motherjones--2020-01-09--Trump’s Propaganda War on Iran Started Long Before Soleimani’s Killing

In the wake of the United States ’ assassination of senior Iranian military official Qassem Soleimani , cybersecurity researchers , journalists , and other experts rushed to warn of a potential coming Iranian social media disinformation blitz .
Iran , along with Russia , they noted , has become proficient in running online propaganda campaigns to advance its foreign policy goals .
Since the attack , coordinated groups of yet to be determined provenance have indeed launched a number of campaigns backing Iranian interests .
But for at least a year before Soleimani was killed by the U.S. ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s State Department was funding a social media propaganda campaign that maligned the country and targeted American citizens and others involved in the Iran debate .
In May , journalists and activists noticed the department had been funding an outside program called the “ Iran Disinformation Project , ” a name suggesting an ostensible mission of fighting disinformation coming from Iran .
The project not only routinely took shots at Iran but also tried to discredit respected researchers and journalists .
Rather than dispel disinformation , the State Department project paid activists and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ propaganda that matched the White House ’ s increasingly hawkish tone on Iran , without openly admitting the project was backed by the administration .
The effort partially consisted of nearly-anonymously targeting and discrediting other journalists and researchers , many of whom were U.S. citizens , focused on responsibly reporting about Iran .
After reporters discovered the link between the State Department and the Iran Disinformation Project , the department said it would suspend its funding .
The project flirted with libel and slander by accusing journalists like the BBC ’ s Bahman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mouthpieces ” of Iranian disinformation .
The account also smeared Human Rights Watch researcher Tara Sepehri Far , who has documented the impact of sanctions on Iran , claiming her efforts amounted to “ working hard to prove ” claims made by the Iranian government .
( The since-deleted tweets are preserved in a Washington Post article . )
According to the Independent , the Iran Disinformation Project was run by a non-profit called the “ E-Collaborative for Civic Education , ” which had been co-founded by Mariam Memarsadeghi , a pro-regime change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a co-founder of the Quincy Institute , a think tank that advocates for military restraint , pointed out that its website happened to be pumping out articles identical to those produced by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies , a hawkish , neo-conservative foreign policy think tank .
Congressional sources also told the Independent ’ s Negar Mortazavi , who was also targeted by the project , that at least one person working at FDD was part of the Iran Disinformation Project .
In the wake of the U.S. attack on Soleimani , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the U.S. was not seeking regime change in Iran .
But the links between the Iran Disinformation Project and the FDD raise the possibility that State Department funding may have gone to an organization that backs military force to incite the fall of Iran ’ s government .
While the FDD makes no secret about advocating for “ regime change ” in the country , they usually avoid explicitly calling for the use of force while seeming to cross out every other option .
The FDD instead says it backs “ a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compel the Iranian government to step aside .
( The FDD argues a similar dynamic prompted Libya , a country with a GDP nearly 100 times smaller than Iran and a far weaker military , to denuclearize .
The country ’ s regime was eventually driven from power with the backing of U.S. and allied airstrikes . )
In the past , people affiliated with the think tank have explicitly endorsed the use of direct military force to bring about regime change in Iran .
In 2010 , Foreign Policy reported that FDD @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his unequivocal support for an Israeli attack ” on the country , and quoted this boast : “ I ’ ve written about 25,000 words about bombing Iran .
Even my mom thinks I ’ ve gone too far.
” Such writings include a 2006 Weekly Standard article where Gerecht argued that needing to bomb Iraq is essentially an inevitability .
In a 2015 Wall Street Journal oped Gerecht and FDD CEO Mark Dubowitz argued that President Barack Obama ’ s pending nuclear deal would fail , leaving “ no plausible peaceful alternatives.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ furtive but recurring arguments for striking Iran .
When the State Department ’ s funding of the Iran Disinformation Project was first revealed , Rep. Ilhan Omar ( D-Minn. ) took to Twitter to ask “ What rules are in place to prevent state-funded organizations from smearing American citizens ?
If there wasn ’ t public outcry , would the Administration have suspended funding for Iran Disinfo ?
” “ There are still so many unanswered questions here , ” she wrote .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
In the wake of the United States’ assassination of senior Iranian military official Qassem Soleimani, cybersecurity researchers, journalists, and other experts rushed to warn of a potential coming Iranian social media disinformation blitz. Iran, along with Russia, they noted, has become proficient in running online propaganda campaigns to advance its foreign policy goals.
Since the attack, coordinated groups of yet to be determined provenance have indeed launched a number of campaigns backing Iranian interests. But for at least a year before Soleimani was killed by the US’s drone strike, President Donald Trump’s State Department was funding a social media propaganda campaign that maligned the country and targeted American citizens and others involved in the Iran debate.
In May, journalists and activists noticed the department had been funding an outside program called the “Iran Disinformation Project,” a name suggesting an ostensible mission of fighting disinformation coming from Iran. The project not only routinely took shots at Iran but also tried to discredit respected researchers and journalists.
So the @StateDept uses taxpayer money to fund online attacks on @HRW because the organization is researching the human cost of US sanctions in #Iran. Is this even legal? https://t.co/PGVuizRq93 — Negar Mortazavi (@NegarMortazavi) May 30, 2019
Rather than dispel disinformation, the State Department project paid activists and researchers with an explicit agenda to spread propaganda that matched the White House’s increasingly hawkish tone on Iran, without openly admitting the project was backed by the administration. The effort partially consisted of nearly-anonymously targeting and discrediting other journalists and researchers, many of whom were US citizens, focused on responsibly reporting about Iran. After reporters discovered the link between the State Department and the Iran Disinformation Project, the department said it would suspend its funding.
The project flirted with libel and slander by accusing journalists like the BBC’s Bahman Kalbasi of being one of the “mouthpieces” of Iranian disinformation. The account also smeared Human Rights Watch researcher Tara Sepehri Far, who has documented the impact of sanctions on Iran, claiming her efforts amounted to “working hard to prove” claims made by the Iranian government. (The since-deleted tweets are preserved in a Washington Post article.)
According to the Independent, the Iran Disinformation Project was run by a non-profit called the “E-Collaborative for Civic Education,” which had been co-founded by Mariam Memarsadeghi, a pro-regime change Iranian-American activist. But Eli Clifton, a co-founder of the Quincy Institute, a think tank that advocates for military restraint, pointed out that its website happened to be pumping out articles identical to those produced by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a hawkish, neoconservative foreign policy think tank.
What a coincidence. FDD has an "Iran Disinformation Project" with identical content to the State Dept funded IranDisInfo site. pic.twitter.com/LB8G4x9ctq — Eli Clifton (@EliClifton) May 31, 2019
Congressional sources also told the Independent’s Negar Mortazavi, who was also targeted by the project, that at least one person working at FDD was part of the Iran Disinformation Project.
