vox--2020-06-11--5 reasons the US can’t just give up on the pandemic

The United States may be seeing the beginning of a new wave of Covid-19 cases : Fourteen states and Puerto Rico have hit new seven-day average highs of new coronavirus infections , the Washington Post reports , Some of that may be due to increased testing ( the more testing that ’ s done , the more cases are found ) .
But Arizona , in particular , is on high alert : ICU beds are filling up , and the state ’ s health director has told hospitals to start activating their emergency plans .
At the Atlantic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looks like the United States is already “ giving up ” on public health measures .
The White House Coronavirus Task Force is barely meeting anymore .
People are crowding together again in indoor casinos .
Also : The mass protests against police brutality and for racial justice could spread the virus further .
( Many protesters know the risks and have thoughtful reasons for participating anyway . )
Police have acted as though a pandemic isn ’ t happening : forcing crowds into confined spaces , tear-gassing them , and jailing protesters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much too soon to give up .
The dangerousness of this virus , of this pandemic , hasn ’ t changed .
No matter what happens in the news over the next weeks and months , this will still be true .
“ The situation is not fundamentally all that different from six months ago , ” Sarah Cobey , an infectious disease modeler at the University of Chicago , says .
“ We still have a highly transmissible virus , and the vast majority of the population remains susceptible to it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ since the virus is so much more widespread than it was a few months ago.
” Plus , now , as states relax social distancing policies , more people risk being exposed ( unless they take the well-established precautions ) .
Here ’ s what everyone needs to know about why the pandemic isn ’ t going away , and why we can ’ t give up fighting it .
1 ) “ Opening up ” the economy exposes more people to the coronavirus Back in February , public health experts were worried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the United States .
Now , those sparks are everywhere in the United States .
If the coronavirus is a wildfire , then we humans are the trees , the fuel .
In March and April , when most of the country was under some form of stay-at-home or lockdown order , most of us trees ( except essential workers ) were spread far apart from one another .
Now that states are allowing people to put themselves in closer proximity to others , the fire can more easily jump from person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re nowhere near the threshold for herd immunity .
Most people can still get infected .
For the pandemic to simmer down naturally — in a way that will allow life to go back to normal — the population needs to achieve something called herd immunity .
For the coronavirus , herd immunity could possibly be achieved when 50 percent of the population is immune .
But it could be as high as 65 percent .
But no area is anywhere near that figure , even New York City , where at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In late April , it was estimated that 20 percent of the city had been exposed to the coronavirus .
Elsewhere , the infection rates are much , much lower .
“ There ’ s no evidence that there ’ s some big accumulation of immunity in the population , ” Natalie Dean , a biostatistician at the University of Florida , says , especially places that have avoided a big Covid-19 wave so far .
There ’ s plenty more fuel for this fire .
Herd immunity can not be achieved without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Fifty percent of the United States infected means 160 million infections .
One in 200 of those could result in death .
That ’ s 800,000 deaths .
We ’ ve already seen an enormity of pain and death , but even greater pain and death are possible .
In May , a team of Harvard scientists modeled how long it would take to achieve herd immunity in the US if the country was cautious and avoided overwhelming the hospital system .
“ Prolonged or intermittent social distancing may be necessary into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) We don ’ t have to choose between endless lockdowns and mass deaths .
There are other ways to manage the pandemic .
Herd immunity is not the only way for the pandemic to end .
We can manage the spread and contain it to small clusters with an aggressive system of testing and tracing the contacts of the infected .
This work is made difficult by the fact that people can spread the virus before they know they are sick .
This virus is sneaky .
“ We have so many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says .
That will make it hard to contain .
But that challenge can be addressed .
“ We ’ ve seen clear examples of how transmission appears to be controllable with widespread testing and physical distancing , including mask-wearing , ” Cobey says .
Look at South Korea , for example .
“ If most people on the planet could take those precautions , perhaps the virus would go away.
” In the absence of test-and-trace deployments , we can all do our best to try to reduce our chances of spreading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks , by maintaining distancing between people , by avoiding crowds indoors , among other suggestions to reduce harm while rejoining society in a limited capacity .
