thenation--2020-06-26--How to Cover an Uprising (Without Causing Harm)

reensboro , Do no harm : It ’ s a critical concept for doctors , going back to the philosopher Hippocrates in ancient Greece .
North Carolina reproductive-justice activist Brandi Collins-Calhoun argues that it should also be a guiding principle for journalists today , especially those covering the protests and aftermath of George Floyd ’ s killing by police .
Early in the evening on June 1 , Collins-Calhoun headed to downtown Greensboro .
Her destination : a meetup of demonstrators who planned to protest that night—despite an impending 8 pm curfew just instituted by the city ’ s mayor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activist group Greensboro Rising and a contact for the local bail fund , wanted to share important information with those who stayed out and could end up in jail .
She gave out her phone number several times to a crowd of about 40 people , even writing it on the arm of one person , before leaving .
“ Literally , as soon as I pulled up to my house , the first call came in , ” said Collins-Calhoun .
“ When I picked up , it was immediately , ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of tangents telling me that they would come to my home and blow my brains out.
” Over the evening—she answered all calls , in case protesters landed in lockup—she fielded about 10 threatening phone calls .
Some accused of her of being affiliated with antifa , a diffuse anti-fascist movement that reemerged in 2017 to oppose white nationalists after the disastrous and fatal Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville , Va. Terrified , she fled the apartment she shares with her teen daughter .
She didn ’ t call police ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But an organizing friend did .
Law enforcement recorded the few unblocked numbers from which calls originated and told her it was likely these menacing callers could find her address online .
Two days later , Collins-Calhoun figured out just how her unwanted callers got her number .
“ I was downtown , and a white woman approached me and was like , ‘ Are you okay ?
’ [ I said , ] ‘ Yeah , what ’ s up ?
’ She was just kinda like , ‘ You know , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put your information on their Facebook like that.
’ ” This stranger had seen a video of Collins-Calhoun giving out her phone number on the Facebook page of the Greensboro daily News & Record—and the hateful comments that ensued .
After finding the video online , Collins-Calhoun wrote her own Facebook post asking the newspaper to remove the video , offer her an apology , and make a contribution to the bail fund ( which I knew would be a nonstarter , given how many journalists often avoid political contributions or signaling support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few hours of her post , the newspaper ’ s Facebook account responded and removed the video .
Managing Editor Cindy Loman reached out as well and set up a meeting—a beer summit of sorts—with Collins-Calhoun .
According to Collins-Calhoun , Loman said attorneys counseled the publication not to meet any of her demands , but that the newspaper could offer Collins-Calhoun space in the paper and a “ platform bigger than Facebook ” to air her complaint .
Collins-Calhoun declined , telling The Nation that she felt Loman was “ smug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meeting .
I reached out to Loman for comment .
She declined , saying the newspaper was moving its office and the newsroom was short an editor .
That ’ s a shame .
I wanted to hear if and how the newspaper is rethinking engagement with protesters during this time .
It certainly needs to .
The News & Record faces continued tensions with activists whom it covers in the public interest , while other media outlets are also grappling with questions about whether they should , say , be publicizing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As a writer and editor who came to this career through the conventional J-school route , I can guess what the newspaper is thinking .
I was taught that people addressing crowds in public shouldn ’ t reasonably have an expectation of privacy ( and this was before the ubiquitous smart phone ) .
After all , Collins-Calhoun did give out her own number , and it ’ s hard to control information once you release it .
Kate Medley , a Durham-based photographer who freelances for The New York Times and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea that just because someone is in public they want to be photographed .
“ I was taught the trade by mostly white people .
The media is a white-run institution .
And we were taught that when you are on public property , you are quote-unquote ‘ fair game ’ —that legally I , as a photojournalist can capture your likeness and put that on the front page of the newspaper the next day whether you even know that I was there , whether you gave your consent , whether you gave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t have to decide to participate.
” But after 15 years in the business , she gets that consent to being photographed is key , and she strives to get the name and the permission of every person she photographs at protests .
Collins-Calhoun remembers being approached by media as she left .
She hadn ’ t noticed them before because they weren ’ t holding giant cameras or recognizable accoutrements of the professional journalist .
A reporter—who Collins-Calhoun thought was from the News & Record—complimented her earrings and asked why she was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk about much else .
But the video had already been posted .
That old adage about asking forgiveness for something you ’ ve already done—rather than permission—doesn ’ t quite apply here .
‘ We Were Asking Ourselves , How Can We Support Black Farmers ?
’ As a profession , journalists are biased toward sharing information .
That ’ s our job .
Purists will say we don ’ t need to ask to broadcast information a person shares with others in a public setting .
But as working members of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that doing our jobs can mean doing harm—and that part of our jobs should be editorial harm reduction , at least trying to lessen negative consequences for the people we publicize .
Common sense—that old thing—can help here .
Jade Wilson is staff photographer at Indy Week newspaper in Durham , and like Medley , is documenting protests and their aftermath in central North Carolina .
Wilson says people taking the mic publicly are probably the best assessors of their own risks , but academic knowledge of journalistic ethics can ’ t replace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go to journalism school , and I don ’ t really know the rules of photojournalism .
But it ’ s almost like reading the room , thinking , ‘ Maybe this is something that I shouldn ’ t be photographing.
’ I ’ m out there and I see things , and sometimes , it doesn ’ t feel right in my stomach.
” It ’ s not clear that the News & Record journalists knew that was Collins-Calhoun ’ s personal number .
Maybe they didn ’ t even think about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and age of doxxing—that it was a protected number .
The Violence Didn ’ t Start With the Protests But would you want your number blasted on Facebook Live ?
No one needs a class in journalistic ethics to answer the question .
Broadcasting a phone number to thousands of readers-watchers is quite different than a person ’ s opting to share it with a few dozen politically aligned people on a street corner .
And we as people who also happen to be journalists should know that it costs us nothing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we didn ’ t act with malice or intent to harm , our actions triggered a chain of scary events .
Most interviewees don ’ t know that they can negotiate what part of their information a journalist can share .
And most journalists don ’ t tell their sources they have more choice and power in when and how they appear in media than they think .
As a writer who ’ s covered reproductive health , I ’ ve often talked to my sources about things that hurt or shamed them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Standard journalistic practice be damned , I often preface my interviews with a bit of education about what can happen when people voluntarily share a piece of themselves for publication .
It goes something like this : “ Some of what you say to me today is probably going to make it into my story , though I can ’ t promise it will or what part .
Other people will see it .
That could be your pastor , your next-door neighbor , your boss at work , your future grandchildren , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can now comment on your life .
It may circulate for a long time and keep popping up online .
It may be buried in some corner of the Internet .
And in terms of this interview , you can stop it anytime or you can tell me something is not for publication , but tell me when we ’ re back on what we call ‘ the record.
