npr--2020-03-02--Union Official Resigns Over Domingo Investigation, Confirms He Gave Media Information

Union Official Resigns Over Domingo Investigation , Confirms He Gave Media Information One of the senior elected officials at the union that commissioned an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct against opera star Plácido Domingo has resigned .
Samuel Schultz , a baritone singer and now a former vice president of the American Guild of Musical Artists ( AGMA ) , is accusing the union , which represents opera performers , of trying to create a `` sweetheart deal '' with the famed singer and of trying to bury the investigation 's findings in return for a $ 500,000 settlement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letter that he had provided details of AGMA 's Domingo investigation to reporter Jocelyn Gecker of The Associated Press .
He wrote : `` Without [ Gecker 's ] tenacious reporting , Domingo 's abuses of female AGMA members would never have come to light even though he harassed women in plain view for decades .
And issues about endemic sexual harassment in the operatic world would also not have come to light , leaving our members vulnerable to victimization by powerful predators like Domingo . ''
After the AP published its report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hours of last Tuesday , Domingo and his team walked away from a planned $ 500,000 settlement with the union .
NPR was the first media outlet to report on that failed settlement and Schultz was one of NPR 's sources in that reporting , as well as for our reporting on the AGMA investigation into Domingo .
AGMA 's outside counsel , attorney Susan Davis , told NPR on Monday that Schultz ' actions `` blew up '' AGMA 's intentions in investigating and substantiating the allegations against Domingo , and negotiating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` At great expense , '' Davis says in an interview with NPR , `` AGMA hired a very credentialed investigator who went out and spoke to many witnesses who did n't come , and would n't have come , forward to employers , and put together a narrative of what has been happening over decades . ''
If Schultz had n't spoken to the press , Davis adds , `` We would now have a structural solution to a structural problem .
Instead , by blowing this up , what we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to proceed to a disciplinary hearing where witnesses may or may not appear , where even if there is a fine imposed , it 's unclear whether Domingo would consensually pay it .
It is unclear whether he 's even going to show up in a hearing .
And we now have had what I think was an extraordinary solution to an extraordinarily big problem by a big harasser .
We 're now left with a path of uncertainty because this has been blown up by one member of the board who chose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the aftermath of the failed settlement , Domingo walked back a public apology , saying : `` I have never behaved aggressively toward anyone , and I have never done anything to obstruct or hurt anyone 's career in any way . ''
Schultz addressed his resignation letter to AGMA 's president , Raymond Menard , and to its national executive director , Leonard Egert .
Schultz wrote in part : `` Contrary to the statements that Len [ Egert ] made publicly , you both presented the AGMA board of governors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AGMA 's lawyers negotiated with lawyers for Plácido Domingo ... You repeatedly emphasized when presenting the arrangement that AGMA 's agreement not to release the details of the report was a crucial term of the settlement agreement for Domingo ...
This is a quid pro quo — silence in exchange for money . ''
Within his resignation , Schultz also referred to an email signed by Menard and Egert sent early Tuesday to the union 's officers and board of governors , which NPR obtained and reported upon last week .
In that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part : `` Domingo 's counsel has withdrawn the agreement , which was expressly premised on AGMA 's promise to maintain confidentiality over the details of the investigatory report . ''
However , in an interview with NPR last Tuesday evening , Egert insisted that the $ 500,000 had never been contingent upon the investigation 's confidentiality , and instead referred to it as a negotiated disciplinary fine .
In speaking with NPR again on Monday , Egert says : `` I think Mr. Schultz pointing to one line of a summary email @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AGMA , to president Menard or to myself .
We were discussing an entire settlement package — the fines , the suspension , coaching , etc .
— that was going to be reported out to the membership . ''
Egert continues , `` The board voted and agreed that the conclusions of the report would be sent to our membership , as well as the details of the settlement agreement . ''
In August 2018 , Schultz accused another opera star , the countertenor David Daniels , and Daniels ' husband , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drugging and raping him .
Those allegations led to an indictment of both men in Harris County , Texas on felony charges of sexual assault in July 2019 .
Schultz ran for AGMA office last year specifically on a platform of keeping the union and its signatories accountable regarding sexual harassment and misconduct .
`` No more cover-ups , no more looking the other way , no more silence , '' he wrote in his campaign message .
In his resignation letter submitted Monday morning , Schultz also wrote : `` As a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would not allow me to be a party to an agreement than allowed the union to bury the details of Domingo 's decades-long abuse of female AGMA members and that created a path for him to return to the stage after a short suspension ...
When AGMA works only for its most powerful ( and sometimes predatory ) members and refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of victims ' voices , it has failed its membership . ''
That 's false , Egert tells NPR on Monday .
`` What the AGMA board decided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facts and circumstances of the investigation , including the details , was to approve this spectrum of discipline on Mr. Domingo .
They did that for multiple reasons .
The fine that was to be imposed on Mr. Domingo was , to our knowledge , one of the largest fines imposed on a union member .
It was specifically earmarked to go to new initiatives to prevent sexual harassment in opera and related industries . ''
Speaking to NPR , Schultz said that Egert and Raymond told the union 's leadership that another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an 18-month probation , which would be retroactive to last fall — when AGMA launched its investigation and , soon after , Domingo resigned as general director of LA Opera in October 2019 .
Multiple other sources confirmed that element of the agreement , as did Egert on Monday afternoon in speaking to NPR .
Schultz says that he felt that revealing himself as the source of the AP 's reporting was his only path forward .
`` I refuse to lie , '' he says .
`` I 've seen these predators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his apology last week — continue to lie .
If I lie now , I would be exhibiting the same behavior that I am fighting so hard against . ''
Davis says that regardless of Schultz 's motivations , the actions he took have enormous impact on the entire union .
`` When someone agrees to sit on the board of the union , a union 's highest governing body , they agree to act as a body .
The board acted here — but because of the actions of one individual , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destroyed and unraveled . ''
Egert adds , `` I admire [ Schultz 's ] advocacy on behalf of victims .
I have to say that I think he was short-sighted here , in doing what he did and breaching his duties to AGMA , because this is going to have an impact on the victims .
Unfortunately , now we 're left in a position of processing and litigating these charges , and that 's going to have a direct impact on victims who wanted to remain anonymous .
And I really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through when he acted in violation of the union 's rules . ''
Schultz says that even though he 's removing himself from the union , he will `` continue to stay in this industry discussion about sexual misconduct .
I 'll continue to fight .
But I ca n't do it within an immovable institution .
I want nothing to do with that deceit . ''
In the AGMA matter , Schultz is being represented by attorney Debra Katz , who also represents three women who have made accusations against Domingo : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to come forward publicly ) and Angela Turner Wilson , as well as one other woman who has not come forward by name .
Katz and Schultz call the failed negotiations with Domingo a `` sweetheart deal . ''
As he did in speaking with NPR last week , Egert again strongly disputes that idea .
`` This settlement that was approved by the board was never meant to be a secret deal .
It 's just false to say that this was some sweetheart deal , '' he says .
`` It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entire membership .
And we were releasing what we could release with the paramount objective of protecting the witnesses .
That has been , and continues to be , the biggest problem of the culture of opera .
The culture of secrecy is that people are afraid to come forward . ''

