freebeacon--2020-06-13--Police Reform Faces Key Test at Supreme Court

The new national push to reform police practices will face an early test at the Supreme Court in the coming weeks , as the justices decide whether to revisit a legal rule that protects police officers from lawsuits involving constitutional violations .
Congressional Democrats and criminal justice reform advocates are pushing to abolish qualified immunity , a defense available to police in civil rights cases that is extremely difficult for plaintiffs to surmount .
Lifting immunity would leave law enforcement financially responsible for wrongdoing , which advocates say would help curb wrongdoing by cops .
While a cross-ideological body of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impossible told hold cops accountable in court , the prospects of a legislative compromise look dim .
The legislative bottleneck is putting heightened attention in the Court ’ s decision .
About a dozen petitions now pending before the justices urge the Court to rein in qualified immunity or rescind it altogether .
The Court could announce whether it will hear one of those cases as soon as Monday .
Arguments would take place in the winter , with a decision to follow by summer 2021 .
But there are reasons the justices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least for the time being .
The Court generally resists putting itself between Congress and the president , particularly on issues subject to active deliberations .
Yet refusing to act could extract its own costs .
`` I think it puts the Court in a tough spot , '' Dan Epps , a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis , told the Washington Free Beacon .
`` Chief Justice Roberts seems to love dodging controversial issues when there ’ s a chance the Court won ’ t have to decide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ branches might do .
But here it ’ s not clear what the Court can do that won ’ t make the justices part of the story . ''
`` It wouldn ’ t surprise me to see the cases get held without action for some time , or perhaps denied with some kind of statement by one or more justices explaining that they remain interested in the issue , '' Epps added .
Eliminating qualified immunity is a signature provision of the new Justice in Policing Act , a Democratic reform bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ June 25 floor vote .
Police unions have signaled ambivalence about the change .
Fraternal Order of Police president Patrick Yoes said he was `` heartened '' by the legislation in a statement Tuesday , but urged House Democrats to produce a bipartisan bill .
Congressional Republicans are not formally involved with the House effort .
Sen. Tim Scott ( R. , S.C. ) , who is leading a working group of Republican lawmakers expected to introduce a competing proposal , told reporters Thursday that he has trouble seeing how an overhaul to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany was more emphatic , calling it a `` nonstarter '' for President Donald Trump .
To overcome qualified immunity , plaintiffs must show that an officer violated `` clearly established law . ''
It 's a hard test to pass .
As the rule operates today , plaintiffs must point to an earlier decision with near-identical facts that makes clear the misconduct alleged in their case is indeed unlawful .
Judge Don Willett of the Fifth U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals summarized the doctrine with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ = no clearly established law = no liability . ''
One of the challenges to police immunity now before the justices arose when Nashville cops deployed a police dog against a suspect , Alexander Baxter , who had already surrendered .
Baxter was burglarizing a home when police arrived on scene .
The responding officers tracked him to a nearby basement .
According to his petition , Baxter was sitting on the ground with his hands in the air when police unleashed the dog .
A lower court granted immunity to the officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Baxter is especially noteworthy because it illustrates just how exacting and , frankly , farcical , the ‘ clearly established law ' standard has become , '' the Cato Institute 's Jay Schweikert , who has written critically of qualified immunity , told the Free Beacon .
`` A prior case had already held that it was unlawful to use a police dog without warning against an unarmed suspect laying on the ground with his hands at his sides , '' Schweikert said .
`` But despite the apparent factual similarity , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insufficient to overcome qualified immunity because in the prior case , the suspect was laying on the ground , whereas Baxter was sitting on the ground with his hands up . ''
The Supreme Court has not hesitated to correct lower courts who wrongly withhold immunity from officers .
In more than half a dozen cases since 2013 , the justices have overturned decisions denying police immunity without argument .
That rarely used procedural mechanism is called summary reversal .
In a 2018 case , Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that trend of pro-police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Such a one-sided approach to qualified immunity transforms the doctrine into an absolute shield for law enforcement officers , '' she wrote , warning it encourages police to `` shoot first and think later . ''
Sotomayor has an unexpected fellow traveler in Justice Clarence Thomas , who shared his own doubts about qualified immunity in a 2017 case involving the detention of Muslim men after 9/11 .
The pair have attacked the practice from different directions .
While Sotomayor catalogues the real-world effects of the doctrine , Thomas has questioned whether the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any basis in the text or history of federal civil rights law .
Were qualified immunity scaled back or rescinded , reformers predict police officers will be more cautious about using force .
And since many police departments pay out judgments for officers who lose court cases , cops will face continuous institutional pressure to make good choices .
Some judges question how that would play out in the field .
In a 2019 dissent , Judge Edith Brown Clement warned that it 's easy to second guess cops on the beat .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reflects the dangerous , fast-moving nature of police work .
The threat of a lawsuit `` seriously undermines officers ' ability to trust their judgment during those split seconds when they must decide whether to use lethal force , '' she wrote .
`` When a split second is all you have , waiting itself is a decision—one that may bring disastrous consequences , '' she added .

The new national push to reform police practices will face an early test at the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, as the justices decide whether to revisit a legal rule that protects police officers from lawsuits involving constitutional violations.
Congressional Democrats and criminal justice reform advocates are pushing to abolish qualified immunity, a defense available to police in civil rights cases that is extremely difficult for plaintiffs to surmount. Lifting immunity would leave law enforcement financially responsible for wrongdoing, which advocates say would help curb wrongdoing by cops.
While a cross-ideological body of critics say the doctrine has made it impossible told hold cops accountable in court, the prospects of a legislative compromise look dim.
The legislative bottleneck is putting heightened attention in the Court’s decision. About a dozen petitions now pending before the justices urge the Court to rein in qualified immunity or rescind it altogether.
The Court could announce whether it will hear one of those cases as soon as Monday. Arguments would take place in the winter, with a decision to follow by summer 2021.
But there are reasons the justices might defer to the political branches, at least for the time being. The Court generally resists putting itself between Congress and the president, particularly on issues subject to active deliberations. Yet refusing to act could extract its own costs.
"I think it puts the Court in a tough spot," Dan Epps, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, told the Washington Free Beacon. "Chief Justice Roberts seems to love dodging controversial issues when there’s a chance the Court won’t have to decide the question because of what the political branches might do. But here it’s not clear what the Court can do that won’t make the justices part of the story."
"It wouldn’t surprise me to see the cases get held without action for some time, or perhaps denied with some kind of statement by one or more justices explaining that they remain interested in the issue," Epps added.
Eliminating qualified immunity is a signature provision of the new Justice in Policing Act, a Democratic reform bill House leaders have fast tracked for a June 25 floor vote. Police unions have signaled ambivalence about the change. Fraternal Order of Police president Patrick Yoes said he was "heartened" by the legislation in a statement Tuesday, but urged House Democrats to produce a bipartisan bill.
Congressional Republicans are not formally involved with the House effort. Sen. Tim Scott (R., S.C.), who is leading a working group of Republican lawmakers expected to introduce a competing proposal, told reporters Thursday that he has trouble seeing how an overhaul to police immunities would survive in the Senate.
White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany was more emphatic, calling it a "nonstarter" for President Donald Trump.
To overcome qualified immunity, plaintiffs must show that an officer violated "clearly established law." It's a hard test to pass. As the rule operates today, plaintiffs must point to an earlier decision with near-identical facts that makes clear the misconduct alleged in their case is indeed unlawful.
Judge Don Willett of the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals summarized the doctrine with a useful shorthand: "No precedent = no clearly established law = no liability."
One of the challenges to police immunity now before the justices arose when Nashville cops deployed a police dog against a suspect, Alexander Baxter, who had already surrendered. Baxter was burglarizing a home when police arrived on scene. The responding officers tracked him to a nearby basement. According to his petition, Baxter was sitting on the ground with his hands in the air when police unleashed the dog.
A lower court granted immunity to the officers after Baxter sued for excessive force.
"Baxter is especially noteworthy because it illustrates just how exacting and, frankly, farcical, the 'clearly established law' standard has become," the Cato Institute's Jay Schweikert, who has written critically of qualified immunity, told the Free Beacon.
"A prior case had already held that it was unlawful to use a police dog without warning against an unarmed suspect laying on the ground with his hands at his sides," Schweikert said. "But despite the apparent factual similarity, the Baxter court found this prior case insufficient to overcome qualified immunity because in the prior case, the suspect was laying on the ground, whereas Baxter was sitting on the ground with his hands up."
The Supreme Court has not hesitated to correct lower courts who wrongly withhold immunity from officers. In more than half a dozen cases since 2013, the justices have overturned decisions denying police immunity without argument. That rarely used procedural mechanism is called summary reversal.
In a 2018 case, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that trend of pro-police summary reversals has fatal consequences.
"Such a one-sided approach to qualified immunity transforms the doctrine into an absolute shield for law enforcement officers," she wrote, warning it encourages police to "shoot first and think later."
Sotomayor has an unexpected fellow traveler in Justice Clarence Thomas, who shared his own doubts about qualified immunity in a 2017 case involving the detention of Muslim men after 9/11. The pair have attacked the practice from different directions. While Sotomayor catalogues the real-world effects of the doctrine, Thomas has questioned whether the "clearly established law" standard has any basis in the text or history of federal civil rights law.
Were qualified immunity scaled back or rescinded, reformers predict police officers will be more cautious about using force. And since many police departments pay out judgments for officers who lose court cases, cops will face continuous institutional pressure to make good choices. Some judges question how that would play out in the field.
In a 2019 dissent, Judge Edith Brown Clement warned that it's easy to second guess cops on the beat. Qualified immunity, she explained, accurately reflects the dangerous, fast-moving nature of police work. The threat of a lawsuit "seriously undermines officers' ability to trust their judgment during those split seconds when they must decide whether to use lethal force," she wrote.
"When a split second is all you have, waiting itself is a decision—one that may bring disastrous consequences," she added.