In the wake of the US attack on Soleimani, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo repeatedly claimed that the US was not seeking regime change in Iran. But the links between the Iran Disinformation Project and the FDD raise the possibility that State Department funding may have gone to an organization that backs military force to incite the fall of Iran’s government. While the FDD makes no secret about advocating for “regime change” in the country, they usually avoid explicitly calling for the use of force while seeming to cross out every other option. The FDD instead says it backs “a credible threat to use force” to compel the Iranian government to step aside. (The FDD argues a similar dynamic prompted Libya, a country with a GDP nearly 100 times smaller than Iran and a far weaker military, to denuclearize. The country’s regime was eventually driven from power with the backing of US and allied airstrikes.)
In the past, people affiliated with the think tank have explicitly endorsed the use of direct military force to bring about regime change in Iran. In 2010, Foreign Policy reported that FDD senior fellow Reuel Marc Gerecht “stated his unequivocal support for an Israeli attack” on the country, and quoted this boast: “I’ve written about 25,000 words about bombing Iran. Even my mom thinks I’ve gone too far.” Such writings include a 2006 Weekly Standard article where Gerecht argued that needing to bomb Iraq is essentially an inevitability. In a 2015 Wall Street Journal oped Gerecht and FDD CEO Mark Dubowitz argued that President Barack Obama’s pending nuclear deal would fail, leaving “no plausible peaceful alternatives.” Others have documented FDD’s furtive but recurring arguments for striking Iran.
When the State Department’s funding of the Iran Disinformation Project was first revealed, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) took to Twitter to ask “What rules are in place to prevent state-funded organizations from smearing American citizens? If there wasn’t public outcry, would the Administration have suspended funding for Iran Disinfo?”
“There are still so many unanswered questions here,” she wrote.


motherjones--2020-01-09--Jim Jordan Is Lying About Voting Rights

Jim Jordan Is Lying About Voting Rights

Last week , Rep. Jim Jordan ( R-Ohio ) sent an alarming email to his supporters .
Jordan , who is one of Donald Trump ’ s most vocal defenders on Capitol Hill , warned that Obama-era Attorney General Eric Holder is on the cusp of using the courts to “ steal ” his congressional seat and replace him with a “ radical liberal.
” He asked readers for “ $ 25 or more ” to “ fight this liberal scheme.
” There ’ s just one problem : It wasn ’ t true .
“ Since Obama left office…Holder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Democratic Redistricting Committee ( NDRC ) , a liberal group whose goal is to steal Conservative seats in Congress , not at the ballot box , but in the courts , ” Jordan ’ s January 1 email read .
“ And now his sights are set on me !
!
Recently , three judges struck down Ohio ’ s Congressional map , stating that all Ohio Congressional districts must be redrawn before next year , including mine !
” The legal battle Jordan was describing—a challenge to Ohio ’ s heavily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ended months ago after the Supreme Court ’ s controversial ruling that the judiciary could not intervene in such cases .
The Ohio map will remain in place .
Jordan omitted that fact entirely from his fundraising pitch .
“ Rep .
Jordan ’ s claim that Ohio ’ s congressional districts must be redrawn before next year is incorrect , ” says Corey Goldstone , spokesperson for the Campaign Legal Center , a nonpartisan watchdog organization .
Here ’ s the backstory : In May 2018 , the ACLU of Ohio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s congressional maps amounted to unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering .
A year later , in May 2019 , a three-judge panel for the Southern District of Ohio ruled that the state ’ s districts had indeed been gerrymandered to favor Republicans , whose majority status in state government means that they control the redistricting process .
The judges set a June 14 deadline for the state to redraw the lines .
But the voting-rights victory was short-lived .
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost , a Republican , appealed the case to the Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguments in gerrymandering cases from Maryland and North Carolina .
In June , the Supreme Court delivered a 5-4 ruling in the Maryland and North Carolina cases , declaring that partisan gerrymandering can not be challenged in federal court .
That decision would reverberate in similar legal fights across the country , including Ohio .
In October , the Supreme Court formally tossed out the challenge to Ohio ’ s Republican-drawn map .
Thanks to that ruling , Ohio ’ s congressional map will not be redrawn until the census results are released @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state ’ s Republicans will once again have the ability to shape districts that give them a substantial advantage .
For many Democrats and voting rights advocates , the Supreme Court ruling was a huge blow in the fight to redraw districts around the nation that had been created to stack the deck in favor of one party , usually Republicans .
Here ’ s what Mother Jones ’ Ari Berman and Pema Levy wrote when that decision came out : Though both parties have done their fair share of gerrymandering , Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past decade .
In 2010 , Republicans took control of nearly every major swing state and oversaw the redistricting process for four times as many state legislative seats as Democrats , giving them a virtual lock on power for the remainder of the decade .
Republicans were able to hold onto an additional 16 congressional seats and seven state legislative chambers in 2018 because of these skewed maps , according to an Associated Press analysis .
In Ohio , Republicans received 52 percent of the vote in the 2018 congressional elections but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s 16 congressional seats , thanks to the gerrymandered map .
Jordan , who touts himself as being “ one of the most conservative members of Congress , ” won the sprawling 4th district—which is often pointed to as one of the state ’ s most gerrymandered—by more than 30 points .
But one would never know that from Jordan ’ s fundraising email .
“ The Democrats are leaping with joy , because with a stroke of the pen they could flip critical seats in Congress and maintain Nancy Pelosi ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before asking supporters to “ make a generous donation of at least $ 25 today to help fight back.
” “ Beyond the questionable claims made in Rep. Jordan ’ s fundraising email , he seems dismissive of the obvious conflict of interest presented by politicians redrawing district maps more generally , ” Goldstone notes .
To curb partisan gerrymandering , there have been increasing calls for states to adopt independent redistricting commissions , a reform that Holder ’ s NDRC has supported .
Jordan ’ s campaign didn ’ t respond to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s clearly not a fan of independent commissions .
“ Holder and the Democrats know they can ’ t win in a fair fight , ” he wrote in the fundraising email , “ that ’ s why having unelected and unaccountable commissions potentially drawing the congressional lines excites them so much.
” Goldstone disagrees .
“ Gerrymandering is a serious problem facing our democracy , ” he says .
“ Independent redistricting commissions are a reform supported by 60 percent of Democrats , Independents and Republicans .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Last week, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) sent an alarming email to his supporters. Jordan, who is one of Donald Trump’s most vocal defenders on Capitol Hill, warned that Obama-era Attorney General Eric Holder is on the cusp of using the courts to “steal” his congressional seat and replace him with a “radical liberal.” He asked readers for “$25 or more” to “fight this liberal scheme.”
There’s just one problem: It wasn’t true.