Union Official Resigns Over Domingo Investigation, Confirms He Gave Media Information
Enlarge this image toggle caption Jamie Schultz/Courtesy of the artist Jamie Schultz/Courtesy of the artist
One of the senior elected officials at the union that commissioned an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct against opera star Plácido Domingo has resigned. Samuel Schultz, a baritone singer and now a former vice president of the American Guild of Musical Artists (AGMA), is accusing the union, which represents opera performers, of trying to create a "sweetheart deal" with the famed singer and of trying to bury the investigation's findings in return for a $500,000 settlement.
Schultz also confirmed in his resignation letter that he had provided details of AGMA's Domingo investigation to reporter Jocelyn Gecker of The Associated Press. He wrote: "Without [Gecker's] tenacious reporting, Domingo's abuses of female AGMA members would never have come to light even though he harassed women in plain view for decades. And issues about endemic sexual harassment in the operatic world would also not have come to light, leaving our members vulnerable to victimization by powerful predators like Domingo."
After the AP published its report about the Domingo investigation in the early hours of last Tuesday, Domingo and his team walked away from a planned $500,000 settlement with the union. NPR was the first media outlet to report on that failed settlement and Schultz was one of NPR's sources in that reporting, as well as for our reporting on the AGMA investigation into Domingo.
AGMA's outside counsel, attorney Susan Davis, told NPR on Monday that Schultz' actions "blew up" AGMA's intentions in investigating and substantiating the allegations against Domingo, and negotiating a settlement with the famed singer. "At great expense," Davis says in an interview with NPR, "AGMA hired a very credentialed investigator who went out and spoke to many witnesses who didn't come, and wouldn't have come, forward to employers, and put together a narrative of what has been happening over decades."
If Schultz hadn't spoken to the press, Davis adds, "We would now have a structural solution to a structural problem. Instead, by blowing this up, what we have been left with is no choice but to proceed to a disciplinary hearing where witnesses may or may not appear, where even if there is a fine imposed, it's unclear whether Domingo would consensually pay it. It is unclear whether he's even going to show up in a hearing. And we now have had what I think was an extraordinary solution to an extraordinarily big problem by a big harasser. We're now left with a path of uncertainty because this has been blown up by one member of the board who chose to disregard his fiduciary responsibilities."
In the aftermath of the failed settlement, Domingo walked back a public apology, saying: "I have never behaved aggressively toward anyone, and I have never done anything to obstruct or hurt anyone's career in any way."
Schultz addressed his resignation letter to AGMA's president, Raymond Menard, and to its national executive director, Leonard Egert. Schultz wrote in part: "Contrary to the statements that Len [Egert] made publicly, you both presented the AGMA board of governors with a settlement agreement that you and AGMA's lawyers negotiated with lawyers for Plácido Domingo ... You repeatedly emphasized when presenting the arrangement that AGMA's agreement not to release the details of the report was a crucial term of the settlement agreement for Domingo ... This is a quid pro quo — silence in exchange for money."
Within his resignation, Schultz also referred to an email signed by Menard and Egert sent early Tuesday to the union's officers and board of governors, which NPR obtained and reported upon last week. In that email, the AGMA officials wrote in part: "Domingo's counsel has withdrawn the agreement, which was expressly premised on AGMA's promise to maintain confidentiality over the details of the investigatory report."
However, in an interview with NPR last Tuesday evening, Egert insisted that the $500,000 had never been contingent upon the investigation's confidentiality, and instead referred to it as a negotiated disciplinary fine.
In speaking with NPR again on Monday, Egert says: "I think Mr. Schultz pointing to one line of a summary email is not fair to us — to AGMA, to president Menard or to myself. We were discussing an entire settlement package — the fines, the suspension, coaching, etc. — that was going to be reported out to the membership."
Egert continues, "The board voted and agreed that the conclusions of the report would be sent to our membership, as well as the details of the settlement agreement."
In August 2018, Schultz accused another opera star, the countertenor David Daniels, and Daniels' husband, William "Scott" Walters, of drugging and raping him. Those allegations led to an indictment of both men in Harris County, Texas on felony charges of sexual assault in July 2019.
Schultz ran for AGMA office last year specifically on a platform of keeping the union and its signatories accountable regarding sexual harassment and misconduct. "No more cover-ups, no more looking the other way, no more silence," he wrote in his campaign message.
In his resignation letter submitted Monday morning, Schultz also wrote: "As a sexual assault survivor myself, my conscience would not allow me to be a party to an agreement than allowed the union to bury the details of Domingo's decades-long abuse of female AGMA members and that created a path for him to return to the stage after a short suspension ... When AGMA works only for its most powerful (and sometimes predatory) members and refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of victims' voices, it has failed its membership."
That's false, Egert tells NPR on Monday. "What the AGMA board decided, after being fully given all the facts and circumstances of the investigation, including the details, was to approve this spectrum of discipline on Mr. Domingo. They did that for multiple reasons. The fine that was to be imposed on Mr. Domingo was, to our knowledge, one of the largest fines imposed on a union member. It was specifically earmarked to go to new initiatives to prevent sexual harassment in opera and related industries."
Speaking to NPR, Schultz said that Egert and Raymond told the union's leadership that another facet of the planned suspension would be an 18-month probation, which would be retroactive to last fall — when AGMA launched its investigation and, soon after, Domingo resigned as general director of LA Opera in October 2019. Multiple other sources confirmed that element of the agreement, as did Egert on Monday afternoon in speaking to NPR.
Schultz says that he felt that revealing himself as the source of the AP's reporting was his only path forward. "I refuse to lie," he says. "I've seen these predators, including in Domingo's retraction of his apology last week — continue to lie. If I lie now, I would be exhibiting the same behavior that I am fighting so hard against."
Davis says that regardless of Schultz's motivations, the actions he took have enormous impact on the entire union. "When someone agrees to sit on the board of the union, a union's highest governing body, they agree to act as a body. The board acted here — but because of the actions of one individual, their virtually unanimous action has now been destroyed and unraveled."
Egert adds, "I admire [Schultz's] advocacy on behalf of victims. I have to say that I think he was short-sighted here, in doing what he did and breaching his duties to AGMA, because this is going to have an impact on the victims. Unfortunately, now we're left in a position of processing and litigating these charges, and that's going to have a direct impact on victims who wanted to remain anonymous. And I really don't believe he was thinking this through when he acted in violation of the union's rules."
Schultz says that even though he's removing himself from the union, he will "continue to stay in this industry discussion about sexual misconduct. I'll continue to fight. But I can't do it within an immovable institution. I want nothing to do with that deceit."
In the AGMA matter, Schultz is being represented by attorney Debra Katz, who also represents three women who have made accusations against Domingo: singers Patricia Wulf (the first woman to come forward publicly) and Angela Turner Wilson, as well as one other woman who has not come forward by name. Katz and Schultz call the failed negotiations with Domingo a "sweetheart deal."
As he did in speaking with NPR last week, Egert again strongly disputes that idea. "This settlement that was approved by the board was never meant to be a secret deal. It's just false to say that this was some sweetheart deal," he says. "It was in the best interests of our entire membership. And we were releasing what we could release with the paramount objective of protecting the witnesses. That has been, and continues to be, the biggest problem of the culture of opera. The culture of secrecy is that people are afraid to come forward."


npr--2020-03-02--The Archive Of Contemporary Music — And Its 3 Million Recordings — Is Leaving NY

The Archive Of Contemporary Music — And Its 3 Million Recordings — Is Leaving NY Located in New York , the Archive of Contemporary Music ( ARC ) has a collection of popular music that rivals that of the Library of Congress , housing more than three million recordings .
The archive is independent and gets no money from state or local governments and because of rising rents , it 's being forced to vacate its longtime Manhattan headquarters .
News of its predicament brought offers from all over the country , and the archive has just announced that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outside of the city .
`` It 's daunting , '' says ARC 's founder , Bob George .
`` It 's going to be a nightmare .
We have a lot of boxes we have to buy . ''
George founded the archive in 1985 with his own albums — 47,000 of them .
His mission was to collect vinyl LPs and 45s , as well as CDs .
But when 78s from the 1920s started to roll in along with cassettes and 8-track tapes from the 1970s , George just could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the dumpster of pop music , '' he says .
`` We like to say we 're like Molly Bloom .
We just say 'Yes , yes , yes , ' to everything . ''
The donations keep coming .
Fred Patterson holds the title of head archivist — he 's also the only archivist .
`` We were just about caught up with our CD cataloging when we got this huge collection early last year , maybe 80 huge boxes of CDs , '' Patterson says .
The archive once sent two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trapped in a condemned house that was owned by a collector named Jeep Holland .
`` He had a stove — the pilot light was still on — a gas stove , and he had records stored in the oven , '' George remembered .
George stores the archive 's collection on 10-foot high steel shelves .
Wander the rows and you 'll find that , in addition to music , there are thousands of comedy albums , as well as records by ventriloquists and hypnotists .
If you 're looking for an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the archive 's shelves .
Take Bill Adler , for example .
A veteran of the record industry , Adler has been doing a Christmas mixtape for nearly 40 years .
A few years ago , he wanted to include a track from a Christmas album by New Orleans clarinetist Pete Fountain , so he called up Bob George to ask if he had it in the archive .
`` And Bob said , 'Of course we do , ' `` Adler remembered .
Aside from his Christmas project , Adler also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and founded his own spoken word label .
He says an archive of physical recordings is still important .
`` Even though LPs are becoming antiques , it 's still a pretty good way to preserve music .
It stays intact , '' he says .
`` So , yes , hold on to a record and hear things now on a record that you still can not hear on the internet . ''
Conversely , you can hear Robert Johnson 's `` Me and the Devil Blues '' on the internet but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is almost impossible .
Bob George says Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones created an endowment for the archive to purchase blues records .
`` And he bought us one of maybe 10 or 15 [ of all the 78s ] in the world of Robert Johnson 'Me and the Devil Blues , ' `` George says .
`` He made sure that we had enough money to buy it at auction . ''
The archive 's other supporters have included the late David Bowie , Nile Rodgers , and Fred Schneider of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proven to be an important resource for more than just Christmas mixtapes : Movie producers call the archive for soundtrack suggestions .
Record companies that have lost a master recording borrow LPs .
But George says the city has provided no support to his archive or to other important spaces for music around New York .
`` The studios are disappearing , '' he says .
`` The rehearsal spaces are disappearing .
The Brill Building is sold for condos .
I mean , you have all of this history vanishing without the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always depended on the generosity of private individuals , and that 's who stepped up to rescue the Archive of Contemporary Music .
Its primary collection will move to the estate of a wealthy supporter beside the Hudson River and the archive 's duplicates will be sent to a warehouse in LA , provided by another wealthy benefactor .