freebeacon--2020-06-14--Ivy League Professor Says Intimidation Campaigns Gaining Ground On Campus

Cornell University law professor William Jacobson thought he had grown callous to petitions for his ouster .
Activists—including students , faculty , and alumni—have called for his firing on numerous occasions since he launched the popular conservative website Legal Insurrection in 2008 , but the campaign against him has taken personal attacks to new levels in the wake of George Floyd 's death in police custody .
`` On [ the Black Lives Matter ] issue , you can not deviate one iota or they will try to get you kicked out of the school , they will falsely accuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do a ‘ name and shame ' campaign against you , '' Jacobson told the Washington Free Beacon .
`` It 's been a problem for multiple decades in academia . ''
BLM supporters , in a coordinated effort with the Black Law Student Association , Cornell alumni , and law school faculty , are calling on the school to sack Jacobson for publicly critiquing BLM 's ideology .
An alumni petition began on June 11 calling on the university to `` take immediate action '' to drive him out .
The professor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ character to force the school 's hand .
In prior years , people who called on Cornell to fire Jacobson were generally off-campus political and ideological opponents , and the Cornell administrators defended his right to speak publicly .
Now those calls are coming from within the Cornell community and the administration has remained silent .
`` What we need in this circumstance is strong administrative leadership , '' Jacobson said .
`` It 's a very repressive atmosphere and it 's only getting worse .
There appears to be a zero-tolerance for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movement . ''
Cornell did not respond to a request for comment .
The showdown emerged after Jacobson wrote two articles in early June that criticized the `` fabricated narrative '' that emerged after a Ferguson , Mo.
, police officer fatally shot Michael Brown in 2014—President Obama 's Justice Department determined that the shooting was justified—as well as the riots and looting that followed the killing of George Floyd at the hands of a white Minneapolis police officer .
Twenty-one members of Cornell 's law faculty penned a letter to the editor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a racist who was masquerading as an informed commentary writer .
`` These commentators are the defenders of institutionalized racism and violence .
They are entitled to their viewpoints .
We do not name them , so as to deprive them of a larger platform for their racist speech , '' the letter says .
`` As clinical teachers who have spent our lives promoting social justice , combatting discrimination and teaching tolerance , we can not allow their hateful vitriol to go unchallenged . ''
The organizers behind the letter did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administrators bowed to activists and summoned Jacobson to a meeting on June 8 .
The meeting was contentious , as law school dean Eduardo Peñalver read the professor letters from alumni calling for his firing , according to Jacobson .
`` Not a single coworker , alumni , or student who signed letters to the editor [ at the Cornell Daily Sun ] contacted me before their publication , '' he said .
After the meeting , Peñalver , who did not return a request for comment , publicly condemned Jacobson in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offensive and poorly reasoned . ''
Jacobson said the dean had abused his position .
`` Deans do not normally take an institutional position on faculty speech , and that 's what I think makes this story truly extraordinary .
The dean of the law school has decided to express his personal views as an institutional view , '' Jacobson said .
`` He can state his personal opinion all he wants , but when he 's speaking on behalf of the institution , his personal opinions should not enter into it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ excluding conservative opinions from the conversation .
The atmosphere has hardened in recent years into a `` cancel culture '' that punishes those who break from liberal orthodoxy on numerous issues .
Jacobson said such an attitude has only fueled resentment on campus .
He expressed concern that `` hateful reactions '' that have been used to silence academics are spreading `` in the whole society . ''
Jacobson has won support from some Cornell students .
The Ivy League school 's College Republicans praised the professor for giving students a critical perspective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Weston Barker said that punishing any academic for ideological reasons is counter to the mission of the university .
`` At no point , to our knowledge , has Professor Jacobson ever devalued the lives of black Americans .
Instead , he has been critical of a movement which demands radical policy reform , '' Barker said .
`` One would hope that when confronted with policy demands which have the potential to seriously reshape the workings of public life , a professor employed by one of our nation 's foremost schools of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with learned , yet critical care .
Professor Jacobson has done as much . ''
Backlash for criticism of BLM is not limited to Cornell .
Academics are demanding a University of Chicago professor have his senior editing position revoked after he criticized activists ' ties to the `` defund the police '' movement .
Jacobson said intimidation tactics have been effective at silencing independent thinkers .
`` I have had people who have written for [ Legal Insurrection ] who have to use pseudonyms because they 're in academia and they 're @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` I have many students who approach me to show me support , but they do it behind closed doors because they 're scared of being attacked . ''

Cornell University law professor William Jacobson thought he had grown callous to petitions for his ouster. Activists—including students, faculty, and alumni—have called for his firing on numerous occasions since he launched the popular conservative website Legal Insurrection in 2008, but the campaign against him has taken personal attacks to new levels in the wake of George Floyd's death in police custody.
"On [the Black Lives Matter] issue, you cannot deviate one iota or they will try to get you kicked out of the school, they will falsely accuse you of being racist, they will do a 'name and shame' campaign against you," Jacobson told the Washington Free Beacon. "It's been a problem for multiple decades in academia."
BLM supporters, in a coordinated effort with the Black Law Student Association, Cornell alumni, and law school faculty, are calling on the school to sack Jacobson for publicly critiquing BLM's ideology. An alumni petition began on June 11 calling on the university to "take immediate action" to drive him out. The professor said his accusers are disingenuously attacking his character to force the school's hand.
In prior years, people who called on Cornell to fire Jacobson were generally off-campus political and ideological opponents, and the Cornell administrators defended his right to speak publicly. Now those calls are coming from within the Cornell community and the administration has remained silent.
"What we need in this circumstance is strong administrative leadership," Jacobson said. "It's a very repressive atmosphere and it's only getting worse. There appears to be a zero-tolerance for any criticism of the Black Lives Matter movement."
Cornell did not respond to a request for comment.
The showdown emerged after Jacobson wrote two articles in early June that criticized the "fabricated narrative" that emerged after a Ferguson, Mo., police officer fatally shot Michael Brown in 2014—President Obama's Justice Department determined that the shooting was justified—as well as the riots and looting that followed the killing of George Floyd at the hands of a white Minneapolis police officer.
Twenty-one members of Cornell's law faculty penned a letter to the editor at the Cornell Daily Sun calling Jacobson a racist who was masquerading as an informed commentary writer.
"These commentators are the defenders of institutionalized racism and violence. They are entitled to their viewpoints. We do not name them, so as to deprive them of a larger platform for their racist speech," the letter says. "As clinical teachers who have spent our lives promoting social justice, combatting discrimination and teaching tolerance, we cannot allow their hateful vitriol to go unchallenged."
The organizers behind the letter did not return a request for comment.
College administrators bowed to activists and summoned Jacobson to a meeting on June 8. The meeting was contentious, as law school dean Eduardo Peñalver read the professor letters from alumni calling for his firing, according to Jacobson.
"Not a single coworker, alumni, or student who signed letters to the editor [at the Cornell Daily Sun] contacted me before their publication," he said.
After the meeting, Peñalver, who did not return a request for comment, publicly condemned Jacobson in a statement, calling the posts "both offensive and poorly reasoned." Jacobson said the dean had abused his position.
"Deans do not normally take an institutional position on faculty speech, and that's what I think makes this story truly extraordinary. The dean of the law school has decided to express his personal views as an institutional view," Jacobson said. "He can state his personal opinion all he wants, but when he's speaking on behalf of the institution, his personal opinions should not enter into it."
Jacobson expressed deep frustration with academia excluding conservative opinions from the conversation. The atmosphere has hardened in recent years into a "cancel culture" that punishes those who break from liberal orthodoxy on numerous issues. Jacobson said such an attitude has only fueled resentment on campus. He expressed concern that "hateful reactions" that have been used to silence academics are spreading "in the whole society."
Jacobson has won support from some Cornell students. The Ivy League school's College Republicans praised the professor for giving students a critical perspective on a contentious issue. Chapter president Weston Barker said that punishing any academic for ideological reasons is counter to the mission of the university.
"At no point, to our knowledge, has Professor Jacobson ever devalued the lives of black Americans. Instead, he has been critical of a movement which demands radical policy reform," Barker said. "One would hope that when confronted with policy demands which have the potential to seriously reshape the workings of public life, a professor employed by one of our nation's foremost schools of law would approach and investigate such demands with learned, yet critical care. Professor Jacobson has done as much."
Backlash for criticism of BLM is not limited to Cornell. Academics are demanding a University of Chicago professor have his senior editing position revoked after he criticized activists' ties to the "defund the police" movement. Jacobson said intimidation tactics have been effective at silencing independent thinkers.
"I have had people who have written for [Legal Insurrection] who have to use pseudonyms because they're in academia and they're afraid of retribution," he said. "I have many students who approach me to show me support, but they do it behind closed doors because they're scared of being attacked."


