thenation--2020-07-10--Joe Kennedy III Hired a Cop to Advise Him on Race and Justice

On Tuesday morning , Steve Tompkins presided over a town hall event at the Suffolk County Sheriff ’ s Department in Boston .
The participants were Senator Ed Markey and Representative Joe Kennedy III , candidates in the September 1 primary that will effectively decide November ’ s Massachusetts Senate race .
The audience consisted of Suffolk County inmates , who addressed the sheriff with deference as they approached the podium to pose their questions .
One of the candidates was Tompkins ’ s sometime-boss : The Kennedy campaign appointed him as an adviser in early June , having secured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Keep it kind of succinct , ” Tompkins told Kennedy .
“ Politicians will go on and on and on.
” “ Last time I checked , Sheriff , you got elected too , ” Kennedy shot back .
The room broke out in polite laughter .
Kennedy was right .
Tompkins did get elected—and then fined by the state ethics commission for using coercive tactics .
In 2013 , he flashed his badge , thus exerting his authority as a police officer , to dissuade local businesses from publicly supporting his opponent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just a cop but one with a documented record of exploiting his power makes him a strange choice for a senior adviser for “ racial and economic inequality and criminal justice reform.
” The Kennedy campaign announced his appointment on June 3 , just as the movement for Black lives swept the country in the wake of George Floyd ’ s murder .
The Kennedy campaign posits the fossil fuel and pharma stockholder ’ s challenge to the co-author of the Green New Deal as an upset from the left , and has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decades , including one in favor of Bill Clinton ’ s 1994 crime bill .
To be sure , the bill had a disastrous hand in mass incarceration and systemic racism , but it was also widely popular—or at least effectively caucused—passing 95 to four .
“ The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is now for 60 new death penalties…100,000 cops… [ and ] 125,000 new state prison cells , ” boasted then-Senator Joe Biden at the time .
But if we ’ re nitpicking over odious yay votes , Kennedy has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record : In 2018 , he voted for the Protect and Serve Act , known more colloquially as the “ Blue Lives Matter bill.
” As the ACLU , along with 27 other civil rights and government accountability organizations , noted in their condemnation , the legislation “ perpetuates a false narrative that police are under increasing attack by their communities ” but “ does not call for support services , better training , improved safety measures , increased supervision , or any of the other multiple measures available to law enforcement that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and wellbeing.
” Instead , it increases already harsh penalties for causing harm to cops , including up to 10 years in prison for “ serious bodily injury ” and potential life imprisonment for killing or threatening to kill a police officer—leaving interpretation of those subjective terms up to the courts .
The act never made it to a vote in the Senate , so Markey never had a chance to share Kennedy ’ s mistake .
But unlike his challenger , the incumbent has spent the years since his 1994 vote introducing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signature issues , environmental justice and technological equity , are not directly related to criminal justice , pursuing clean water and energy in marginalized communities and curbing the reach of surveillance technology have profound racial impacts .
And last week , Markey introduced the Ending Qualified Immunity Act with Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren , seeking to eliminate the legal protection that insulates police from accountability for their on-duty crimes and civil violations .
As Markey explained during the July 7 town hall , “ just after the Civil War , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sue [ the police ] , and over the years , the Supreme Court has been chipping away it.
” Enacted as the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act , the law that led to qualified immunity actually sought to protect civil rights and increase police accountability , but starting in the 1960s , the Supreme Court handed down a series of decisions that expanded the arguments law enforcement could use to avoid legal consequence—from “ good faith ” to “ objective reasonableness ” to near-total immunity .
“ So we need to overhaul @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As with many issues , Kennedy has chosen to take Markey ’ s side on this—he signed on to cosponsor the bill ’ s House complement introduced by Ayanna Pressley and Justin Amash .
But introducing his own legislation has never really been Kennedy ’ s thing .
Since entering Congress in 2013 , he has sponsored 60 pieces of legislation , including bills , resolutions , and amendments .
In the same period , Markey has sponsored 505—more than eight times as many .
Perhaps Kennedy ’ s lack of legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of experience .
He is , after all , far newer to Capitol Hill than Markey , as his campaign loves to stress .
( The multimillionaire candidate is “ young , scrappy , and hungry , ” according to Students for Kennedy , referencing the musical Hamilton . )
But when we look at his earlier experience , the picture doesn ’ t improve : As a prosecutor , Kennedy worked under Michael O ’ Keefe , the conservative Republican district attorney for the Cape & Islands who , as Will Isenberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never met a form of criminal legal system reform that he didn ’ t hate.
” “ The cases [ Kennedy ] tries usually don ’ t make the papers , ” noted a fawning Boston Globe profile of Kennedy in 2011 .
“ As the new guy , it ’ s up to him to drag stacks of files across the parking lot , to rotate among the district courts , to follow the lead of his senior colleagues , ” said the Cape Cod Times the year prior , in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ public servant.
” To be the “ new guy ” working under a tough-on-crime DA from 2009 to 2011 , when Massachusetts was in the middle of a foreclosure crisis , “ following the lead ” in unexciting , run-of-the-mill cases would require collecting quality-of-life fines , securing low-level drug convictions , and evicting families from their homes .
Working for O ’ Keefe meant working for the criminalization of poverty .
Joe Kennedy III Is an Insider , Not an Insurgent Now boasting what Isenberg calls “ a criminal justice platform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kennedy seems to have reversed course , and surrounded himself with a loyal team ready to groom his every statement .
When Kennedy stumbled during the livestreamed debate , Tompkins stepped in to help .
After one attendee used his own case as an example to press the candidate for specifics on how to increase police accountability , the sheriff cautioned : “ I invited both candidates here to have a discussion about how they are going to handle the office of senator .
And as much as your particular cases are seriously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this gathering.
” Markey , who spoke first , spent his hour discussing his bill to end qualified immunity ; his cosponsorship of the Next Step Act , Cory Booker ’ s plan to reduce sentencing and recidivism ; his Covid-19-relief Universal Basic Income bill with Sanders and Kamala Harris ; and his legislation with Pressley to provide free public transportation .
During his turn , Kennedy mostly avoided legislative specifics .
“ Hey , I don ’ t have all the answers , ” he admitted .
“ Ed Markey agreed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who has endorsed his opponent and who is hired by Joe Kennedy as an advisor , ” commented one Facebook viewer .
“ That ’ s how bad Joe Kennedy is at debating.
” While it may seem odd that Markey would agree to a conversation hosted by his opponent ’ s ally , Tompkins stressed that he has sought opportunities for his inmates to speak with candidates in the past .
On Twitter , Suffolk County District Attorney Rachael Rollins agreed .
Responding to the question , “ Why is Sheriff Tompkins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a senior advisor to one of the candidates ?
” Rollins wrote , “ The same reason he hosted a forum back in the 2018 Suffolk County DA ’ s race , having already fully endorsed one of the candidates .
Give you a hint , it wasn ’ t me.
” ( Rollins , who endorsed Markey , has earned the ire of several right-leaning state officials for her refusal to prosecute low-level offenses , with the goal of decriminalizing poverty-based crimes .
One of her critics is Kennedy ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who disdains what he dubs “ social justice district attorneys.
” ) “ There is a Kennedy family tradition of nepotism , ” wrote Robert Kuttner in The American Prospect , “ and sometimes it has worked out.
” It threatens to do so again .
When second-quarter fundraising results were released on July 1 , the candidates were in an almost perfect tie .
Polling remains limited , but it shows Kennedy leading .