4 ) This virus could lull us into a false sense of security It takes an average of five days for a person to show symptoms after being infected with Covid-19 , but it can take up to 14 .
And after infection , it takes time to get tested and time for the results to come back .
Some people won ’ t get tested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted when they arrive at a hospital .
A person can be contagious a day or two before they start feeling symptoms ( or never develop symptoms at all ) , and may remain contagious until several days after symptoms end .
This all means that by the time new cases start to appear in the data , a new wave of infections is already well underway .
Let ’ s not get complacent .
The increase in cases in some communities now is the result of changes that began a month or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can end the pandemic .
But not immediately .
There is not yet a vaccine to prevent SARS-CoV-2 from infecting people .
Even if there is eventually a vaccine to inoculate people against the coronavirus , the pandemic won ’ t immediately end .
It may not be perfectly effective , and there may not be enough of it .
Let ’ s not lose sight of how it will take an enormous effort to end the pandemic .
Humans have only eradicated two diseases via vaccine — smallpox and a cattle disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was the result of enormous global efforts .
Don ’ t imagine eradicating this virus will be any easier .
We ’ re in for a long haul , unfortunately .
But that doesn ’ t mean we should give up .
These new infections aren ’ t a surprise .
Epidemiologists warned us that reopening too quickly could backfire .
When we let up on precautions without putting new ones in place — like a national test , trace , and isolation effort and universal masking — the virus will find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The models told us this too : The places most at risk for a second wave are the places that largely avoided the first one .
The pandemic is still just beginning .
Sigh if you need to .
Screaming helps too ( just not in an enclosed space with other people around ) .
But we can ’ t give up now .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

The United States may be seeing the beginning of a new wave of Covid-19 cases: Fourteen states and Puerto Rico have hit new seven-day average highs of new coronavirus infections, the Washington Post reports, Some of that may be due to increased testing (the more testing that’s done, the more cases are found). But Arizona, in particular, is on high alert: ICU beds are filling up, and the state’s health director has told hospitals to start activating their emergency plans.
At the Atlantic, Robinson Meyer and Alexis Madrigal argue it looks like the United States is already “giving up” on public health measures. The White House coronavirus task force is barely meeting anymore. People are crowding together again in indoor casinos.
Also: The mass protests against police brutality and for racial justice could spread the virus further. (Many protesters know the risks and have thoughtful reasons for participating anyway.) Police have acted as though a pandemic isn’t happening: forcing crowds into confined spaces, tear-gassing them, and jailing protesters in cramped cells.
It’s much too soon to give up. The dangerousness of this virus, of this pandemic, hasn’t changed. No matter what happens in the news over the next weeks and months, this will still be true.
“The situation is not fundamentally all that different from six months ago,” Sarah Cobey, an infectious disease modeler at the University of Chicago, says. “We still have a highly transmissible virus, and the vast majority of the population remains susceptible to it. The situation is arguably even worse now since the virus is so much more widespread than it was a few months ago.” Plus, now, as states relax social distancing policies, more people risk being exposed (unless they take the well-established precautions).
Here’s what everyone needs to know about why the pandemic isn’t going away, and why we can’t give up fighting it.
1) “Opening up” the economy exposes more people to the coronavirus
Back in February, public health experts were worried about outbreaks igniting from travelers abroad returning to the United States. Now those sparks are everywhere in the United States.
If the coronavirus is a wildfire, then we humans are the trees, the fuel. In March and April, when most of the country was under some form of stay-at-home or lockdown order, most of us trees (except essential workers) were spread far apart from one another.
Now that states are allowing people to put themselves in closer proximity to others, the fire can more easily jump from person to person.
2) We’re nowhere near the threshold for herd immunity. Most people can still get infected.
For the pandemic to simmer down naturally — in a way that will allow life to go back to normal — the population needs to achieve something called herd immunity. For the coronavirus, herd immunity could possibly be achieved when 50 percent of the population is immune. But it could be as high as 65 percent.
But no area is anywhere near that figure, even New York City, where at least 17,000 people have died of Covid-19. In late April, it was estimated that 20 percent of the city had been exposed to the coronavirus.