’ If there ’ s something you don ’ t want in print , it ’ s better not to tell me .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the story , you can ask for a correction .
I want to get it right.
” The very act of writing about someone exposes them to the opinions—good , bad , and ugly—of their fellow Americans .
And sometimes to violence .
It ’ s especially true for black people and activists in a country where racist harassment is par for the cultural course and where the FBI labeled many black activists as “ identity extremists ” who ostensibly pose a threat equivalent to white nationalists in 2019 ( but has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it says ) .
Wilson ( who uses “ they/them ” pronouns ) knows this , and sometimes will abstain from taking shots that trouble them .
They sometimes struggle with whether that ’ s the right call .
But if they do take potentially controversial or unpalatable images , they also know that they don ’ t have to publish them or will only publish them with ample context .
They also know that photographs can harm in the way they represent people—especially when they primarily depict black violence or black pain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or diversity of thought .
Plus , images can also provide fodder for legal prosecution .
Wilson very deliberately shies away from taking images that might implicate , but sometimes things change quickly on the ground .
Take a moment recently when protesters took down Confederate statues in Raleigh and then strung one up on a streetlight—an image that Wilson got on film .
“ It happened so fast , and I ’ m like , how can I position myself to not get anything—not just their faces , but even clothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s photo that their face was shown in earlier .
I crop things out .
There was this one person that kneeled on the neck of the statue , and I cropped out his sock because I don ’ t know his involvement.… I ’ m not about to take any chances with this because there were so many people with cameras out there .
And I want to err on the side of being careful , to be sure that [ nothing ] could lead to someone being charged.… I had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shout to everyone , ‘ Put your phone down , put your camera down !
’ ” Oriana Koren , a Los Angeles–based photographer who ’ s part of a group that this week launched a Photo Bill of Rights for visual artists , said that rebuilding a more equitable media sector “ requires rebuilding the ideology around it or the values around it .
We recognized that there was no standard for how we should behave as photographers and also as ethical and moral beings.
” Durham photographer Medley thinks about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a moment when she was a green photojournalist attending an intensive training .
She and other newbies were sent out to research a particular man , a colorful figure who had a few previous arrests .
They dug up everything on him and proudly presented their findings to an audience that included their trainers—and the man himself , who sat in the front row watching as they dissected his life .
“ We had that moment where you ’ re like , What have I gleefully done here ?
What have I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this guy ’ s life ?
… [ The trainers said ] when you report on the story , when you publish a story , that subject is going to wake up the next morning , they ’ re going to pour their cup of coffee .
They ’ re going to sit down with their family and open the newspaper and read it .
They said to never forget that feeling .
Which , of course , we all have .
”

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?
G reensboro, N.C.— Do no harm: It’s a critical concept for doctors, going back to the philosopher Hippocrates in ancient Greece.
North Carolina reproductive-justice activist Brandi Collins-Calhoun argues that it should also be a guiding principle for journalists today, especially those covering the protests and aftermath of George Floyd’s killing by police.
Early in the evening on June 1, Collins-Calhoun headed to downtown Greensboro. Her destination: a meetup of demonstrators who planned to protest that night—despite an impending 8 pm curfew just instituted by the city’s mayor.
Collins-Calhoun, an organizer with the activist group Greensboro Rising and a contact for the local bail fund, wanted to share important information with those who stayed out and could end up in jail. She gave out her phone number several times to a crowd of about 40 people, even writing it on the arm of one person, before leaving.
“Literally, as soon as I pulled up to my house, the first call came in,” said Collins-Calhoun. “When I picked up, it was immediately, ‘You racist black bitch’ and a lot of tangents telling me that they would come to my home and blow my brains out.”
Over the evening—she answered all calls, in case protesters landed in lockup—she fielded about 10 threatening phone calls. Some accused of her of being affiliated with antifa, a diffuse anti-fascist movement that reemerged in 2017 to oppose white nationalists after the disastrous and fatal Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va.
Terrified, she fled the apartment she shares with her teen daughter. She didn’t call police; she doesn’t trust them. But an organizing friend did. Law enforcement recorded the few unblocked numbers from which calls originated and told her it was likely these menacing callers could find her address online. Current Issue View our current issue
Two days later, Collins-Calhoun figured out just how her unwanted callers got her number.
“I was downtown, and a white woman approached me and was like, ‘Are you okay?’ [I said,] ‘Yeah, what’s up?’ She was just kinda like, ‘You know, I’m so horrified that they put your information on their Facebook like that.’” This stranger had seen a video of Collins-Calhoun giving out her phone number on the Facebook page of the Greensboro daily News & Record—and the hateful comments that ensued. 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
After finding the video online, Collins-Calhoun wrote her own Facebook post asking the newspaper to remove the video, offer her an apology, and make a contribution to the bail fund (which I knew would be a nonstarter, given how many journalists often avoid political contributions or signaling support for various social causes).
Within a few hours of her post, the newspaper’s Facebook account responded and removed the video. Managing Editor Cindy Loman reached out as well and set up a meeting—a beer summit of sorts—with Collins-Calhoun. According to Collins-Calhoun, Loman said attorneys counseled the publication not to meet any of her demands, but that the newspaper could offer Collins-Calhoun space in the paper and a “platform bigger than Facebook” to air her complaint. Collins-Calhoun declined, telling The Nation that she felt Loman was “smug and unapologetic.” It was a short meeting.
I reached out to Loman for comment. She declined, saying the newspaper was moving its office and the newsroom was short an editor. That’s a shame. I wanted to hear if and how the newspaper is rethinking engagement with protesters during this time. It certainly needs to. The News & Record faces continued tensions with activists whom it covers in the public interest, while other media outlets are also grappling with questions about whether they should, say, be publicizing the addresses of protesters who get arrested.
As a writer and editor who came to this career through the conventional J-school route, I can guess what the newspaper is thinking. I was taught that people addressing crowds in public shouldn’t reasonably have an expectation of privacy (and this was before the ubiquitous smart phone). After all, Collins-Calhoun did give out her own number, and it’s hard to control information once you release it.
Kate Medley, a Durham-based photographer who freelances for The New York Times and other clients, has worked to unlearn the idea that just because someone is in public they want to be photographed. Related Article Drop the Charges Against Protesters! Justin Hansford and Arjun Singh Sethi
“I was taught the trade by mostly white people. The media is a white-run institution. And we were taught that when you are on public property, you are quote-unquote ‘fair game’—that legally I, as a photojournalist can capture your likeness and put that on the front page of the newspaper the next day whether you even know that I was there, whether you gave your consent, whether you gave me your name. You don’t have to decide to participate.” But after 15 years in the business, she gets that consent to being photographed is key, and she strives to get the name and the permission of every person she photographs at protests.