At the Suffolk County Sheriff ’ s Department , cries of nepotism didn ’ t seem to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crowd after closing remarks , the person running the livestream giggled .
“ I like him , ” said a voice near the mic .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
On Tuesday morning, Steve Tompkins presided over a town hall event at the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department in Boston. The participants were Senator Ed Markey and Representative Joe Kennedy III, candidates in the September 1 primary that will effectively decide November’s Massachusetts Senate race. The audience consisted of Suffolk County inmates, who addressed the sheriff with deference as they approached the podium to pose their questions. One of the candidates was Tompkins’s sometime boss: The Kennedy campaign appointed him as an adviser in early June, having secured his endorsement in October 2019.
“Keep it kind of succinct,” Tompkins told Kennedy. “Politicians will go on and on and on.”
“Last time I checked, Sheriff, you got elected too,” Kennedy shot back. The room broke out in polite laughter.
Kennedy was right. Tompkins did get elected—and then fined by the state ethics commission for using coercive tactics. In 2013, he flashed his badge, thus exerting his authority as a police officer, to dissuade local businesses from publicly supporting his opponent. The fact that Tompkins is not just a cop but one with a documented record of exploiting his power makes him a strange choice for a senior adviser for “racial and economic inequality and criminal justice reform.” The Kennedy campaign announced his appointment on June 3, just as the movement for Black lives swept the country in the wake of George Floyd’s murder.
The Kennedy campaign posits the fossil fuel and pharma stockholder’s challenge to a coauthor of the Green New Deal as an upset from the left and has often lambasted Markey for votes from previous decades, including one in favor of Bill Clinton’s 1994 crime bill. To be sure, the bill had a disastrous hand in mass incarceration and systemic racism, but it was also widely popular—or at least effectively caucused—passing 95 to four. “The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is now for 60 new death penalties…100,000 cops…[and] 125,000 new state prison cells,” boasted then-Senator Joe Biden at the time.
But if we’re nitpicking over odious yea votes, Kennedy has a far more recent one on his record: In 2018 he voted for the Protect and Serve Act, known more colloquially as the Blue Lives Matter bill. As the ACLU and 27 other civil rights and government accountability organizations noted in a condemnation, the legislation “perpetuates a false narrative that police are under increasing attack by their communities” but “does not call for support services, better training, improved safety measures, increased supervision, or any of the other multiple measures available to law enforcement that are widely accepted as promoting officer safety and wellbeing.” Instead, it increases already harsh penalties for causing harm to cops, including up to 10 years in prison for “serious bodily injury” and potential life imprisonment for killing or threatening to kill a police officer—leaving interpretation of those subjective terms up to the courts. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
The act never made it to a vote in the Senate, so Markey never had a chance to share Kennedy’s mistake. But unlike his challenger, the incumbent has spent the years since his 1994 vote introducing reams of transformative legislation. Though his signature issues, environmental justice and technological equity, are not directly related to criminal justice, pursuing clean water and energy in marginalized communities and curbing the reach of surveillance technology have profound racial effects. And last week, Markey introduced the Ending Qualified Immunity Act with Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, seeking to eliminate the legal protection that insulates police from accountability for their on-duty crimes and civil violations. Current Issue View our current issue
As Markey explained during the July 7 town hall, “just after the Civil War, there was a law passed that you could sue [the police], and over the years, the Supreme Court has been chipping away it.” Enacted as the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act, the law that led to qualified immunity actually sought to protect civil rights and increase police accountability, but starting in the 1960s, the Supreme Court handed down a series of decisions that expanded the arguments law enforcement could use to avoid legal consequence—from “good faith” to “objective reasonableness” to near-total immunity. “So we need to overhaul the whole system,” Markey said.
As with many issues, Kennedy has chosen to take Markey’s side on this—he signed on to cosponsor the bill’s House complement introduced by Ayanna Pressley and Justin Amash. But introducing his own legislation has never really been Kennedy’s thing. Since entering Congress in 2013, he has sponsored 60 pieces of legislation, including bills, resolutions, and amendments. In the same period, Markey has sponsored 505—more than eight times as many.
Perhaps Kennedy’s lack of legislation can be chalked up to his lack of experience. He is, after all, far newer to Capitol Hill than Markey, as his campaign loves to stress. (The multimillionaire candidate is “young, scrappy, and hungry,” according to Students for Kennedy, referencing the musical Hamilton.) But when we look at his earlier experience, the picture doesn’t improve. As a prosecutor, Kennedy worked under Michael O’Keefe, the conservative Republican district attorney for the Cape & Islands who, as Will Isenberg put it in The Appeal, “never met a form of criminal legal system reform that he didn’t hate.”
“The cases [Kennedy] tries usually don’t make the papers,” noted a fawning Boston Globe profile of Kennedy in 2011. “As the new guy, it’s up to him to drag stacks of files across the parking lot, to rotate among the district courts, to follow the lead of his senior colleagues,” said the Cape Cod Times the year prior, in a story characterizing the young prosecutor as a “public servant.” To be the “new guy” working under a tough-on-crime DA from 2009 to 2011, when Massachusetts was in the middle of a foreclosure crisis, “following the lead” in unexciting, run-of-the-mill cases would require collecting quality-of-life fines, securing low-level drug convictions, and evicting families from their homes. Working for O’Keefe meant working for the criminalization of poverty. Related Article Joe Kennedy III Is an Insider, Not an Insurgent Maia Hibbett
Now boasting what Isenberg calls “a criminal justice platform that any reformer could love,” Kennedy seems to have reversed course, and surrounded himself with a loyal team ready to groom his every statement. When Kennedy stumbled during the livestreamed debate, Tompkins stepped in to help. After one attendee used his own case as an example to press the candidate for specifics on how to increase police accountability, the sheriff cautioned, “I invited both candidates here to have a discussion about how they are going to handle the office of senator. And as much as your particular cases are seriously important, that is not the nature of this gathering.”
Markey, who spoke first, spent his hour discussing his bill to end qualified immunity; his cosponsorship of the Next Step Act, Cory Booker’s plan to reduce sentencing and recidivism; his Covid-19-relief Universal Basic Income bill with Sanders and Kamala Harris; and his legislation with Pressley to provide free public transportation. During his turn, Kennedy mostly avoided legislative specifics. “Hey, I don’t have all the answers,” he admitted.
“Ed Markey agreed to a debate moderated by a sheriff who has endorsed his opponent and who is hired by Joe Kennedy as an advisor,” commented one Facebook viewer. “That’s how bad Joe Kennedy is at debating.”
While it may seem odd that Markey would agree to a conversation hosted by his opponent’s ally, Tompkins stressed that he has sought opportunities for his inmates to speak with candidates in the past. On Twitter, Suffolk County District Attorney Rachael Rollins agreed. Responding to the question, “Why is Sheriff Tompkins moderating a Senate candidate debate when he’s a senior advisor to one of the candidates?” Rollins wrote, “The same reason he hosted a forum back in the 2018 Suffolk County DA’s race, having already fully endorsed one of the candidates. Give you a hint, it wasn’t me.” (Rollins, who endorsed Markey, has earned the ire of several right-leaning state officials for her refusal to prosecute low-level offenses, with the goal of decriminalizing poverty-based crimes. One of her critics is Kennedy’s old boss O’Keefe, who disdains what he dubs “social justice district attorneys.”)
“There is a Kennedy family tradition of nepotism,” wrote Robert Kuttner in The American Prospect, “and sometimes it has worked out.” It threatens to do so again. When second-quarter fundraising results were released on July 1, the candidates were in an almost perfect tie. Polling remains limited, but it shows Kennedy leading.
At the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department, cries of nepotism didn’t seem to have hurt. As Kennedy approached the applauding crowd after closing remarks, the person running the livestream giggled. “I like him,” said a voice near the mic.