“Since Obama left office…Holder has been focusing his energy on the National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC), a liberal group whose goal is to steal Conservative seats in Congress, not at the ballot box, but in the courts,” Jordan’s January 1 email read. “And now his sights are set on me!! Recently, three judges struck down Ohio’s Congressional map, stating that all Ohio Congressional districts must be redrawn before next year, including mine!”
The legal battle Jordan was describing—a challenge to Ohio’s heavily gerrymandered congressional map—really did happen. But it ended months ago after the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling that the judiciary could not intervene in such cases. The Ohio map will remain in place. Jordan omitted that fact entirely from his fundraising pitch.
“Rep. Jordan’s claim that Ohio’s congressional districts must be redrawn before next year is incorrect,” says Corey Goldstone, spokesperson for the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan watchdog organization.
Here’s the backstory: In May 2018, the ACLU of Ohio filed a federal lawsuit alleging that Ohio’s congressional maps amounted to unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering. A year later, in May 2019, a three-judge panel for the Southern District of Ohio ruled that the state’s districts had indeed been gerrymandered to favor Republicans, whose majority status in state government means that they control the redistricting process. The judges set a June 14 deadline for the state to redraw the lines.
But the voting-rights victory was short-lived. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, a Republican, appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which had recently heard similar arguments in gerrymandering cases from Maryland and North Carolina. In June, the Supreme Court delivered a 5-4 ruling in the Maryland and North Carolina cases, declaring that partisan gerrymandering cannot be challenged in federal court. That decision would reverberate in similar legal fights across the country, including Ohio. In October, the Supreme Court formally tossed out the challenge to Ohio’s Republican-drawn map. Thanks to that ruling, Ohio’s congressional map will not be redrawn until the census results are released prior to the 2022 election cycle—and the state’s Republicans will once again have the ability to shape districts that give them a substantial advantage.
For many Democrats and voting rights advocates, the Supreme Court ruling was a huge blow in the fight to redraw districts around the nation that had been created to stack the deck in favor of one party, usually Republicans. Here’s what Mother Jones’ Ari Berman and Pema Levy wrote when that decision came out:
Though both parties have done their fair share of gerrymandering, Republicans did it in far more places over the past decade. In 2010, Republicans took control of nearly every major swing state and oversaw the redistricting process for four times as many state legislative seats as Democrats, giving them a virtual lock on power for the remainder of the decade. Republicans were able to hold onto an additional 16 congressional seats and seven state legislative chambers in 2018 because of these skewed maps, according to an Associated Press analysis.
In Ohio, Republicans received 52 percent of the vote in the 2018 congressional elections but won 75 percent of the state’s 16 congressional seats, thanks to the gerrymandered map. Jordan, who touts himself as being “one of the most conservative members of Congress,” won the sprawling 4th district—which is often pointed to as one of the state’s most gerrymandered—by more than 30 points.
But one would never know that from Jordan’s fundraising email. “The Democrats are leaping with joy, because with a stroke of the pen they could flip critical seats in Congress and maintain Nancy Pelosi’s majority!!” it says, before asking supporters to “make a generous donation of at least $25 today to help fight back.”
“Beyond the questionable claims made in Rep. Jordan’s fundraising email, he seems dismissive of the obvious conflict of interest presented by politicians redrawing district maps more generally,” Goldstone notes. To curb partisan gerrymandering, there have been increasing calls for states to adopt independent redistricting commissions, a reform that Holder’s NDRC has supported.
Jordan’s campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment, but he’s clearly not a fan of independent commissions. “Holder and the Democrats know they can’t win in a fair fight,” he wrote in the fundraising email, “that’s why having unelected and unaccountable commissions potentially drawing the congressional lines excites them so much.”
Goldstone disagrees. “Gerrymandering is a serious problem facing our democracy,” he says. “Independent redistricting commissions are a reform supported by 60 percent of Democrats, Independents and Republicans.”


motherjones--2020-01-09--Nixon Did It, Too! How a Trump Aide Justified Secret Russia Contacts

In September 2017 , a former White House aide offered a novel defense for the Trump team ’ s secret contacts with the Russian government : Richard Nixon did it , too .
That ’ s what K.T .
McFarland told the FBI when asked about Michael Flynn ’ s efforts during the presidential transition period to meddle in US foreign policy by negotiating with the Russian ambassador behind the Obama administration ’ s back .
According to McFarland , the actions taken by Flynn—who Trump had tapped to become national security adviser—were not unusual because other former presidents , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy before taking office .
McFarland , who briefly served as deputy national security adviser , cited Nixon ’ s “ involvement in Vietnam War peace talks ” in 1968—along with Ronald Reagan ’ s alleged pre-election interference in 1980 in talks aimed at freeing US hostages in Iran—as “ precedent for proactive foreign policy engagements by an incoming administration , ” according to an FBI summary of investigators ’ 2017 interview with McFarland , published last week by Buzzfeed .
McFarland ’ s assertion hasn ’ t drawn much notice , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transition-period contacts with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak in which he sought to temper Russia ’ s response to sanctions imposed by the Obama administration to punish Russia for interfering in the 2016 election .
In his guilty plea , Flynn admitted that he also called Kislyak and officials from other countries to lobby against a UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank after news reports indicated that the Obama administration would not oppose the measure .
Special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s April 2019 report says Jared Kushner , Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
These contacts may have violated the Logan Act , a 1799 law that bars private US citizens from acting to “ influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government ” in a dispute with the United States or “ to defeat the measures of the United States.
” Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017 to lying to FBI about this activity .
He is scheduled to be sentenced later this month .
To summarize : To justify potentially illegal secret contacts between the Trump team and Russia , McFarland , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Security Council , cited perhaps the most notorious example in US history of a White House candidate undermining the diplomacy of a siting president .
( McFarland ’ s comparison is also flawed because Nixon ’ s interference , and the Reagan team ’ s alleged actions , occurred prior to Election Day , not during the transition . )
While allegations that Reagan aides meddled in hostage negotiations in Iran remain disputed , Nixon ’ s secret disruption of Vietnam peace talks is well-documented .
Recently revealed notes show that in October @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who became his chief of staff , to “ monkey wrench ” talks between the United States , South Vietnam , and North Vietnam and to instruct an emissary , Anna Chennault—a prominent Republican and socialite in touch with South Vietnamese negotiators—to urge them to “ hold on ” and refuse to agree to a deal in hopes of getting better terms under Nixon .
Nixon feared that progress in talks would help his Democratic opponent , Vice President Hubert Humphrey , who surged late in the race as he amped up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s skullduggery worked for Nixon .
Encouraged by him , the South Vietnamese stalled the talks , and Nixon narrowly beat Humphrey .
But the consequences were bad for everyone else .
Nixon had suggested he had a plan for exiting Vietnam .
Instead he expanded the war .
Roughly 22,000 more Americans , along with far more Vietnamese , would die before the US finally withdrew from the country at the start of Nixon ’ s second term in 1973 .