Collins-Calhoun remembers being approached by media as she left. She hadn’t noticed them before because they weren’t holding giant cameras or recognizable accoutrements of the professional journalist. A reporter—who Collins-Calhoun thought was from the News & Record—complimented her earrings and asked why she was protesting, but they didn’t talk about much else. But the video had already been posted. That old adage about asking forgiveness for something you’ve already done—rather than permission—doesn’t quite apply here. More From Cynthia Greenlee Universities Are Playing Fast and Loose With Students’ Health August 17, 2020 Durham Isn’t Burning, but Don’t Light a Match June 12, 2020 ‘We Were Asking Ourselves, How Can We Support Black Farmers?’ April 22, 2020
As a profession, journalists are biased toward sharing information. That’s our job. Purists will say we don’t need to ask to broadcast information a person shares with others in a public setting.
But as working members of the press, we have to recognize that doing our jobs can mean doing harm—and that part of our jobs should be editorial harm reduction, at least trying to lessen negative consequences for the people we publicize.
Common sense—that old thing—can help here. Jade Wilson is staff photographer at Indy Week newspaper in Durham, and like Medley, is documenting protests and their aftermath in central North Carolina. Wilson says people taking the mic publicly are probably the best assessors of their own risks, but academic knowledge of journalistic ethics can’t replace intuition.
“I didn’t go to journalism school, and I don’t really know the rules of photojournalism. But it’s almost like reading the room, thinking, ‘Maybe this is something that I shouldn’t be photographing.’ I’m out there and I see things, and sometimes, it doesn’t feel right in my stomach.”
It’s not clear that the News & Record journalists knew that was Collins-Calhoun’s personal number. Maybe they didn’t even think about it, or maybe thought—in this day and age of doxxing—that it was a protected number. Related Article The Violence Didn’t Start With the Protests Kali Holloway
But would you want your number blasted on Facebook Live? No one needs a class in journalistic ethics to answer the question. Broadcasting a phone number to thousands of readers-watchers is quite different than a person’s opting to share it with a few dozen politically aligned people on a street corner. And we as people who also happen to be journalists should know that it costs us nothing to apologize and acknowledge that, even if we didn’t act with malice or intent to harm, our actions triggered a chain of scary events.
Most interviewees don’t know that they can negotiate what part of their information a journalist can share. And most journalists don’t tell their sources they have more choice and power in when and how they appear in media than they think.
As a writer who’s covered reproductive health, I’ve often talked to my sources about things that hurt or shamed them, or stigmatizing issues like abortion. Standard journalistic practice be damned, I often preface my interviews with a bit of education about what can happen when people voluntarily share a piece of themselves for publication. It goes something like this:
“Some of what you say to me today is probably going to make it into my story, though I can’t promise it will or what part. Other people will see it. That could be your pastor, your next-door neighbor, your boss at work, your future grandchildren, random strangers who will feel like they can now comment on your life. It may circulate for a long time and keep popping up online. It may be buried in some corner of the Internet. And in terms of this interview, you can stop it anytime or you can tell me something is not for publication, but tell me when we’re back on what we call ‘the record.’ If there’s something you don’t want in print, it’s better not to tell me. And if you think I get something wrong in the story, you can ask for a correction. I want to get it right.”
The very act of writing about someone exposes them to the opinions—good, bad, and ugly—of their fellow Americans. And sometimes to violence. It’s especially true for black people and activists in a country where racist harassment is par for the cultural course and where the FBI labeled many black activists as “identity extremists” who ostensibly pose a threat equivalent to white nationalists in 2019 (but has since abandoned the label, or so it says).
Wilson (who uses “they/them” pronouns) knows this, and sometimes will abstain from taking shots that trouble them. They sometimes struggle with whether that’s the right call. But if they do take potentially controversial or unpalatable images, they also know that they don’t have to publish them or will only publish them with ample context. They also know that photographs can harm in the way they represent people—especially when they primarily depict black violence or black pain, but not black community, joy, or diversity of thought.
Plus, images can also provide fodder for legal prosecution. Wilson very deliberately shies away from taking images that might implicate, but sometimes things change quickly on the ground.
Take a moment recently when protesters took down Confederate statues in Raleigh and then strung one up on a streetlight—an image that Wilson got on film.
“It happened so fast, and I’m like, how can I position myself to not get anything—not just their faces, but even clothing that could be matched to someone else’s photo that their face was shown in earlier. I crop things out. There was this one person that kneeled on the neck of the statue, and I cropped out his sock because I don’t know his involvement.… I’m not about to take any chances with this because there were so many people with cameras out there. And I want to err on the side of being careful, to be sure that [nothing] could lead to someone being charged.… I had this feeling, I just wanted to shout to everyone, ‘Put your phone down, put your camera down!’”
Oriana Koren, a Los Angeles–based photographer who’s part of a group that this week launched a Photo Bill of Rights for visual artists, said that rebuilding a more equitable media sector “requires rebuilding the ideology around it or the values around it. We recognized that there was no standard for how we should behave as photographers and also as ethical and moral beings.”
Durham photographer Medley thinks about the power imbalance between journalist and subject often—and of a moment when she was a green photojournalist attending an intensive training. She and other newbies were sent out to research a particular man, a colorful figure who had a few previous arrests. They dug up everything on him and proudly presented their findings to an audience that included their trainers—and the man himself, who sat in the front row watching as they dissected his life.
“We had that moment where you’re like, What have I gleefully done here? What have I accomplished? What have I done to this guy’s life? … [The trainers said] when you report on the story, when you publish a story, that subject is going to wake up the next morning, they’re going to pour their cup of coffee. They’re going to sit down with their family and open the newspaper and read it. They said to never forget that feeling. Which, of course, we all have.”


thenation--2020-06-26--Bill de Blasio Broke His Promise to New York

Seven summers ago , when Donald Trump was still a punch line and the biggest scandal rocking the political world was Anthony Weiner ’ s stunning act of auto-destruction , New York City seemed to be on the cusp of a new era .
After nearly 20 years of Republican and Republican-lite rule—under the autocratic Rudy Giuliani and the technocratic Mike Bloomberg—its residents were restless , desperate for change .
As a cluster of long-simmering movements gained momentum , from the struggle to end the New York Police Department ’ s policy of stop-and-frisk to the Fight for $ 15 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a candidate stepped forward to champion their cause .
Bill de Blasio was , in some respects , an unlikely champion—a liberal , not a lion—but he spoke of the city ’ s pain in words both moving and resonant .
He lamented the inequality that strafed New York and bemoaned its descent into a “ tale of two cities.
” As The Nation wrote in our 2013 endorsement , “ In placing the city ’ s roiling inequality at the center of his campaign , de Blasio has offered not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called ‘ the most urgent priority of our time ’ —but also the most forceful solution.
” De Blasio seemed to understand that addressing the city ’ s rampant economic inequality meant addressing its racial inequality .