thenation--2020-07-10--The Supreme Court’s Public-Health Approach to Abortion Rights

In the Supreme Court ’ s recent ruling in June Medical Services v. Russo , five justices struck down an abortion restriction that would have made the procedure almost impossible to obtain in Louisiana .
The law—which was , as Justice Stephen Breyer put it , “ almost word-for-word identical ” to a law struck down by the court in a 2016 decision , Whole Woman ’ s Health v. Hellerstedt—required abortion providers to obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles .
In its 5-4 decision , the court held that the Louisiana law must also be struck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have closed all but one clinic in the state , was a significant obstacle to people seeking abortions .
Breyer , writing for himself and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Sonia Sotomayor , and Elena Kagan , found that the Louisiana law provided not a single health benefit to patients and inflicted only burdens by forcing clinics to close .
As he held in Whole Woman ’ s Health , a restriction on abortion that accomplished none of its purported benefits—improving patient safety , for example—may not stand if it imposed even a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in a separate opinion , concurred that the law was unconstitutional but did so under the principle of stare decisis ( Latin for “ let the decision stand ” ) .
Because the court , applying the “ undue burden ” standard established in Planned Parenthood v. Casey , ruled a nearly identical restriction unconstitutional in 2016 , Roberts argued that precedent mandated the same outcome here .
However , he did not join Breyer ’ s opinion because he believes Casey requires a different test .
Rather than balance the benefits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Breyer did in his opinion , Roberts focused on the law ’ s burdens : Restrictions that create substantial obstacles to abortion access and are not reasonably related to a legitimate state purpose are unconstitutional .
His opinion suggests that the next abortion case the court hears will apply the chief justice ’ s version of Whole Woman ’ s Health—that is , assessing the impact of the restriction at issue and not evaluating whether the law offers any health benefit .
As commentators have noted , that shift matters .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the name of health but without any measurable value for patients .
Under a narrow reading of Roberts ’ s concurrence , abortion restrictions are constitutional as long as they do not decimate abortion services in the state .
John Roberts Is Not Your Friend So no one would argue that Roberts has become a fan of abortion rights .
But the way in which he applied his refashioned test for constitutionality deserves more attention .
At the center of June Medical Services , like Whole Woman ’ s Health , is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ landscape of abortion care would look like if the law had taken effect : After all but one clinic closes because providers can not gain admitting privileges , how many miles will patients have to travel to get an abortion ?
For all his allegiance to precedent and his ambivalence about assessing the law ’ s health benefits , Roberts ’ s concurrence takes up the law ’ s operation in the real world .
He cited the findings of the trial court that “ the Louisiana law would result in ‘ longer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and increased associated health risk.
’ ” He reiterated that “ Louisiana women already ‘ have difficulty affording or arranging for transportation and childcare on the days of their clinic visits ’ and that ‘ [ i ] ncreased travel distance ’ would exacerbate this difficulty.
” And he emphasized the scale of that distance—over 300 miles for some Louisiana women .
Roberts could have easily omitted these references to the district court ’ s record , writing only of precedent and explaining a scaled-back constitutional test .
So if there is anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is his recognition of the evidence that connects clinic closures to adverse health consequences for pregnant people .
When people do not have access to local abortion services , they will travel long distances , self-induce terminations , or carry pregnancies to term .
Each option has short- and long-term costs .
A dissent written by Justice Samuel Alito points to any number of reasons that the effects of inaccessible abortion are not the state law ’ s fault .
But Roberts acknowledged that when clinics close and a law requires those closures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stake .
Public health research has made this case .
The research on which the trial court relied was generated , in part , by scholars and advocates .
Their work provides empirical evidence that state laws shuttering clinics have negative consequences for the well-being of individuals and of populations at large .
Even if one does not believe that Roberts adopted a public health perspective , such an approach has promise .
Both Breyer ’ s and Roberts ’ s opinions read like simple math problems—counting clinics , providers , and miles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are pernicious because they compound the stress on many people ’ s already scarce resources for health care , child care , or transportation .
Although Breyer acknowledged that the burdens of the Louisiana law “ would fall disproportionately on poor women , ” the court ’ s language suggests low-income women are a minority rather than the majority of people who seek abortion .
The reality , however , is different .
About half of abortion patients live below the federal poverty line .
People seek abortion to alleviate financial or economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poverty and results in physical and mental injury .
When striking down such restrictions , the court could better express how abortion is crucial to improving a person ’ s health and livelihood .
Seen in this way , abortion is not only a constitutional right ; it is a matter of personal and public health .
That kind of reasoning could thwart laws that seek to eviscerate abortion rights under the guise of health concerns .
Or it could encourage laws with exceptions for people who bear the brunt of the law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admittedly a partial solution .
That either of these approaches seems presently out of reach ( consider that the Court ignored how cost-sharing for contraceptives promotes preventative care and reduces health disparities in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania ) speaks to how far we have to go .

This article appears in the July 27/August 3, 2020 issue.
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
In the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in June Medical Services v. Russo, five justices struck down an abortion restriction that would have made the procedure almost impossible to obtain in Louisiana. The law—which was, as Justice Stephen Breyer put it, “almost word-for-word identical” to a law struck down by the court in a 2016 decision, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt—required abortion providers to obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. In its 5-4 decision, the court held that the Louisiana law must also be struck down because the requirement, which would have closed all but one clinic in the state, was a significant obstacle to people seeking abortions.
Breyer, writing for himself and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, found that the Louisiana law provided not a single health benefit to patients and inflicted only burdens by forcing clinics to close. As he held in Whole Woman’s Health, a restriction on abortion that accomplished none of its purported benefits—improving patient safety, for example—may not stand if it imposed even a modest burden.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in a separate opinion, concurred that the law was unconstitutional but did so under the principle of stare decisis (Latin for “let the decision stand”). Because the court, applying the “undue burden” standard established in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, ruled a nearly identical restriction unconstitutional in 2016, Roberts argued that precedent mandated the same outcome here. However, he did not join Breyer’s opinion because he believes Casey requires a different test. Rather than balance the benefits and burdens of the Louisiana law, as Breyer did in his opinion, Roberts focused on the law’s burdens: Restrictions that create substantial obstacles to abortion access and are not reasonably related to a legitimate state purpose are unconstitutional.
His opinion suggests that the next abortion case the court hears will apply the chief justice’s version of Whole Woman’s Health—that is, assessing the impact of the restriction at issue and not evaluating whether the law offers any health benefit. As commentators have noted, that shift matters. It could allow states to adopt laws in the name of health but without any measurable value for patients. Under a narrow reading of Roberts’s concurrence, abortion restrictions are constitutional as long as they do not decimate abortion services in the state. Related Article John Roberts Is Not Your Friend Elie Mystal
So no one would argue that Roberts has become a fan of abortion rights. But the way in which he applied his refashioned test for constitutionality deserves more attention. At the center of June Medical Services, like Whole Woman’s Health, is the court’s discussion of what the landscape of abortion care would look like if the law had taken effect: After all but one clinic closes because providers cannot gain admitting privileges, how many miles will patients have to travel to get an abortion? For all his allegiance to precedent and his ambivalence about assessing the law’s health benefits, Roberts’s concurrence takes up the law’s operation in the real world. He cited the findings of the trial court that “the Louisiana law would result in ‘longer waiting times for appointments, increased crowding and increased associated health risk.’” He reiterated that “Louisiana women already ‘have difficulty affording or arranging for transportation and childcare on the days of their clinic visits’ and that ‘[i]ncreased travel distance’ would exacerbate this difficulty.” And he emphasized the scale of that distance—over 300 miles for some Louisiana women. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
Roberts could have easily omitted these references to the district court’s record, writing only of precedent and explaining a scaled-back constitutional test. So if there is anything to celebrate about his opinion, it is his recognition of the evidence that connects clinic closures to adverse health consequences for pregnant people.
When people do not have access to local abortion services, they will travel long distances, self-induce terminations, or carry pregnancies to term. Each option has short- and long-term costs. A dissent written by Justice Samuel Alito points to any number of reasons that the effects of inaccessible abortion are not the state law’s fault. But Roberts acknowledged that when clinics close and a law requires those closures, there is a constitutional question at stake. Current Issue View our current issue
Public health research has made this case. The research on which the trial court relied was generated, in part, by scholars and advocates. Their work provides empirical evidence that state laws shuttering clinics have negative consequences for the well-being of individuals and of populations at large. Even if one does not believe that Roberts adopted a public health perspective, such an approach has promise. Both Breyer’s and Roberts’s opinions read like simple math problems—counting clinics, providers, and miles across the state. But the restrictions are pernicious because they compound the stress on many people’s already scarce resources for health care, child care, or transportation.
Although Breyer acknowledged that the burdens of the Louisiana law “would fall disproportionately on poor women,” the court’s language suggests low-income women are a minority rather than the majority of people who seek abortion. The reality, however, is different. About half of abortion patients live below the federal poverty line. People seek abortion to alleviate financial or economic stress.
Delayed or denied abortion deepens poverty and results in physical and mental injury. When striking down such restrictions, the court could better express how abortion is crucial to improving a person’s health and livelihood. Seen in this way, abortion is not only a constitutional right; it is a matter of personal and public health. That kind of reasoning could thwart laws that seek to eviscerate abortion rights under the guise of health concerns. Or it could encourage laws with exceptions for people who bear the brunt of the law’s effects, though this is admittedly a partial solution. That either of these approaches seems presently out of reach (consider that the Court ignored how cost-sharing for contraceptives promotes preventative care and reduces health disparities in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania) speaks to how far we have to go.


thenation--2020-07-10--Why Won’t Democrats Just Come Out for Legalizing Marijuana?