Nixon ’ s initially secret bombing of sites in Cambodia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rise of the Khmer Rouge , who went on to kill an estimated 2 million Cambodians .
Nixon ’ s predecessor , Lyndon Johnson , knew of Nixon ’ s actions and privately called them “ treason.
” John Farrell , who discovered Haldeman ’ s notes while researching a 2017 Nixon biography , told Mother Jones that Nixon ’ s interference was potentially “ worse than anything he did in Watergate , because more lives were at stake.
” Yet according to the FBI ’ s summary , McFarland , who did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cited Nixon ’ s actions to defend Flynn ’ s December 2016 contacts with Russia .
McFarland knew of Flynn ’ s contacts with Kislyak in advance .
In a court filing Tuesday ahead of Flynn ’ s sentencing , prosecutors stated that Flynn spoke to McFarland before calling Kislyak “ to discuss what to communicate to the Russian Ambassador about the sanctions.
” McFarland was forced out of the White House shortly after Flynn resigned .
Trump then tapped her as ambassador to Singapore , but her nomination was scuttled after she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her knowledge of Flynn ’ s calls with Kislyak .
McFarland , a frequent Fox News commentator , remains a Trump booster .
McFarland ’ s interview offers new evidence that the Trump team disregarded the Logan Act .
McFarland told investigators she was familiar with the law “ but had not thought deeply about it , ” according to the interview summary .
She also said that few people in the incoming administration were “ familiar with the act ” and that she “ did not recall any discussions that what Flynn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summary says .
The Mueller report says that Flynn ’ s calls “ raised potential Logan Act issues , ” but Mueller did not charge anyone with violating that law , which has not been enforced since the 19th century .
McFarland ’ s reference to Nixon ’ s actions , however , suggests a problem that goes well beyond the Logan Act .
Nixon ’ s efforts to scuttle a possible peace deal in Vietnam to boost his election chances shows the importance of the ideas underlying the law : Presidential candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seek foreign governments ’ help for electoral gain .
The Logan Act was just one component of America ’ s founders ’ efforts to prevent foreign influence in US elections .
In his farewell address , George Washington warned that partisanship “ opens the door to foreign influence and corruption.
” McFarland was interviewed as part of Mueller ’ s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election .
Mueller found that Trump ’ s presidential campaign in some cases welcomed Russian help and “ expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump defenders have shrugged off that finding and also dismissed the import of Trump ’ s efforts to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations that would benefit him in the 2020 election .
While McFarland ’ s statements about Flynn ’ s calls relate to contacts that came after Trump ’ s election victory , her remarks are part of that broader campaign by the president ’ s supporters to downplay the significance of his aides ’ secret dealings with foreign powers .
And it is jaw-dropping that McFarland cited Nixon ’ s act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s conduct .
After Nixon ’ s election , allegations about his campaign ’ s interference in the peace talks quickly emerged , though Nixon ’ s direct involvement was not yet known .
At the time , “ everyone agreed it was a bad thing , ” Farrell notes .
Even Nixon said so .
Though he always denied interfering in talks , he said in a 1977 interview , “ I couldn ’ t have done that in conscience.
” Farrell said that for McFarland to cite Nixon ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ everybody does this ” shows “ how radically our norms have been trashed.
” “ If there was one thing that any American agreed on during the Cold War , it ’ s that our ballots are sacred , ” Farrell said .
“ And the idea that you are going to have foreign powers interfering , or that a person would go overseas and recruit foreign interference , would be outrageous .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
In September 2017, a former White House aide offered a novel defense for the Trump team’s secret contacts with the Russian government: Richard Nixon did it, too.
It is jaw-dropping that McFarland cited Nixon’s act of betrayal to justify the Trump team’s conduct.
That’s what K.T. McFarland told the FBI when asked about Michael Flynn’s efforts during the presidential transition period to meddle in US foreign policy by negotiating with the Russian ambassador behind the Obama administration’s back. According to McFarland, the actions taken by Flynn—who Trump had tapped to become national security adviser—were not unusual because other former presidents, including Nixon, also interfered in foreign policy before taking office.
McFarland, who briefly served as deputy national security adviser, cited Nixon’s “involvement in Vietnam War peace talks” in 1968—along with Ronald Reagan’s alleged pre-election interference in 1980 in talks aimed at freeing US hostages in Iran—as “precedent for proactive foreign policy engagements by an incoming administration,” according to an FBI summary of investigators’ 2017 interview with McFarland, published last week by Buzzfeed.
McFarland’s assertion hasn’t drawn much notice, but it should. Flynn admitted to secret transition-period contacts with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak in which he sought to temper Russia’s response to sanctions imposed by the Obama administration to punish Russia for interfering in the 2016 election. In his guilty plea, Flynn admitted that he also called Kislyak and officials from other countries to lobby against a UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank after news reports indicated that the Obama administration would not oppose the measure. Special counsel Robert Mueller’s April 2019 report says Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, oversaw the latter effort. These contacts may have violated the Logan Act, a 1799 law that bars private US citizens from acting to “influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government” in a dispute with the United States or “to defeat the measures of the United States.” Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017 to lying to FBI about this activity. He is scheduled to be sentenced later this month.
To summarize: To justify potentially illegal secret contacts between the Trump team and Russia, McFarland, who herself worked on Nixon’s National Security Council, cited perhaps the most notorious example in US history of a White House candidate undermining the diplomacy of a siting president. (McFarland’s comparison is also flawed because Nixon’s interference, and the Reagan team’s alleged actions, occurred prior to Election Day, not during the transition.)
While allegations that Reagan aides meddled in hostage negotiations in Iran remain disputed, Nixon’s secret disruption of Vietnam peace talks is well-documented. Recently revealed notes show that in October 1968, Nixon asked H.R. Haldeman, who became his chief of staff, to “monkey wrench” talks between the United States, South Vietnam, and North Vietnam and to instruct an emissary, Anna Chennault—a prominent Republican and socialite in touch with South Vietnamese negotiators—to urge them to “hold on” and refuse to agree to a deal in hopes of getting better terms under Nixon. Nixon feared that progress in talks would help his Democratic opponent, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, who surged late in the race as he amped up his criticism of the war.
Nixon’s skullduggery worked for Nixon. Encouraged by him, the South Vietnamese stalled the talks, and Nixon narrowly beat Humphrey. But the consequences were bad for everyone else. Nixon had suggested he had a plan for exiting Vietnam. Instead he expanded the war. Roughly 22,000 more Americans, along with far more Vietnamese, would die before the US finally withdrew from the country at the start of Nixon’s second term in 1973. Nixon’s initially secret bombing of sites in Cambodia in 1969 may have helped spur the rise of the Khmer Rouge, who went on to kill an estimated 2 million Cambodians.