freebeacon--2020-06-14--Review: ‘Strange Rites’ by Tara Isabella Burton

Strange Rites : New Religions for a Godless World , the excellent new book from author and theologian Tara Isabella Burton , begins with a rave .
This review , to strike maximum contrast , begins with charts .
The demise of American religion is a much-discussed , and in some quarters bemoaned , phenomenon .
`` Three decades ago , America lost its religion , '' the Atlantic tells us ; Pew says the `` decline of Christianity continues at rapid pace . ''
The data tell a similar story .
`` No religion '' is the fastest growing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are approximately as many irreligious Americans as there are Catholics and Evangelical Protestants .
The Mainline Protestant churches , once the practice of the postwar American ( white ) majority , have been in conspicuous decline since at least the 1970s .
One could be forgiven for concluding , based on all this , that America has become a Godless nation .
But other data militate against this conclusion .
Americans are more than twice as likely to engage in daily prayer as residents of similarly wealthy countries .
An overwhelming majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Many of the `` Nones , '' according to Burton , profess a belief in either `` a higher power '' ( 55 percent ) or the God of the Abrahamic Bible ( 17 percent ) , 46 percent of believing Nones talk to God regularly , and 13 percent say that God talks back .
And then there 's the nebulous concept of spirituality .
As of 2018 , 88 percent of Americans consider themselves to be at least slightly spiritual .
The modal American is `` moderately '' spiritual , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spiritual .
In other words , irreligiousness is the fastest growing affiliation in the United States , but Americans are by many measures of practice and belief still highly religious—measures that have remained flat as the Nones have surged .
What gives ?
`` The story of the rise of the religious Nones in America , '' Burton writes , `` is n't really about Nones at all . ''
Rather , it 's about a large cohort of unconnected but still religiously inclined people : the spiritual but not religious , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but profess vague belief in a higher power , and the `` religious hybrids , '' who officially profess one view while syncretically incorporating other beliefs .
Strange Rites is a book about the emergence of this new , `` remixed '' religiosity .
It observes religions distinctly of and for the 21st century , whose practitioners want to craft their own bespoke devotions rather than adhere to those that dominated in the mid-20th century .
The book 's middle section is given over to a discussion of some of these `` remixes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ curse President Donald Trump and Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh , `` wellness '' disciples who believe that through the right combination of pseudo-scientific juice cleanses and workout regimes they can become their best selves , and the new utopians of America 's sexually liberated vanguard .
Threading these practices together is what Burton calls the American `` intuitionist '' religious tradition .
By this , she broadly means the regular emergence throughout the nation 's history of religious practices which prioritize the individual 's access to religious truth over more institutional sources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , focalize the religious search for meaning , purpose , and identity on the individual , disembedded from , and often in active opposition to , institutional infrastructure .
Of course , buying jade eggs from Goop and casting spells on Brett Kavanaugh do not a religion make .
In some senses , these new spiritual practices permit syncretism because they do not make theological claims—it is possible to profess a half-hearted Christianity while also spending a lot of time at Soul Cycle , because Soul Cycle only asks that you add a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In this sense , the new spiritualism about which Burton writes might be more intelligibly thought about as new enchantments—strange rites .
New-age gobbledygook about auras and energies is less about fully formed theologies , and more about providing us with a supernatural method of interpreting the world around us .
But this is part of what makes Burton 's exploration so interesting : the story of the rising Nones is told , by proponents and opponents alike , as the triumph of strict rationalism over religion .
Burton 's point is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still practices all sorts of irrational methods of knowing and making meaning in the world—we are not nearly so disenchanted as we thought .
But what about the new religions promised in the book 's subtitle ?
Burton argues that these syncretic practices and methods of meaning are beginning to form into their own fully fledged institutions , albeit institutions defined by their anti-institutionalism .
She names three : the `` social justice '' movement , the `` California ideology '' of Silicon Valley , and the atavism of the alt-right .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Strange Rites , but it 's the first that seems most relevant as the book is released .
It is hard to see tens of thousands take to the streets in clear disregard of public health , to watch an assembled crowd raise their hands and chant a creed in unison , to observe certain words and even the act of kneeling take on an almost spiritual significance , and not conclude that there is something religious at work on the modern progressive left .
The protest , after all , does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also offers the `` collective effervescence '' that pioneering sociologist Émile Durkeim saw as the fundamental religious experience .
`` The social justice movement is so successful because it replicates the cornerstones of traditional religion—meaning , purpose , community , and ritual—in an internally cohesive way , '' Burton writes .
`` It takes the varied tenets of intuitionalism—its prioritization of the self , emotions , and identity , its New Thought–inflected suspicion of authority , its utopian vision of a better world born phoenix-like from the ashes of the old—and threads them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resistance and moral renewal . ''
To say that the progressive left is religious is not exactly a novel argument—anti-Communists on both sides of the Atlantic have said so for decades .
It 's not even , necessarily , a criticism .
Insofar as Burton is correct that everyone still reasons supernaturally , to label something supernatural can no longer be a derogation .
But it does give us cause to worry about the power that this particular religion appears to wield in the public square .
One report Burton cites suggests about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressive activists , '' yet the evidence of the past two weeks suggests they wield enormous influence in the board rooms of corporate America , the editorial boards of top publications , and across all levels of government .
Shows of fealty—blacking out a corporate logo or ( inexplicably ) donning kente cloth for a stage-managed photo op—are treated as political gestures .
But insofar as they constitute participation in a religious symbolic order , they ought to be understood as religious in character , with all that implies about their prevalence in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place in the public square—to ask someone to check their religious commitments at the door is a meaningless request .
But the American tradition of self-governance turns also upon the possibility of religious pluralism , of each person 's right to believe , or not believe , as he sees fit .
To recognize something as a religion is to subject it to certain restraints ; the strange new religions that seem so quickly to have spread merit no exception to this rule .
This is but one of many takeaways from Strange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its religious history and careful examination of pop culture .
But it is perhaps the most important : If America really is as religious as ever , our political survival begins with acknowledging that fact .