Some political issues are hard to wrestle with .
Some are easy .
Legalizing marijuana is easy .
A Pew Research Center survey found last fall that Americans back legalization by a 67-32 margin .
The numbers spike among Democrats , 78 percent of whom favor ending this form of prohibition .
But there ’ s also majority support—55 percent—among Republicans .
Among voters under age 30 , support for legalization is sky-high .
Enthusiasm for legalization extends far beyond the large number of Americans who are recreational users of marijuana to include millions of people who recognize , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ Marijuana Legalization Is a Racial Justice Issue.
” “ Marijuana has been a key driver of mass criminalization in this country and hundreds of thousands of people , the majority of whom are Black or Latinx , have their lives impacted by a marijuana arrest each year , ” ACLU policy analyst Charlotte Resing explained last year , while Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren ’ s presidential campaign argued , “ Legalizing marijuana is about more than just allowing recreational use , or the potential medicinal benefit , or the money that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s about undoing a century of racist policy that disproportionately targeted Black and Latino communities .
It ’ s about rebuilding the communities that have suffered the most harm.
” Republicans Lose Their Collective Mind Over Ilhan Omar ’ s Call to Dismantle ‘ Systems of Oppression ’ Except for the Democratic Party .
When the party ’ s task force on criminal justice reform released its policy recommendations this week , legalization was off the agenda .
That was just one example of the caution that permeates the 110-page @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s platform drafters by the six task forces that were set up in May by presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his chief rival for the party ’ s nomination , Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders .
The task force recommendations on issues ranging from health care and the environment to immigration and economics tend toward compromise at a point when the former vice president should be presenting a dynamic vision of what comes next .
The agendas outlined by the commissions were far more progressive than those of President Trump and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there were a number of areas where the policies are more progressive than those adopted by Democrats in the past , leading Sanders to suggest that “ the task forces have created a good policy blueprint that will move this country in a much-needed progressive direction and substantially improve the lives of working families throughout our country.
” But as a Politico analysis points out , “ The task force recommendations don ’ t include the kind of wide-scale systemic upheaval that won Sanders such a fervent following in his two presidential campaigns—while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans alike.
” Biden ’ s representatives on the task forces moved a bit to the left , mirroring their candidate ’ s progression .
But on issue after issue , they avoided the sort of big , bold structural change that Sanders and Warren championed in the primaries—and that now , amid the coronavirus pandemic , mass unemployment , and demands for racial justice , polling suggests voters recognize as necessary .
There ’ s the old talk of a “ public option ” to expand access to health care coverage .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ All approach that is needed to create a single-payer system .
There ’ s some good language about eliminating power plant carbon pollution by 2035 and achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 .
But there ’ s no comprehensive Green New Deal proposal to transform the economy in order to address the climate crisis while creating the jobs of the future .
There ’ s criticism of mass incarceration and a good proposal to restrict federal funding for states that maintain cash bail systems .
But there ’ s no plan to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agency or to defund the police with an eye toward establishing new law enforcement models that strive for public safety and justice .
Even as demonstrations against police brutality have filled the streets of American cities , the criminal justice task force fails to eliminate the doctrine of qualified immunity , which , Representative Ayanna Pressley explains , “ shields police from accountability , impedes true justice , and undermines the constitutional rights of every person in this country .
It ’ s past time to end qualified immunity.
” While the commission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limit the worst abuses , it failed to embrace the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act—a measure that eliminates qualified immunity , which has passed the House—or Pressley ’ s Ending Qualified Immunity Act , legislation that has attracted the support not just of progressives but of libertarian-leaning former Republican , now independent , Representative Justin Amash .
Color of Change senior director of criminal justice campaigns Scott Roberts told Politico that Biden “ still seems to embrace kind of a law-and-order lite.
” That was certainly the case when it came to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legalization—the popular position backed by Sanders .
Instead , it stuck to the more cautious approach that ’ s been maintained by Biden , a supporter of the drug war during his own Senate years who has softened some but not all of his old positions .
Instead of legalization , the commission proposed to “ decriminalize marijuana use , ” reschedule cannabis on the Controlled Substances Act ( CSA ) , and leave it to the states to decide about legalization .
The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws concluded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ step with public opinion [ and ] would do little to mitigate the failed policy of federal prohibition.
” “ It is impractical at best and disingenuous at worst for the Biden campaign to move ahead with these policy proposals .
Rescheduling of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act would continue to make the federal government the primary dictators of cannabis policy , and would do little if anything to address its criminal status under federal law , ” explained Erik Altieri , the executive director of the National Organization for the Reform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is intellectually dishonest .
Just as cannabis does not meet the strict criteria of a Schedule I controlled substance , it similarly does not meet the specific criteria that define substances categorized in schedules II through V. ” A Progressive Democratic Party is Possible—and Biden Needs It to Win Why didn ’ t the commission simply endorse the Marijuana Justice Act , which has been introduced by New Jersey Democrat Cory Booker in the Senate and House Democrats Barbara Lee and Ro Khanna ?
Sanders supports the measure , as do two of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren and Senator Kamala Harris .
The answer is that Biden has a long history of opposing legalization—going so far in his resistance to the idea that , last year , Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez suggested that the former vice president was employing “ Reagan-era talking points .
”

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
Some political issues are hard to wrestle with. Some are easy. Legalizing marijuana is easy.
A Pew Research Center survey found last fall that Americans back legalization by a 67-32 margin. The numbers spike among Democrats, 78 percent of whom favor ending this form of prohibition. But there’s also majority support—55 percent—among Republicans. Among voters under age 30, support for legalization is sky-high.
Enthusiasm for legalization extends far beyond the large number of Americans who are recreational users of marijuana to include millions of people who recognize, as does the American Civil Liberties Union, that “Marijuana Legalization Is a Racial Justice Issue.”
“Marijuana has been a key driver of mass criminalization in this country and hundreds of thousands of people, the majority of whom are Black or Latinx, have their lives impacted by a marijuana arrest each year,” ACLU policy analyst Charlotte Resing explained last year, while Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign argued, “Legalizing marijuana is about more than just allowing recreational use, or the potential medicinal benefit, or the money that can be made from this new market. It’s about undoing a century of racist policy that disproportionately targeted Black and Latino communities. It’s about rebuilding the communities that have suffered the most harm.” More From John Nichols A GOP Debate Without Trump Is the Definition of Pointlessness August 11, 2023 A Win for Abortion Rights, a Win for Democracy: Ohio Voters Reject Issue 1 August 9, 2023 The Biggest Threat to Donald Trump Could Be the Constitution Itself August 4, 2023
See, easy.
Except for the Democratic Party. When the party’s task force on criminal justice reform released its policy recommendations this week, legalization was off the agenda. That was just one example of the caution that permeates the 110-page document submitted to the Democratic National Committee’s platform drafters by the six task forces that were set up in May by presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his chief rival for the party’s nomination, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. The task force recommendations on issues ranging from health care and the environment to immigration and economics tend toward compromise at a point when the former vice president should be presenting a dynamic vision of what comes next. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
The agendas outlined by the commissions were far more progressive than those of President Trump and the Republicans, of course. And there were a number of areas where the policies are more progressive than those adopted by Democrats in the past, leading Sanders to suggest that “the task forces have created a good policy blueprint that will move this country in a much-needed progressive direction and substantially improve the lives of working families throughout our country.” But as a Politico analysis points out, “The task force recommendations don’t include the kind of wide-scale systemic upheaval that won Sanders such a fervent following in his two presidential campaigns—while provoking an outcry from moderate Democrats and Republicans alike.” Current Issue View our current issue
Biden’s representatives on the task forces moved a bit to the left, mirroring their candidate’s progression. But on issue after issue, they avoided the sort of big, bold structural change that Sanders and Warren championed in the primaries—and that now, amid the coronavirus pandemic, mass unemployment, and demands for racial justice, polling suggests voters recognize as necessary.
There’s the old talk of a “public option” to expand access to health care coverage. But no plan for the Medicare for All approach that is needed to create a single-payer system.
There’s some good language about eliminating power plant carbon pollution by 2035 and achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. But there’s no comprehensive Green New Deal proposal to transform the economy in order to address the climate crisis while creating the jobs of the future.
There’s criticism of mass incarceration and a good proposal to restrict federal funding for states that maintain cash bail systems. But there’s no plan to abolish the scandal-plagued Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency or to defund the police with an eye toward establishing new law enforcement models that strive for public safety and justice. Even as demonstrations against police brutality have filled the streets of American cities, the criminal justice task force fails to eliminate the doctrine of qualified immunity, which, Representative Ayanna Pressley explains, “shields police from accountability, impedes true justice, and undermines the constitutional rights of every person in this country. It’s past time to end qualified immunity.” While the commission’s report called for steps to limit the worst abuses, it failed to embrace the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act—a measure that eliminates qualified immunity, which has passed the House—or Pressley’s Ending Qualified Immunity Act, legislation that has attracted the support not just of progressives but of former Republican, now Libertarian, Representative Justin Amash.
Color of Change senior director of criminal justice campaigns Scott Roberts told Politico that Biden “still seems to embrace kind of a law-and-order lite.” That was certainly the case when it came to upending marijuana laws.
The commission rejected legalization—the popular position backed by Sanders. Instead, it stuck to the more cautious approach that’s been maintained by Biden, a supporter of the drug war during his own Senate years who has softened some but not all of his old positions. Instead of legalization, the commission proposed to “decriminalize marijuana use,” reschedule cannabis on the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), and leave it to the states to decide about legalization.
The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws concluded that the proposal “is out of step with public opinion [and] would do little to mitigate the failed policy of federal prohibition.”
“It is impractical at best and disingenuous at worst for the Biden campaign to move ahead with these policy proposals. Rescheduling of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act would continue to make the federal government the primary dictators of cannabis policy, and would do little if anything to address its criminal status under federal law,” explained Erik Altieri, the executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Law. “Rescheduling marijuana is intellectually dishonest. Just as cannabis does not meet the strict criteria of a Schedule I controlled substance, it similarly does not meet the specific criteria that define substances categorized in schedules II through V.” Unity Task Forces A Progressive Democratic Party is Possible—and Biden Needs It to Win John Nichols
Why didn’t the commission simply endorse the Marijuana Justice Act, which has been introduced by New Jersey Democrat Cory Booker in the Senate and House Democrats Barbara Lee and Ro Khanna? Sanders supports the measure, as do two of Biden’s vice presidential prospects, Warren and Senator Kamala Harris. The answer is that Biden has a long history of opposing legalization—going so far in his resistance to the idea that, last year, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez suggested that the former vice president was employing “Reagan-era talking points.”