Elsewhere, the infection rates are much, much lower. “There’s no evidence that there’s some big accumulation of immunity in the population,” Natalie Dean, a biostatistician at the University of Florida, says, especially places that have avoided a big Covid-19 wave so far. There’s plenty more fuel for this fire.
Herd immunity cannot be achieved without a massive amount of pain and death. Fifty percent of the United States infected means 160 million infections. One in 200 of those could result in death. That’s 800,000 deaths. We’ve already seen an enormity of pain and death, but even greater pain and death are possible.
In May, a team of Harvard scientists modeled how long it would take to achieve herd immunity in the US if the country was cautious and avoided overwhelming the hospital system. “Prolonged or intermittent social distancing may be necessary into 2022,” they concluded.
3) We don’t have to choose between endless lockdowns and mass deaths. There are other ways to manage the pandemic.
Herd immunity is not the only way for the pandemic to end. We can manage the spread and contain it to small clusters with an aggressive system of testing and tracing the contacts of the infected.
This work is made difficult by the fact that people can spread the virus before they know they are sick. This virus is sneaky. “We have so many infections that are undetected,” Dean says. That will make it hard to contain.
Related Asymptomatic coronavirus spread is real
But that challenge can be addressed. “We’ve seen clear examples of how transmission appears to be controllable with widespread testing and physical distancing, including mask-wearing,” Cobey says. Look at South Korea, for example. “If most people on the planet could take those precautions, perhaps the virus would go away.”
In the absence of test-and-trace deployments, we can all do our best to try to reduce our chances of spreading the coronavirus to others: by wearing masks, by maintaining distancing between people, by avoiding crowds indoors, among other suggestions to reduce harm while rejoining society in a limited capacity.
Related 8 ways to go out and stay safe during the coronavirus pandemic
4) This virus could lull us into a false sense of security
It takes an average of five days for a person to show symptoms after being infected with Covid-19, but it can take up to 14. And after infection, it takes time to get tested and time for the results to come back.
Some people won’t get tested, and their cases will only be noted when they arrive at a hospital. A person can be contagious a day or two before they start feeling symptoms (or never develop symptoms at all), and may remain contagious until several days after symptoms end.
This all means that by the time new cases start to appear in the data, a new wave of infections is already well underway. Let’s not get complacent. The increase in cases in some communities now is the result of changes that began several weeks ago.
5) A vaccine can end the pandemic. But not immediately.
There is not yet a vaccine to prevent SARS-CoV-2 from infecting people. Even if there is eventually a vaccine to inoculate people against the coronavirus, the pandemic won’t immediately end. It may not be perfectly effective, and there may not be enough of it.
Let’s not lose sight of how it will take an enormous effort to end the pandemic. Humans have only eradicated two diseases via vaccine — smallpox and a cattle disease called rinderpest — and in both cases, it was the result of enormous global efforts. Don’t imagine eradicating this virus will be any easier.
We’re in for a long haul, unfortunately. But that doesn’t mean we should give up.
These new infections aren’t a surprise. Epidemiologists warned us that reopening too quickly could backfire. When we let up on precautions without putting new ones in place — like a national test, trace, and isolation effort and universal masking — the virus will find lots of new people to infect. The models told us this too: The places most at risk for a second wave are the places that largely avoided the first one (like Arizona), and didn’t prepare well for a second. These places have populations that are almost entirely susceptible to infection. Removing the most powerful thing protecting them — social distancing — without new precautions in place just leaves them exposed.
The pandemic is still just beginning. Sigh if you need to. Screaming helps too (just not in an enclosed space with other people around). But we can’t give up now.


vox--2020-06-11--The Supreme Court normally hands down its biggest cases in June. Here’s what to expect this month.

It ’ s June , the month when the Supreme Court traditionally hands down its most contentious cases .
That means that , by the end of this month , we are likely to get decisions on an array of hot-button cases — including issues like LGBTQ discrimination in the workplace , the fate of President Obama ’ s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ( DACA ) program , and the continued viability of Roe v. Wade — that could shake up the political and policy landscape .
The Court is wrapping up its first full term since the hardline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court in 2018 , replacing the more moderate conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy .
( Kavanaugh joined in the middle of the 2018-19 term . )
That means that Republicans now have the votes to move the law sharply to the right in many areas where Kennedy showed more restraint .
Because the Court typically selects its cases months in advance , this is also the first term made up entirely of cases that Kavanaugh played a role in choosing .
It ’ s been a more dysfunctional than usual term due to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its building to the public in March as a precaution against the virus , and it soon announced that it would not hold its ordinary oral argument sessions in March and April .
Instead , the justices heard a subset of the cases the Court originally planned to hear in those two months in May , and heard those arguments in a series of conference calls that were broadcast to the public .
One upshot of the justices ’ response to the pandemic is that some of the Court ’ s decisions may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Because the Court wrapped up oral arguments in May , instead of in April , and because the pandemic will likely prevent the justices from traveling during the summer , it ’ s possible they will prefer to spend their extra time at home refining their opinions .
But even if the Court ’ s opinions are delayed somewhat , that delay is unlikely to last very long .
Within very short order , the Court could transform several areas of American law .
The Court could effectively eliminate the right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kennedy kept an uneasy peace on abortion rights .
Though Kennedy typically voted to uphold laws restricting access to abortion , he rejected state laws that cut so deeply into the right to an abortion that they threatened to eliminate it altogether .
The Louisiana law at issue in June Medical Services LLC v. Russo is such a law .
Like a Texas law that the Supreme Court struck down in Whole Woman ’ s Health v. Hellerstedt ( 2016 ) ( while Kennedy was still on the Court ) , the law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital near the clinic where they perform abortions .
These admitting privileges laws are a form of what abortion rights advocates refer to as “ targeted restrictions on abortion providers , ” or “ TRAP ” laws — laws that superficially appear designed to make abortions safer , but that actually do little or nothing to advance patient health , while simultaneously making it very difficult to operate an abortion clinic .
If the Supreme Court blesses such TRAP laws , that could be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion .
The right to an abortion would technically still be intact — but states could be free to shut down clinics by imposing so many sham health regulations on those clinics that it would be impossible for them to operate .
But even if the Supreme Court rejects this effort to limit abortion rights — at oral argument in June Medical , conservative Chief Justice John Roberts at times appeared uncomfortable with the backhanded way Louisiana hopes to attack abortion rights — the Court still has a solidly conservative Republican majority that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion in a future case .
The Court will decide if federal law makes it illegal to fire someone for being LGBTQ Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda , Bostock v. Clayton County , and R.G .
& G.R .
Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC , are all potentially historic LGBTQ rights cases .
They are also a test of the honesty of Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch , one of the Court ’ s most conservative members .
Let me explain : Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employee ’ s ] race , color , religion , sex , or national origin.
” In Zarda and Bostock , gay plaintiffs argue that this ban on “ sex ” discrimination encompasses discrimination based on sexual orientation .
Harris Funeral Homes involves a trans plaintiff who made a similar claim about anti-trans discrimination .
As a textual matter , these are very strong arguments .
If an employer allows men to form romantic bonds with women , but does not permit women to do the same , that is a form of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are treated differently .
Similarly , anti-trans discrimination is discrimination “ because of ... sex ” because , to hold anti-trans beliefs , someone must root those beliefs in assumptions about how males and females are allowed to present and to act .
As a federal appeals court explained in Harris Funeral Homes , “ it is analytically impossible to fire an employee based on that employee ’ s status as a transgender person without being motivated , at least in part , by the employee ’ s sex.
” Yet , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there is little doubt that Congress did not believe that it was banning LGBTQ discrimination when it banned sex discrimination in 1964 .
These three Title VII cases , in other words , pit the text of the law against the intentions of the lawmakers who enacted that law .
Which brings us back to Gorsuch .
Gorsuch has long argued that the only legitimate way to read a statute is to follow its text , not follow the expectations of the people who drafted it .
And , at oral arguments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appeared open to the plaintiffs ’ textual arguments .
His vote is likely to decide the outcome of these three cases , and it will reveal whether Gorsuch is an honest textualist when the text of a law cuts against the conservative positions he ’ s advanced in past LGBTQ rights cases .