Strange Rites: New Religions for a Godless World, the excellent new book from author and theologian Tara Isabella Burton, begins with a rave. This review, to strike maximum contrast, begins with charts.
The demise of American religion is a much-discussed, and in some quarters bemoaned, phenomenon. "Three decades ago, America lost its religion," the Atlantic tells us; Pew says the "decline of Christianity continues at rapid pace."
The data tell a similar story. "No religion" is the fastest growing religious affiliation in the United States; there are approximately as many irreligious Americans as there are Catholics and Evangelical Protestants. The Mainline Protestant churches, once the practice of the postwar American (white) majority, have been in conspicuous decline since at least the 1970s.
One could be forgiven for concluding, based on all this, that America has become a Godless nation. But other data militate against this conclusion.
Americans are more than twice as likely to engage in daily prayer as residents of similarly wealthy countries. An overwhelming majority believe in God (89 percent). Many of the "Nones," according to Burton, profess a belief in either "a higher power" (55 percent) or the God of the Abrahamic Bible (17 percent), 46 percent of believing Nones talk to God regularly, and 13 percent say that God talks back.
And then there's the nebulous concept of spirituality. As of 2018, 88 percent of Americans consider themselves to be at least slightly spiritual. The modal American is "moderately" spiritual, while 30 percent are "very" spiritual.
In other words, irreligiousness is the fastest growing affiliation in the United States, but Americans are by many measures of practice and belief still highly religious—measures that have remained flat as the Nones have surged. What gives?
"The story of the rise of the religious Nones in America," Burton writes, "isn't really about Nones at all." Rather, it's about a large cohort of unconnected but still religiously inclined people: the spiritual but not religious, the "faithful nones" who are unaffiliated but profess vague belief in a higher power, and the "religious hybrids," who officially profess one view while syncretically incorporating other beliefs.
Strange Rites is a book about the emergence of this new, "remixed" religiosity. It observes religions distinctly of and for the 21st century, whose practitioners want to craft their own bespoke devotions rather than adhere to those that dominated in the mid-20th century.
The book's middle section is given over to a discussion of some of these "remixes." There are Wicca adherents who curse President Donald Trump and Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, "wellness" disciples who believe that through the right combination of pseudo-scientific juice cleanses and workout regimes they can become their best selves, and the new utopians of America's sexually liberated vanguard.
Threading these practices together is what Burton calls the American "intuitionist" religious tradition. By this, she broadly means the regular emergence throughout the nation's history of religious practices which prioritize the individual's access to religious truth over more institutional sources. Modern religious movements, Burton argues, focalize the religious search for meaning, purpose, and identity on the individual, disembedded from, and often in active opposition to, institutional infrastructure.
Of course, buying jade eggs from Goop and casting spells on Brett Kavanaugh do not a religion make. In some senses, these new spiritual practices permit syncretism because they do not make theological claims—it is possible to profess a half-hearted Christianity while also spending a lot of time at Soul Cycle, because Soul Cycle only asks that you add a little bit of hocus-pocus into your worldview.
In this sense, the new spiritualism about which Burton writes might be more intelligibly thought about as new enchantments—strange rites. New-age gobbledygook about auras and energies is less about fully formed theologies, and more about providing us with a supernatural method of interpreting the world around us.
But this is part of what makes Burton's exploration so interesting: the story of the rising Nones is told, by proponents and opponents alike, as the triumph of strict rationalism over religion. Burton's point is that actually, the America of 2020 still practices all sorts of irrational methods of knowing and making meaning in the world—we are not nearly so disenchanted as we thought.
But what about the new religions promised in the book's subtitle? Burton argues that these syncretic practices and methods of meaning are beginning to form into their own fully fledged institutions, albeit institutions defined by their anti-institutionalism. She names three: the "social justice" movement, the "California ideology" of Silicon Valley, and the atavism of the alt-right.
The last gets the most air time in Strange Rites, but it's the first that seems most relevant as the book is released. It is hard to see tens of thousands take to the streets in clear disregard of public health, to watch an assembled crowd raise their hands and chant a creed in unison, to observe certain words and even the act of kneeling take on an almost spiritual significance, and not conclude that there is something religious at work on the modern progressive left. The protest, after all, does not just move the political needle; it also offers the "collective effervescence" that pioneering sociologist Émile Durkeim saw as the fundamental religious experience.
"The social justice movement is so successful because it replicates the cornerstones of traditional religion—meaning, purpose, community, and ritual—in an internally cohesive way," Burton writes. "It takes the varied tenets of intuitionalism—its prioritization of the self, emotions, and identity, its New Thought–inflected suspicion of authority, its utopian vision of a better world born phoenix-like from the ashes of the old—and threads them together into a visionary narrative of political resistance and moral renewal."
To say that the progressive left is religious is not exactly a novel argument—anti-Communists on both sides of the Atlantic have said so for decades. It's not even, necessarily, a criticism. Insofar as Burton is correct that everyone still reasons supernaturally, to label something supernatural can no longer be a derogation.
But it does give us cause to worry about the power that this particular religion appears to wield in the public square. One report Burton cites suggests about 8 percent of the population are "progressive activists," yet the evidence of the past two weeks suggests they wield enormous influence in the board rooms of corporate America, the editorial boards of top publications, and across all levels of government.
Shows of fealty—blacking out a corporate logo or (inexplicably) donning kente cloth for a stage-managed photo op—are treated as political gestures. But insofar as they constitute participation in a religious symbolic order, they ought to be understood as religious in character, with all that implies about their prevalence in public life.
Religion has an ineluctable place in the public square—to ask someone to check their religious commitments at the door is a meaningless request. But the American tradition of self-governance turns also upon the possibility of religious pluralism, of each person's right to believe, or not believe, as he sees fit. To recognize something as a religion is to subject it to certain restraints; the strange new religions that seem so quickly to have spread merit no exception to this rule.
This is but one of many takeaways from Strange Rites, well worth the read for its religious history and careful examination of pop culture. But it is perhaps the most important: If America really is as religious as ever, our political survival begins with acknowledging that fact.


freebeacon--2020-06-14--54 Scientists Given NIH Grants Fired for Failure to Disclose Foreign Ties

At least 54 scientists who received grants from the National Institutes of Health have been fired for failure to disclose their ties to foreign governments , particularly China , according to an ongoing investigation .
The NIH since 2018 has been investigating instances of fraud by scientists who received federal grant money .
In 93 percent of cases investigated by NIH , these scientists failed to disclose their ties to China .
Nearly $ 165 million in grants had been disbursed to these scientists .
The findings , first reported by Science magazine , provide evidence that China has amplified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sensitive U.S.-funded research programs .
Once in the NIH system , these scientists can steal research and send it back to China , where it can be used to boost the Communist regime .
Congress has been concerned about stolen U.S. scientific research for some time .
A 2019 investigation by the Senate Permanent Select Committee on Investigations found that Chinese scientists enlisted in the country 's Thousand Talents Program , which recruits overseas researchers to bring their talents back to China , `` set up ‘ shadow labs ’ in China … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. scientists ’ hard-earned intellectual capital . ''
Three quarters of the scientists found to have hidden their ties to foreign governments like China had active NIH grants .
NIH identified 399 scientists of possible concern , according to Science magazine .
The FBI confirmed that at least 30 percent , or 121 individuals , lied about their ties to foreign governments .

At least 54 scientists who received grants from the National Institutes of Health have been fired for failure to disclose their ties to foreign governments, particularly China, according to an ongoing investigation.
The NIH since 2018 has been investigating instances of fraud by scientists who received federal grant money. In 93 percent of cases investigated by NIH, these scientists failed to disclose their ties to China. Nearly $165 million in grants had been disbursed to these scientists.
The findings, first reported by Science magazine, provide evidence that China has amplified its efforts to place its scientists into sensitive U.S.-funded research programs. Once in the NIH system, these scientists can steal research and send it back to China, where it can be used to boost the Communist regime.
Congress has been concerned about stolen U.S. scientific research for some time. A 2019 investigation by the Senate Permanent Select Committee on Investigations found that Chinese scientists enlisted in the country's Thousand Talents Program, which recruits overseas researchers to bring their talents back to China, "set up ‘shadow labs’ in China … and, in some cases, transfer U.S. scientists’ hard-earned intellectual capital."
Three quarters of the scientists found to have hidden their ties to foreign governments like China had active NIH grants.
NIH identified 399 scientists of possible concern, according to Science magazine. The FBI confirmed that at least 30 percent, or 121 individuals, lied about their ties to foreign governments.


freebeacon--2020-06-14--‘It Sounds Ludicrous’: Omar Mocks Biden’s Call for Police Reform Funding

Rep. Ilhan Omar ( D. , Minn. ) said on Sunday that it was `` ludicrous '' for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden to suggest police departments could be reformed through increased funding .
`` It sounds ludicrous to me to have , you know , people pour out into the streets asking for the system to be transformed and for us to say , ‘ In order for that transformation to happen , we 're just going to give more money to the system without really doing any kind of systematic change , ' '' Omar said on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Protests sweeping the United States following the death of George Floyd have pushed Republican and Democratic lawmakers in recent weeks to draft landmark law enforcement reform bills .
But while Republicans have unified behind Sen. Tim Scott ( R. , S.C. ) , whose police reform legislation will likely be introduced next week , Democrats have been divided between calls to defund and reform police departments .
Omar , along with members of her party 's progressive wing , has been adamant in her calls to defund the police , saying that her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department . ''
Biden , on the other hand , has said police should not be defunded , proposing $ 300 million in increased funding for police departments to reform police training and tactics .
`` I do n't think police should be defunded , but I believe the conditions should be placed upon them where departments are having to take significant reforms , '' he said .
Rep. Jim Clyburn ( D. , S.C. ) has also denounced calls to defund the police , choosing to focus on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On Sunday , he said politicians should `` restructure '' rather than `` defund '' the police , a statement which Omar also called `` ludicrous . ''
The Minneapolis city council unanimously voted last week to disband the city 's police department .
Omar praised the decision Sunday , saying the city council was `` committing to the dismantlement of a department that is beyond repair . ''
The congresswoman also praised Camden , N.J. , on Sunday for dismantling its police department .
`` In Camden , they realized that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond reform , as it was .
They dismantled it , and they figured out a different way to move forward as a community in regards to providing public safety for one another , '' Omar said .
While the Camden Police Department disbanded in 2013 amid corruption and fiscal issues , the city replaced the department with the Camden County Police Department , which eliminated old union contracts .
The new department selectively hired officers , implemented new training , and increased the number of officers on patrol .
Since 2014 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have dropped 95 percent in the city .
Omar is also one of a handful of members of Congress looking to end qualified immunity for police officers , which would allow officers to be sued for actions they take on behalf of the government .