thenation--2020-07-10--The Left Needs to Reclaim Free Speech

The Left Needs to Reclaim Free Speech

I ’ m a reluctant participant in the debate over free speech and the alleged threat of “ cancel culture.
” I ’ ve hesitated to join in part because these controversies seem like a rehash of the earlier sterile arguments in the 1980s and ’ 90s about political correctness .
In the brouhaha over both PC and cancel culture , there ’ s been a disheartening reliance on ridiculously overheated metaphors ( guillotines and gulags always in the wings ) and bogus anecdotes .
In 1991 , Dinesh D ’ Souza , already a notorious charlatan , snookered many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great historian C. Vann Woodward , with his book Illiberal Education , which offered a fundamentally dishonest account of many controversies , including curriculum changes at Stanford and the Guatemalan civil war .
The other reason I ’ ve been inclined to pooh-pooh the idea of cancel culture is that to the extent it is real , it still seems like a minor problem in the age of ( in no particular order ) climate change , Covid-19 , the second economic meltdown in two decades , and a racist buffoon occupying the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forced me to be less blasé about free speech .
The president ’ s authoritarianism has exhibited itself in many ways , one of the most dangerous of which is his attacks on dissent .
He ’ s called the press the “ enemy of the people , ” cheered the denial of a career to Colin Kaepernick by the NFL because of the football player ’ s protest against police racism , purged the Voice of America , and ( it seems ) punished impeachment witnesses like Alexander Vindman .
Given Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s urgent for the left to reclaim the language of free speech and not leave this discourse to reactionary cranks like Dennis Prager , who is still stewing about the fact that as a white person it is socially unacceptable for him to use the n-word .
Coupled with the threat from Trump is the fact that along with the welcome rise of social movements protesting bigotry , there have been a few cases of genuine overreach .
In early June , Civis Analytics fired David Shor , a young data analyst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shor posted summing up scholarship showing that violent protest was counterproductive in terms of electoral outcome .
( The scholarship Shor cited was by the Princeton political scientists Omar Wasow , who is African American ) .
After being fired , Shor was kicked off a list serve for progressive analysts .
Just How Far Can Trump Go in an Emergency ?
Aside from the injustice to Shor , this case illustrates a wrong turn by the new wave of activism : the excessive focus on the discourse .
The demolition of Confederate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flags has been moving .
But the focus on symbolic and representational racism has also given an opening to corporate America and business-as-usual politicians to win anti-racism reward points on the cheap .
While the ruling elite still refuses to rein in the police or invest in Black communities , corporations are happy to tweet out slogans supporting Black Lives Matter .
The best example of this corporate faux-anti-racism is Hulu ’ s decision to remove from circulation an episode of Golden Girls that showed characters wearing masks at a spa out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( The blackface explanation from Hulu might be a pretext , since the episode has other problems ) .
Even with art that is genuinely racist or offensive in other ways , erasure is the wrong approach , since it allows us to whitewash history .
It only serves the interest of corporate giants like Disney to remove from the public record evidence of their prior trafficking in racism .
For historians or cultural scholars who want to gauge the pervasiveness of bigotry in American history , it ’ s harmful that Disney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the South ( 1946 ) , a minstrel musical , squirreled away in a deep , dark vault .
Ideally , this material should be in the public domain and used for educational purposes .
As Adam Serwer of The Atlantic noted , “ I think removing episodes with offensive content from availability is protecting the brand more than any kind of progress .
The episodes should stay up and audiences should evaluate those shows accordingly.
” Because of these concerns , when I was asked by a friend to sign a letter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The letter was an anodyne enough statement of liberal truisms .
I did have qualms about the fact that there were no specific cases cited .
Instead , the letter gave only vague unnamed allusions to events .
“ My preference would have been for either not detailing cases or if detailed to provide names , ” I noted .
Still , these unnamed cases were presented in an abstract way with the proviso that issues are disputed .
So I didn ’ t feel the lack of specific details interfered with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I agreed with .
The recent letter I signed , grandly titled “ An Open Letter on Justice and Open Debate , ” was published to great controversy in Harper ’ s Magazine , not from my point of view an ideal venue for a statement about free speech .
Publication in Harper ’ s was something I found out about only on the eve of the letter ’ s being published .
Harper ’ s publisher Rick MacArthur , scion of a fortune rivaling that of Richie Rich , runs his magazine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firing editors at whim .
One firing can plausibly be seen as a union busting move , itself an assault on free speech .
The best way to strengthen free speech rights for most people would be to increase union density and limit at-will employment , thus disempowering the MacArthurs of the world .
The letter had a range of signatories spanning the political spectrum from Noam Chomsky and Nell Irvin Painter to David Frum and David Brooks .
Some of the signatories can fairly be taxed with being the rankest of hypocrites @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is especially true of speech that expresses solidarity for Palestinians or speech that is , God forbid , voiced by actual Palestinians .
These unreliable free-speech advocates include New York Times editor Bari Weiss , literary scholar Cary Nelson , and political scientist Yascha Mounk .
As Glenn Greenwald has documented in The Intercept , Weiss has been involved “ in numerous campaigns to vilify and ruin the careers of several Arab and Muslim professors due to their criticisms of Israel.
” In 2014 , Nelson supported the decision to withdraw a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Salaita over objections to harsh tweets Salaita had written .
The withdrawal was made by the chancellor of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign , over the express wishes of the American studies department of that school .
Salaita ’ s academic career was destroyed , and he currently works as a school bus driver .
In 2019 , Mounk enthused over a coup in Bolivia led by Jeanine Añez .
As Jacobin notes , “ Since taking power , the Añez government has massacred protesters , arrested political opponents , and cracked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In March , her government postponed an election she was on track to lose , the holding of which , as soon as possible , was supposed to be her only job , and in which she had initially promised not to run.
” With free speech advocates like Weiss , Nelson , and Mounk , the forces of censorship will always enjoy a good night ’ s sleep .
Yet to simply say that Weiss and company are hypocrites is only half the story .
Thomas Jefferson was a hypocrite when he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Jefferson ’ s slave-owning doesn ’ t discredit the principles he articulated .
Rather , the principles give us language with which to criticize Jefferson .
In the same way , the letter I signed provides standards by which hypocrites can be held accountable .
Another problematic signatory is J.K. Rowling , the wealthiest and most famous name on the letter .
Best known as the author of the Harry Potter books , Rowling has disgraced herself in recent months by becoming , for inexplicable reasons , the world ’ s most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such a letter is the equivalent of having Kanye West show up at your wedding .
The danger is that all everyone will remember of the wedding is Kanye , with the bride and groom reduced to an aside .
Just so : The gravitational pull of Rowling ’ s name means many people are trying to decode the letter , for understandable reasons , as a covert anti-trans manifesto .
As with the hypocrites , so with bigots ; it is best to realize that principles are more important than people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a strange way , the Rowling case reinforces the importance of free speech absolutism .
Just as Lehman Brothers is too big to fail , Rowling is too big to cancel .
Even supposing there were a successful boycott that got everyone to stop buying her books , she has enough money to keep herself and her descendants in luxury for several millennia .
Short of a revolution , it ’ s hard to imagine Rowling being touched by any strategy of boycott or de-platforming .
The only way to blunt the impact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech—with retort , argument , parody and derision .
To secure themselves against the likes of Rowling , trans people have built a vigorous political movement , one that is itself shielded by norms of free speech .
A robust culture of free speech serves the cause of trans activism , as it does other progressive causes .
If there ’ s a critique to be made of “ A Letter on Justice and Open Debate ” it is that it doesn ’ t go far enough .
If free speech is at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than a few eggheads and literati signing their names to a string of truisms to protect it .
The attorney Max Kennerly has suggested some concrete policies that would actually serve to make it harder for people to lose their jobs for their ideas : ( 1 ) “ strengthen unions ” ; ( 2 ) “ prohibit termination without cause ” ; ( 3 ) “ extend Loudermill & Pickering rights [ which guarantee public employees the right to free speech on matters of public concern , and prevent them from being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to respond to charges against them ] to private employment.