The Archive Of Contemporary Music — And Its 3 Million Recordings — Is Leaving NY
Enlarge this image toggle caption Johannes Eisele/AFP via Getty Images Johannes Eisele/AFP via Getty Images
Located in New York, the Archive of Contemporary Music (ARC) has a collection of popular music that rivals that of the Library of Congress, housing more than three million recordings. The archive is independent and gets no money from state or local governments and because of rising rents, it's being forced to vacate its longtime Manhattan headquarters. News of its predicament brought offers from all over the country, and the archive has just announced that it will be moving to two different locations outside of the city.
"It's daunting," says ARC's founder, Bob George. "It's going to be a nightmare. We have a lot of boxes we have to buy."
George founded the archive in 1985 with his own albums — 47,000 of them. His mission was to collect vinyl LPs and 45s, as well as CDs. But when 78s from the 1920s started to roll in along with cassettes and 8-track tapes from the 1970s, George just couldn't say no.
"We are the dumpster of pop music," he says. "We like to say we're like Molly Bloom. We just say 'Yes, yes, yes,' to everything."
New Music Forgotten Music, Found In The Archives Forgotten Music, Found In The Archives Listen · 7:06 7:06
The donations keep coming. Fred Patterson holds the title of head archivist — he's also the only archivist.
"We were just about caught up with our CD cataloging when we got this huge collection early last year, maybe 80 huge boxes of CDs," Patterson says.
The archive once sent two semi-trailers to Boston to retrieve 150,000 LPs trapped in a condemned house that was owned by a collector named Jeep Holland.
"He had a stove — the pilot light was still on — a gas stove, and he had records stored in the oven," George remembered.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Johannes Eisele/AFP via Getty Images Johannes Eisele/AFP via Getty Images
George stores the archive's collection on 10-foot high steel shelves. Wander the rows and you'll find that, in addition to music, there are thousands of comedy albums, as well as records by ventriloquists and hypnotists. If you're looking for an obscure recording, chances are it's in the archive's shelves.
Take Bill Adler, for example. A veteran of the record industry, Adler has been doing a Christmas mixtape for nearly 40 years. A few years ago, he wanted to include a track from a Christmas album by New Orleans clarinetist Pete Fountain, so he called up Bob George to ask if he had it in the archive.
"And Bob said, 'Of course we do,' " Adler remembered.
Aside from his Christmas project, Adler also worked at Def Jam at its inception and founded his own spoken word label. He says an archive of physical recordings is still important.
"Even though LPs are becoming antiques, it's still a pretty good way to preserve music. It stays intact," he says. "So, yes, hold on to a record and hear things now on a record that you still cannot hear on the internet."
Conversely, you can hear Robert Johnson's "Me and the Devil Blues" on the internet but finding an original copy of the 78 is almost impossible. Bob George says Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones created an endowment for the archive to purchase blues records.
"And he bought us one of maybe 10 or 15 [of all the 78s] in the world of Robert Johnson 'Me and the Devil Blues,' " George says. "He made sure that we had enough money to buy it at auction."
The archive's other supporters have included the late David Bowie, Nile Rodgers, and Fred Schneider of the B-52's. It has also proven to be an important resource for more than just Christmas mixtapes: Movie producers call the archive for soundtrack suggestions. Record companies that have lost a master recording borrow LPs. But George says the city has provided no support to his archive or to other important spaces for music around New York.
"The studios are disappearing," he says. "The rehearsal spaces are disappearing. The Brill Building is sold for condos. I mean, you have all of this history vanishing without the slightest interest."
Bob George has always depended on the generosity of private individuals, and that's who stepped up to rescue the Archive of Contemporary Music. Its primary collection will move to the estate of a wealthy supporter beside the Hudson River and the archive's duplicates will be sent to a warehouse in LA, provided by another wealthy benefactor.


npr--2020-03-02--Coronavirus And Super Tuesday Voting: It's Touchy

Elections can be very tactile .
Touchscreen voting machines , paper ballots , large crowds .
With concern growing about the spread of the coronavirus , officials in a number of Super Tuesday states are taking extra precautions to assure voters that it 's safe to go to the polls .
Millions of people are expected to cast ballots tomorrow in 14 states , including some where cases of the disease have already emerged .
John Gardner , the assistant registrar of voters in Solano County , Calif. — where two health care workers tested positive for COVID-19 — says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where people can drop off their completed ballots , `` so voters do n't have to get out of their cars if they do n't want to . ''
Gardner says they have also sent out additional supplies of disinfectant wipes , hand sanitizer and gloves to every polling site in the county .
Still , he 's seen no indication that the virus is discouraging either voters or pollworkers .
`` We have n't received very many calls from voters , or word of pollworkers declining to show up , '' he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sign . ''
California Secretary of State Alex Padilla said in a statement that his office is following public health alerts but that `` right now there are no indications of any disruptions to California 's March 3 , 2020 Presidential Primary . ''
Padilla noted that 75 % of the state 's voters have received absentee ballots , which can be returned by mail or at drop-off locations .
Throughout the country , election officials say they 're monitoring the situation closely and are ready to respond if necessary .
But so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only minimal adjustments .
In Falls Church , Va. , elections director Dave Bjerke says they always have hand sanitizer and disinfectant wipes available at polling sites , but his office double-checked to make sure there will be adequate supplies for Tuesday 's primary .
He also reminded election workers to frequently wipe down surfaces that are touched by voters , who will be sharing pens and booths to mark their paper ballots .
Like other election officials , Bjerke is fairly confident that turnout will not be affected .
He says none @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't be showing up , although he has heard that one county in the state had seen some pollworkers drop out because they 're worried about the spread of germs .
Bjerke says that election officials have to plan for all kinds of emergencies , noting that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and a 2011 earthquake in Virginia both occurred on election days .
`` We have to be prepared for all of it , '' he says .
`` I tell voters if they worry about these kinds of things , there 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Virginia Department of Elections advised local election officials on Friday to keep track of possible disruptions to mail delivery due to the disease outbreak that could affect the return of absentee ballots , and to determine if any accommodations might be required .
The agency also told election officials to review their emergency plans .
Otherwise , the state says it 's monitoring the situation and sees no reason currently to change election preparations .
Alabama election officials also say they have no special plans for tomorrow 's primary , noting that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported so far in the state .
There also appears to be some concern about the risk of spreading the virus at political rallies , where thousands of people can be squeezed into one location .
A handful of people wore face masks at a Bernie Sanders rally in San Jose over the weekend .
His campaign says it reached out to county health officials in advance and were advised to have hand washing stations on site .
When asked whether it was safe to be holding political rallies during the current public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will attend a rally with his supporters Monday night in Charlotte , N.C. — responded , `` I think it 's very safe .
Yeah .
I think it 's very safe . ''

Coronavirus And Super Tuesday Voting: It's Touchy
Enlarge this image toggle caption David McNew/Getty Images David McNew/Getty Images
Elections can be very tactile. Touchscreen voting machines, paper ballots, large crowds.
With concern growing about the spread of the coronavirus, officials in a number of Super Tuesday states are taking extra precautions to assure voters that it's safe to go to the polls. Millions of people are expected to cast ballots tomorrow in 14 states, including some where cases of the disease have already emerged.
John Gardner, the assistant registrar of voters in Solano County, Calif. — where two health care workers tested positive for COVID-19 — says they've added an extra curbside location where people can drop off their completed ballots, "so voters don't have to get out of their cars if they don't want to."
Gardner says they have also sent out additional supplies of disinfectant wipes, hand sanitizer and gloves to every polling site in the county. Still, he's seen no indication that the virus is discouraging either voters or pollworkers.
"We haven't received very many calls from voters, or word of pollworkers declining to show up," he says. "That's a good sign."
California Secretary of State Alex Padilla said in a statement that his office is following public health alerts but that "right now there are no indications of any disruptions to California's March 3, 2020 Presidential Primary." Padilla noted that 75% of the state's voters have received absentee ballots, which can be returned by mail or at drop-off locations.
Throughout the country, election officials say they're monitoring the situation closely and are ready to respond if necessary. But so far, they appear to have made only minimal adjustments.
In Falls Church, Va., elections director Dave Bjerke says they always have hand sanitizer and disinfectant wipes available at polling sites, but his office double-checked to make sure there will be adequate supplies for Tuesday's primary. He also reminded election workers to frequently wipe down surfaces that are touched by voters, who will be sharing pens and booths to mark their paper ballots.
Like other election officials, Bjerke is fairly confident that turnout will not be affected. He says none of his pollworkers have said they won't be showing up, although he has heard that one county in the state had seen some pollworkers drop out because they're worried about the spread of germs.
Bjerke says that election officials have to plan for all kinds of emergencies, noting that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and a 2011 earthquake in Virginia both occurred on election days. "We have to be prepared for all of it," he says. "I tell voters if they worry about these kinds of things, there's always absentee voting."
But the Virginia Department of Elections advised local election officials on Friday to keep track of possible disruptions to mail delivery due to the disease outbreak that could affect the return of absentee ballots, and to determine if any accommodations might be required. The agency also told election officials to review their emergency plans. Otherwise, the state says it's monitoring the situation and sees no reason currently to change election preparations.
Alabama election officials also say they have no special plans for tomorrow's primary, noting that there have been no cases of the disease reported so far in the state.
There also appears to be some concern about the risk of spreading the virus at political rallies, where thousands of people can be squeezed into one location. A handful of people wore face masks at a Bernie Sanders rally in San Jose over the weekend. His campaign says it reached out to county health officials in advance and were advised to have hand washing stations on site.
When asked whether it was safe to be holding political rallies during the current public health crisis, President Trump — who will attend a rally with his supporters Monday night in Charlotte, N.C. — responded, "I think it's very safe. Yeah. I think it's very safe."


npr--2020-03-02--Public Enemy 'Moving Forward' Without Flavor Flav After Bernie Sanders Rally

Flavor Flav , prototypical hype man of the legendary and socially forward rap group Public Enemy , has been , it would seem , let go .
According to a statement issued on Sunday by Public Enemy , which Flavor Flav and Chuck D co-founded in the early '80s , the group and another iteration of it , Public Enemy Radio , `` will be moving forward without Flavor Flav . ''
The statement went on to `` thank him for his years of service . ''
A trademark for Public Enemy is registered solely to Chuck D , under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Flavor Flav responded to the announcement on Twitter on Monday afternoon , writing : `` You wan na destroy something we 've built over 35 years ... all because I do n't wan na endorse a candidate . ''
The statement seemed to contradict claims from Chuck D that the split was over remuneration , not political ties .
The firing arrived the same day as a performance by Public Enemy Radio — a group consisting of Chuck D , DJ Lord , Jahi and S1Ws — during a Bernie Sanders rally in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Flavor Flav to send a colorful cease-and-desist letter to the Sanders campaign over the appearance , claiming the campaign was using his likeness without permission .
After the Sanders rally , Chuck D claimed on Twitter that Flav had long declined to perform at unpaid events and that he began Public Enemy Radio in response to the refusal .