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) said on Sunday that it was "ludicrous" for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden to suggest police departments could be reformed through increased funding.
"It sounds ludicrous to me to have, you know, people pour out into the streets asking for the system to be transformed and for us to say, 'In order for that transformation to happen, we're just going to give more money to the system without really doing any kind of systematic change,'" Omar said on CNN's State of the Union.
Protests sweeping the United States following the death of George Floyd have pushed Republican and Democratic lawmakers in recent weeks to draft landmark law enforcement reform bills. But while Republicans have unified behind Sen. Tim Scott (R., S.C.), whose police reform legislation will likely be introduced next week, Democrats have been divided between calls to defund and reform police departments.
Omar, along with members of her party's progressive wing, has been adamant in her calls to defund the police, saying that her home city of Minneapolis should "completely dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department."
Biden, on the other hand, has said police should not be defunded, proposing $300 million in increased funding for police departments to reform police training and tactics.
"I don't think police should be defunded, but I believe the conditions should be placed upon them where departments are having to take significant reforms," he said.
Rep. Jim Clyburn (D., S.C.) has also denounced calls to defund the police, choosing to focus on police reform and increased funding as well. On Sunday, he said politicians should "restructure" rather than "defund" the police, a statement which Omar also called "ludicrous."
The Minneapolis city council unanimously voted last week to disband the city's police department. Omar praised the decision Sunday, saying the city council was "committing to the dismantlement of a department that is beyond repair."
The congresswoman also praised Camden, N.J., on Sunday for dismantling its police department.
"In Camden, they realized that there was just a department that was beyond reform, as it was. They dismantled it, and they figured out a different way to move forward as a community in regards to providing public safety for one another," Omar said.
While the Camden Police Department disbanded in 2013 amid corruption and fiscal issues, the city replaced the department with the Camden County Police Department, which eliminated old union contracts. The new department selectively hired officers, implemented new training, and increased the number of officers on patrol. Since 2014, crime has plummeted and excessive force complaints have dropped 95 percent in the city.
Omar is also one of a handful of members of Congress looking to end qualified immunity for police officers, which would allow officers to be sued for actions they take on behalf of the government.


freebeacon--2020-06-15--China Creep on Campus

China Creep on Campus

Dozens of top American universities that received funding from the Chinese government failed to disclose those donations to the Department of Education , prompting concerns from education watchdogs about Beijing 's growing influence on campuses .
More than 100 U.S. universities host or once hosted Confucius Institutes , programs underwritten by the Chinese government that teach Chinese language and culture to American college students .
The Department of Education requires all credentialed universities to disclose foreign gifts of more than $ 250,000 , but only about 30 percent of institutions with Confucius Institutes have disclosed their financial ties to Beijing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ review of federal records .
The Free Beacon reached out to all 75 institutions that did not report their funding to the federal government ; 22 of them responded .
A common theme of the responses was that the colleges did not disclose their donations because their annual receipts did not meet the $ 250,000 threshold .
For example , a spokesman from the University of Wisconsin-Platteville said the college declined to disclose its 2019 Confucius Institute donations because it received only $ 246,711 .
Rachelle Peterson , director of policy at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lack of accountability at prestigious universities `` alarming . ''
`` It is extremely alarming how little transparency there is , '' she said .
`` $ 250,000 is much too high of a threshold .
Gifts of money at much smaller amounts can be very swaying over a college or university , especially the humanities [ departments ] which traditionally have lower funding . ''
The Chinese government has funneled millions of dollars to American universities to support more than 100 Confucius Institutes across the country .
Colleges such as the University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Emory University , which did disclose funding , have received $ 30.4 million in total between 2014 and 2020 for their Confucius Institutes , according federal filings .
But experts warn that the widespread failure to report the foreign funding leaves millions of dollars worth of Chinese government funding in the dark .
Policymakers and education experts alike have long warned that Confucius Institutes might be a conduit for Chinese influence on American campuses that could restrict academic freedom and promote a distorted account of Chinese history and culture that favors the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigations have corroborated some of these concerns , finding that the Chinese regime directly hires teachers for the program and prohibits them from saying anything negative about China to students .
`` The Chinese Communist Party does n't need to seek the consent of the governed , '' Mike Gonzalez , a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation , said .
`` And [ they ] are very used to—within the context of China—being able to censor debate .
They want to do the same thing in the United States through different means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the ways in which it does it . ''
The Chinese government almost always pays U.S. universities that host Confucius Institutes , though some exceptions exist .
A 2019 Congressional Research Service report found that Hanban—a `` public institution affiliated with the Chinese Ministry of Education , '' according to its website—typically provides a $ 150,000 start-up fund to universities , as well as $ 100,000 to $ 200,000 to cover operating costs every year , although many Confucius Institutes have much larger budgets .
The foreign gift and contract report , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , lists all foreign donations that universities have reported to the federal government since 2014 .
The Free Beacon compared that report with a list compiled by the National Association of Scholars of all Confucius Institutes in the United States .
The analysis found that 108 U.S. universities currently or previously hosted Confucius Institutes on their campuses .
Out of that total , only 33 institutions have reported any foreign funding stemming from the program in the past six years .
Columbia University , Stanford University , the University of Chicago—none of which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other U.S. colleges have not reported Confucius Institute funding in the last six years .
Universities are legally required to disclose to the federal government any funding that exceeds $ 250,000 annually from a single foreign source .
A 2019 Senate report found widespread noncompliance with this reporting requirement , as roughly 70 percent of universities that received more than the $ 250,000 threshold from Confucius Institutes failed to properly report those donations to the Department of Education .
`` The investment by China in U.S. Confucius Institutes is substantial , '' the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of U.S. schools , however , failed to properly report this funding as required by law . ''
The Department of Education did not return requests for comment .
Peterson of the National Association of Scholars called the $ 250,000 reporting threshold `` outdated , '' adding that it is easily undermined by both China and American universities .
She said that colleges often rely on legal loopholes to dodge disclosure requirements .
In the past , colleges have argued that donations given to their university foundations do not need to be reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Education appears to be cracking down on this particular loophole : California State University told the Free Beacon that the agency recently `` clarified '' that donations to `` institutionally related organizations '' must also be reported .
The Department of Education 's crackdown is part of wider efforts to enforce the foreign gifts reporting requirements .
In 2019 , the agency launched a probe to track noncompliance with the disclosure requirement .
Federal investigators found that Harvard and Yale alone failed to report $ 375 million in foreign funding , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Institutes on campus .
The initiative has already yielded results .
Universities have retroactively disclosed $ 6.5 billion in previously unreported foreign funding from Chinese and Middle Eastern sources , according to a department letter to House Republicans .
Universities with Confucius Institutes appear to be no exceptions to this new wave of disclosures .
Six universities , including the University of Nebraska and West Virginia University , revealed nearly $ 3 million in Confucius Institute funding in the most recent foreign gift and contract report that it did not disclose previously .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for comment .
Despite recent progress in compelling disclosure , the Department of Education also told House Republicans that colleges are stonewalling their investigation .
`` Certain institutions have yet to produce requested emails , metadata , and other information regarding business relationships with , and faculty funding from , Chinese , Middle Eastern , and Russian foreign sources , '' the letter read .
Confucius Institutes have faced pushback from students as well .
Dozens of activists , supported by hundreds of College Democrats and College Republicans chapters , launched the Athenai @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` immediate and permanent closure of all Confucius Institutes in the United States , '' as well as a full disclosure of all university ties to Chinese state agencies and proxies .
`` The Chinese government ’ s flagrant attempts to coerce and control discourse at universities in the United States and around the world pose an existential threat to academic freedom as we know it .
It is a civic and moral imperative that we protect that freedom , '' the Athenai Institute said in a statement .
Confucius Institutes have declined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years , currently operating 81 programs in the United States , down from 103 in 2017 .
The decline , Peterson said , was precipitated by growing public scrutiny that has made the programs more of a liability than an asset for universities .
`` Just a few years ago , colleges were advertising their Confucius Institutes as evidence that this is a campus with global ties and with a strong language curriculum , '' she said .
`` The biggest thing that has changed is that the nation has woken up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and universities are finding that it increasingly hurts their brand , rather than helps their brand . ''