And this , in turn , meant ending the long reign of impunity by the country ’ s largest police force .
While his immediate predecessor , the billionaire Bloomberg , had once boasted that he had his “ own army in the NYPD , ” de Blasio spoke the language of reform , and he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understood the long racist history of policing in New York .
He denounced stop-and-frisk , the discriminatory policy that illegally targeted black and brown New Yorkers ; he called for an independent inspector general to monitor the NYPD ; and he promised to give the boot to Ray Kelly , the city ’ s longtime police commissioner and an unabashed booster of stop-and-frisk .
As de Blasio told the National Action Network , “ We are going to get on with a very , not only progressive , but aggressive agenda.
” Years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police echo across the country , de Blasio ’ s early agenda may not sound like much .
But in 2013 , after decades of police impunity—of “ Giuliani time ” and “ Throw ‘ em against the wall ” and the transformation of New York ’ s “ finest ” into the shock troops of the gilded city—the promise of reform arrived like oxygen across the city ’ s most vulnerable communities .
Indeed , no one offered more thorough or forceful support for de Blasio ’ s campaign than the African @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vilest of all NYPD abuse and whose votes he cultivated through a mix of solid policy proposals and careful messaging .
In a video that captured the hearts and hopes of many voters , de Blasio sent his biracial son , then just 15 , into the spotlight to promise that his father was “ the only Democrat with the guts to really break from the Bloomberg years.
” Seven years later , de Blasio has failed to live up to the promise of those words , failed spectacularly in recent weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out to protest the murder of George Floyd and countless other black people—and were met by the pepper spray and batons of de Blasio ’ s police department .
With brute scorn , the police battered protesters , kettled them , and in at least once instance , drove their cruisers into them .
And the mayor , who had risen to power on a promise to fight for black lives , instead defended the police .
He insisted the NYPD had respected the protesters and even blamed demonstrators for inciting the cops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first curfew the city had seen in 75 years .
Black Lives Matter Protests Are Everywhere , Even in the Unlikeliest Places More in this series For those who believed de Blasio ’ s 2013 promises—for those to whom those promises were made—his response to the most vital racial justice uprising in decades has been a stunning betrayal .
“ We once thought de Blasio was with us , ” the Rev .
Kevin McCall , a civil rights activist who organized a memorial for Floyd at the behest of Floyd ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ But he flipped the script on us.
” That script was not flipped overnight .
In fact , what has made the betrayal of the past few weeks so bitter is that it ’ s not new .
It ’ s merely the latest in a long line of disappointments that began even before de Blasio took office , when he announced he would appoint former police commissioner Bill Bratton to replace Kelly .
As New York ’ s top cop under Giuliani and a committed evangelist for “ broken windows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He was , rather , an exchange—a sop to calm the jelly-legged elites who fretted that de Blasio would take New York back to the “ bad old days ” of high crime and busted budgets .
With Bratton , de Blasio signaled the terms of his mayoralty : When it came to reform , he would always keep a foot on the brake .
The years that followed Bratton ’ s appointment were , perhaps predictably , years of inconsistency .
On the one hand , there was progress made on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
During his first month in office , he agreed to a set of court-ordered reforms to the city ’ s stop-and-frisk program—and during his first term , those stops began to fall dramatically , as did arrests .
But people continued to be stopped by the NYPD , and they continued to be disproportionately New Yorkers of color ; those targeted for “ broken windows ” infractions were also primarily black and brown .
Then in December 2014 , the police rebelled .
The proximate spark was the confluence of citywide protests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to indict the officer who murdered Eric Garner and de Blasio ’ s words of support for those protests , followed by a fatal attack on two NYPD officers .
When police turned their backs on de Blasio at one of the officers ’ funerals and then engaged in a weeks-long de facto work slowdown , the mayor never quite recovered .
For many , that marked the moment when de Blasio gave in to the police , retreating from reform , both in rhetoric and reality .
In the years since , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of excessive force by the NYPD .
He also refused to press for the firing of Garner ’ s murderer and even fought legislation making it a crime for officers to put people in choke holds , as one did with Garner .
As Darius Charney , who served as lead counsel in the stop-and-frisk lawsuit , told The Intercept , “ He has given all of his police commissioners pretty much carte blanche to do whatever it is they wanted to do.
” Those commissioners , it should be noted , included @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , both chosen over strong candidates of color , just as Bratton was .
The mayor ’ s retreat on police reform is a wound that won ’ t readily heal for many New Yorkers—a reality that seems to be dawning on de Blasio .
As outrage erupted over his response to the Floyd protests and with many of the mayor ’ s black supporters turning their backs , he has begun trying to recalibrate , pledging to reduce the NYPD ’ s $ 6 billion annual budget ( though not by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requested ) and signing a bill passed by the City Council banning police choke holds .
These are first steps , but they are only that—incomplete , long overdue , and unlikely to satisfy .
As de Blasio is perhaps learning , it ’ s a dangerous thing to campaign on the promise of progressive change and then fail to follow through .
It punctures trust and , all too often , destroys hope , sapping people ’ s faith in the political process .
Every now and again , however , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that movements , not politicians , are the engines of transformation—and that the change they seek will always come , first and foremost , from their own demands .
As the people de Blasio once claimed to represent head back into the streets , he would do well to listen .

This article appears in the July 13/20, 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?
Seven summers ago, when Donald Trump was still a punch line and the biggest scandal rocking the political world was Anthony Weiner’s stunning act of auto-destruction, New York City seemed to be on the cusp of a new era. After nearly 20 years of Republican and Republican-lite rule—under the autocratic Rudy Giuliani and the technocratic Mike Bloomberg—its residents were restless, desperate for change. As a cluster of long-simmering movements gained momentum, from the struggle to end the New York Police Department’s policy of stop-and-frisk to the Fight for $15 among the city’s lowest-paid workers, a candidate stepped forward to champion their cause.
Bill de Blasio was, in some respects, an unlikely champion—a liberal, not a lion—but he spoke of the city’s pain in words both moving and resonant. He lamented the inequality that strafed New York and bemoaned its descent into a “tale of two cities.” As The Nation wrote in our 2013 endorsement, “In placing the city’s roiling inequality at the center of his campaign, de Blasio has offered not only the sharpest description of the problem—what he called ‘the most urgent priority of our time’—but also the most forceful solution.”
De Blasio seemed to understand that addressing the city’s rampant economic inequality meant addressing its racial inequality. And this, in turn, meant ending the long reign of impunity by the country’s largest police force. While his immediate predecessor, the billionaire Bloomberg, had once boasted that he had his “own army in the NYPD,” de Blasio spoke the language of reform, and he spoke in a way that suggested he understood the long racist history of policing in New York. He denounced stop-and-frisk, the discriminatory policy that illegally targeted black and brown New Yorkers; he called for an independent inspector general to monitor the NYPD; and he promised to give the boot to Ray Kelly, the city’s longtime police commissioner and an unabashed booster of stop-and-frisk. As de Blasio told the National Action Network, “We are going to get on with a very, not only progressive, but aggressive agenda.”