Public Enemy 'Moving Forward' Without Flavor Flav After Bernie Sanders Rally
Enlarge this image toggle caption Jack Mitchell/Getty Images Jack Mitchell/Getty Images
Flavor Flav, prototypical hype man of the legendary and socially forward rap group Public Enemy, has been, it would seem, let go.
According to a statement issued on Sunday by Public Enemy, which Flavor Flav and Chuck D co-founded in the early '80s, the group and another iteration of it, Public Enemy Radio, "will be moving forward without Flavor Flav." The statement went on to "thank him for his years of service." A trademark for Public Enemy is registered solely to Chuck D under his given name, Carlton Ridenhour.
Bernie Sanders introduces Public Enemy ahead of its performance during his Los Angeles rally. YouTube
Flavor Flav responded to the announcement on Twitter on Monday afternoon, writing: "You wanna destroy something we've built over 35 years ... all because I don't wanna endorse a candidate." The statement seemed to contradict claims from Chuck D that the split was over remuneration, not political ties.
Monday evening, Public Enemy released another statement in response to the accusation that Flavor Flav's removal was motivated by politics. In it, the group says, as Chuck D alluded to earlier on Twitter, that Flav's no-show to a 2016 benefit tied to Harry Belafonte was "the last straw" and that Flav "always chose to party over work."
The firing arrived the same day as a performance by Public Enemy Radio — a group consisting of Chuck D, DJ Lord, Jahi and S1Ws — during a Bernie Sanders rally in Los Angeles. That scheduled performance prompted Flavor Flav to send a colorful cease-and-desist letter to the Sanders campaign over the appearance, claiming the campaign was using his likeness without permission.
After the Sanders rally, Chuck D claimed on Twitter that Flav had long declined to perform at unpaid events and that he began Public Enemy Radio in response to the refusal.
toggle caption Matthew H. Friedman
Updated March 3, 8:23 a.m. ET to include a subsequent statement from Public Enemy.