Trump v. Mazars and Trump v. Deutsche Bank are not hard cases .
They involve congressional subpoenas seeking many of President Trump ’ s financial records as a part of various investigations — including an investigation into whether there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russian government , or related foreign actors , and individuals associated with Donald Trump ’ s campaign , transition , administration , or business interests , in furtherance of the Russian government ’ s interests.
” Existing law could not be more unfavorable to Trump .
As the Court held in Eastland v. United States Servicemen ’ s Fund ( 1975 ) , Congress may conduct nearly any investigation , and subpoena documents in that investigation , so long as that investigation is “ intended to gather information about a subject on which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections from Russian interference is a subject on which legislation may be had .
Nevertheless , at oral arguments in Mazars and Deutsche Bank , the Court ’ s Republican majority appeared more concerned with preventing , in Justice Kavanaugh ’ s words , Congress from declaring “ open season ” on presidents than it was with following existing law .
So it is possible , perhaps even likely , that the Court will give Trump broad new immunity from congressional investigation .
Hundreds of thousands of DACA beneficiaries could face deportation As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Security v. University of California and two consolidated cases involve the tiniest of disputes .
The issue is whether the Trump administration completed the appropriate paperwork when it decided to wind down the DACA program , an Obama era initiative that allows nearly 700,000 undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children to live and work in the country .
But the human stakes of these cases are potentially enormous .
Homeland Security could decide whether hundreds of thousands of immigrants continue to live relatively normal lives — or whether they must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Trump administration may end DACA if it chooses to do so , but the law typically requires federal agencies to explain why it decided to change a particular policy before that policy change may take effect .
Three lower courts held that the Department of Homeland Security ’ s memos explaining why DACA must end did not adequately explain the government ’ s reasons for doing so .
So it ’ s more than a little odd that the Supreme Court felt the need to hear these DACA cases in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is really determined to end DACA , it can produce the necessary paperwork and then it will get its wishes .
The nation ’ s highest Court typically does not sit to determine whether a government official committed a paperwork error .
Broadly speaking , the Court is likely to resolve Homeland Security in one of three different ways .
It could agree with the lower courts , leaving DACA in place unless the administration corrects its paperwork error .
It could hold the existing memos to be adequate , and thus allow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump remains president .
Or it could potentially declare DACA to be illegal altogether — thus preventing any future president from reviving the program .
That last outcome appeared unlikely at oral arguments , but it can not be ruled out entirely .
And it would be a disaster for hundreds of thousands of immigrants .
The religious right could be one of the biggest winners from this term Even setting aside the possibility that the Court dismantles abortion rights , the Court also heard several significant religion cases this term that could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump v. Pennsylvania and Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania concern whether employers with religious objections to birth control may deny health coverage for birth control to their employees .
The Trump administration gave nearly all of these employers a broad ability to do so , although it is far from clear that the administration acted lawfully when it did this .
There is a possibility , however , that the Court will hold that religious employers always have a broad right to deny birth control coverage to their employees , regardless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they should have this right .
Two other cases , Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru and St. James School v. Biel , involve the “ ministerial exemption ” to civil rights laws .
Broadly speaking , religious ministers are exempted from anti-discrimination law — a church may fire its preacher because that preacher is a woman , or because they are black .
But the definition of who qualifies as a “ minister ” is unclear .
Both Morrissey-Berru and Biel involve Catholic school teachers who spent a minority of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court concludes that these teachers qualify as ministers , it could open the door to many other employees of religious employers being defined as ministers as well — stripping those employees of civil rights protections in the process .
Finally , Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue concerns whether the state of Montana is obligated to reinstate a scholarship program for private school students , and to permit students at religious schools to obtain these scholarships .
Espinoza could also potentially strike down a state constitutional provision forbidding the state from making “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from any public fund or monies ” to religious institutions , on the ( somewhat anachronistic ) theory that this provision was inserted into the state constitution because of anti-Catholic bigotry .
Trump could gain broad new power to fire people Most federal agencies are led by a cabinet secretary or some other official who can be fired by the president .