Years later, as calls to abolish the police echo across the country, de Blasio’s early agenda may not sound like much. But in 2013, after decades of police impunity—of “Giuliani time” and “Throw ‘em against the wall” and the transformation of New York’s “finest” into the shock troops of the gilded city—the promise of reform arrived like oxygen across the city’s most vulnerable communities. Indeed, no one offered more thorough or forceful support for de Blasio’s campaign than the African American community, which has always suffered the vilest of all NYPD abuse and whose votes he cultivated through a mix of solid policy proposals and careful messaging. In a video that captured the hearts and hopes of many voters, de Blasio sent his biracial son, then just 15, into the spotlight to promise that his father was “the only Democrat with the guts to really break from the Bloomberg years.”
Seven years later, de Blasio has failed to live up to the promise of those words, failed spectacularly in recent weeks as tens of thousands of people came out to protest the murder of George Floyd and countless other black people—and were met by the pepper spray and batons of de Blasio’s police department. With brute scorn, the police battered protesters, kettled them, and in at least once instance, drove their cruisers into them. And the mayor, who had risen to power on a promise to fight for black lives, instead defended the police. He insisted the NYPD had respected the protesters and even blamed demonstrators for inciting the cops’ wrath. Then he imposed the first curfew the city had seen in 75 years. 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 A Nation in Protest It’s Time to Disarm the Police D.D. Guttenplan Black Lives Matter Protests Are Everywhere, Even in the Unlikeliest Places Zoë Carpenter Drop the Charges Against Protesters! Justin Hansford and Arjun Singh Sethi
For those who believed de Blasio’s 2013 promises—for those to whom those promises were made—his response to the most vital racial justice uprising in decades has been a stunning betrayal. “We once thought de Blasio was with us,” the Rev. Kevin McCall, a civil rights activist who organized a memorial for Floyd at the behest of Floyd’s brother, told The New York Times. “But he flipped the script on us.”
That script was not flipped overnight. In fact, what has made the betrayal of the past few weeks so bitter is that it’s not new. It’s merely the latest in a long line of disappointments that began even before de Blasio took office, when he announced he would appoint former police commissioner Bill Bratton to replace Kelly. As New York’s top cop under Giuliani and a committed evangelist for “broken windows” policing, Bratton hardly represented change. He was, rather, an exchange—a sop to calm the jelly-legged elites who fretted that de Blasio would take New York back to the “bad old days” of high crime and busted budgets. With Bratton, de Blasio signaled the terms of his mayoralty: When it came to reform, he would always keep a foot on the brake. Current Issue View our current issue
The years that followed Bratton’s appointment were, perhaps predictably, years of inconsistency. On the one hand, there was progress made on some of de Blasio’s promises. During his first month in office, he agreed to a set of court-ordered reforms to the city’s stop-and-frisk program—and during his first term, those stops began to fall dramatically, as did arrests. But people continued to be stopped by the NYPD, and they continued to be disproportionately New Yorkers of color; those targeted for “broken windows” infractions were also primarily black and brown.
Then in December 2014, the police rebelled. The proximate spark was the confluence of citywide protests over a grand jury’s refusal to indict the officer who murdered Eric Garner and de Blasio’s words of support for those protests, followed by a fatal attack on two NYPD officers. When police turned their backs on de Blasio at one of the officers’ funerals and then engaged in a weeks-long de facto work slowdown, the mayor never quite recovered.
For many, that marked the moment when de Blasio gave in to the police, retreating from reform, both in rhetoric and reality. In the years since, he has repeatedly refused to condemn acts of excessive force by the NYPD. He also refused to press for the firing of Garner’s murderer and even fought legislation making it a crime for officers to put people in choke holds, as one did with Garner. As Darius Charney, an attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights and lead counsel in the stop-and-frisk lawsuit, told The Intercept, “He has given all of his police commissioners pretty much carte blanche to do whatever it is they wanted to do.” Those commissioners, it should be noted, included two others after Bratton, both white, both chosen over strong candidates of color, just as Bratton was.
The mayor’s retreat on police reform is a wound that won’t readily heal for many New Yorkers—a reality that seems to be dawning on de Blasio. As outrage erupted over his response to the Floyd protests and with many of the mayor’s black supporters turning their backs, he has begun trying to recalibrate, pledging to reduce the NYPD’s $6 billion annual budget (though not by the $1 billion the City Council has requested) and signing a bill passed by the City Council banning police choke holds. These are first steps, but they are only that—incomplete, long overdue, and unlikely to satisfy. As de Blasio is perhaps learning, it’s a dangerous thing to campaign on the promise of progressive change and then fail to follow through. It punctures trust and, all too often, destroys hope, sapping people’s faith in the political process. Every now and again, however, it does the reverse. It reminds people that movements, not politicians, are the engines of transformation—and that the change they seek will always come, first and foremost, from their own demands. As the people de Blasio once claimed to represent head back into the streets, he would do well to listen.


thenation--2020-06-26--The Supreme Court Just Took a Hammer to the Asylum Process

Between the pandemic and the threats of military force against US citizens , it ’ s easy to forget that the Trump administration reserves its greatest cruelty for nonwhite immigrants .
And it ’ s easy to forget , in the wake of last week ’ s narrow ruling to uphold the DACA program , that the Supreme Court has been largely willing to give constitutional cover to this bigotry and xenophobia .
But Trump ’ s antipathy for black and brown immigrants never takes a day off .
And the courts consistently let him get away with it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ country ’ s wanton cruelty toward immigrants comes from the Supreme Court ’ s decision in DHS v. Thuraissigiam .
The court ruled , by a vote of 7-2 , that the Constitution doesn ’ t allow an asylum seeker to petition for a writ of habeas corpus .
The victim in this case is Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam .
He ’ s a Sri Lakan national who was stopped and arrested 25 yards into the country .
He claimed asylum , which he is legally allowed to do .
Thuraissigiam is Tamil , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claimed to fear persecution if he were deported back to Sri Lanka .
An asylum officer rejected his claim as part of the expedited review that all asylum applicants now face .
The Trump administration has gone to great lengths to prevent asylum seekers from appealing these expedited rulings .
If an asylum officer and immigration judge determine that the asylum seeker has no “ credible fear , ” they can be deported without the right to appeal the judge ’ s determination .
We give people more opportunities to appeal a parking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to appeal rulings affecting their basic human rights .
To fight the ruling against him , Thuraissigiam turned to a novel legal approach .
He petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus .
The government is not allowed to jail people indefinitely without a hearing : Thuraissigiam argued that denying him an opportunity to appeal the expedited process of deportation deprived him of due process and this fundamental right to challenge his detention .