npr--2020-03-02--'Whiplash' Of LGBTQ Protections And Rights, From Obama To Trump

'Whiplash ' Of LGBTQ Protections And Rights , From Obama To Trump At the heart of a story now playing out in schools , workplaces and courts across the U.S. is a disagreement over the legal meaning of the word `` sex '' — and whether discrimination against gay and transgender people for being gay or transgender is sex discrimination .
The White House has a particular kind of power over this question .
It has the power to interpret whether LGBTQ people are protected by sex discrimination protections in laws passed by Congress , to issue rules and policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through those actions — the power to send a message to the country .
In the last several years , two White House administrations have used this power in diametrically opposite ways .
LGBTQ activists and their allies say it feels like civil rights `` whiplash . ''
Take , for instance , the Obama administration 's guidance to schools on transgender students that came out in the spring of 2016 .
It required schools to protect transgender students from harassment , accommodate their preferred names and pronouns , and give them access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their choice .
Sasha Buchert clearly remembers the relief she felt when that guidance came out .
At the time , she was an attorney with the Transgender Law Center in Oakland , Calif. , tracking these issues closely , and watching as the country became consumed with what the New York Times editorial board referred to as `` trans bathroom hysteria . ''
Earlier that year , a bill called HB2 had passed in North Carolina requiring people to use the bathrooms that matched their birth certificate .
During debate on that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buchert listened to the untelevised special session from her office in Oakland — it was 4 a.m. on the West Coast .
`` It passed and my heart just sank , '' she says .
The law sparked protests and a national financial backlash against North Carolina : PayPal decided not to bring 400 jobs to the state , Bruce Springsteen canceled a concert , and the National Basketball Association moved its All-Star Game out of the state .
At the same time , Virginia teenager Gavin Grimm 's lawsuit against his county @ @ @ @ @ @ @ students was headed for the Supreme Court .
As he explained to NPR at the time , `` The alternative facility was a unisex bathroom .
I 'm not unisex .
I 'm a boy . ''
More and more personal stories from young transgender people flooded the news , including one about a 9-year-old who said she was `` really mad and sad , '' to have an anonymous note slipped into her homework folder that read : `` You 're a boy not a girl get it throu your head .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ its federal guidance to schools in May of that year , Buchert felt empathy and relief — first of all — for young transgender people around the country , she says .
`` There are real people — real trans people — who are suffering discrimination , not going to the bathroom , skipping gym class .
Those kinds of discriminatory conditions can have a lifelong impact on these youth . ''
She says she also felt relief on behalf of the schools around the country that needed clarity .
`` I do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ animus towards transgender people , '' Buchert says .
`` I think they 're just confused and they do n't know what their liabilities are , what they 're required to do under the law .
The guidance was helpful for them — it clarified what their duties and responsibilities are . ''
One thing she did not feel was that the White House was creating new law , or acting on an activist agenda .
`` It was based on existing law , '' she says .
Buchert had studied the legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out transgender lawyer living in Washington , D.C. `` I would go to the American University Law School and just read through the case law and just try to get a better idea about trans rights , '' she says .
Though the U.S. had a history of discrimination , Buchert realized , `` there is just so much case law holding that trans people are protected '' when it comes to discrimination on the basis of `` sex . ''
The Obama administration 's school guidance — in her view — was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anderson 's reaction at the time was very different .
He 's a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation , a conservative think tank , and he 's written books about religious liberty , gender and marriage .
`` This was the executive branch of government making new law , which violates separation of powers , '' he says of the Obama White House 's 2016 guidance to schools on transgender issues .
Anderson also felt the guidance only considered the needs of transgender students .
`` It did n't take into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether that would be female athletes who have concerns [ about ] competing against boys who identify as girls , whether that 's female students have concerns about privacy and bathrooms , locker rooms , dorm rooms , etc . ''
The turnabout from the Trump administration came quickly .
In February 2017 , just a few weeks after President Trump 's inauguration , his administration rescinded the transgender student guidance .
Weeks after that , because of the reversal , the Supreme Court took transgender plaintiff Gavin Grimm 's case off its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transgender student guidance was n't the only one Trump quickly reversed .
Obama 's policies in regards to Iran , the Paris Climate Accord , many environmental regulations and more have also been reversed .
Much of that was telegraphed in campaign promises .
But the reversals on LGBTQ rights and protections were not , Buchert says .
`` It did shock me , '' she says , `` that this was one of the first things they decided they needed to move on . ''
Before President Trump came into office , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different direction on these issues — vowing `` to protect our LGBTQ citizens '' in his convention speech , and posing with a rainbow flag while campaigning .
Trumps reversal of Obama 's transgender student guidance was just the first `` warning shot , '' Buchert says , that the courtship of LGBTQ voters ended with the campaign , and as president , Trump planned to move aggressively to roll back LGBTQ protections .
For Anderson , Trump 's pivot was no surprise .
Despite the signals that he might be friendly to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` the general stance that Trump had taken was , 'Look , I 'm going to be a friend to social conservatives .
I 'm going to be a friend to evangelicals and Catholics . '
`` Rolling back Obama 's transgender student guidance was a priority for those groups , Anderson says .
Plus , he adds , rescinding the guidance was simply a return to how things had been less than a year before .
`` I do n't think that 's a particularly extreme , outrageous , controversial position to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In July 2017 , Trump tweeted that transgender people could no longer serve in the military .
Buchert , a veteran who served as a scout sniper in the Marine Corps , says she found that particular policy change `` extremely insulting . ''
In October of 2017 , then Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memo that the U.S. Department of Justice would no longer argue in court that transgender people are federally protected from employment discrimination .
By that point , Buchert had packed up her belongings and moved to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on LGBTQ federal policy and litigation , so she could `` be in the fight . ''
Behind all of these reversals is the Trump administration 's position that being gay or transgender is a category of identity that is different from `` biological sex , '' and therefore not protected under current law — a complete about-face from the position taken by the Obama administration .
`` It deeply concerns me as a transgender person that they 're going after our protections , placing our lives at risk .
But it 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buchert says .
`` They just are willfully ignoring the rule of law . ''
For instance , she points out the department of Justice memo on transgender people and employment discrimination cites a dissent in a sexual orientation case , which she calls `` very , very sketchy justification . ''
Buchert knows that most transgender people are not reading and analyzing these memos and rules as legal documents .
What they are hearing , she says , is the message that they 're not protected by the federal government and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are many years of judicial cases establishing the protections and rights of transgender people .
`` We 've tried very hard to reassure people that those protections still exist and we 'll keep fighting for you , '' she says .
As an attorney working on these issues , she says it 's `` hard not to carry the weight . ''
`` I keep hoping our country is better than this , '' she says .
To better understand the history of sex discrimination and U.S. law , a good place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislation that established broad protections for many vulnerable groups : the Civil Rights Act of 1964 .
`` The original Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination based on race , color , national origin , etc.
, but did not include discrimination based on sex , '' says law professor Samuel Bagenstos of the University of Michigan .
`` Sex '' was added to Title VII — the part of the law that prohibits employment discrimination — in an amendment put forward in late stages of debate of the bill that became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind the amendment was what Bagenstos calls a `` weird coalition '' of Southern conservatives ( who believed the word would be a `` poison pill '' that would doom the whole bill ) and women 's rights advocates ( who thought it was an important and necessary protection ) .
`` Obviously , the people who calculated that adding 'sex ' would sink the bill were wrong , '' Bagenstos notes . ''
'Sex ' got added , and the bill got passed anyway . ''
Still , even though it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was viewed as `` kind of a joke , '' Bagenstos says .
`` It really took a lot of work by social movement actors within the feminist movement to organize and mobilize and bring cases — and bring political pressure — so that by the end of the 1960s , both the [ Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ] and the courts were beginning to recognize the prohibition on sex discrimination was something serious . ''
Anthony Michael Kreis , a law professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law , says when it comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a time machine back to the year the law first passed — 1964 — you 'd find a `` pretty bleak '' legal landscape .
`` There is n't a state-wide anti-discrimination law that protected LGBTQ people [ at that time ] , '' Kreis says .
`` There 's no relationship recognition for same sex couples .
And trans people are targeted — because many municipalities had anti cross-dressing laws . ''
It did n't take long for people involved in the growing gay rights movement to begin considering how the protection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sex '' might impact them , Kreis says .
`` In 1966 , there was a protest at Julius 's Bar in Manhattan — the bar , citing state regulators , refused to serve these openly gay men , '' Kreis says .
`` And at the time , the chairman of what 's essentially the New York City 's version of the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission , suggested that this was a form of sex discrimination — and this is only two years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , gay and transgender people began to file lawsuits making this argument , Kreis says , but it took decades before judges began to side with them .
Two important Supreme Court decisions set the foundation for their arguments .
The first was Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins in 1989 .
Ann Hopkins was not promoted to partner at the firm because those in charge thought her too aggressive and not feminine enough .
( One partner at the firm advised her , she says , that if she wanted a promotion , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more femininely , dress more femininely , wear makeup and jewelry , have my hair styled . ''
) The court ruled that `` sex stereotyping '' — discriminating against someone for not conforming to gender-based expectations — was a form of sex discrimination .
Then , another landmark decision emerged from the high court in 1998 : In Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services , Inc. , Joseph Oncale claimed that he had been harassed on the basis of sex by his male co-workers on an oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did constitute sex discrimination .
Justice Antonin Scalia , who wrote the decision , made a crucial point : `` Male-on-male sexual harassment in the workplace was assuredly not the principal evil Congress was concerned with when it enacted Title VII .
But statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils , and it is ultimately the provisions of our laws , rather than the principal concerns of our legislators , by which we are governed . ''
LGBTQ advocates have built on that argument , Bagenstos of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In 1964 , maybe no one was thinking about this law protecting gays and lesbians and transgender individuals — they may not have had all the same words to describe actually the kind of discrimination at issue here that we do now , '' he says .
`` But they wrote a law that said if you 're treated less well because of your sex , that is unlawful .
And these are people who are being treated less-well because of their sex . ''
Today , the argument attorneys for LGBTQ people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` If you 're fine with Jane coming to work as Jane , but you have a problem with Jane coming to work as Joe , the only thing that 's changed is the sex , '' explains Buchert of Lambda Legal .
`` Or if Jane has a picture of her husband on her desk and you 're fine with that , but she puts a picture of her wife on her desk and you have a problem with that — that 's a sex-based consideration . ''
The counterargument from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone 's sex refers to whether they are a man or a woman , and that even if discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is unjust , it 's not sex discrimination — and is currently not legally protected .
To illustrate this idea , Anderson from Heritage uses the example of how Caitlyn Jenner , a celebrity who is transgender , might experience sex discrimination in applying for a job : `` Someone could say , I think you 're really a man and therefore I 'm not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can do this sort of work , or I think you 're a woman and I wo n't hire you because only men can do this sort of work . ''
In either of those cases , Anderson argues , `` Caitlyn is still protected against sex discrimination .
But if someone was to say , 'Oh , I wo n't hire you because you 're trans , ' that 's not a statutory protection that Congress has chosen to enact . ''
In the early days of the Obama administration , Bagenstos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Justice Department , and says it was a clear priority within the White House to `` try and see where — within existing law — they could extend more protections against discrimination to LGBT individuals . ''
It started around 2011 , when officials in the Obama administration 's Employment Equal Opportunity Commission decided they needed to make a clarifying call on the question of whether `` sex '' encompassed sexual orientation and gender identity .
The story of this process is laid out in an amicus brief in three employment discrimination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a brief submitted by federal officials who worked in the Obama administration .
In the brief , they write : `` The evolving and increasingly confused case law , and escalating need to address real , ongoing discrimination , prompted the EEOC and several Departments to undertake deep and detailed analyses of whether the prior exclusionary approaches to Title VII and similar laws were correct . ''
After creating an LGBT working group and doing careful analysis , the EEOC concluded that sexual orientation and gender identity `` are intrinsically subsets of sex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Title VII 's prohibition of discrimination based on sex . ''
Other departments and agencies around the same time were coming to the same conclusion .
In 2014 , Attorney General Eric Holder wrote in a memorandum : `` I have determined that the best reading of Title VII 's prohibition of sex discrimination is that it encompasses discrimination based on gender identity , including transgender status . ''
In 2016 , the Defense Secretary announced that transgender servicemembers could serve openly .
The Federal Bureau of Prisons , Health and Human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Urban Development all issued rules and policies in the same vein in those years .
This was part of a systematic effort across the executive branch .
`` One of the principles that has heretofore governed government policy is that the government should speak with one voice , '' says Jocelyn Samuels , who directed the HHS Office for Civil Rights in the Obama years , and now runs the Williams Institute , a LGBTQ think tank at the UCLA School of Law .
The collective efforts were painstaking , she says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very careful look at the language of each statute underlying the programs , at the legislative history and at the case law , '' she says , in coming to the conclusion that sexual orientation and gender identity were legally protected .
That process stretched beyond Title VII and employment discrimination to include , for instance , sex discrimination in health care , as outlined in Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act , and sex discrimination in schools in Title IX of the of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 .
Buchert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government was `` the culmination of a lot of advocacy that had been done and a lot of recognition that trans people exist , '' she says .
`` That visibility also brings along with it a lot of opposition . ''
Under the Trump Administration , each of these policies has been rolled back or rescinded , one by one .
`` The Obama administration was working to advance LGBTQ rights within the scope of what the law permitted , '' says Anthony Kreis , the law professor who studies LGBTQ discrimination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tit for tat — going back and trying to reverse-engineer every single one of those advances . ''
Do n't see the graphic above ?
Click here .
Kreis says it 's created a feeling of `` whiplash '' between the Obama andTrump administrations , especially in the context of Trump 's signals early on that he would be more supportive of LGBTQ rights than past Republican presidents .
The Trump administration does not just demonstrate `` a resistance or passivity towards LGBTQ rights , '' Kreis says .
`` It 's openly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't think anyone really quite could have predicted . ''
Buchert describes the reversals as `` hurtful and infuriating . ''
She adds that the administration has also , in her view , appointed many anti-LGBTQ judges , and has made moves to stop collecting data on LGBTQ people in a `` drive to erase LGBT people from from the record . ''
Evidence for those charges was detailed in a report last year by the Sunlight Foundation , a nonprofit , nonpartisan group that advocates for openness in government .
Jocelyn Samuels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watching the current administration undo the work that she and other officials labored over is `` heartbreaking , because it stands to put vulnerable people at risk across a whole spectrum of activities in which they should be able to engage without fear of discrimination . ''
The Trump White House pushes back on the notion that President Trump is against gay or transgender people .
`` President Trump has never considered LGBT Americans second class citizens , and has opposed discrimination of any kind against them , '' White House spokesperson Judd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He notes Trump 's participation in Washington 's Pride activities last year , and that the president has hired and promoted White House staff who are gay , and pushed for international decriminalization of homosexuality .
The Trump administration has also launched a plan to end the HIV epidemic — `` a commitment that , when achieved , will save LGBT lives across the country , '' Deere says .
Anderson adds that the Trump administration 's reversals are `` entirely appropriate . ''
If you have determined , as the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority of the executive branch and misinterpreted the meaning of sex discrimination , Anderson says , `` then all of the various actions that the Obama administration took where it interpreted the word sex as gender identity were unlawful .
So going back to the original meaning of the word is n't a 'tit for tat , ' it 's a restoring — upholding the rule of law . ''
What 's next from Congress and the Supreme Court Will these legal reversals on protections for LGBTQ people continue to toggle back and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parties ?
The answer to that depends in part on what the Supreme Court decides in those three upcoming cases related to LGBTQ people and employment discrimination : Altitude Express v. Zarda ; Bostock v. Clayton County ; and R.G .
& G.R .
Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission .
Oral arguments in those cases were heard in October 2019 .
In each case , a gay or transgender person was fired allegedly because of their sexual orientation or gender identity .
The Supreme Court 's decisions , expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or not those firings are legal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 , which prohibits `` sex '' discrimination in employment .
`` The Supreme Court , when it weighs in on these Title VII cases , will probably tell us a lot about what the law is going to be — unless and until Congress acts , '' Bagenstos says .
Those decisions will determine how `` sex '' can be interpreted under current law .
But , he adds , `` ultimately you 'll get more stability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' A bill called The Equality Act has been kicking around Congress for decades — it was first introduced in 1974 , just 10 years after the Civil Rights Act became law .
The current version of the Equality Act would enshrine in law many of the protections conferred by the Obama administration 's rules and policies , by explicitly prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in education , federal funding , employment , housing , and more .
Last year , the Democrat-controlled House passed the bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where it is not expected to be brought up for a vote .
Kreis makes the point that polls suggest that , in comparison to past eras , American society is now much more accepting and understanding of people who are gay or transgender .
`` Those lessons from the social movement – the LGBTQ rights movement – have n't changed and most Americans ' views on this have not changed [ since Trump 's election ] , '' Kreis says .
That 's `` what makes the Trump administration 's about-face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swallow . ''
Anderson from the Heritage Foundation does n't think there 's a contradiction between social progress and Trump 's rollbacks — he says it 's about `` nuance '' on these issues .
`` I do n't think anyone in America wants to be bullying or harassing or denigrating LGBT people , '' he says .
`` But I also think there are reasons that women are concerned about privacy and safety in public restrooms or locker rooms or the equality on athletic fields and tracks . ''
For Buchert of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the bathroom , '' she says , and `` it 's about it 's not about the cake , '' referring to the famous Masterpiece Cakeshop Supreme Court case .
`` If you look at the legislative attacks , '' Buchert says , `` they have evolved .
And you can see that this is clearly a concerted effort to find what 's going to work to rollback trans rights .
Is it the bathroom ?
They had high hopes and it did n't work out — there was a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trans people in the community , and people saw through the charade that [ allowing trans people to use certain bathrooms ] is harmful for women in some way . ''
She says she sometimes reminds herself of a saying about social movements : `` First , they do ignore you , then they do laugh at you and then they fight you — and then you win . ''
`` For a long period of our history , we 've been ignored and laughed at , '' Buchert says .
`` If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '70s , '80s TV — a man in a dress is 'the most hilarious thing ever , ' `` she says .
`` The folks that oppose us have moved from laughing at us to fighting us .
It 's not over — we 're rolling up our sleeves because it 's gon na be a long fight . ''
Along with her work on policy and LGBTQ discrimination cases — Buchert also wants to fight the message she says the Trump administration 's actions are sending : that gay and transgender @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that they should just disappear or pretend to be something they are not .
Her own message ?
`` We 're just people , '' Buchert says , and laughs .
`` We like dogs .
We like ice cream .
We 're real people — this is how we were made . ''
And , she adds , `` we 're not going back in the closet . ''