Nixon’s predecessor, Lyndon Johnson, knew of Nixon’s actions and privately called them “treason.” John Farrell, who discovered Haldeman’s notes while researching a 2017 Nixon biography, told Mother Jones that Nixon’s interference was potentially “worse than anything he did in Watergate, because more lives were at stake.”
Yet according to the FBI’s summary, McFarland, who did not respond to requests for comment, cited Nixon’s actions to defend Flynn’s December 2016 contacts with Russia.
McFarland knew of Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak in advance. In a court filing Tuesday ahead of Flynn’s sentencing, prosecutors stated that Flynn spoke to McFarland before calling Kislyak “to discuss what to communicate to the Russian Ambassador about the sanctions.” McFarland was forced out of the White House shortly after Flynn resigned. Trump then tapped her as ambassador to Singapore, but her nomination was scuttled after she was revealed to have misled lawmakers about her knowledge of Flynn’s calls with Kislyak. McFarland, a frequent Fox News commentator, remains a Trump booster.
McFarland’s interview offers new evidence that the Trump team disregarded the Logan Act. McFarland told investigators she was familiar with the law “but had not thought deeply about it,” according to the interview summary. She also said that few people in the incoming administration were “familiar with the act” and that she “did not recall any discussions that what Flynn was doing was inappropriate,” the summary says. The Mueller report says that Flynn’s calls “raised potential Logan Act issues,” but Mueller did not charge anyone with violating that law, which has not been enforced since the 19th century.
McFarland’s reference to Nixon’s actions, however, suggests a problem that goes well beyond the Logan Act. Nixon’s efforts to scuttle a possible peace deal in Vietnam to boost his election chances shows the importance of the ideas underlying the law: Presidential candidates should not mess with foreign policy or seek foreign governments’ help for electoral gain. The Logan Act was just one component of America’s founders’ efforts to prevent foreign influence in US elections. In his farewell address, George Washington warned that partisanship “opens the door to foreign influence and corruption.”
McFarland was interviewed as part of Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Mueller found that Trump’s presidential campaign in some cases welcomed Russian help and “expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.” Many Trump defenders have shrugged off that finding and also dismissed the import of Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations that would benefit him in the 2020 election. While McFarland’s statements about Flynn’s calls relate to contacts that came after Trump’s election victory, her remarks are part of that broader campaign by the president’s supporters to downplay the significance of his aides’ secret dealings with foreign powers. And it is jaw-dropping that McFarland cited Nixon’s act of betrayal to justify the Trump team’s conduct.
After Nixon’s election, allegations about his campaign’s interference in the peace talks quickly emerged, though Nixon’s direct involvement was not yet known. At the time, “everyone agreed it was a bad thing,” Farrell notes. Even Nixon said so. Though he always denied interfering in talks, he said in a 1977 interview, “I couldn’t have done that in conscience.”
Farrell said that for McFarland to cite Nixon’s actions to argue, in effect, that “everybody does this” shows “how radically our norms have been trashed.”
“If there was one thing that any American agreed on during the Cold War, it’s that our ballots are sacred,” Farrell said. “And the idea that you are going to have foreign powers interfering, or that a person would go overseas and recruit foreign interference, would be outrageous.”


motherjones--2020-01-09--New York Wants to Make It Easier to Register to Vote

New York state just took a major step toward ensuring that all eligible citizens can exercise their right to vote .
On Thursday , the state Senate passed a bill that would automatically register eligible voters upon interacting with state agencies , making voter registration a matter of opting out rather than opting in .
Sixteen states and DC have already approved similar legislation .
The bill , which is expected to be passed by the State Assembly and signed into law by the Democratic Gov .
Andrew Cuomo , could potentially affect an estimated one million unregistered New Yorkers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Our research has shown that automatic vote registration is proven to significantly increase the number of unregistered people who get registered , ” Sean Morales-Doyle , senior counsel in the Brennan Center for Justice ’ s Democracy Program , said shortly after attending the vote in Albany .
“ I think , because this bill would put automatic registration at the DMV and the Department of Health and potentially at other agencies in the future , that we would go a long way to closing that gap.
” Despite the state ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thrown up roadblocks to voting .
“ People think that New York is supposed to be a progressive state , but we have some of the highest amounts of voter suppression in the country , ” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told Mother Jones ‘ Tim Murphy back in 2017 shortly after she ’ d launched her campaign with a voter registration drive .
The new legislation comes as part of a broader effort to reform those notoriously restrictive voting laws .
As Mother Jones voting rights reporter Ari Berman wrote last year : In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections , voting machines broke down across New York City , leading to lines as long as four hours .
In statewide primaries two months earlier , there were widespread reports of registered voters not appearing on the voting rolls , including Dante DeBlasio , the 21-year-old son of New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio .
New York was the only state to hold separate primaries for state and federal elections—diminishing turnout by making it less convenient for voters to cast ballots in both—and voting in those primaries required registering with a political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Two years earlier , in the April 2016 presidential primary between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders , 120,000 people were wrongly purged from voting rolls in Brooklyn .
Since then , the state legislature has introduced bills that would allow for same-day voter registration and no-excuse absentee voting .
Because these reforms would require amendments to the state constitution , they will need to be voted on again in the next legislature before appearing on statewide ballots in 2021 or 2022 .
New York was on track to pass automatic voter registration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the last minute caused the Senate to recall the bill .
“ We ’ re seeing a lot of states prioritize democracy reform and put voting rights on the top of their legislative agendas , ” Morales-Doyle said .
“ Elected officials are responding to what we think is a groundswell of support among voters for expanding voting rights and expanding democracy , so it ’ s great to see .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
New York state just took a major step toward ensuring that all eligible citizens can exercise their right to vote.
On Thursday, the state Senate passed a bill that would automatically register eligible voters upon interacting with state agencies, making voter registration a matter of opting out rather than opting in. Sixteen states and DC have already approved similar legislation. The bill, which is expected to be passed by the State Assembly and signed into law by the Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, could potentially affect an estimated one million unregistered New Yorkers who are eligible to vote.
“Our research has shown that automatic vote registration is proven to significantly increase the number of unregistered people who get registered,” Sean Morales-Doyle, senior counsel in the Brennan Center for Justice’s Democracy Program, said shortly after attending the vote in Albany. “I think, because this bill would put automatic registration at the DMV and the Department of Health and potentially at other agencies in the future, that we would go a long way to closing that gap.”
Despite the state’s liberal reputation, New York had historically thrown up roadblocks to voting. “People think that New York is supposed to be a progressive state, but we have some of the highest amounts of voter suppression in the country,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told Mother Jones’ Tim Murphy back in 2017 shortly after she’d launched her campaign with a voter registration drive.