But according to the Supreme Court , only Trump and the executive branch gets to decide who gets rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the majority , Justice Samuel Alito found that expedited deportation without appeal was not a violation of due process or habeas corpus .
Alito even found time to be flippant about the matter .
He wrote that Thuraissigiam could be free today if he would just go back to where he came from : “ While respondent does not claim an entitlement to release , the Government is happy to release him—provided the release occurs in the cabin of a plane bound for Sri Lanka.
” It ’ s clear that Alito doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a legitimate asylum claim .
He just wants him in a cage or out of America , by any means necessary .
The effect of Alito ’ s ruling is devastating to asylum seekers .
Without an appeals process , people in Thuraissigiam ’ s position have no functional rights .
They can be arrested for crossing the border without the proper documents , detained until a Custom and Border Protection agent gets around to reviewing their claim , have that claim denied by an immigration judge ( who is not really a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who works for Attorney General William Barr ) , and then detained indefinitely until the government boots them out of the country .
And all of this can be done without their ever getting to talk to a lawyer , because asylum seekers have no constitutional right to an attorney .
This kind of sadism is nothing new from Alito , or Republicans generally , particularly when it comes to victimizing immigrants .
But , as I mentioned , the vote in this case was 7-2 .
Two of the liberal justices , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came to the same conclusion Alito did .
Breyer wrote separately , joined by Ginsburg , to explain their reasoning .
Or to try .
The problem is , they didn ’ t really succeed ; they just spent a lot of time explaining how Alito ’ s decision should be limited to the case at hand and not extended to any class of immigrant the Trump administration wants to round up .
But as to Thuraissigiam , Breyer and Ginsburg found that he has no fundamental right to challenge the ruling against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Breyer and Ginsburg seem to understand that Alito ’ s logic will be applied to all asylum seekers—and could be applied to any undocumented person living in the country , including people with families who have built their lives here , and even legal permanent residents .
They get the problem , but they still accepted Alito ’ s result .
Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor , joined by Justice Elena Kagan , stood in dissent of this ruling .
Sotomayor wrote : [ T ] he Court holds that the Constitution ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noncitizens like respondent , who challenge the procedures used to determine whether they may seek shelter in this country or whether they may be cast to an unknown fate .
The decision deprives them of any means to ensure the integrity of an expedited removal order , an order which , the Court has just held , is not subject to any meaningful judicial oversight as to its substance .
In doing so , the Court upends settled constitutional law and paves the way toward transforming already summary expedited removal proceedings into arbitrary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ruling Had Nothing to Do With His Own Moral Awakening Sonia Sotomayor ’ s Epic Dissent Explains What ’ s at Stake When the Police Don ’ t Follow the Law Put more simply : Sotomayor is pointing out that the courts are now supposed to take the Trump administration ’ s word for it on which immigrants should be deported and which ones still get to have human rights .
Sotomayor is the justice who consistently highlights the bigotry of the Trump administration for what it is—and is willing to call the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s Sotomayor who wrote the dissent here , as she did in the case of the Muslim ban .
It ’ s Sotomayor who wrote a separate , concurring opinion in the DACA decision to defend the equal protection claim for Dreamers , as opposed to the narrow “ Trump did it wrong ” reasoning offered by Chief Justice John Roberts .
Sotomayor is trying to wake people up to the racism of the Trump administration ’ s anti-immigrant legal policies , something even her fellow liberals fail to grasp and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too ready to rubber-stamp .
One of the worst Supreme Court cases in American history was Dred Scott v Sandford .
In that case , decided in 1857 , the court ruled that a black man who had lived in a free state was still a slave and that African Americans were not , and could not be citizens , of the United States .
Chief Justice Roger Taeny infamously wrote that a black man “ had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.
” DHS v. Thuraissigiam will not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scott decision , because it will not spark a civil war .
But the legal effect is nonetheless monstrous .
I almost wish Alito had the courage to write plainly what he was really thinking : A border crosser has no rights which the white man is bound to respect .
At least more people would notice what just happened .

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?
Between the pandemic and the threats of military force against US citizens, it’s easy to forget that the Trump administration reserves its greatest cruelty for nonwhite immigrants. And it’s easy to forget, in the wake of last week’s narrow ruling to uphold the DACA program, that the Supreme Court has been largely willing to give constitutional cover to this bigotry and xenophobia. But Trump’s antipathy for black and brown immigrants never takes a day off. And the courts consistently let him get away with it.
This week’s reminder of this country’s wanton cruelty toward immigrants comes from the Supreme Court’s decision in DHS v. Thuraissigiam. The court ruled, by a vote of 7-2, that the Constitution doesn’t allow an asylum seeker to petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
The victim in this case is Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam. He’s a Sri Lakan national who was stopped and arrested 25 yards into the country. He claimed asylum, which he is legally allowed to do. Thuraissigiam is Tamil, a minority ethnicity in Sri Lanka, and claimed to fear persecution if he were deported back to Sri Lanka. An asylum officer rejected his claim as part of the expedited review that all asylum applicants now face.
The Trump administration has gone to great lengths to prevent asylum seekers from appealing these expedited rulings. If an asylum officer and immigration judge determine that the asylum seeker has no “credible fear,” they can be deported without the right to appeal the judge’s determination. We give people more opportunities to appeal a parking ticket than we give asylum seekers opportunities to appeal rulings affecting their basic human rights.
To fight the ruling against him, Thuraissigiam turned to a novel legal approach. He petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. The government is not allowed to jail people indefinitely without a hearing: Thuraissigiam argued that denying him an opportunity to appeal the expedited process of deportation deprived him of due process and this fundamental right to challenge his detention.
But according to the Supreme Court, only Trump and the executive branch gets to decide who gets rights and who does not. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito found that expedited deportation without appeal was not a violation of due process or habeas corpus.
Alito even found time to be flippant about the matter. He wrote that Thuraissigiam could be free today if he would just go back to where he came from: “While respondent does not claim an entitlement to release, the Government is happy to release him—provided the release occurs in the cabin of a plane bound for Sri Lanka.” It’s clear that Alito doesn’t actually care whether Thuraissigiam has a legitimate asylum claim. He just wants him in a cage or out of America, by any means necessary. Current Issue View our current issue
The effect of Alito’s ruling is devastating to asylum seekers. Without an appeals process, people in Thuraissigiam’s position have no functional rights. They can be arrested for crossing the border without the proper documents, detained until a Custom and Border Protection agent gets around to reviewing their claim, have that claim denied by an immigration judge (who is not really a “judge” but a federal employee who works for Attorney General William Barr), and then detained indefinitely until the government boots them out of the country. And all of this can be done without their ever getting to talk to a lawyer, because asylum seekers have no constitutional right to an attorney. 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
This kind of sadism is nothing new from Alito, or Republicans generally, particularly when it comes to victimizing immigrants. But, as I mentioned, the vote in this case was 7-2. Two of the liberal justices, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, came to the same conclusion Alito did. Breyer wrote separately, joined by Ginsburg, to explain their reasoning. Or to try. The problem is, they didn’t really succeed; they just spent a lot of time explaining how Alito’s decision should be limited to the case at hand and not extended to any class of immigrant the Trump administration wants to round up. But as to Thuraissigiam, Breyer and Ginsburg found that he has no fundamental right to challenge the ruling against him.