'Whiplash' Of LGBTQ Protections And Rights, From Obama To Trump
Enlarge this image toggle caption Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP
At the heart of a story now playing out in schools, workplaces and courts across the U.S. is a disagreement over the legal meaning of the word "sex" — and whether discrimination against gay and transgender people for being gay or transgender is sex discrimination.
The White House has a particular kind of power over this question. It has the power to interpret whether LGBTQ people are protected by sex discrimination protections in laws passed by Congress, to issue rules and policies that reflect that interpretation, and — through those actions — the power to send a message to the country.
In the last several years, two White House administrations have used this power in diametrically opposite ways. LGBTQ activists and their allies say it feels like civil rights "whiplash."
Take, for instance, the Obama administration's guidance to schools on transgender students that came out in the spring of 2016. It required schools to protect transgender students from harassment, accommodate their preferred names and pronouns, and give them access to the locker rooms and bathrooms of their choice.
Sasha Buchert clearly remembers the relief she felt when that guidance came out. At the time, she was an attorney with the Transgender Law Center in Oakland, Calif., tracking these issues closely, and watching as the country became consumed with what the New York Times editorial board referred to as "trans bathroom hysteria."
Earlier that year, a bill called HB2 had passed in North Carolina requiring people to use the bathrooms that matched their birth certificate.
During debate on that bill in the North Carolina statehouse, Buchert listened to the untelevised special session from her office in Oakland — it was 4 a.m. on the West Coast.
"It passed and my heart just sank," she says.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Max Posner/NPR Max Posner/NPR
The law sparked protests and a national financial backlash against North Carolina: PayPal decided not to bring 400 jobs to the state, Bruce Springsteen canceled a concert, and the National Basketball Association moved its All-Star Game out of the state.
At the same time, Virginia teenager Gavin Grimm's lawsuit against his county school board for its policy on transgender students was headed for the Supreme Court. As he explained to NPR at the time, "The alternative facility was a unisex bathroom. I'm not unisex. I'm a boy."
More and more personal stories from young transgender people flooded the news, including one about a 9-year-old who said she was "really mad and sad," to have an anonymous note slipped into her homework folder that read: "You're a boy not a girl get it throu your head."
When the Obama education department issued its federal guidance to schools in May of that year, Buchert felt empathy and relief — first of all — for young transgender people around the country, she says. "There are real people — real trans people — who are suffering discrimination, not going to the bathroom, skipping gym class. Those kinds of discriminatory conditions can have a lifelong impact on these youth."
She says she also felt relief on behalf of the schools around the country that needed clarity.
"I don't think that all schools have deep-seated animus towards transgender people," Buchert says. "I think they're just confused and they don't know what their liabilities are, what they're required to do under the law. The guidance was helpful for them — it clarified what their duties and responsibilities are."
Enlarge this image toggle caption Robert Willett/Raleigh News & Observer/Tribune News Service via Getty Images Robert Willett/Raleigh News & Observer/Tribune News Service via Getty Images
One thing she did not feel was that the White House was creating new law, or acting on an activist agenda.
"It was based on existing law," she says. Buchert had studied the legal history years earlier, as a newly out transgender lawyer living in Washington, D.C. "I would go to the American University Law School and just read through the case law and just try to get a better idea about trans rights," she says.
Though the U.S. had a history of discrimination, Buchert realized, "there is just so much case law holding that trans people are protected" when it comes to discrimination on the basis of "sex." The Obama administration's school guidance — in her view — was correctly applying that existing law.
Ryan Anderson's reaction at the time was very different. He's a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and he's written books about religious liberty, gender and marriage.
"This was the executive branch of government making new law, which violates separation of powers," he says of the Obama White House's 2016 guidance to schools on transgender issues. Anderson also felt the guidance only considered the needs of transgender students.
"It didn't take into consideration the concerns of other students — whether that would be female athletes who have concerns [about] competing against boys who identify as girls, whether that's female students have concerns about privacy and bathrooms, locker rooms, dorm rooms, etc."
Sudden policy reversals under Trump
The turnabout from the Trump administration came quickly. In February 2017, just a few weeks after President Trump's inauguration, his administration rescinded the transgender student guidance. Weeks after that, because of the reversal, the Supreme Court took transgender plaintiff Gavin Grimm's case off its calendar.
toggle caption Nikki Khan/The Washington Post via Getty Images
Of course, Obama's transgender student guidance wasn't the only one Trump quickly reversed. Obama's policies in regards to Iran, the Paris Climate Accord, many environmental regulations and more have also been reversed. Much of that was telegraphed in campaign promises. But the reversals on LGBTQ rights and protections were not, Buchert says.
"It did shock me," she says, "that this was one of the first things they decided they needed to move on." Before President Trump came into office, he seemed to be moving in a different direction on these issues — vowing "to protect our LGBTQ citizens" in his convention speech, and posing with a rainbow flag while campaigning.
Trumps reversal of Obama's transgender student guidance was just the first "warning shot," Buchert says, that the courtship of LGBTQ voters ended with the campaign, and as president, Trump planned to move aggressively to roll back LGBTQ protections.
For Anderson, Trump's pivot was no surprise. Despite the signals that he might be friendly to the LGBTQ community, Anderson says, "the general stance that Trump had taken was, 'Look, I'm going to be a friend to social conservatives. I'm going to be a friend to evangelicals and Catholics.' "
Rolling back Obama's transgender student guidance was a priority for those groups, Anderson says. Plus, he adds, rescinding the guidance was simply a return to how things had been less than a year before. "I don't think that's a particularly extreme, outrageous, controversial position to hold."
More reversals soon followed. In July 2017, Trump tweeted that transgender people could no longer serve in the military. Buchert, a veteran who served as a scout sniper in the Marine Corps, says she found that particular policy change "extremely insulting."
In October of 2017, then Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memo that the U.S. Department of Justice would no longer argue in court that transgender people are federally protected from employment discrimination. By that point, Buchert had packed up her belongings and moved to Washington D.C. to work for Lambda Legal on LGBTQ federal policy and litigation, so she could "be in the fight."
Behind all of these reversals is the Trump administration's position that being gay or transgender is a category of identity that is different from "biological sex," and therefore not protected under current law — a complete about-face from the position taken by the Obama administration.
"It deeply concerns me as a transgender person that they're going after our protections, placing our lives at risk. But it's also offensive as an attorney," Buchert says. "They just are willfully ignoring the rule of law." For instance, she points out the department of Justice memo on transgender people and employment discrimination cites a dissent in a sexual orientation case, which she calls "very, very sketchy justification."
toggle caption Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Buchert knows that most transgender people are not reading and analyzing these memos and rules as legal documents. What they are hearing, she says, is the message that they're not protected by the federal government and that they should be afraid. Buchert emphasizes there are many years of judicial cases establishing the protections and rights of transgender people.
"We've tried very hard to reassure people that those protections still exist and we'll keep fighting for you," she says. As an attorney working on these issues, she says it's "hard not to carry the weight."
"I keep hoping our country is better than this," she says.
A failed 'poison pill' in a landmark law
To better understand the history of sex discrimination and U.S. law, a good place to start is a major piece of legislation that established broad protections for many vulnerable groups: the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
"The original Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination based on race, color, national origin, etc., but did not include discrimination based on sex," says law professor Samuel Bagenstos of the University of Michigan.
"Sex" was added to Title VII — the part of the law that prohibits employment discrimination — in an amendment put forward in late stages of debate of the bill that became the Civil Rights Act. The group behind the amendment was what Bagenstos calls a "weird coalition" of Southern conservatives (who believed the word would be a "poison pill" that would doom the whole bill) and women's rights advocates (who thought it was an important and necessary protection).
"Obviously, the people who calculated that adding 'sex' would sink the bill were wrong," Bagenstos notes." 'Sex' got added, and the bill got passed anyway."
Still, even though it was on the books, sex-based discrimination initially was viewed as "kind of a joke," Bagenstos says. "It really took a lot of work by social movement actors within the feminist movement to organize and mobilize and bring cases — and bring political pressure — so that by the end of the 1960s, both the [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] and the courts were beginning to recognize the prohibition on sex discrimination was something serious."
Anthony Michael Kreis, a law professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law, says when it comes to LGBTQ people, if you took a time machine back to the year the law first passed — 1964 — you'd find a "pretty bleak" legal landscape.
"There isn't a state-wide anti-discrimination law that protected LGBTQ people [at that time]," Kreis says. "There's no relationship recognition for same sex couples. And trans people are targeted — because many municipalities had anti cross-dressing laws."
It didn't take long for people involved in the growing gay rights movement to begin considering how the protection against discrimination on the basis of "sex" might impact them, Kreis says.
"In 1966, there was a protest at Julius's Bar in Manhattan — the bar, citing state regulators, refused to serve these openly gay men," Kreis says. "And at the time, the chairman of what's essentially the New York City's version of the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, suggested that this was a form of sex discrimination — and this is only two years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed."
In the 1970s and 1980s, gay and transgender people began to file lawsuits making this argument, Kreis says, but it took decades before judges began to side with them.
Two important Supreme Court decisions set the foundation for their arguments. The first was Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins in 1989. Ann Hopkins was not promoted to partner at the firm because those in charge thought her too aggressive and not feminine enough. (One partner at the firm advised her, she says, that if she wanted a promotion, she should "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear makeup and jewelry, have my hair styled.")
Enlarge this image toggle caption Lucian Perkins/The Washington Post via Getty Images Lucian Perkins/The Washington Post via Getty Images
The court ruled that "sex stereotyping" — discriminating against someone for not conforming to gender-based expectations — was a form of sex discrimination.