A few agencies , often described as “ independent ” agencies , are led by either a single individual or a multi-member board that can only be removed from office for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Seila Law v. CFPB involves the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) , one of a few agencies with a single director who can only be fired by the president for cause .
The plaintiffs in this case claim that this unusual arrangement is unconstitutional under a theory known as the “ unitary executive.
” They also claim that the entire CFPB must be struck down , but the Court is unlikely to sign onto that radical claim .
Assuming that the Court does not toss out the entire agency , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small and could benefit Democrats — if the president can fire the head of the CFPB , former Vice President Joe Biden could immediately appoint his own choice to lead that agency if he becomes President Biden .
But the long-term stakes are potentially very significant .
Most independent agencies — agencies like the Federal Reserve or the Federal Communications Commission — are insulated from the president for good reason .
If the president could easily fire members of the Fed ’ s board of governors , then they could potentially pressure the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election year and change the outcome of that election .
If the president had direct control over the FCC , they could potentially target news networks that run critical coverage of their presidency .
It is unclear whether the Supreme Court will hold that the president has the power to fire members of multi-member boards .
But , at oral argument , the Court ’ s Republican majority appeared very likely to say that an agency can not be led by a single individual who can not easily be fired by the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

It’s June, the month when the Supreme Court traditionally hands down its most contentious cases. That means that, by the end of this month, we are likely to get decisions on an array of hot-button cases — including issues like LGBTQ discrimination in the workplace, the fate of President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and the continued viability of Roe v. Wade — that could shake up the political and policy landscape.
The Court is wrapping up its first full term since the hardline conservative Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the Court in 2018, replacing the more moderate conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy. (Kavanaugh joined in the middle of the 2018-19 term.) That means that Republicans now have the votes to move the law sharply to the right in many areas where Kennedy showed more restraint. Because the Court typically selects its cases months in advance, this is also the first term made up entirely of cases that Kavanaugh played a role in choosing.
It’s been a more dysfunctional than usual term due to the coronavirus pandemic. The Supreme Court closed its building to the public in March as a precaution against the virus, and it soon announced that it would not hold its ordinary oral argument sessions in March and April. Instead, the justices heard a subset of the cases the Court originally planned to hear in those two months in May, and heard those arguments in a series of conference calls that were broadcast to the public.
One upshot of the justices’ response to the pandemic is that some of the Court’s decisions may be delayed until later in the summer. Because the Court wrapped up oral arguments in May, instead of in April, and because the pandemic will likely prevent the justices from traveling during the summer, it’s possible they will prefer to spend their extra time at home refining their opinions.
But even if decisions are delayed somewhat, that delay is unlikely to last very long. Within short order, the Court could transform several areas of American law.
The Court could effectively eliminate the right to an abortion
For many years, Justice Kennedy kept an uneasy peace on abortion rights. Though Kennedy typically voted to uphold laws restricting access to abortion, he rejected state laws that cut so deeply into the right to an abortion that they threatened to eliminate it altogether.
The Louisiana law at issue in June Medical Services LLC v. Russo is such a law. Like a Texas law that the Supreme Court struck down in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016) (while Kennedy was still on the Court), the law at the heart of June Medical requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital near the clinic where they perform abortions.
These admitting privileges laws are a form of what abortion rights advocates refer to as “targeted restrictions on abortion providers,” or “TRAP” laws — laws that superficially appear designed to make abortions safer, but that actually do little or nothing to advance patient health, while simultaneously making it very difficult to operate an abortion clinic.
If the Supreme Court blesses such TRAP laws, that could be the effective end of a constitutional right to abortion. The right to an abortion would technically still be intact — but states could be free to shut down clinics by imposing so many sham health regulations on those clinics that it would be impossible for them to operate.
But even if the Supreme Court rejects this effort to limit abortion rights — at oral argument in June Medical, conservative Chief Justice John Roberts at times appeared uncomfortable with the backhanded way Louisiana hopes to attack abortion rights — the Court still has a solidly conservative Republican majority that is likely to enable states to ban abortion in a future case.
The Court will decide if federal law makes it illegal to fire someone for being LGBTQ
Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, Bostock v. Clayton County, and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, are all potentially historic LGBTQ rights cases. They are also a test of the honesty of Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of the Court’s most conservative members.