” Perhaps the next open letter can advocate these ideas .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
I’m a reluctant participant in the debate over free speech and the alleged threat of “cancel culture.” I’ve hesitated to join in part because these controversies seem like a rehash of the earlier sterile arguments in the 1980s and ’90s about political correctness. In the brouhaha over both PC and cancel culture, there’s been a disheartening reliance on ridiculously overheated metaphors (guillotines and gulags always in the wings) and bogus anecdotes. In 1991, Dinesh D’Souza, already a notorious charlatan, snookered many liberals, including, sadly, the great historian C. Vann Woodward, with his book Illiberal Education, which offered a fundamentally dishonest account of many controversies, including curriculum changes at Stanford and the Guatemalan civil war.
The other reason I’ve been inclined to pooh-pooh the idea of cancel culture is that to the extent it is real, it still seems like a minor problem in the age of (in no particular order) climate change, Covid-19, the second economic meltdown in two decades, and a racist buffoon occupying the White House.
But Trump himself has forced me to be less blasé about free speech. The president’s authoritarianism has exhibited itself in many ways, one of the most dangerous of which is his attacks on dissent. He’s called the press the “enemy of the people,” cheered the denial of a career to Colin Kaepernick by the NFL because of the football player’s protest against police racism, purged the Voice of America, and (it seems) punished impeachment witnesses like Alexander Vindman. Given Trump’s attack on dissent, it’s urgent for the left to reclaim the language of free speech and not leave this discourse to reactionary cranks like Dennis Prager, who is still stewing about the fact that as a white person it is socially unacceptable for him to use the n-word.
Coupled with the threat from Trump is the fact that along with the welcome rise of social movements protesting bigotry, there have been a few cases of genuine overreach. In early June, Civis Analytics fired David Shor, a young data analyst, in the wake of a tweet Shor posted summing up scholarship showing that violent protest was counterproductive in terms of electoral outcome. (The scholarship Shor cited was by the Princeton political scientists Omar Wasow, who is African American.) After being fired, Shor was kicked off a list serve for progressive analysts. More From Jeet Heer The Indigenous Roots of Robbie Robertson’s Rock and Roll Revolution August 14, 2023 Why Does This Racist Keep Getting Silicon Valley Money? August 11, 2023 When Phallocrats Go Limp August 4, 2023
Aside from the injustice to Shor, this case illustrates a wrong turn by the new wave of activism: the excessive focus on the discourse. The demolition of Confederate statues and the taking down of Confederate flags has been moving. But the focus on symbolic and representational racism has also given an opening to corporate America and business-as-usual politicians to win anti-racism reward points on the cheap. While the ruling elite still refuses to rein in the police or invest in Black communities, corporations are happy to tweet out slogans supporting Black Lives Matter. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
The best example of this corporate faux-anti-racism is Hulu’s decision to remove from circulation an episode of Golden Girls that showed characters wearing masks at a spa out of concern that this might resemble blackface. (The blackface explanation from Hulu might be a pretext, since the episode has other problems). Even with art that is genuinely racist or offensive in other ways, erasure is the wrong approach, since it allows us to whitewash history.
It only serves the interest of corporate giants like Disney to remove from the public record evidence of their prior trafficking in racism. For historians or cultural scholars who want to gauge the pervasiveness of bigotry in American history, it’s harmful that Disney is allowed to keep The Song of the South (1946), a minstrel musical, squirreled away in a deep, dark vault. Ideally, this material should be in the public domain and used for educational purposes. As Adam Serwer of The Atlantic noted, “I think removing episodes with offensive content from availability is protecting the brand more than any kind of progress. The episodes should stay up and audiences should evaluate those shows accordingly.” Current Issue View our current issue
Because of these concerns, when I was asked by a friend to sign a letter supporting free speech, I did so. The letter was an anodyne enough statement of liberal truisms. I did have qualms about the fact that there were no specific cases cited. Instead, the letter gave only vague unnamed allusions to events. “My preference would have been for either not detailing cases or if detailed to provide names,” I noted. Still, these unnamed cases were presented in an abstract way with the proviso that issues are disputed. So I didn’t feel the lack of specific details interfered with the general statement of principle, which I agreed with.
The recent letter I signed, grandly titled “An Open Letter on Justice and Open Debate,” was published to great controversy in Harper’s Magazine, not from my point of view an ideal venue for a statement about free speech. Publication in Harper’s was something I found out about only on the eve of the letter’s being published. Harper’s publisher Rick MacArthur, scion of a fortune rivaling that of Richie Rich, runs his magazine with an autocratic capriciousness, hiring and firing editors at whim. One firing can plausibly be seen as a union busting move, itself an assault on free speech. The best way to strengthen free speech rights for most people would be to increase union density and limit at-will employment, thus disempowering the MacArthurs of the world.
The letter had a range of signatories spanning the political spectrum from Noam Chomsky and Nell Irvin Painter to David Frum and David Brooks.
Some of the signatories can fairly be taxed with being the rankest of hypocrites when it comes to free speech. This is especially true of speech that expresses solidarity for Palestinians or speech that is, God forbid, voiced by actual Palestinians. These unreliable free-speech advocates include New York Times editor Bari Weiss, literary scholar Cary Nelson, and political scientist Yascha Mounk.
As Glenn Greenwald has documented in The Intercept, Weiss has been involved “in numerous campaigns to vilify and ruin the careers of several Arab and Muslim professors due to their criticisms of Israel.”
In 2014, Nelson supported the decision to withdraw a job offer to Palestinian American scholar Steven Salaita over objections to harsh tweets Salaita had written. The withdrawal was made by the chancellor of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, over the express wishes of the American studies department of that school. Salaita’s academic career was destroyed, and he currently works as a school bus driver.
In 2019, Mounk enthused over a coup in Bolivia led by Jeanine Añez. As Jacobin notes, “Since taking power, the Añez government has massacred protesters, arrested political opponents, and cracked down on the press and activists. In March, her government postponed an election she was on track to lose, the holding of which, as soon as possible, was supposed to be her only job, and in which she had initially promised not to run.”
With free speech advocates like Weiss, Nelson, and Mounk, the forces of censorship will always enjoy a good night’s sleep. Yet to simply say that Weiss and company are hypocrites is only half the story. Thomas Jefferson was a hypocrite when he penned “all men are created equal.” Jefferson’s slave-owning doesn’t discredit the principles he articulated. Rather, the principles give us language with which to criticize Jefferson. In the same way, the letter I signed provides standards by which hypocrites can be held accountable.
Another problematic signatory is J.K. Rowling, the wealthiest and most famous name on the letter. Best known as the author of the Harry Potter books, Rowling has disgraced herself in recent months by becoming, for inexplicable reasons, the world’s most prominent anti-trans spokesperson.
Having Rowling sign such a letter is the equivalent of having Kanye West show up at your wedding. The danger is that all everyone will remember of the wedding is Kanye, with the bride and groom reduced to an aside. Just so: The gravitational pull of Rowling’s name means many people are trying to decode the letter, for understandable reasons, as a covert anti-trans manifesto.
As with the hypocrites, so with bigots; it is best to realize that principles are more important than people, even the most famous people. In a strange way, the Rowling case reinforces the importance of free speech absolutism. Just as Lehman Brothers is too big to fail, Rowling is too big to cancel. Even supposing there were a successful boycott that got everyone to stop buying her books, she has enough money to keep herself and her descendants in luxury for several millennia. Short of a revolution, it’s hard to imagine Rowling being touched by any strategy of boycott or de-platforming.
The only way to blunt the impact of someone like Rowling is with more speech—with retort, argument, parody and derision. To secure themselves against the likes of Rowling, trans people have built a vigorous political movement, one that is itself shielded by norms of free speech. A robust culture of free speech serves the cause of trans activism, as it does other progressive causes.
If there’s a critique to be made of “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate” it is that it doesn’t go far enough. If free speech is at risk, it’ll take more than a few eggheads and literati signing their names to a string of truisms to protect it. The attorney Max Kennerly has suggested some concrete policies that would actually serve to make it harder for people to lose their jobs for their ideas: (1) “strengthen unions”; (2) “prohibit termination without cause”; (3) “extend Loudermill & Pickering rights [which guarantee public employees the right to free speech on matters of public concern, and prevent them from being fired without due process and a chance to respond to charges against them] to private employment.”
Perhaps the next open letter can advocate these ideas.