Then, another landmark decision emerged from the high court in 1998: In Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., Joseph Oncale claimed that he had been harassed on the basis of sex by his male co-workers on an oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico. The court ruled unanimously that this did constitute sex discrimination.
Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the decision, made a crucial point: "Male-on-male sexual harassment in the workplace was assuredly not the principal evil Congress was concerned with when it enacted Title VII. But statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils, and it is ultimately the provisions of our laws, rather than the principal concerns of our legislators, by which we are governed."
LGBTQ advocates have built on that argument, Bagenstos of the University of Michigan explains. "In 1964, maybe no one was thinking about this law protecting gays and lesbians and transgender individuals — they may not have had all the same words to describe actually the kind of discrimination at issue here that we do now," he says. "But they wrote a law that said if you're treated less well because of your sex, that is unlawful. And these are people who are being treated less-well because of their sex."
Today, the argument attorneys for LGBTQ people are making goes something like this: "If you're fine with Jane coming to work as Jane, but you have a problem with Jane coming to work as Joe, the only thing that's changed is the sex," explains Buchert of Lambda Legal.
"Or if Jane has a picture of her husband on her desk and you're fine with that, but she puts a picture of her wife on her desk and you have a problem with that — that's a sex-based consideration."
The counterargument from the Trump administration and its allies is that someone's sex refers to whether they are a man or a woman, and that even if discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is unjust, it's not sex discrimination — and is currently not legally protected.
To illustrate this idea, Anderson from Heritage uses the example of how Caitlyn Jenner, a celebrity who is transgender, might experience sex discrimination in applying for a job: "Someone could say, I think you're really a man and therefore I'm not going to hire you because only women can do this sort of work, or I think you're a woman and I won't hire you because only men can do this sort of work."
In either of those cases, Anderson argues, "Caitlyn is still protected against sex discrimination. But if someone was to say, 'Oh, I won't hire you because you're trans,' that's not a statutory protection that Congress has chosen to enact."
A need for clarity
In the early days of the Obama administration, Bagenstos worked in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, and says it was a clear priority within the White House to "try and see where — within existing law — they could extend more protections against discrimination to LGBT individuals."
It started around 2011, when officials in the Obama administration's Employment Equal Opportunity Commission decided they needed to make a clarifying call on the question of whether "sex" encompassed sexual orientation and gender identity.
The story of this process is laid out in an amicus brief in three employment discrimination cases currently before the Supreme Court — a brief submitted by federal officials who worked in the Obama administration. In the brief, they write: "The evolving and increasingly confused case law, and escalating need to address real, ongoing discrimination, prompted the EEOC and several Departments to undertake deep and detailed analyses of whether the prior exclusionary approaches to Title VII and similar laws were correct."
After creating an LGBT working group and doing careful analysis, the EEOC concluded that sexual orientation and gender identity "are intrinsically subsets of sex and, thus, are squarely covered by Title VII's prohibition of discrimination based on sex."
Other departments and agencies around the same time were coming to the same conclusion. In 2014, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote in a memorandum: "I have determined that the best reading of Title VII's prohibition of sex discrimination is that it encompasses discrimination based on gender identity, including transgender status." In 2016, the Defense Secretary announced that transgender servicemembers could serve openly. The Federal Bureau of Prisons, Health and Human Services, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development all issued rules and policies in the same vein in those years.
toggle caption David Pierini/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service via Getty Images
This was part of a systematic effort across the executive branch. "One of the principles that has heretofore governed government policy is that the government should speak with one voice," says Jocelyn Samuels, who directed the HHS Office for Civil Rights in the Obama years, and now runs the Williams Institute, a LGBTQ think tank at the UCLA School of Law. The collective efforts were painstaking, she says.
"The agencies involved took a very careful look at the language of each statute underlying the programs, at the legislative history and at the case law," she says, in coming to the conclusion that sexual orientation and gender identity were legally protected.
That process stretched beyond Title VII and employment discrimination to include, for instance, sex discrimination in health care, as outlined in Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, and sex discrimination in schools in Title IX of the of the Education Amendments Act of 1972.
Buchert says the work happening in the federal government was "the culmination of a lot of advocacy that had been done and a lot of recognition that trans people exist," she says. "That visibility also brings along with it a lot of opposition."
A 'tit for tat' response
Under the Trump Administration, each of these policies has been rolled back or rescinded, one by one.
"The Obama administration was working to advance LGBTQ rights within the scope of what the law permitted," says Anthony Kreis, the law professor who studies LGBTQ discrimination. "The Trump administration is — tit for tat — going back and trying to reverse-engineer every single one of those advances."
Loading...
Don't see the graphic above? Click here.
Kreis says it's created a feeling of "whiplash" between the Obama andTrump administrations, especially in the context of Trump's signals early on that he would be more supportive of LGBTQ rights than past Republican presidents. The Trump administration does not just demonstrate "a resistance or passivity towards LGBTQ rights," Kreis says. "It's openly hostile in a way that I don't think anyone really quite could have predicted."
Buchert describes the reversals as "hurtful and infuriating." She adds that the administration has also, in her view, appointed many anti-LGBTQ judges, and has made moves to stop collecting data on LGBTQ people in a "drive to erase LGBT people from from the record." Evidence for those charges was detailed in a report last year by the Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that advocates for openness in government.
Jocelyn Samuels — the former HHS director — says watching the current administration undo the work that she and other officials labored over is "heartbreaking, because it stands to put vulnerable people at risk across a whole spectrum of activities in which they should be able to engage without fear of discrimination."
The Trump White House pushes back on the notion that President Trump is against gay or transgender people.
"President Trump has never considered LGBT Americans second class citizens, and has opposed discrimination of any kind against them," White House spokesperson Judd Deere tells NPR in an emailed statement. He notes Trump's participation in Washington's Pride activities last year, and that the president has hired and promoted White House staff who are gay, and pushed for international decriminalization of homosexuality.
The Trump administration has also launched a plan to end the HIV epidemic — "a commitment that, when achieved, will save LGBT lives across the country," Deere says.
Anderson adds that the Trump administration's reversals are "entirely appropriate." If you have determined, as the Trump administration has, that Obama overstepped the authority of the executive branch and misinterpreted the meaning of sex discrimination, Anderson says, "then all of the various actions that the Obama administration took where it interpreted the word sex as gender identity were unlawful. So going back to the original meaning of the word isn't a 'tit for tat,' it's a restoring — upholding the rule of law."
What's next from Congress and the Supreme Court
Will these legal reversals on protections for LGBTQ people continue to toggle back and forth every time the White House changes parties?
The answer to that depends in part on what the Supreme Court decides in those three upcoming cases related to LGBTQ people and employment discrimination: Altitude Express v. Zarda; Bostock v. Clayton County; and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Oral arguments in those cases were heard in October 2019.
In each case, a gay or transgender person was fired allegedly because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The Supreme Court's decisions, expected sometime this spring, will establish whether or not those firings are legal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits "sex" discrimination in employment.
toggle caption Paul Sancya/AP
"The Supreme Court, when it weighs in on these Title VII cases, will probably tell us a lot about what the law is going to be — unless and until Congress acts," Bagenstos says. Those decisions will determine how "sex" can be interpreted under current law. But, he adds, "ultimately you'll get more stability when Congress passes a new law."
A bill called The Equality Act has been kicking around Congress for decades — it was first introduced in 1974, just 10 years after the Civil Rights Act became law. The current version of the Equality Act would enshrine in law many of the protections conferred by the Obama administration's rules and policies, by explicitly prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in education, federal funding, employment, housing, and more. Last year, the Democrat-controlled House passed the bill and sent it to the Republican-controlled Senate, where it is not expected to be brought up for a vote.
Kreis makes the point that polls suggest that, in comparison to past eras, American society is now much more accepting and understanding of people who are gay or transgender.
"Those lessons from the social movement – the LGBTQ rights movement – haven't changed and most Americans' views on this have not changed [since Trump's election]," Kreis says. That's "what makes the Trump administration's about-face so hard for so many people to swallow."
Anderson from the Heritage Foundation doesn't think there's a contradiction between social progress and Trump's rollbacks — he says it's about "nuance" on these issues. "I don't think anyone in America wants to be bullying or harassing or denigrating LGBT people," he says. "But I also think there are reasons that women are concerned about privacy and safety in public restrooms or locker rooms or the equality on athletic fields and tracks."
toggle caption Gerry Broome/AP
For Buchert of Lambda Legal, "it's not about the bathroom," she says, and "it's about it's not about the cake," referring to the famous Masterpiece Cakeshop Supreme Court case.
"If you look at the legislative attacks," Buchert says, "they have evolved. And you can see that this is clearly a concerted effort to find what's going to work to rollback trans rights. Is it the bathroom? They had high hopes and it didn't work out — there was a lot of support and a lot of love for trans people in the community, and people saw through the charade that [allowing trans people to use certain bathrooms] is harmful for women in some way."
She says she sometimes reminds herself of a saying about social movements: "First, they do ignore you, then they do laugh at you and then they fight you — and then you win."
"For a long period of our history, we've been ignored and laughed at," Buchert says. "If you look at the sitcoms from '60s, '70s, '80s TV — a man in a dress is 'the most hilarious thing ever,' " she says. "The folks that oppose us have moved from laughing at us to fighting us. It's not over — we're rolling up our sleeves because it's gonna be a long fight."
Along with her work on policy and LGBTQ discrimination cases — Buchert also wants to fight the message she says the Trump administration's actions are sending: that gay and transgender people should not be protected from discrimination and that they should just disappear or pretend to be something they are not.
Her own message? "We're just people," Buchert says, and laughs. "We like dogs. We like ice cream. We're real people — this is how we were made." And, she adds, "we're not going back in the closet."