Dozens of top American universities that received funding from the Chinese government failed to disclose those donations to the Department of Education, prompting concerns from education watchdogs about Beijing's growing influence on campuses.
More than 100 U.S. universities host or once hosted Confucius Institutes, programs underwritten by the Chinese government that teach Chinese language and culture to American college students. The Department of Education requires all credentialed universities to disclose foreign gifts of more than $250,000, but only about 30 percent of institutions with Confucius Institutes have disclosed their financial ties to Beijing, according to a Washington Free Beacon review of federal records.
The Free Beacon reached out to all 75 institutions that did not report their funding to the federal government; 22 of them responded. A common theme of the responses was that the colleges did not disclose their donations because their annual receipts did not meet the $250,000 threshold. For example, a spokesman from the University of Wisconsin-Platteville said the college declined to disclose its 2019 Confucius Institute donations because it received only $246,711.
Rachelle Peterson, director of policy at the National Association of Scholars, called the lack of accountability at prestigious universities "alarming."
"It is extremely alarming how little transparency there is," she said. "$250,000 is much too high of a threshold. Gifts of money at much smaller amounts can be very swaying over a college or university, especially the humanities [departments] which traditionally have lower funding."
The Chinese government has funneled millions of dollars to American universities to support more than 100 Confucius Institutes across the country. Colleges such as the University of Michigan, University of Maryland, and Emory University, which did disclose funding, have received $30.4 million in total between 2014 and 2020 for their Confucius Institutes, according federal filings.
But experts warn that the widespread failure to report the foreign funding leaves millions of dollars worth of Chinese government funding in the dark.
Policymakers and education experts alike have long warned that Confucius Institutes might be a conduit for Chinese influence on American campuses that could restrict academic freedom and promote a distorted account of Chinese history and culture that favors the Chinese Communist Party. Senate and federal investigations have corroborated some of these concerns, finding that the Chinese regime directly hires teachers for the program and prohibits them from saying anything negative about China to students.
"The Chinese Communist Party doesn't need to seek the consent of the governed," Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said. "And [they] are very used to—within the context of China—being able to censor debate. They want to do the same thing in the United States through different means, and the Confucius Institutes are one of the ways in which it does it."
The Chinese government almost always pays U.S. universities that host Confucius Institutes, though some exceptions exist. A 2019 Congressional Research Service report found that Hanban—a "public institution affiliated with the Chinese Ministry of Education," according to its website—typically provides a $150,000 start-up fund to universities, as well as $100,000 to $200,000 to cover operating costs every year, although many Confucius Institutes have much larger budgets.
The foreign gift and contract report, compiled biannually by the Department of Education, lists all foreign donations that universities have reported to the federal government since 2014. The Free Beacon compared that report with a list compiled by the National Association of Scholars of all Confucius Institutes in the United States. The analysis found that 108 U.S. universities currently or previously hosted Confucius Institutes on their campuses. Out of that total, only 33 institutions have reported any foreign funding stemming from the program in the past six years. Columbia University, Stanford University, the University of Chicago—none of which returned requests for comment—as well as 72 other U.S. colleges have not reported Confucius Institute funding in the last six years.
Universities are legally required to disclose to the federal government any funding that exceeds $250,000 annually from a single foreign source. A 2019 Senate report found widespread noncompliance with this reporting requirement, as roughly 70 percent of universities that received more than the $250,000 threshold from Confucius Institutes failed to properly report those donations to the Department of Education.
"The investment by China in U.S. Confucius Institutes is substantial," the 2019 report read. "A number of U.S. schools, however, failed to properly report this funding as required by law."
The Department of Education did not return requests for comment.
Peterson of the National Association of Scholars called the $250,000 reporting threshold "outdated," adding that it is easily undermined by both China and American universities. She said that colleges often rely on legal loopholes to dodge disclosure requirements. In the past, colleges have argued that donations given to their university foundations do not need to be reported to the federal government. The Department of Education appears to be cracking down on this particular loophole: California State University told the Free Beacon that the agency recently "clarified" that donations to "institutionally related organizations" must also be reported.
The Department of Education's crackdown is part of wider efforts to enforce the foreign gifts reporting requirements. In 2019, the agency launched a probe to track noncompliance with the disclosure requirement. Federal investigators found that Harvard and Yale alone failed to report $375 million in foreign funding, including lucrative donations from China—though neither hosted Confucius Institutes on campus.
The initiative has already yielded results. Universities have retroactively disclosed $6.5 billion in previously unreported foreign funding from Chinese and Middle Eastern sources, according to a department letter to House Republicans. Universities with Confucius Institutes appear to be no exceptions to this new wave of disclosures. Six universities, including the University of Nebraska and West Virginia University, revealed nearly $3 million in Confucius Institute funding in the most recent foreign gift and contract report that it did not disclose previously. None of those universities responded to requests for comment.
Despite recent progress in compelling disclosure, the Department of Education also told House Republicans that colleges are stonewalling their investigation. "Certain institutions have yet to produce requested emails, metadata, and other information regarding business relationships with, and faculty funding from, Chinese, Middle Eastern, and Russian foreign sources," the letter read.
Confucius Institutes have faced pushback from students as well. Dozens of activists, supported by hundreds of College Democrats and College Republicans chapters, launched the Athenai Institute in May to call for the "immediate and permanent closure of all Confucius Institutes in the United States," as well as a full disclosure of all university ties to Chinese state agencies and proxies.
"The Chinese government’s flagrant attempts to coerce and control discourse at universities in the United States and around the world pose an existential threat to academic freedom as we know it. It is a civic and moral imperative that we protect that freedom," the Athenai Institute said in a statement.
Confucius Institutes have declined in influence on American campuses in recent years, currently operating 81 programs in the United States, down from 103 in 2017. The decline, Peterson said, was precipitated by growing public scrutiny that has made the programs more of a liability than an asset for universities.
"Just a few years ago, colleges were advertising their Confucius Institutes as evidence that this is a campus with global ties and with a strong language curriculum," she said. "The biggest thing that has changed is that the nation has woken up to what Confucius Institutes are ... and colleges and universities are finding that it increasingly hurts their brand, rather than helps their brand."


freebeacon--2020-06-15--Residents Complain D.C.’s Police Department Creating Bottleneck for Handgun Purchases

In an arrangement unique to Washington , D.C. , the local police department is the only federally licensed firearms dealer that is open to the public .
Residents tell the Washington Free Beacon , however , that legally obtaining a handgun has become nearly impossible due to the department 's inaction .
The city faced a dilemma in mid-March when the only licensed dealer accepting public transfer requests abruptly closed shop .
Federal law requires handguns that are transported across state lines to be shipped to a licensed dealer ( FFL ) .
With no gun stores in city limits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own license to process transfers , but residents say that the agency is hindering their ability to legally obtain firearms .
`` I have two sellers attempting to send firearms to the police department and neither of them have been able to get a response in close to two weeks , '' Elby Godwin , a real estate agent and longtime D.C. resident who purchased two handguns back on March 24 , told the Free Beacon .
`` It is hard to tell at this point if MPD is even processing transfers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and civilian contractor in Afghanistan , bought a gun on June 2 because his girlfriend had grown concerned about potential societal fallout from the coronavirus pandemic as well as the recent civil unrest inside the city .
The D.C. resident , who asked for his identity to be withheld out of fear of career backlash over owning a gun , said the department has left him in limbo .
When his out-of-state dealer shipped his handgun to the address listed by MPD , the package was not delivered and was instead returned to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hear anything from MPD despite multiple attempts to contact the agency .
`` Just give me an answer , '' Christian said .
`` Just give me an answer , you know ?
That 's all . ''
Neither MPD nor Democratic mayor Muriel Bowser responded to requests for comment .
The roadblocks the residents have run into have created what one expert described as a `` legally dangerous '' situation for the nation 's capital .
The city has been the subject of a string of successful Second Amendment lawsuits over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including the Supreme Court 's landmark Heller decision in 2008 , which struck down the city 's total ban on handgun ownership .
The lack of either a gun store or public range within city limits has remained a sticking point for many gun-rights activists , and some experts say the department 's failure to adequately process transfers could open the door to another legal battle .
`` My sense is that the District chose this approach to avoid a possible constitutional challenge .
It is a ‘ cover your a— ' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who teaches constitutional law at the South Texas College of Law , told the Free Beacon .
`` If MPD is the sole [ licensed dealer ] in D.C. , then arguably refusing to respond to [ handgun transfer ] attempts may have Second Amendment problems . ''
The experts who spoke with the Free Beacon raised a number of questions about the legality of the situation .
While they agreed that the MPD may be able to meet the requirements for a federal license , its role as a government agency provides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other licensed dealers have clear standards for processing fees and maintaining records of background checks—practices and requirements that are brand new to the only police department in the country that is also a licensed gun dealer .
George A. Mocsary , a law professor at the University of Wyoming and coauthor of Firearms Law and the Second Amendment : Regulation , Rights , and Policy , said the city government brought the legal conundrum upon itself .
`` Almost certainly several people are happy to do [ transfers ] .
No one does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficult to become an FFL , '' he said .
`` The city wants to avoid two things : one , getting sued for making it difficult for people to become an FFL .
And it definitely wants to avoid a situation where , in D.C. , that part of the federal statute does n't apply . ''
Dave Kopel , research director at the Independence Institute and an adjunct professor of advanced constitutional law at the University of Denver , said the dilemma could carry far-reaching consequences beyond the confines of Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only MPD 's firearm license but also the federal licensing laws that govern handgun transfers .
`` [ D.C. residents ] have to pay for their handgun at a store outside D.C. , and then pay for the handgun to be shipped from the first FFL to a D.C. FFL .
Only then does federal law allow the D.C. resident to receive the handgun , '' he told the Free Beacon .
`` The problem is caused solely by an obsolete federal statute . ''
Mocsary said the situation was also `` legally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dealers to store background check records but also prevents any government jurisdiction from using background check storage requirements to create a database .
He said it may be possible that MPD could create a firewall between the operations of its FFL and the rest of the department in order to prevent misuse , but it is likely to come under intense scrutiny from activists .
`` Gun-rights people will see it as a dangerous situation , '' he said .
The Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms , and Explosives ( ATF @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been raised about the arrangement , which the agency confirmed is unique to Washington , D.C. , but said it is legal and the special circumstances demand flexibility .
`` While 18 U.S.C .
§ 926 may appear at first blush to preclude MPD from holding a license , ATF distinguishes between MPD and most traditional FFL because MPD does not have an inventory of firearms from which it will be selling , '' Steve Blando , a spokesman for the agency 's Washington Field Division , told the Free Beacon .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ facilitating the lawful transfer of firearms .
This is important because many of the record-keeping requirements in the Gun Control Act ( spelled out in 18 U.S.C .
§ 923 ) are in place to ensure that all firearms being purchased and sold by an FFL remain fully accounted for and do not wind up in the hands of an individual who is prohibited under federal law from possessing a firearm . ''
The agency said no other private individuals had yet applied for an FFL in the city and it believed granting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to allow D.C. residents to continue to legally obtain handguns .
`` Without MPD holding an FFL , there would be no lawful means by which a D.C. citizen could sell , transfer or otherwise dispose of a firearm , '' Blando said .
`` Allowing MPD to hold an FFL allows all firearms ' sales and transfers in the district [ to ] be done lawfully and protects the Second Amendment rights of D.C. citizens .
It also ensures that anyone receiving and/or purchasing a firearm in the District will have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individual is not prohibited from possessing a firearm—thereby protecting society and the District . ''
The two residents struggling to obtain the handguns they legally purchased were focused primarily on trying to get MPD to transfer their guns to them and improve the process in the short term .
`` It 's very confusing though what you can or can not do , '' Christian said of his decision to have his gun mailed to MPD .
`` So , I just got to the point where like , well , if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 'm just going to do it .
We 'll see what happens . ''
He has yet to hear back from MPD about when the department will take possession of his handgun , which remains trapped in legal limbo at a post office somewhere in the city .
Godwin said MPD finally responded to him on Friday , a day after the Free Beacon requested comment from the department for this story , to tell him the agency had received one of his two handguns .
They did not offer an explanation for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able and eligible to buy a handgun , '' Godwin , who already legally owns several firearms at his D.C. residence , said .
`` I 've jumped through all their hoops .
But they 're denying me through their inaction . ''