The new legislation comes as part of a broader effort to reform those notoriously restrictive voting laws. As Mother Jones voting rights reporter Ari Berman wrote last year:
In November [2018]’s midterm elections, voting machines broke down across New York City, leading to lines as long as four hours. In statewide primaries two months earlier, there were widespread reports of registered voters not appearing on the voting rolls, including Dante DeBlasio, the 21-year-old son of New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio. New York was the only state to hold separate primaries for state and federal elections—diminishing turnout by making it less convenient for voters to cast ballots in both—and voting in those primaries required registering with a political party nearly a year before the election. Two years earlier, in the April 2016 presidential primary between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, 120,000 people were wrongly purged from voting rolls in Brooklyn.
Since then, the state legislature has introduced bills that would allow for same-day voter registration and no-excuse absentee voting. Because these reforms would require amendments to the state constitution, they will need to be voted on again in the next legislature before appearing on statewide ballots in 2021 or 2022. The state has also implemented early voting and pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-olds.
New York was on track to pass automatic voter registration last year, but a typo discovered at the last minute caused the Senate to recall the bill.
“We’re seeing a lot of states prioritize democracy reform and put voting rights on the top of their legislative agendas,” Morales-Doyle said. “Elected officials are responding to what we think is a groundswell of support among voters for expanding voting rights and expanding democracy, so it’s great to see.”


motherjones--2020-01-09--The Administration Doesn’t Want Taxpayers to Know How Much They’ve Spent on Trump’s Travel

For years before he ran for president , Donald Trump complained incessantly about how much money was being spent on Secret Service protection for Barack Obama and his family as they traveled .
While campaigning , Trump insisted he would rarely travel or vacation—he would be too busy , he said .
Instead , Trump has spent an enormous amount of time on vacation .
He golfs far more than any previous president , usually at one of his own golf courses .
The bills for all that travel for Trump and his family , including his adult children , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Secret Service to protect the first family .
Shortly after Trump took office , Donald and Eric Trump took a string of trips to visit one of their father ’ s business partners that cost taxpayers $ 230,000 to send the Secret Service along with the brothers .
Bills like that have become almost routine : Last spring , Tiffany Trump decided to visit Cannes , France , and it cost taxpayers more than 22 grand on hotel rooms alone for Secret Service agents , on top of their wages and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly $ 770,000 keeping up with Trump on golf trips—renting golf carts , setting up barricades to protect the president as he plays , etc .
No one knows exactly how much Trump ’ s travel has cost the nation .
And we ’ re not about to find out .
Congress asked for solid numbers , but Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin is attempting to stonewall Congress on the total tab for Secret Service agents to follow the Trumps .
Lawmakers are considering legislation to move oversight of the Secret Service back to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an anti-counterfeiting force before it was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security in 2003 .
According to the Washington Post , Mnuchin has agreed to a provision of the bill that requires disclosure of the presidential travel costs—but only if the figures come out after the 2020 election .
Mnuchin has been silent on why he ’ s insisting the numbers be held back , but it ’ s not hard to guess that , given the piecemeal numbers that have emerged , the sum total will be astronomical .
How astronomical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report from last year , just one month of Trump travel cost $ 13.6 million in 2018—a figure that includes the total cost of protecting the president , not just Secret Service costs .
It ’ s not a great look for a president who was so hypercritical of his predecessor ’ s comparatively thrifty habits .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
For years before he ran for president, Donald Trump complained incessantly about how much money was being spent on Secret Service protection for Barack Obama and his family as they traveled.
The Obama's Spain vacation cost taxpayers over $476K http://t.co/W6kIpd5x They love to spend money. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 27, 2012
While campaigning, Trump insisted he would rarely travel or vacation—he would be too busy, he said. Instead, Trump has spent an enormous amount of time on vacation. He golfs far more than any previous president, usually at one of his own golf courses. The bills for all that travel for Trump and his family, including his adult children, have piled up, particularly the costs for the Secret Service to protect the first family. Shortly after Trump took office, Donald and Eric Trump took a string of trips to visit one of their father’s business partners that cost taxpayers $230,000 to send the Secret Service along with the brothers. Bills like that have become almost routine: Last spring, Tiffany Trump decided to visit Cannes, France, and it cost taxpayers more than 22 grand on hotel rooms alone for Secret Service agents, on top of their wages and flights. The Secret Service has spent nearly $770,000 keeping up with Trump on golf trips—renting golf carts, setting up barricades to protect the president as he plays, etc.
No one knows exactly how much Trump’s travel has cost the nation. And we’re not about to find out.
Congress asked for solid numbers, but Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin is attempting to stonewall Congress on the total tab for Secret Service agents to follow the Trumps. Lawmakers are considering legislation to move oversight of the Secret Service back to the Treasury, where it began as an anti-counterfeiting force before it was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security in 2003. According to the Washington Post, Mnuchin has agreed to a provision of the bill that requires disclosure of the presidential travel costs—but only if the figures come out after the 2020 election.
Mnuchin has been silent on why he’s insisting the numbers be held back, but it’s not hard to guess that, given the piecemeal numbers that have emerged, the sum total will be astronomical. How astronomical? According to a Government Accountability Office report from last year, just one month of Trump travel cost $13.6 million in 2018—a figure that includes the total cost of protecting the president, not just Secret Service costs. It’s not a great look for a president who was so hypercritical of his predecessor’s comparatively thrifty habits.


motherjones--2020-01-09--Remembering Courtney Everts Mykytyn, Who Urged White Parents to Integrate Schools—With Respect

“ Drawing Lessons From Her Own Missteps , Activist Courtney Everts Mykytyn Urged White Parents to Integrate Schools With Respect ” was originally published by Chalkbeat , a nonprofit news organization covering public education .
Sign up for their newsletters here : ckbe.at/newsletters The first time I ever spoke with Courtney Everts Mykytyn , she was distracted .
I ’ d called her one afternoon in February 2017 to learn about her decision , years earlier , to place her two white children in a public school in Los Angeles where most of the students were from working-class Latinx families @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the group Courtney founded in 2015 , called Integrated Schools , to help privileged parents across the country make similar decisions — to become , in essence , agents of integration .
But Courtney was preoccupied .
A family at her children ’ s middle school had lost their housing ; now , one of the parents , an undocumented immigrant , was considering moving the children to Mexico .
Courtney , whose son had been friends with one of the children since kindergarten , had been discussing the situation with other parents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the family , and she wasn ’ t sure how to help .
“ When we talk about integration being tricky , ” Courtney told me that day , “ this is one of those times.
” As an integration advocate , Courtney ’ s work was twofold .
First , she had to help parents with the luxury of many options see the value in public schools that others might dismiss as “ under-resourced , ” “ struggling , ” or simply “ bad.
” Next , she had to convince @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as “ saviors , ” but as members of a school community committed to the best interests of all students .
That choice would lead to uncomfortable situations like the one Courtney found herself in that afternoon , and invite many missteps , which Courtney was not afraid to admit .
