooms. Not because professors used the most fraught and upsetting word in the English language. It penalized CMC for the way it reacted to professors who did use the n-word. These professors were not fired. Again, one searches in vain for any sense of basic social awareness on FIRE’s part. Context is everything here, and a negative reaction to white professors employing the n-word hardly persuades me that CMC has a free-speech problem. Then there is the matter of double-standards when it comes to conservative schools and explicit censorship of views and ideas. While CMC lost three points over n-word incidents, Florida State University received only a single point deduction for banning the teaching of critical race theory, a decision stemming from the Florida Stop WOKE Act of April 2022. According to a lawsuit brought by FIRE itself, Stop WOKE violates the free speech rights of faculty members and students at public colleges in Florida. While Florida’s public universities may not be to blame for such policies, a free-speech ranking system ought to reflect some sense of reality about where professors are freest to teach, and where students are freest to learn. At FSU, ranked #5 on the list, you can’t teach or study critical race theory. At Harvard, ranked dead last at #248 with a rating of “abysmal,” you certainly can. Based on my own experience, I’d rank CMC a lot higher than either of them.

Public trust in political institutions diminishes when the judiciary appears to shield those in power, adopting interpretations that are at odds with prevailing ethical standards. Whether considering the recent allegations against Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) or the dubious actions of Justice Clarence Thomas, a common thread emerges: a Supreme Court that has narrowed its interpretation of corruption to the point of absurdity. Senator Bob Menendez escaped his previous federal prosecution over alleged corruption. Many view his "victory," however, as nothing more than a testament to the Supreme Court's disappearing definition of political graft. His trials ended in hung juries, with jurors apparently unpersuaded that the favors exchanged between Menendez and a prominent ophthalmologist amounted to bribery under existing law. Although he has not been accused of criminal bribery, recent revelations about Justice Clarence Thomas point to a parallel failure of consequences. Thomas accepted extravagant vacations, property deals, and educational expenses from Republican mega-donor Harlan Crow, who is affiliated with conservative entities that want certain outcomes from the Supreme Court. What's unsettling is that, given the current legal landscape, convicting Menendez may again prove elusive, while meaningful consequences for Thomas seem remotely unlikely. How did we get here? At the core of the issue rests a series of Supreme Court decisions that have effectively redefined corruption. Among them is the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision from 2010. This case saw the majority of justices dismissing concerns over unbridled corporate spending in political campaigns. The court maintained that only direct quid pro quo – an exchange of goods or favors for direct political action – qualified as corruption. This notably ignored all the forms of direct and indirect influence that fall short of an explicit exchange The court suggests that influence peddling, a long tradition in Washington, is perfectly acceptable. If government officials and those who want their favor are subtle enough, they need not fear prosecution. After all, this is consistent with Thomas’s behavior and his understanding of ethics — Quid with only the “appearance” of pro quo is just business as usual at the high court. It wasn’t always this way. Earlier interpretations saw corruption as a spectrum, recognizing the complexities of political interactions. This perspective recognized the dangers of unchecked influence, especially from corporate entities with deep pockets. The court's perspective on corruption began to shift in 1999, with United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California. This unanimous decision effectively ruled that an individual or corporation could keep a public official on private retainer without violating federal gratuities statutes, so long as no specific gift was tied to a particular official act. That ruling makes it difficult to prosecute situations where an official receives prolonged financial benefits in the hope of potential future favors – a pattern eerily resonant with the Menendez allegations and the Thomas-Crow relationship. Skilling v. United States (2010) further constrained the legal definition of corruption. This case curtailed the legal theory of honest services fraud — a type of white-collar crime wherein officials deny others their right to honest services, often due to conflicts of interest or bribery — limiting its applicability to clear-cut cases of bribes and kickbacks. It's a position that makes it challenging to prosecute more veiled forms of corruption, where there are degrees of ambiguity rather than clear transactions. Then there's McDonnell v. United States, another case that turned heads in 2016. The Supreme Court decided that selling government access didn't qualify as "official acts" under federal bribery law. It's a distinction that seems to further protect the subtle dances of influence that play out behind closed doors. In his opinion for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts painstakingly argued that only definitive governmental actions, like introducing legislation or shaping policy, could be deemed components of a corruption scheme. Routine political favors, such as orchestrating a meeting or making a phone call, were not covered. The Menendez indictment points up the problem. Among the senator's alleged transgressions are communicating with a U.S. Department of Agriculture official to safeguard a co-defendant's halal certification rights for U.S. exports to Egypt, reaching out to the New Jersey attorney general's office to influence criminal matters, and advocating for the nomination of a U.S. attorney in New Jersey whom he viewed as someone he could manipulate. Furthermore, Menendez allegedly signaled to Egyptian representatives that he could control foreign military funding and equipment sales to Egypt, leveraging his influence on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Were these “official acts” traded for bribes or mere customary services offered by elected officials? Again –– Quid Pro Quo or just Quid? Prosecutors seem to anticipate the uphill battle ahead, as evidenced in their careful phrasing of the charges against Menendez. Words like “pressured” feature prominently, an evident nod to Roberts' McDonnell decision, which contended that actions like pressuring another official could, under the right circumstances, still constitute evidence of an agreement to commit an “official act.” If the hurdles were not already steep enough, Menendez’s prosecutors also face the repercussions of another recent Supreme Court decision involving Joseph Percoco, an aide to former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo –– Percoco v. U.S. (2023). Here, Justice Samuel Alito narrowed conditions under which private citizens could be convicted of depriving the government of “honest services.” In his opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch insinuated that the entire honest-services fraud statute was ambiguous at best. This same statute forms a cornerstone of the allegations against Menendez, which claims he conspired to deprive the public of his “honest services.” These evolving judicial interpretations involve more than just legal semantics. They are precedents that will likely shape the landscape for years to come. Bluntly put, they’ve created an environment in which corruption is easier to do, harder to prosecute, and closer to a tolerated norm in American politics.