thenation--2020-07-10--Athletes Are Fighting the Olympic Ban on Protests

As the winds of change whip through the world of sports , the International Olympic Committee ( IOC ) remains a windless desert full of dry-husk ideas that appear brittle amid today ’ s zeitgeist of principled athlete activism .
While other sports leagues—like the National Women ’ s Soccer League—are making space for their athletes to express political dissent , the IOC is lagging behind , digging in its heels to argue that politics and the Olympics don ’ t mix .
But there is a burgeoning effort among Olympic athletes , and even some sports administrators , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engage in political protest .
The moment is ripe to ditch the restrictive measure embedded in the Olympic Charter that bans political dissent .
The IOC is living in the past .
Politically minded Olympic athletes are rooted in the present and thinking about the future .
They more than deserve space to protest injustice .
The Olympic Charter has long explicitly forbidden dissent .
After John Carlos and Tommie Smith famously thrust their black-gloved fists into the Mexico City sky in 1968 for Black freedom and human rights , the IOC fashioned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a similar stand .
This takes the form of Rule 50 in today ’ s Olympic Charter : “ No kind of demonstration or political , religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites , venues or other areas.
” In January , the IOC doubled down , issuing guidelines that delineated what it considers “ protest , ” rather than “ political expression.
” “ Displaying any political messaging , including signs or armbands ” is verboten , as are “ gestures of a political nature , like a hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ non-exhaustive list ” was an obvious response to two US athletes who had the temerity to make political statements on the medal stand at the 2019 Pan American Games : track athlete Gwen Berry , who raised a fist on the medal stand , and fencer Race Imboden , who took a knee .
Pressure is mounting from within the Olympic circle .
The president of the Caribbean National Olympic Committees , Brian Lewis , stated publicly that Rule 50 must go .
“ My strong view is that Rule 50 can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ It is explicitly linked to podium protests against racial injustices .
It is the symptom of systemic racism and racial discrimination.
” In June , Global Athlete , the international , athlete-led group , issued a statement demanding the abolition of Rule 50 , arguing that “ silencing the athlete voice has led to oppression , silence has led to abuse , and silence has led to discrimination in sport.
” The Athletes ’ Advisory Council for the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee agreed .
The group teamed up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plea to ditch Rule 50 .
US gold-medal-winning swimmer Anthony Ervin has also questioned Rule 50 .
He told Swimming World , “ Who knows what ’ s going to be in somebody ’ s heart ?
I don ’ t get to tell anybody what ’ s in their heart in that moment , when they get to reflect on how they got there and the country they come from .
I feel like Rule 50 is a repudiation of that , a denial of what ’ s in your heart.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ I think Rule 50 needs to be canceled for the simple reason that it goes against athletes ’ human rights .
There are rights inherent to all human beings and one is the freedom of speech.
” Berry is exactly right .
The Olympic Charter ’ s Rule 50 stands in direct contradiction to the UN ’ s Universal Declaration of Human Rights , which states in Article 19 : The IOC ’ s blatant suppression of athlete dissent slices mightily against this sentiment .
The Olympic Charter ’ s Rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , amid worldwide protest , it is downright archaic .
To squelch protest today is to advance white supremacy , since most recent protests by Olympic athletes were done either to raise awareness of racism and its ramifications—like Berry and Imboden—or by athletes of color who used the Olympics as a political platform for speaking truth to power in their home countries .
As the protests sweeping the streets have shown us , white supremacy needs to go .
Let ’ s make space for athletes to give that toxic ideology a firm @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
As the winds of change whip through the world of sports, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) remains a windless desert full of dry-husk ideas that appear brittle amid today’s zeitgeist of principled athlete activism. While other sports leagues—like the National Women’s Soccer League—are making space for their athletes to express political dissent, the IOC is lagging behind, digging in its heels to argue that politics and the Olympics don’t mix.
But there is a burgeoning effort among Olympic athletes, and even some sports administrators, to loosen restrictions on athletes’ ability to engage in political protest. The moment is ripe to ditch the restrictive measure embedded in the Olympic Charter that bans political dissent. The IOC is living in the past. Politically minded Olympic athletes are rooted in the present and thinking about the future. They more than deserve space to protest injustice.
The Olympic Charter has long explicitly forbidden dissent. After John Carlos and Tommie Smith famously thrust their black-gloved fists into the Mexico City sky in 1968 for Black freedom and human rights, the IOC fashioned a rule to dissuade athletes from taking a similar stand. This takes the form of Rule 50 in today’s Olympic Charter: “No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.”
In January, the IOC doubled down, issuing guidelines that delineated what it considers “protest,” rather than “political expression.” “Displaying any political messaging, including signs or armbands” is verboten, as are “gestures of a political nature, like a hand gesture or kneeling.” This suspiciously specific “non-exhaustive list” was an obvious response to two US athletes who had the temerity to make political statements on the medal stand at the 2019 Pan American Games: track athlete Gwen Berry, who raised a fist on the medal stand, and fencer Race Imboden, who took a knee. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
Pressure is mounting from within the Olympic circle. The president of the Caribbean National Olympic Committees, Brian Lewis, stated publicly that Rule 50 must go. “My strong view is that Rule 50 can’t stand scrutiny,” he said. “It is explicitly linked to podium protests against racial injustices. It is the symptom of systemic racism and racial discrimination.”
In June, Global Athlete, the international, athlete-led group, issued a statement demanding the abolition of Rule 50, arguing that “silencing the athlete voice has led to oppression, silence has led to abuse, and silence has led to discrimination in sport.” The Athletes’ Advisory Council for the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee agreed. The group teamed up with John Carlos to issue a similar plea to ditch Rule 50.
US gold-medal-winning swimmer Anthony Ervin has also questioned Rule 50. He told Swimming World, Current Issue View our current issue
“Who knows what’s going to be in somebody’s heart? I don’t get to tell anybody what’s in their heart in that moment, when they get to reflect on how they got there and the country they come from. I feel like Rule 50 is a repudiation of that, a denial of what’s in your heart.”
US Olympian Gwen Berry told The Nation, “I think Rule 50 needs to be canceled for the simple reason that it goes against athletes’ human rights. There are rights inherent to all human beings and one is the freedom of speech.”
Berry is exactly right. The Olympic Charter’s Rule 50 stands in direct contradiction to the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states in Article 19:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
The IOC’s blatant suppression of athlete dissent slices mightily against this sentiment.
The Olympic Charter’s Rule 50 has long been outdated. Today, amid worldwide protest, it is downright archaic. To squelch protest today is to advance white supremacy, since most recent protests by Olympic athletes were done either to raise awareness of racism and its ramifications—like Berry and Imboden—or by athletes of color who used the Olympics as a political platform for speaking truth to power in their home countries. As the protests sweeping the streets have shown us, white supremacy needs to go. Let’s make space for athletes to give that toxic ideology a firm nudge toward the dustbin of history.