Their concurrence was maddening. Breyer and Ginsburg seem to understand that Alito’s logic will be applied to all asylum seekers—and could be applied to any undocumented person living in the country, including people with families who have built their lives here, and even legal permanent residents. They get the problem, but they still accepted Alito’s result.
Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, stood in dissent of this ruling. Sotomayor wrote:
[T]he Court holds that the Constitution’s due process protections do not extend to noncitizens like respondent, who challenge the procedures used to determine whether they may seek shelter in this country or whether they may be cast to an unknown fate. The decision deprives them of any means to ensure the integrity of an expedited removal order, an order which, the Court has just held, is not subject to any meaningful judicial oversight as to its substance. In doing so, the Court upends settled constitutional law and paves the way toward transforming already summary expedited removal proceedings into arbitrary administrative adjudications. Related Articles Roberts’s DACA Ruling Had Nothing to Do With His Own Moral Awakening Elie Mystal Sonia Sotomayor’s Epic Dissent Explains What’s at Stake When the Police Don’t Follow the Law John Nichols
Put more simply: Sotomayor is pointing out that the courts are now supposed to take the Trump administration’s word for it on which immigrants should be deported and which ones still get to have human rights.
Sotomayor is the justice who consistently highlights the bigotry of the Trump administration for what it is—and is willing to call the whole corrupt operation out on it. It’s Sotomayor who wrote the dissent here, as she did in the case of the Muslim ban. It’s Sotomayor who wrote a separate, concurring opinion in the DACA decision to defend the equal protection claim for Dreamers, as opposed to the narrow “Trump did it wrong” reasoning offered by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Sotomayor is trying to wake people up to the racism of the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant legal policies, something even her fellow liberals fail to grasp and that the Supreme Court has been only too ready to rubber-stamp.
One of the worst Supreme Court cases in American history was Dred Scott v Sandford. In that case, decided in 1857, the court ruled that a black man who had lived in a free state was still a slave and that African Americans were not, and could not be citizens, of the United States. Chief Justice Roger Taeny infamously wrote that a black man “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
DHS v. Thuraissigiam will not be remembered as poorly as the Dred Scott decision, because it will not spark a civil war. But the legal effect is nonetheless monstrous. I almost wish Alito had the courage to write plainly what he was really thinking: A border crosser has no rights which the white man is bound to respect. At least more people would notice what just happened.


thenation--2020-06-26--Trump Is Trying to Remake the Military in His Own Ugly Image

It is not surprising that retired Army BGen .
Anthony Tata was nominated by Donald Trump as undersecretary of defense for policy at the Pentagon , the third-highest political posting in the military .
Tata has a habit of incendiary and bigoted tweeting in a Trumpian fashion .
He claimed that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim and a “ Manchurian candidate ” and that Representative Maxine Waters is a “ vicious race baiting racist.
” Tata ’ s nomination is currently in trouble after a CNN report on these comments .
Three senior retired officers are rescinding the support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The New York Times reports , “ Gen .
Joseph L. Votel , the former head of the Central Command ; Gen. Tony Thomas , the former head of the Special Operations Command ; and Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula , a former top Air Force general , have asked that their names be removed from a letter sent by 35 former senior officials to the Senate Armed Services Committee in support of General Tata.
” The controversy over Tata is one of series of cases where Trump ’ s relationship with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ topic of racism is proving to be particularly contentious .
The American military prizes its reputation for being apolitical , although in reality it has always had methods for pushing its agenda .
Trump ’ s presidency has been particularly challenging because of his unorthodox management style .
This has arguably helped strengthen the power of the Pentagon .
With Trump lacking either the policy knowledge or the staff loyalists needed to implement his vision of the world , the Pentagon has effectively thwarted , for good or ill , his attempts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia , Syria , and North Korea .
The powers of bureaucratic inertia have , in general , defeated any Trumpian revolution in policy .
How Long Can William Barr Get Away With Laughing at Justice ?
The World Is Finally Catching Up to Spike Lee The First Wave of Covid-19 Isn ’ t Over Yet But Trump hasn ’ t given up trying to tame the military , which he views as his special toy box .
As an aspiring authoritarian , Trump loves to surround himself with soldiers and tout how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In actuality , Trump has a net unfavorable rating among the active-duty military .
A poll from last December gave him 42 percent support as against 50 percent disapproval—low figures for a Republican president .
One flashpoint of controversy is Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman , who testified in the impeachment hearings .
Vindman ’ s promotion in the military has stalled because of political pressure from the White House .
This interference is causing a crisis in relations between the Pentagon and the White House .
“ The Pentagon is facing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amid continued efforts by the White House to purge those perceived as political foes , including the Army lieutenant colonel who testified in the House impeachment hearings , ” reports the Times .
“ The challenge of managing White House pressures and concerns about morale inside the Pentagon confronts Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper , who is already in a precarious position with President Trump.
” The Vindman imbroglio grows out of Trump ’ s anger over impeachment , but there are other sources of friction , especially since concerns over institutional racism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wake of the killing of George Floyd and nationwide Black Lives Matter protests .
Esper initially got into trouble with Trump by opposing sending active-duty military troops to quell protesters .
In early June , Esper also announced , with Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy , that the military was open to renaming military bases that currently honor Confederate leaders .
Again , this created a conflict with Trump .
As Politico reported on June 10 , “ President Donald Trump shocked senior Pentagon leaders on Wednesday with a series of tweets opposing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generals , just two days after top military leaders opened the door to doing so.
” The US Military Also Has a Racism Problem Butting heads with Trump hasn ’ t stopped Esper from trying to tackle racism .
Last Thursday , Esper announced plans to create two groups in the Pentagon to tackle diversity challenges and systematic racism .
Although 43 percent of the active-duty military is nonwhite , that figure drops to 23 percent in the officer corps .
“ We are not immune to the forces of bias and prejudice—whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Esper said .
The military has also made a noticeable attempt in recent weeks to crack down on white supremacy in the ranks .
On Monday , federal authorities announced the arrest of Pvt .
Ethan Melzer on grounds of allegedly leaking information to the Order of Nine Angels , a neo-Nazi group , and also allegedly plotting to kill his fellow soldiers .