But , she insisted , the decision to integrate schools with humility and respect was also a way to work toward a more equitable society .
“ What ’ s the world you want your child to be an adult in ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ schools .
“ Because you ’ re building it right now with the choice you make.
” Courtney ’ s life ended abruptly on Dec. 30 after she was hit by a car outside her home , according to her husband , Roman Mykytyn .
She was 46 , and with her husband had two teenage children .
She also left behind a far-flung network of parents and advocates who considered her an ally and beacon in their fight for equitable , racially integrated schools .
Scores of people across the U.S. and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one woman who said Courtney “ has inspired and given me courage in my own struggles as an integrating parent.
” Integrated Schools , which began with a few blog posts and phone calls to advice-seeking parents , has grown into a national nonprofit with a diverse board of directors and parent volunteers , a vibrant online community , a popular podcast , and nearly 20 local chapters spanning the country from Atlanta to Seattle .
“ This is a testament to the force of nature that was Courtney Mykytyn : She turned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , breathing group of organized people , ” said Anna Lodder , Courtney ’ s friend and a member of Integrated Schools ’ parent board .
“ Even if it takes 13 of us to do what one of her did , ” Lodder added , “ we are desperately committed to the legacy of Integrated Schools and keeping the lights on.
” At the time of my first call with Courtney , I was writing about the backlash against a plan to send some wealthy students to a high-poverty school in New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urging privileged parents to voluntarily integrate such schools , one student at a time .
That spring , I flew to Los Angeles to meet her .
Courtney picked me up in her blue Honda Pilot .
She was hilariously self-deprecating .
She joked about being the type of mom who brings hummus to children ’ s birthday parties , and insisted — only partly in jest — that much of her advocacy took place in line at Target .
As we toured her neighborhood , she shared her own integration story .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ her husband were debating where to enroll their son in kindergarten .
They lived in in Highland Park , a working-class Latinx enclave in the throes of gentrification .
Many of their white neighbors sent their kids to distant private or charter schools .
“ That really just pissed me off , ” Courtney recalled .
“ You ’ re not too good to live here but you ’ re too good for the schools ?
” So Courtney did what many newcomers in gentrifying neighborhoods do : she banded together with other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the district to create a program at nearby Aldama Elementary School where English- and Spanish-speaking students would learn in both languages .
By the time of my visit in 2017 , Aldama ’ s dual-language program was well-established , thanks largely to the dedication of teachers like Angelina Sáenz .
The school had become more racially and economically diverse , which research has shown can boost students ’ learning and bring new resources .
Yet the demographic changes also introduced new challenges , as I described in a Mother Jones article about Courtney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a divide between the dual-language program , which enrolled most of the school ’ s white and middle-class students , and the traditional classes .
Even within the program , families from different backgrounds struggled to form bonds .
“ I don ’ t feel like there ’ s been conflict between the families , but I also don ’ t feel like there ’ s been connection , ” Sáenz said at the time , citing different work schedules and language barriers as obstacles .
Courtney could have glossed over the messier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ catalogued her own perceived mistakes : rallying her peers to enroll en masse at the same school , pushing for a special program for their children , and prioritizing fundraising over relationship-building .
“ When we started filtering in , we did everything wrong , ” she once told some members of Integrated Schools .
Through her organization , she shared her hard-won realizations with anyone who would listen .
She explained how the low test scores and lousy reputations that so often stigmatize schools serving mostly low-income students of color can overshadow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of her work became helping privileged parents who enrolled at such schools do so “ intentionally , joyfully and humbly , ” as her website put it .
To that end , Courtney spent hours on the phone with individual parents and hosted virtual support groups for white parents from all over the country , where they explored their own biases and privileges — and how to check them at the schoolhouse door .
During the video conferences I observed , parents discussed how racism had skewed their perceptions of “ good ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considered how to contribute to their schools without dominating the PTA or benefitting only their own children ’ s classrooms .
And they acknowledged how difficult it can be to partner with other parents across cultural lines , and to ignore the judgement of peers who question their choice of schools .
“ It ’ s really hard , ” Courtney said during one meet-up , “ but it ’ s worth it.
” Matt Gonzales , an educator and Integrated Schools board member , said white parents can create new inequities inside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead of partnering with people of color .
Courtney pushed her fellow white parents to reflect on their actions so they would avoid reinforcing racism at school , he said .
“ There ’ s a power that white folks have in speaking with other white folks , ” said Gonzales , who directs the Integration and Innovation Initiative at New York University .
Today , Courtney and Roman ’ s two children — their 17-year-old son and 14-year-old daughter — attend the local public high school , where just 3 % of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sunday , Roman said the children will always remember that their mother lived her values .
“ They would say she cared , ” Roman said , “ and she did something about it.
” During my many conversations with Courtney , we would inevitably return to why she did the work .
Why devote so much energy to individual parents ’ school choices instead of structural changes — perhaps to housing policy or school district boundaries — that could make a bigger dent in segregation ?
She had spent years considering her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bolster an unequal system when they choose schools where resources are “ hoarded ” and spurn ones where poverty is concentrated .
With help , they could decide to disrupt that system .
Another argument was that the network of parents she was connecting could become a small but vocal constituency that would endorse policy changes and promote examples of successful school integration .
Near the end of my reporting trip in 2017 , I caught a glimpse of what integration looked like at the middle school where Courtney ’ s son was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ afternoon , Courtney and a small group of parents , some eighth-graders , and their teacher were discussing plans for the graduation ceremony .
The classroom door was propped open to let in the cool breeze .
Courtney ’ s son , the only white student , snacked on Cheetos and cracked jokes with his friends .
The students alternated between Spanish and English as they brainstormed ideas for the event .
As the meeting ended , Courtney and another parent embraced .
Thinking back on that afternoon brings to mind an essay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she makes a moral and political case for integration , while remaining honest about the challenges .
But she also emphasizes the profound rewards , like the little moments of connection I observed in her son ’ s classroom .
“ Our experience has been transformative , ” she wrote , “ and while it has not always been easy or comfortable , we are grateful .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
“Drawing Lessons From Her Own Missteps, Activist Courtney Everts Mykytyn Urged White Parents to Integrate Schools With Respect” was originally published by Chalkbeat, a nonprofit news organization covering public education. Sign up for their newsletters here: ckbe.at/newsletters
The first time I ever spoke with Courtney Everts Mykytyn, she was distracted.
I’d called her one afternoon in February 2017 to learn about her decision, years earlier, to place her two white children in a public school in Los Angeles where most of the students were from working-class Latinx families. I was also hoping to discuss the group Courtney founded in 2015, called Integrated Schools, to help privileged parents across the country make similar decisions — to become, in essence, agents of integration.