thenation--2020-07-08--An Island Amid Mississippi’s Covid Madness

ackson , iss.—Before Covid-19 , I would travel around the country , listening to people ’ s stories as we walked their block , or plotted the “ beautiful next ” in some center or meeting room .
Now we are all in little boxes , trying to connect , trying to make it more human .
People with wild virtual backgrounds or cute hats .
It reminds me of freshman year moving into the dorms .
There you are with your teddy bears and your posters to make your room feel a little less like the drab , institutional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s crazy hard out here for so many of us .
Covid has shifted racism and inequity into hyperdrive .
Shuttered hospitals and limited testing in communities hardest hit .
The intentional delay in distributing “ stimulus ” checks to indigenous nations while slashing funds for health services .
A young Black woman tells me a story—from her box to mine—about how the white children in her trailer park , not far from Chicago , come by her family ’ s home to spit and chant , “ Covid is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were taught that our disproportionate death related to Covid is an opportunity for ethnic cleansing .
This is a season of wild contrasts .
The joyful exuberance of seeing our movements on the precipice of so many significant victories .
It ’ s beautiful .
I am breathless and giddy to live to see this moment that I had every confidence would come .
And I am also anxious , as the nation is riveted by global protests to address Black lives taken by police violence , that we have normalized the deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victims of state violence but in a different form .
Police shootings are literally a gun to the head of Black America , while the government ’ s use of the pandemic to facilitate Black and Indigenous death is a full-on carpet bombing .
And although they don ’ t exhibit the glee of those children in the trailer park , much of government appears to be on the same team .
Food for Hard Times and Pleasure—Kimchee Out of Anything More in this series I ’ ve watched testimony in city councils @ @ @ @ @ @ @ require protective masks in public .
I ’ m struck by how often progressive frames are appropriated for conservative use : phrases like “ crime against humanity ” or “ human rights violation , ” along with the old tropes opposing public health protection as a matter of “ freedom.
” On May 19 , the birthday of Malcolm X ironically , Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves gave churches explicit permission to reopen .
They were never officially closed in Mississippi , but this bit of grandstanding was part of the governor ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right-wing faith base .
The governor insisted on lifting restrictions for businesses , too .
There were 535 new Covid cases and 42 deaths that day .
On June 22 there were 1,646 new cases and 40 deaths .
Progressive mayors had instituted public protection rules in an attempt to “ flatten the curve , ” but as Jackson Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba said in a recent interview about the “ reopening ” of the state : “ It was clear that we [ Jackson ] are becoming an island .
And if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s hard not to get wet.
” On June 30 , with new cases spiking , the mayor announced that wearing face masks would be mandatory in the city .
Covid is revealing all of the cracks and fissures in our systems—of care , of connection , in our economy .
As cities like Jackson are left to fend for ourselves , Covid is also revealing how “ we keep us safe.
” In my South Jackson neighborhood , masked volunteers sweat under the Mississippi sun as they hand out food @ @ @ @ @ @ @ folks in line brave the heat hoping to be among the lucky ones to get a mobile Covid test before kits run out .
The volunteers are friends and neighbors who have stepped up as part of the Jackson Community Covid Response .
It ’ s a local coalition that includes Jackson State and Tougaloo College students ; organizing groups like Poor People ’ s Campaign , Mississippi One Voice , People ’ s Advocacy Institute , Mississippi Immigrant Coalition , Democratic Socialists of America , and Black Youth Project 100 ; neighborhood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Strong Arms of Jackson , MOVE Church , and Bad Boy Tree Services ; social service projects like Clean Slate Behavioral Health Collective ; and multimedia outlets like the local branch of Black With No Chaser , which has a popular podcast in the community .
This coalition is one of the hundreds of mutual aid networks springing up across the country to fill the gaps that the state refuses to address .
The work is hard , but it ’ s also adaptive , innovative , and generous .
There ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-related death as young and old die needlessly in prisons and detention centers .
There is also vision as organizers move progressive district attorneys to release “ nonviolent offenders ” by the thousands .
In Jackson , Mayor Lumumba enacted an agreement to end arrests for misdemeanors and nonviolent offenses that activists believe will keep hundreds out of jail .
Yet hundreds more languish in detention centers and jails throughout the state .
Activist Rukia Lumumba told me about a man bailed out by the Mississippi Bail Out Collective .
He had spent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he didn ’ t have $ 150 .
Thanks to the collective ’ s efforts , he is out now .
These are just a few examples of the silo-busting work on the ground that makes the connections between culture , policing , health , immigration rights , and so much more .
It ’ s a politics for our whole lives .
This work , these victories , are sunbursts in the midst of storms .
We breathe .
We listen .
We plot .
We dream .
And we remember that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ storm to make rainbows .
Scenes From a Pandemic is a collaboration between The Nation and Kopkind , a living memorial to radical journalist Andrew Kopkind , who from 1982–94 was the magazine ’ s chief political writer and analyst .
This series of dispatches from Kopkind ’ s far-flung network of participants , advisers , guests , and friends is edited by Nation contributor and Kopkind program director JoAnn Wypijewski , and appears weekly on thenation.com and kopkind.org .

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Nation believes that helping readers stay informed about the impact of the coronavirus crisis is a form of public service. For that reason, this article, and all of our coronavirus coverage, is now free. Please subscribe to support our writers and staff, and stay healthy.
J ackson, M iss.—Before Covid-19, I would travel around the country, listening to people’s stories as we walked their block, or plotted the “beautiful next” in some center or meeting room. Now we are all in little boxes, trying to connect, trying to make it more human. People with wild virtual backgrounds or cute hats. It reminds me of freshman year moving into the dorms. There you are with your teddy bears and your posters to make your room feel a little less like the drab, institutional rectangle it is.
The truth is, it’s crazy hard out here for so many of us. Covid has shifted racism and inequity into hyperdrive. Shuttered hospitals and limited testing in communities hardest hit. The intentional delay in distributing “stimulus” checks to indigenous nations while slashing funds for health services. A young Black woman tells me a story—from her box to mine—about how the white children in her trailer park, not far from Chicago, come by her family’s home to spit and chant, “Covid is a n***a killer!” These children were taught that our disproportionate death related to Covid is an opportunity for ethnic cleansing.
This is a season of wild contrasts. The joyful exuberance of seeing our movements on the precipice of so many significant victories. It’s beautiful. I am breathless and giddy to live to see this moment that I had every confidence would come. And I am also anxious, as the nation is riveted by global protests to address Black lives taken by police violence, that we have normalized the deaths of the many others who are also victims of state violence but in a different form.
Police shootings are literally a gun to the head of Black America, while the government’s use of the pandemic to facilitate Black and Indigenous death is a full-on carpet bombing. And although they don’t exhibit the glee of those children in the trailer park, much of government appears to be on the same team. Scenes From a Pandemic Untethered, or The Year of Living Virtually Patricia J. Williams The Art of the Meal Mary Lewis Maybe We Shouldn’t Go Back to Normal Bri M.
I’ve watched testimony in city councils around the country against local ordinances to require protective masks in public. I’m struck by how often progressive frames are appropriated for conservative use: phrases like “crime against humanity” or “human rights violation,” along with the old tropes opposing public health protection as a matter of “freedom.”
On May 19, the birthday of Malcolm X ironically, Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves gave churches explicit permission to reopen. They were never officially closed in Mississippi, but this bit of grandstanding was part of the governor’s pandering to support Trump in solidifying his right-wing faith base. The governor insisted on lifting restrictions for businesses, too. There were 535 new Covid cases and 42 deaths that day. On June 22 there were 1,646 new cases and 40 deaths. Progressive mayors had instituted public protection rules in an attempt to “flatten the curve,” but as Jackson Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba said in a recent interview about the “reopening” of the state: “It was clear that we [Jackson] are becoming an island. And if you’re on an island, it’s hard not to get wet.” On June 30, with new cases spiking, the mayor announced that wearing face masks would be mandatory in the city. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
Covid is revealing all of the cracks and fissures in our systems—of care, of connection, in our economy. As cities like Jackson are left to fend for ourselves, Covid is also revealing how “we keep us safe.” Current Issue View our current issue
In my South Jackson neighborhood, masked volunteers sweat under the Mississippi sun as they hand out food and toilet paper. Many of the folks in line brave the heat hoping to be among the lucky ones to get a mobile Covid test before kits run out. The volunteers are friends and neighbors who have stepped up as part of the Jackson Community Covid Response. It’s a local coalition that includes Jackson State and Tougaloo College students; organizing groups like Poor People’s Campaign, Mississippi One Voice, People’s Advocacy Institute, Mississippi Immigrant Coalition, Democratic Socialists of America, and Black Youth Project 100; neighborhood groups and businesses like Operation Good, Strong Arms of Jackson, MOVE Church, and Bad Boy Tree Services; social service projects like Clean Slate Behavioral Health Collective; and multimedia outlets like the local branch of Black With No Chaser, which has a popular podcast in the community. This coalition is one of the hundreds of mutual aid networks springing up across the country to fill the gaps that the state refuses to address.
The work is hard, but it’s also adaptive, innovative, and generous. There’s deep grief in the face of rising Covid-related death as young and old die needlessly in prisons and detention centers. There is also vision as organizers move progressive district attorneys to release “nonviolent offenders” by the thousands. In Jackson, Mayor Lumumba enacted an agreement to end arrests for misdemeanors and nonviolent offenses that activists believe will keep hundreds out of jail. Yet hundreds more languish in detention centers and jails throughout the state. Activist Rukia Lumumba told me about a man bailed out by the Mississippi Bail Out Collective. He had spent two months in a DeSoto jail because he didn’t have $150. Thanks to the collective’s efforts, he is out now.
These are just a few examples of the silo-busting work on the ground that makes the connections between culture, policing, health, immigration rights, and so much more. It’s a politics for our whole lives.
This work, these victories, are sunbursts in the midst of storms. We breathe. We listen. We plot. We dream. And we remember that it takes both the sunburst and the storm to make rainbows.
Scenes From a Pandemic is a collaboration between The Nation and Kopkind, a living memorial to radical journalist Andrew Kopkind, who from 1982–94 was the magazine’s chief political writer and analyst. This series of dispatches from Kopkind’s far-flung network of participants, advisers, guests, and friends is edited by Nation contributor and Kopkind program director JoAnn Wypijewski, and appears weekly on thenation.com and kopkind.org.