After three decades of service in the U.S. Senate, 90-year-old Dianne Feinstein died on Thursday night in Washington, D.C. Senator Feinstein’s death spurred nationwide reflections on her legacy, which, in true American political fashion, were accompanied by frenzied speculation about her successor. On Sunday, California Governor Gavin Newsom put the guesswork to rest, naming Laphonza Butler as his Senate appointee. Butler, president of EMILY's List and a seasoned political strategist, has worked with high-profile politicians, including Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton, in various capacities. Her appointment fulfills Newsom's earlier pledge to appoint a Black woman to the Senate seat, should it become vacant. Laphonza Butler also has now become the second Black woman to represent California in the Senate, and the first Black lesbian to serve in the chamber. Despite some recent backlash surrounding her residence in Maryland (which she maintained in order to conduct her work with EMILY’s List), Butler’s California ties affirm her qualification for the role. Butler moved to California in 2009, where she began to organize caregivers and nurses in various leadership roles for Service Employees International Union (SEIU). She served as a California elector in the 2016 presidential election, and she served on the Regents of the University of California for three years. In spite of Butler’s qualifications, reactions to her appointment have been largely influenced by the looming Democratic primary for Feinstein’s seat. Three prominent California Democrats will vie for the nomination: Barbara Lee, Katie Porter, and Adam Schiff. Much of the criticism surrounding Butler’s appointment comes from Lee’s supporters, who had hoped she would have been the Black woman Newsom chose as Feinstein’s replacement. Rep Barbara Lee has represented California’s 12th (previously 13th) district for 25 years. She is an advocate for Black women, having broken glass ceilings numerous times herself, becoming the first Black woman elected to the California State Assembly and California Senate from Northern California. Progressives remember Lee fondly, as she cast the only vote against authorization for the use of military Force (AUMF) against Iraq in 2001. Lee’s ongoing campaign to represent California in the U.S. Senate emphasizes the value of her viewpoint as a Black woman. The campaign’s official website advertises that Lee would be “the only Black woman in the U.S. Senate and the only Black senator from California, bringing a much-needed voice to policymaking in D.C.” On October 1, the CBC released an open letter to Governor Newson, urging the appointment of Congresswoman Lee to Senator Feinstein’s seat. These arguments, however likely they may be to influence the imminent Democratic primary for the seat, did not sway Governor Newsom, who hinted a month ago that he would not select Barbara Lee for the vacancy, claiming that he did not want to sway the primary. Since Butler’s appointment, Lee has expressed well wishes for the appointee, stating her singular focus on her campaign for Senate. However, Lee and others have also insinuated that Newson chose Butler as a token Black woman to appoint instead of appointing a Black woman with congressional experience. But Lee’s supporters were not the only political actors interested in Newsom’s decision. Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi endorsed Adam Schiff – who solidified his position in the party during Trump’s first impeachment — to succeed Feinstein after her final term. The Speaker Emerita’s family has a long-term relationship with the late Senator Feinstein, and Pelosi’s eldest daughter served as Feinstein’s caretaker for her last months in the chamber. This relationship has spurred rumors that Pelosi had undue influence on Feinstein’s decision to remain in office despite concerns regarding her mental fitness. As one Pelosi family confidant told Playbook, a Feinstein resignation would have enabled the appointment of Schiff’s opponent Barbara Lee. There is no question that a Lee appointment would have made Schiff’s election prospects much dimmer. Might Newsom have switched his pick so as not to upset the former speaker? It’s hard to say, but, after all, Newsom and Pelosi are distant relatives and both heavyweights in California politics. What remains to be seen is how much Laphonza Butler’s short tenure in the Senate will impact the upcoming race between Lee, Porter, and Schiff. Pessimists of California’s racial order should fear that the discourse surrounding Butler’s race and sexuality will narrow Lee’s chances as less progressive Californians may tire of the argument that one’s demographic characteristics qualify one for office. At the moment, the situation is not great for Lee. According to a recent poll, she trails both Schiff and Porter by a considerable margin.