But Courtney was preoccupied. A family at her children’s middle school had lost their housing; now, one of the parents, an undocumented immigrant, was considering moving the children to Mexico. Courtney, whose son had been friends with one of the children since kindergarten, had been discussing the situation with other parents. Yet a language barrier separated Courtney and the family, and she wasn’t sure how to help.
“When we talk about integration being tricky,” Courtney told me that day, “this is one of those times.”
As an integration advocate, Courtney’s work was twofold. First, she had to help parents with the luxury of many options see the value in public schools that others might dismiss as “under-resourced,” “struggling,” or simply “bad.” Next, she had to convince them to join those schools, not as “saviors,” but as members of a school community committed to the best interests of all students.
That choice would lead to uncomfortable situations like the one Courtney found herself in that afternoon, and invite many missteps, which Courtney was not afraid to admit. But, she insisted, the decision to integrate schools with humility and respect was also a way to work toward a more equitable society.
“What’s the world you want your child to be an adult in?” she would ask parents searching for schools. “Because you’re building it right now with the choice you make.”
Courtney’s life ended abruptly on Dec. 30 after she was hit by a car outside her home, according to her husband, Roman Mykytyn. She was 46, and with her husband had two teenage children.
She also left behind a far-flung network of parents and advocates who considered her an ally and beacon in their fight for equitable, racially integrated schools. Scores of people across the U.S. and abroad posted remembrances on Facebook, including one woman who said Courtney “has inspired and given me courage in my own struggles as an integrating parent.”
Integrated Schools, which began with a few blog posts and phone calls to advice-seeking parents, has grown into a national nonprofit with a diverse board of directors and parent volunteers, a vibrant online community, a popular podcast, and nearly 20 local chapters spanning the country from Atlanta to Seattle.
“This is a testament to the force of nature that was Courtney Mykytyn: She turned one idea into a pulsing, living, breathing group of organized people,” said Anna Lodder, Courtney’s friend and a member of Integrated Schools’ parent board. “Even if it takes 13 of us to do what one of her did,” Lodder added, “we are desperately committed to the legacy of Integrated Schools and keeping the lights on.”
At the time of my first call with Courtney, I was writing about the backlash against a plan to send some wealthy students to a high-poverty school in New York City. Meanwhile, Courtney was urging privileged parents to voluntarily integrate such schools, one student at a time. That spring, I flew to Los Angeles to meet her.
Courtney picked me up in her blue Honda Pilot. She was hilariously self-deprecating. She joked about being the type of mom who brings hummus to children’s birthday parties, and insisted — only partly in jest — that much of her advocacy took place in line at Target.
As we toured her neighborhood, she shared her own integration story. In the late 2000s, Courtney and her husband were debating where to enroll their son in kindergarten. They lived in in Highland Park, a working-class Latinx enclave in the throes of gentrification. Many of their white neighbors sent their kids to distant private or charter schools. “That really just pissed me off,” Courtney recalled. “You’re not too good to live here but you’re too good for the schools?”
So Courtney did what many newcomers in gentrifying neighborhoods do: she banded together with other middle-class parents. Together, they lobbied the district to create a program at nearby Aldama Elementary School where English- and Spanish-speaking students would learn in both languages.
By the time of my visit in 2017, Aldama’s dual-language program was well-established, thanks largely to the dedication of teachers like Angelina Sáenz. The school had become more racially and economically diverse, which research has shown can boost students’ learning and bring new resources.
Yet the demographic changes also introduced new challenges, as I described in a Mother Jones article about Courtney and her work. I learned about a divide between the dual-language program, which enrolled most of the school’s white and middle-class students, and the traditional classes. Even within the program, families from different backgrounds struggled to form bonds.
“I don’t feel like there’s been conflict between the families, but I also don’t feel like there’s been connection,” Sáenz said at the time, citing different work schedules and language barriers as obstacles.
Courtney could have glossed over the messier details of integration. Instead, she catalogued her own perceived mistakes: rallying her peers to enroll en masse at the same school, pushing for a special program for their children, and prioritizing fundraising over relationship-building. “When we started filtering in, we did everything wrong,” she once told some members of Integrated Schools.
Through her organization, she shared her hard-won realizations with anyone who would listen. She explained how the low test scores and lousy reputations that so often stigmatize schools serving mostly low-income students of color can overshadow their many strengths. But the heart of her work became helping privileged parents who enrolled at such schools do so “intentionally, joyfully and humbly,” as her website put it.
To that end, Courtney spent hours on the phone with individual parents and hosted virtual support groups for white parents from all over the country, where they explored their own biases and privileges — and how to check them at the schoolhouse door.
During the video conferences I observed, parents discussed how racism had skewed their perceptions of “good” and “bad” schools. They considered how to contribute to their schools without dominating the PTA or benefitting only their own children’s classrooms. And they acknowledged how difficult it can be to partner with other parents across cultural lines, and to ignore the judgement of peers who question their choice of schools.
“It’s really hard,” Courtney said during one meet-up, “but it’s worth it.”
Matt Gonzales, an educator and Integrated Schools board member, said white parents can create new inequities inside schools if they pursue their own agendas instead of partnering with people of color. Courtney pushed her fellow white parents to reflect on their actions so they would avoid reinforcing racism at school, he said.
“There’s a power that white folks have in speaking with other white folks,” said Gonzales, who directs the Integration and Innovation Initiative at New York University.
Today, Courtney and Roman’s two children — their 17-year-old son and 14-year-old daughter — attend the local public high school, where just 3% of students are white. In an interview Sunday, Roman said the children will always remember that their mother lived her values.
“They would say she cared,” Roman said, “and she did something about it.”
During my many conversations with Courtney, we would inevitably return to why she did the work. Why devote so much energy to individual parents’ school choices instead of structural changes — perhaps to housing policy or school district boundaries — that could make a bigger dent in segregation?
She had spent years considering her reasons. One was that privileged parents bolster an unequal system when they choose schools where resources are “hoarded” and spurn ones where poverty is concentrated. With help, they could decide to disrupt that system. Another argument was that the network of parents she was connecting could become a small but vocal constituency that would endorse policy changes and promote examples of successful school integration.
Near the end of my reporting trip in 2017, I caught a glimpse of what integration looked like at the middle school where Courtney’s son was about to complete eighth grade.
That afternoon, Courtney and a small group of parents, some eighth-graders, and their teacher were discussing plans for the graduation ceremony. The classroom door was propped open to let in the cool breeze. Courtney’s son, the only white student, snacked on Cheetos and cracked jokes with his friends. The students alternated between Spanish and English as they brainstormed ideas for the event. As the meeting ended, Courtney and another parent embraced.
Thinking back on that afternoon brings to mind an essay Courtney wrote last year. In it, she makes a moral and political case for integration, while remaining honest about the challenges. But she also emphasizes the profound rewards, like the little moments of connection I observed in her son’s classroom.
“Our experience has been transformative,” she wrote, “and while it has not always been easy or comfortable, we are grateful.”