On Thursday , The Washington Post reported that Shandon Simpson , a private in the Ohio National Guard , is being processed for removal from the military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on social media .
According to the newspaper , “ On Twitter , Simpson tried to recruit fascists to join him in a new group , used an image of Nazi Party leader Richard Walther Darré as his profile picture and marked the 75th anniversary of Adolf Hitler ’ s death on April 30.
” Simpson wrote , “ I pay respects to [ Hitler ] as a martyr who died in Berlin completely unwilling to capitulate.
” Simpson was part of the military contingent that Trump deployed on the streets of Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and administratively removed another soldier , Pvt .
Corwyn Storm Carver , over his membership in a neo-Nazi group .
While these efforts are admirable , it ’ s not clear how convincingly the military can clean house as long as Trump is president .
Trump ’ s racism may seem milder than that of the neo-Nazis , but he , too , is trying to gin up a race war .
As commander in chief , Trump has the ability to elevate bigots like Tata ( who has gained prominence , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to thwart efforts at reform , and to normalize the language of military strife as a way of arguing against challenges to racism .
On Thursday Trump tweeted , “ Black Lives Matter leader states , ‘ If U.S. doesn ’ t give us what we want , then we will burn down this system and replace it ’ .
This is Treason , Sedition , Insurrection !
” Esper and career military will resist Trump ’ s efforts to use troops to crush Black Lives Matter , but they can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making it common currency among Republicans .
Progressives are often heartened by examples of military resistance to Trump , but we have to be clear-eyed as to their limits .
The only true solution to Trump remains the political one of removal by the ballot box .

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?
It is not surprising that retired Army BGen. Anthony Tata was nominated by Donald Trump as undersecretary of defense for policy at the Pentagon, the third-highest political posting in the military. Tata has a habit of incendiary and bigoted tweeting in a Trumpian fashion. He claimed that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim and a “Manchurian candidate” and that Representative Maxine Waters is a “vicious race baiting racist.”
Tata’s nomination is currently in trouble after a CNN report on these comments. Three senior retired officers are rescinding the support they previously gave to Tata. As The New York Times reports, “Gen. Joseph L. Votel, the former head of the Central Command; Gen. Tony Thomas, the former head of the Special Operations Command; and Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, a former top Air Force general, have asked that their names be removed from a letter sent by 35 former senior officials to the Senate Armed Services Committee in support of General Tata.”
The controversy over Tata is one of series of cases where Trump’s relationship with the Pentagon has come under strain. The topic of racism is proving to be particularly contentious.
The American military prizes its reputation for being apolitical, although in reality it has always had methods for pushing its agenda. Trump’s presidency has been particularly challenging because of his unorthodox management style. This has arguably helped strengthen the power of the Pentagon. With Trump lacking either the policy knowledge or the staff loyalists needed to implement his vision of the world, the Pentagon has effectively thwarted, for good or ill, his attempts to set a new course on NATO, Russia, Syria, and North Korea. The powers of bureaucratic inertia have, in general, defeated any Trumpian revolution in policy. 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
But Trump hasn’t given up trying to tame the military, which he views as his special toy box. As an aspiring authoritarian, Trump loves to surround himself with soldiers and tout how the troops and generals love him. In actuality, Trump has a net unfavorable rating among the active-duty military. A poll from last December gave him 42 percent support as against 50 percent disapproval—low figures for a Republican president.
One flashpoint of controversy is Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, who testified in the impeachment hearings. Vindman’s promotion in the military has stalled because of political pressure from the White House. 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
This interference is causing a crisis in relations between the Pentagon and the White House. “The Pentagon is facing a hemorrhage of talent as senior officials resign amid continued efforts by the White House to purge those perceived as political foes, including the Army lieutenant colonel who testified in the House impeachment hearings,” reports the Times. “The challenge of managing White House pressures and concerns about morale inside the Pentagon confronts Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, who is already in a precarious position with President Trump.” Current Issue View our current issue
The Vindman imbroglio grows out of Trump’s anger over impeachment, but there are other sources of friction, especially since concerns over institutional racism have come to the fore in the wake of the killing of George Floyd and nationwide Black Lives Matter protests.
Esper initially got into trouble with Trump by opposing sending active-duty military troops to quell protesters. In early June, Esper also announced, with Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, that the military was open to renaming military bases that currently honor Confederate leaders. Again, this created a conflict with Trump. As Politico reported on June 10, “President Donald Trump shocked senior Pentagon leaders on Wednesday with a series of tweets opposing the renaming of Army installations named after Confederate generals, just two days after top military leaders opened the door to doing so.” Related Article The US Military Also Has a Racism Problem Andrea Mazzarino
Butting heads with Trump hasn’t stopped Esper from trying to tackle racism. Last Thursday, Esper announced plans to create two groups in the Pentagon to tackle diversity challenges and systematic racism. Although 43 percent of the active-duty military is nonwhite, that figure drops to 23 percent in the officer corps. “We are not immune to the forces of bias and prejudice—whether visible or invisible, conscious or unconscious,” Esper said.
The military has also made a noticeable attempt in recent weeks to crack down on white supremacy in the ranks. On Monday, federal authorities announced the arrest of Pvt. Ethan Melzer on grounds of allegedly leaking information to the Order of Nine Angels, a neo-Nazi group, and also allegedly plotting to kill his fellow soldiers.
On Thursday, The Washington Post reported that Shandon Simpson, a private in the Ohio National Guard, is being processed for removal from the military because of pro-Nazi messages he had posted on social media. According to the newspaper, “On Twitter, Simpson tried to recruit fascists to join him in a new group, used an image of Nazi Party leader Richard Walther Darré as his profile picture and marked the 75th anniversary of Adolf Hitler’s death on April 30.” Simpson wrote, “I pay respects to [Hitler] as a martyr who died in Berlin completely unwilling to capitulate.” Simpson was part of the military contingent that Trump deployed on the streets of Washington. Last year, the military investigated and administratively removed another soldier, Pvt. Corwyn Storm Carver, over his membership in a neo-Nazi group.
While these efforts are admirable, it’s not clear how convincingly the military can clean house as long as Trump is president. Trump’s racism may seem milder than that of the neo-Nazis, but he, too, is trying to gin up a race war. As commander in chief, Trump has the ability to elevate bigots like Tata (who has gained prominence, even if he loses his nomination), to thwart efforts at reform, and to normalize the language of military strife as a way of arguing against challenges to racism.
On Thursday Trump tweeted, “Black Lives Matter leader states, ‘If U.S. doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it’. This is Treason, Sedition, Insurrection!” Esper and career military will resist Trump’s efforts to use troops to crush Black Lives Matter, but they can’t stop Trump from expressing the idea and making it common currency among Republicans.
Progressives are often heartened by examples of military resistance to Trump, but we have to be clear-eyed as to their limits. The only true solution to Trump remains the political one of removal by the ballot box.