Williamson in Iowa, Photo by Gage Skidmore via Flickr, August 18th, 2019 You may have heard the common saying that “all press is good press”, and that may be true for the reality TV hopefuls among us, but for a presidential candidate, the same hardly applies. Press is power. The voter is busy, with work, college, their fourth rerun of Downton Abbey (Just me then?) Their exposure to political candidates, unless they are heavily vested in the process, is confined to forty five second Tik-Tok videos or viral CNN/Fox news clips. Case in point: more people recall candidate Vivek Ramaswamy copying an Obama quote than any of his actual policy stances. Successful campaigns hinge on the ability of a candidate to define themselves before media narratives do. Enter Marianne Williamson, popularly known as Oprah’s spiritual advisor, but also a 2024 Democratic candidate for President of the United States. She was the first Democrat to announce a bid, beating even Joe Biden to the punch. But with an incumbent campaign coming from Joe Biden, the odds are slim for Williamson, especially given that only one sitting president (Franklin Pierce) has ever been denied a party nomination. But this is not the only problem Williamson faces. Other than perhaps the far right, Williamson’s greatest foe is American media, who have labeled her a self-righteous contrarian trap, crystal lady shrew, and a quirky, kooky joke. Take your pick which you think is the worst. Though, many political analysts voice that Democrats should look into Williamson’s appeal to younger voters, and try and replicate that with someone a bit more orthodox. On the note of orthodoxy, Marianne Williamson is among the most unorthodox political candidates this election cycle. She is the author of fifteen books since 1992, most of which discuss themes of spirituality and wellness, and she got her career started as a spiritual advisor and leader of the Church of Today. She says our economic systems have lost their soul, and that a moral alignment is imperative for moving forward. This language is very different from what most voters and the media are used to. So given this background and its lack of political experience, she is hit with constant claims of being too out there and totally unqualified to run for public office. This is not the first time she has tried to run, however, in 2014 she ran as an independent to represent California’s 33rd congressional district, and in 2020 she ran for president for the first time, and as a Democrat. In 2020, Williamson faced much of the same backlash and “crystal lady” depictions from the media she is facing now, only then she was dismissed too quickly to be critiqued as concretely as she is now. The main point of disdain among Williamson and her supporters this time around is the DNC’s refusal to hold a primary debate. She voiced this in a televised interview with Sean Hannity where after discussing her stance on an array of policies, he quotes a series of tweets she posted in 2011 and 2012, and then he asks her very bluntly “what the hell does that mean?” to thunderous laughter from the audience. She explains she is surprised to hear him say that, considering that she views them as very traditional religious values, but with quotes like “Your body is merely your space station from whence you beam your love to the universe. Don't just relate to the station; relate to the beams” it is no wonder that they are being characterized as something crazy and unbecoming of a presidential candidate. The lack of credibility has reached even the White House which has fed into the characterizations of Williamson as a spiritual guru, or a hippie. When White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was asked on her opinions regarding the then announced Williamson challenge to the Biden campaign, she responded saying she was not tracking the Williamson campaign, and went on to say perhaps she might be doing so, if only she had a crystal ball, or could “feel her aura”. Most recently, on September 13th, Marianne Williamson posted directly to her Instagram page a recently published poll from FiveThirtyEight that highlighted the national polling data of “major candidates”. A poll that Williamson was not featured on. She voices great anger of this, stating that she deserves to be mentioned considering her monthly average of 6.3% in relation to major Republican candidates like Vivek Ramaswamy (7%), Mike Pence (5.1%), and Nikki Haley (5.9%). An article from 2019 featured in The Student Life discusses Williamson’s (a former Sagehen herself) visit to the Pomona campus, and demonstrates how even in 2019 she was fighting off claims of being a “wacko crystal lady”. The odds for a victory against Biden, an incumbent president, within his own party are astronomically low. But Williamson's journey sheds light on the selective credibility American media affords. I am reminded of the treatment of Bernie Sanders in 2016 and again in 2020. Sanders, a radical leftist by American standards, was consistently left out of media coverage in favor of the more moderate Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton. In January of 2020, Sanders was even the highest polling Democratic candidate, yet the media portrayed a Sanders victory as impossible, and asserted he was underperforming. For Republican outsiders however, Fox News is ready to welcome them with open arms. But Neither CNN or MSNBC have had the same attitude towards Democratic outsiders. It poses many questions that are uncomfortable to confront. What are the necessary ideological conditions to be seen as a part of the establishment or taken seriously by our media? With regards to Williamson, someone evidently outside of that establishment, the conclusion is clear. She won’t be placing her right hand on the Bible and faithfully swearing to execute anything come 2024, but her message seems to resonate with younger generations, and so it is plausible that future Democratic contenders may embrace her ethos, albeit in a more conventional package.