npr--2020-03-02--Defense Secretary Gives Go-Ahead For U.S. Troops To Start Afghan Drawdown

Defense Secretary Gives Go-Ahead For U.S .
Troops To Start Afghan Drawdown U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper has given the go-ahead to begin a drawdown of American forces in Afghanistan , despite reports that the Taliban is ending a partial ceasefire and has resumed attacks on Afghan forces .
Esper says his troop withdrawal order to Army Gen. Scott Miller , the U.S. commander in Kabul , is in line with a U.S. peace deal with the Taliban , which calls for such a drawdown to begin within 10 days of its Saturday signing in Doha .
Under the terms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approximately 13,000 U.S. forces in Afghanistan would leave within 135 days and all American troops would be out within 14 months .
`` My instruction to the commander was , 'Let 's get moving , let 's show our full faith and effort to do that , ' `` Esper told reporters Monday at the Pentagon .
`` I 've said on many occasions that I 'm comfortable we can still conduct all the missions we need to conduct at [ a force level of ] 8,600 . ''
The Taliban 's military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` reduction in violence , '' or partial truce , that was in place for a week before the peace deal 's signing is now over .
Taliban fighters have been ordered to resume attacks on Afghan forces backing what the insurgents call Kabul 's `` puppet administration '' — but to adhere to the agreement with the U.S. and refrain from targeting international forces .
Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley , who appeared with Esper , was asked about reports of a blast Monday in the eastern Afghan province of Khost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more .
`` We do n't know exactly who did that yet , '' Milley replied .
`` I would caution everybody to think that there 's going to be an absolute cessation of violence in Afghanistan , that is probably not going to happen .
It 's probably not going to go to zero . ''
The Taliban denies responsibility for the Khost explosion , which occurred at a soccer field .
The attack is one of a number of complications to emerge since Saturday 's signing of the peace deal .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ rejected a provision in the U.S.-Taliban agreement that calls for the release of up to 5,000 imprisoned Taliban fighters and 1,000 Afghan forces being held by the Taliban .
The swap was to take place prior to the start of talks between the Taliban and Afghan authorities due to begin by mid-March .
`` We 've got to work our way through that , '' Esper said of Ghani 's refusal to free the Taliban prisoners before those negotiations begin .
`` Our commitment under the agreement was to enable , to facilitate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the government of Afghanistan , and as I 've said over and over , it 's all conditions-based . ''
`` This is going to be a long , windy , bumpy road , '' Esper said of the peace agreement 's implementation .
`` There will be ups and downs , and we 'll stop and start .
That 's gon na be the nature of this over the next days , weeks and months , and so I 'm not going to get too excited about what happens at the @ @ @

Defense Secretary Gives Go-Ahead For U.S. Troops To Start Afghan Drawdown
Enlarge this image toggle caption Susan Walsh/AP Susan Walsh/AP
U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper has given the go-ahead to begin a drawdown of American forces in Afghanistan, despite reports that the Taliban is ending a partial ceasefire and has resumed attacks on Afghan forces.
Esper says his troop withdrawal order to Army Gen. Scott Miller, the U.S. commander in Kabul, is in line with a U.S. peace deal with the Taliban, which calls for such a drawdown to begin within 10 days of its Saturday signing in Doha.
Under the terms of that agreement, 4,000 of the approximately 13,000 U.S. forces in Afghanistan would leave within 135 days and all American troops would be out within 14 months.
"My instruction to the commander was, 'Let's get moving, let's show our full faith and effort to do that,' " Esper told reporters Monday at the Pentagon. "I've said on many occasions that I'm comfortable we can still conduct all the missions we need to conduct at [a force level of] 8,600."
The Taliban's military commission, meanwhile, says that the "reduction in violence," or partial truce, that was in place for a week before the peace deal's signing is now over. Taliban fighters have been ordered to resume attacks on Afghan forces backing what the insurgents call Kabul's "puppet administration" — but to adhere to the agreement with the U.S. and refrain from targeting international forces.
Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, who appeared with Esper, was asked about reports of a blast Monday in the eastern Afghan province of Khost that killed three civilians and wounded 11 more.
"We don't know exactly who did that yet," Milley replied. "I would caution everybody to think that there's going to be an absolute cessation of violence in Afghanistan, that is probably not going to happen. It's probably not going to go to zero."
The Taliban denies responsibility for the Khost explosion, which occurred at a soccer field.
The attack is one of a number of complications to emerge since Saturday's signing of the peace deal.
On Sunday, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani rejected a provision in the U.S.-Taliban agreement that calls for the release of up to 5,000 imprisoned Taliban fighters and 1,000 Afghan forces being held by the Taliban. The swap was to take place prior to the start of talks between the Taliban and Afghan authorities due to begin by mid-March.
"We've got to work our way through that," Esper said of Ghani's refusal to free the Taliban prisoners before those negotiations begin. "Our commitment under the agreement was to enable, to facilitate that exchange of persons between the Taliban and the government of Afghanistan, and as I've said over and over, it's all conditions-based."
"This is going to be a long, windy, bumpy road," Esper said of the peace agreement's implementation. "There will be ups and downs, and we'll stop and start. That's gonna be the nature of this over the next days, weeks and months, and so I'm not going to get too excited about what happens at the moment."