In an arrangement unique to Washington, D.C., the local police department is the only federally licensed firearms dealer that is open to the public. Residents tell the Washington Free Beacon, however, that legally obtaining a handgun has become nearly impossible due to the department's inaction.
The city faced a dilemma in mid-March when the only licensed dealer accepting public transfer requests abruptly closed shop. Federal law requires handguns that are transported across state lines to be shipped to a licensed dealer (FFL). With no gun stores in city limits, the Metropolitan Police Department obtained its own license to process transfers, but residents say that the agency is hindering their ability to legally obtain firearms.
"I have two sellers attempting to send firearms to the police department and neither of them have been able to get a response in close to two weeks," Elby Godwin, a real estate agent and longtime D.C. resident who purchased two handguns back on March 24, told the Free Beacon. "It is hard to tell at this point if MPD is even processing transfers."
Christian, a former school teacher and civilian contractor in Afghanistan, bought a gun on June 2 because his girlfriend had grown concerned about potential societal fallout from the coronavirus pandemic as well as the recent civil unrest inside the city. The D.C. resident, who asked for his identity to be withheld out of fear of career backlash over owning a gun, said the department has left him in limbo. When his out-of-state dealer shipped his handgun to the address listed by MPD, the package was not delivered and was instead returned to the post office. He has yet to hear anything from MPD despite multiple attempts to contact the agency.
"Just give me an answer," Christian said. "Just give me an answer, you know? That's all."
Neither MPD nor Democratic mayor Muriel Bowser responded to requests for comment.
The roadblocks the residents have run into have created what one expert described as a "legally dangerous" situation for the nation's capital. The city has been the subject of a string of successful Second Amendment lawsuits over its strict gun laws in recent years, including the Supreme Court's landmark Heller decision in 2008, which struck down the city's total ban on handgun ownership. The lack of either a gun store or public range within city limits has remained a sticking point for many gun-rights activists, and some experts say the department's failure to adequately process transfers could open the door to another legal battle.
"My sense is that the District chose this approach to avoid a possible constitutional challenge. It is a 'cover your a—' move," Professor Josh Blackman, who teaches constitutional law at the South Texas College of Law, told the Free Beacon. "If MPD is the sole [licensed dealer] in D.C., then arguably refusing to respond to [handgun transfer] attempts may have Second Amendment problems."
The experts who spoke with the Free Beacon raised a number of questions about the legality of the situation. While they agreed that the MPD may be able to meet the requirements for a federal license, its role as a government agency provides thorny legal questions. Gun stores and other licensed dealers have clear standards for processing fees and maintaining records of background checks—practices and requirements that are brand new to the only police department in the country that is also a licensed gun dealer.
George A. Mocsary, a law professor at the University of Wyoming and coauthor of Firearms Law and the Second Amendment: Regulation, Rights, and Policy, said the city government brought the legal conundrum upon itself.
"Almost certainly several people are happy to do [transfers]. No one does because the municipal government makes it so difficult to become an FFL," he said. "The city wants to avoid two things: one, getting sued for making it difficult for people to become an FFL. And it definitely wants to avoid a situation where, in D.C., that part of the federal statute doesn't apply."
Dave Kopel, research director at the Independence Institute and an adjunct professor of advanced constitutional law at the University of Denver, said the dilemma could carry far-reaching consequences beyond the confines of Washington, D.C. Plaintiffs could challenge not only MPD's firearm license but also the federal licensing laws that govern handgun transfers.
"[D.C. residents] have to pay for their handgun at a store outside D.C., and then pay for the handgun to be shipped from the first FFL to a D.C. FFL. Only then does federal law allow the D.C. resident to receive the handgun," he told the Free Beacon. "The problem is caused solely by an obsolete federal statute."
Mocsary said the situation was also "legally dangerous" because federal law requires licensed dealers to store background check records but also prevents any government jurisdiction from using background check storage requirements to create a database. He said it may be possible that MPD could create a firewall between the operations of its FFL and the rest of the department in order to prevent misuse, but it is likely to come under intense scrutiny from activists.
"Gun-rights people will see it as a dangerous situation," he said.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) said that it understands why questions have been raised about the arrangement, which the agency confirmed is unique to Washington, D.C., but said it is legal and the special circumstances demand flexibility.
"While 18 U.S.C. § 926 may appear at first blush to preclude MPD from holding a license, ATF distinguishes between MPD and most traditional FFL because MPD does not have an inventory of firearms from which it will be selling," Steve Blando, a spokesman for the agency's Washington Field Division, told the Free Beacon. "Instead, MPD will simply be facilitating the lawful transfer of firearms. This is important because many of the record-keeping requirements in the Gun Control Act (spelled out in 18 U.S.C. § 923) are in place to ensure that all firearms being purchased and sold by an FFL remain fully accounted for and do not wind up in the hands of an individual who is prohibited under federal law from possessing a firearm."
The agency said no other private individuals had yet applied for an FFL in the city and it believed granting one to MPD was the only option to allow D.C. residents to continue to legally obtain handguns.
"Without MPD holding an FFL, there would be no lawful means by which a D.C. citizen could sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of a firearm," Blando said. "Allowing MPD to hold an FFL allows all firearms' sales and transfers in the district [to] be done lawfully and protects the Second Amendment rights of D.C. citizens. It also ensures that anyone receiving and/or purchasing a firearm in the District will have to undergo a background check to confirm that individual is not prohibited from possessing a firearm—thereby protecting society and the District."
The two residents struggling to obtain the handguns they legally purchased were focused primarily on trying to get MPD to transfer their guns to them and improve the process in the short term.
"It's very confusing though what you can or cannot do," Christian said of his decision to have his gun mailed to MPD. "So, I just got to the point where like, well, if they're not gonna tell me I'm just going to do it. We'll see what happens."
He has yet to hear back from MPD about when the department will take possession of his handgun, which remains trapped in legal limbo at a post office somewhere in the city.
Godwin said MPD finally responded to him on Friday, a day after the Free Beacon requested comment from the department for this story, to tell him the agency had received one of his two handguns. They did not offer an explanation for the delay.
"I'm legally able and eligible to buy a handgun," Godwin, who already legally owns several firearms at his D.C. residence, said. "I've jumped through all their hoops. But they're denying me through their inaction."


freebeacon--2020-06-16--Justice Thomas Accuses Supreme Court of Dodging Gun Cases

The Supreme Court on Monday denied a slew of gun-rights challenges focused on everything from state `` assault weapons '' bans to safety requirements and permit issues , sparking a blistering dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas who accused his fellow justices of `` looking the other way '' on Second Amendment cases .
Second Amendment advocates were hoping the High Court would take up at least some of the legal challenges to gun-control laws that have passed in New Jersey , California , Maryland , and Massachusetts .
Those cases were denied certiorari , meaning the High Court will not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action sparked some justices to dissent .
Thomas slammed his colleagues for refusing to take up Rogers v. Grewal , a challenge to New Jersey 's gun-carry law that allows government officials to subjectively deny permits .
Thomas—joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh—said the state government 's requirement that residents provide a reason for exercising a constitutional right warranted judicial oversight .
`` This Court would almost certainly review the constitutionality of a law requiring citizens to establish a justifiable need before exercising their free speech rights , '' Thomas wrote .
`` And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would allow a State to enforce a law requiring a woman to provide a justifiable need before seeking an abortion .
But today , faced with a petition challenging just such a restriction on citizens ' Second Amendment rights , the Court simply looks the other way . ''
The Supreme Court has only ruled in one Second Amendment case since 2011 .
That 2016 case , Caetano v. Massachusetts , dealt with a law concerning stun guns and other less lethal weapons rather than firearms .
Despite having a wealth of cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws , however , the High Court has largely sat out on debates about the Second Amendment .
Gun-rights activists accused the Court of failing to protect the Second Amendment and of abdicating its role as a check on legislative and executive overreach .
`` Given the fact that the Supreme Court had a cafeteria-style menu of cases from which to choose , there is no excuse why the court at this time chose to ignore the need to rule on any of these cases , and send a message to lower courts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noses at the Heller [ 2008 ] and McDonald [ 2010 ] Supreme Court decisions affirming the right to keep and bear arms , '' Alan Gottlieb , founder of the Second Amendment Foundation , said .
The National Rifle Association said that the Court 's silence on these controversies will allow `` politicians to trample on the freedom and security of law-abiding citizens . ''
`` The Bill of Rights specifically includes the right to keep and bear arms because self-defense is fundamental to the liberty of a free society , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement .
`` Today 's inaction continues to allow so-called gun safety politicians to trample on the freedom and security of law-abiding citizens . ''
Gun-control group Brady United praised the Supreme Court 's decision , calling it a `` win for the safety of Americans . ''
`` Today 's action was a blow to the NRA , the gun lobby , and those who seek to deprive Americans of the authority to enact strong public safety laws that protect their communities from gun violence .
We are pleased that the Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's plea to radically reinterpret the Second Amendment , '' Brady chief counsel Jonathan Lowy said .
`` While today is a win for the safety of Americans , we must remain vigilant , as some Justices are bent on vastly expanding gun rights . ''
The move comes after the Court dismissed its first major gun case in nearly a decade in April without ruling on the merits .
That case dealt with a strict New York City law limiting how owners could transport their firearms .
The Court ultimately decided the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to repeal its restrictions once the Court granted review in the case .
Gottlieb , who had expressed optimism that the Court would become more active on gun cases when it took the New York case , blamed Chief Justice John Roberts for the Court 's decision to deny the gun cases .
`` The Supreme Court 's refusal to take a Second Amendment Foundation case falls squarely at the feet of Chief Justice John Roberts , '' he said .
`` He owes every gun owner in the United States an explanation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hear a number of important Second Amendment cases . ''
Ultimately , Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh said Rogers v. Grewal should have been taken up by the Court and expressed their dismay at the Court 's refusal to further clarify the individual right to keep and bear arms that the Supreme Court protected in 2008 's landmark Heller decision , which struck down Washington , D.C. 's handgun ban .
`` This case gives us an opportunity to provide lower courts with much-needed guidance , ensure adherence to our precedents , and resolve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reasons is independently sufficient to grant certiorari .
In combination , they unequivocally demonstrate that this case warrants our review , '' Thomas wrote .
`` Rather than prolonging our decade-long failure to protect the Second Amendment , I would grant this petition . ''

The Supreme Court on Monday denied a slew of gun-rights challenges focused on everything from state "assault weapons" bans to safety requirements and permit issues, sparking a blistering dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas who accused his fellow justices of "looking the other way" on Second Amendment cases.
Second Amendment advocates were hoping the High Court would take up at least some of the legal challenges to gun-control laws that have passed in New Jersey, California, Maryland, and Massachusetts. Those cases were denied certiorari, meaning the High Court will not take them up.
The lack of action sparked some justices to dissent. Thomas slammed his colleagues for refusing to take up Rogers v. Grewal, a challenge to New Jersey's gun-carry law that allows government officials to subjectively deny permits. Thomas—joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh—said the state government's requirement that residents provide a reason for exercising a constitutional right warranted judicial oversight.
"This Court would almost certainly review the constitutionality of a law requiring citizens to establish a justifiable need before exercising their free speech rights," Thomas wrote. "And it seems highly unlikely that the Court would allow a State to enforce a law requiring a woman to provide a justifiable need before seeking an abortion. But today, faced with a petition challenging just such a restriction on citizens' Second Amendment rights, the Court simply looks the other way."
The Supreme Court has only ruled in one Second Amendment case since 2011. That 2016 case, Caetano v. Massachusetts, dealt with a law concerning stun guns and other less lethal weapons rather than firearms. Despite having a wealth of cases dealing with federal and state policies and laws, however, the High Court has largely sat out on debates about the Second Amendment. Gun-rights activists accused the Court of failing to protect the Second Amendment and of abdicating its role as a check on legislative and executive overreach.
"Given the fact that the Supreme Court had a cafeteria-style menu of cases from which to choose, there is no excuse why the Court at this time chose to ignore the need to rule on any of these cases, and send a message to lower courts that they can no longer thumb their noses at the Heller [2008] and McDonald [2010] Supreme Court decisions affirming the right to keep and bear arms," Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, said.
The National Rifle Association said the Court's silence on these controversies will allow "politicians to trample on the freedom and security of law-abiding citizens."
"The Bill of Rights specifically includes the right to keep and bear arms because self-defense is fundamental to the liberty of a free society," the National Rifle Association said in a statement. "Today's inaction continues to allow so-called gun safety politicians to trample on the freedom and security of law-abiding citizens."
Gun-control group Brady United praised the Supreme Court's decision, calling it a "win for the safety of Americans."
"Today's action was a blow to the NRA, the gun lobby, and those who seek to deprive Americans of the authority to enact strong public safety laws that protect their communities from gun violence. We are pleased that the Court chose not to consider the gun lobby's plea to radically reinterpret the Second Amendment," Brady chief counsel Jonathan Lowy said. "While today is a win for the safety of Americans, we must remain vigilant, as some Justices are bent on vastly expanding gun rights."
The move comes after the Court dismissed its first major gun case in nearly a decade in April without ruling on the merits. That case dealt with a strict New York City law limiting how owners could transport their firearms. The Court ultimately decided the issue was moot after the city moved to repeal its restrictions once the Court granted review in the case.
Gottlieb, who had expressed optimism that the Court would become more active on gun cases when it took the New York case, blamed Chief Justice John Roberts for the Court's decision to deny the gun cases.
"The Supreme Court's refusal to take a Second Amendment Foundation case falls squarely at the feet of Chief Justice John Roberts," he said. "He owes every gun owner in the United States an explanation about why the High Court declined to hear a number of important Second Amendment cases."
Ultimately, Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh said Rogers v. Grewal should have been taken up by the Court and expressed their dismay at the Court's refusal to further clarify the individual right to keep and bear arms that the Supreme Court protected in 2008's landmark Heller decision, which struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban.
"This case gives us an opportunity to provide lower courts with much-needed guidance, ensure adherence to our precedents, and resolve a Circuit split. Each of these reasons is independently sufficient to grant certiorari. In combination, they unequivocally demonstrate that this case warrants our review," Thomas wrote. "Rather than prolonging our decade-long failure to protect the Second Amendment, I would grant this petition."


freebeacon--2020-06-15--Dem Rep: Religious Liberty Is a ‘Bogus Term’

Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney ( D. , N.Y. ) said Monday that religious liberty is a `` bogus term '' that merely serves as a `` pretext for discrimination . ''
Maloney was celebrating the morning 's high-profile victory for LGBT rights at the Supreme Court , but he took time to criticize the author of the decision , Justice Neil Gorsuch , for having supported religious liberty .
`` We know that Neil Gorsuch is a supporter of so-called religious liberty , which is a bogus term—it is actually some sort of pretext for discrimination hiding behind the guise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` I 'm still on the lookout for that from the author of this opinion . ''
Maloney went on to list the ways that `` kids '' have led the charge in progressive protest movements , such as gun control , arguing some of his congressional colleagues should be replaced by high school students .
`` If we had more high school kids in Congress , we 'd be a better country , '' he said .
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , gay , and transgender workers .
Gorsuch , who was appointed by President Donald Trump , delivered the opinion in a six-to-three decision .
Maloney cochairs the Congressional LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus and has previously criticized defenders of religious liberty for attempting to `` sanction discrimination . ''

Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D., N.Y.) said Monday that religious liberty is a "bogus term" that merely serves as a "pretext for discrimination."
Maloney was celebrating the morning's high-profile victory for LGBT rights at the Supreme Court, but he took time to criticize the author of the decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch, for having supported religious liberty.
"We know that Neil Gorsuch is a supporter of so-called religious liberty, which is a bogus term—it is actually some sort of pretext for discrimination hiding behind the guise of religion," Maloney said. "I'm still on the lookout for that from the author of this opinion."
Maloney went on to list the ways that "kids" have led the charge in progressive protest movements, such as gun control, arguing some of his congressional colleagues should be replaced by high school students.
"If we had more high school kids in Congress, we'd be a better country," he said.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination, protects lesbian, gay, and transgender workers. Gorsuch, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, delivered the opinion in a six-to-three decision.
Maloney cochairs the Congressional LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus and has previously criticized defenders of religious liberty for attempting to "sanction discrimination."