Let me explain: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination that occurs “because of [an employee’s] race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” In Zarda and Bostock, gay plaintiffs argue that this ban on “sex” discrimination encompasses discrimination based on sexual orientation. Harris Funeral Homes involves a trans plaintiff who made a similar claim about anti-trans discrimination.
As a textual matter, these are very strong arguments. If an employer allows men to form romantic bonds with women, but does not permit women to do the same, that is a form of sex discrimination because male and female employees are treated differently.
Similarly, anti-trans discrimination is discrimination “because of ... sex” because, to hold anti-trans beliefs, someone must root those beliefs in assumptions about how males and females are allowed to present and to act. As a federal appeals court explained in Harris Funeral Homes, “it is analytically impossible to fire an employee based on that employee’s status as a transgender person without being motivated, at least in part, by the employee’s sex.”
Yet, while the plaintiffs’ textual arguments are strong, there is little doubt that Congress did not believe that it was banning LGBTQ discrimination when it banned sex discrimination in 1964. These three Title VII cases, in other words, pit the text of the law against the intentions of the lawmakers who enacted that law.
Which brings us back to Gorsuch. Gorsuch has long argued that the only legitimate way to read a statute is to follow its text, not follow the expectations of the people who drafted it. And, at oral arguments in the Title VII cases, he appeared open to the plaintiffs’ textual arguments.
His vote is likely to decide the outcome of these three cases, and it will reveal whether Gorsuch is an honest textualist when the text of a law cuts against the conservative positions he’s advanced in past LGBTQ rights cases.
Trump could gain sweeping immunity from congressional oversight
Trump v. Mazars and Trump v. Deutsche Bank are not hard cases. They involve congressional subpoenas seeking many of President Trump’s financial records as a part of various investigations — including an investigation into whether there are “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government, or related foreign actors, and individuals associated with Donald Trump’s campaign, transition, administration, or business interests, in furtherance of the Russian government’s interests.”
Existing law could not be more unfavorable to Trump. As the Court held in Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund (1975), Congress may conduct nearly any investigation, and subpoena documents in that investigation, so long as that investigation is “intended to gather information about a subject on which legislation may be had.” Protecting American elections from Russian interference is a subject on which legislation may be had.
Nevertheless, at oral arguments in Mazars and Deutsche Bank, the Court’s Republican majority appeared more concerned with preventing, in Justice Kavanaugh’s words, Congress from declaring “open season” on presidents than it was with following existing law.
So it is possible, perhaps even likely, that the Court will give Trump broad new immunity from congressional investigation.
Hundreds of thousands of DACA beneficiaries could face deportation
As a legal matter, Department of Homeland Security v. University of California and two consolidated cases involve the tiniest of disputes. The issue is whether the Trump administration completed the appropriate paperwork when it decided to wind down the DACA program, an Obama era initiative that allows nearly 700,000 undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children to live and work in the country.
But the human stakes of these cases are potentially enormous. Homeland Security could decide whether hundreds of thousands of immigrants continue to live relatively normal lives — or whether they must fear deportation.
There is little question that the Trump administration may end DACA if it chooses to do so, but the law typically requires federal agencies to explain why it decided to change a particular policy before that policy change may take effect. Three lower courts held that the Department of Homeland Security’s memos explaining why DACA must end did not adequately explain the government’s reasons for doing so.
So it’s more than a little odd that the Supreme Court felt the need to hear these DACA cases in the first place. If the Trump administration is really determined to end DACA, it can produce the necessary paperwork and then it will get its wishes. The nation’s highest Court typically does not sit to determine whether a government official committed a paperwork error.
Broadly speaking, the Court is likely to resolve Homeland Security in one of three different ways. It could agree with the lower courts, leaving DACA in place unless the administration corrects its paperwork error. It could hold the existing memos to be adequate, and thus allow DACA to sunset for as long as Trump remains president. Or it could potentially declare DACA to be illegal altogether — thus preventing any future president from reviving the program.
That last outcome appeared unlikely at oral arguments, but it cannot be ruled out entirely. And it would be a disaster for hundreds of thousands of immigrants.
The religious right could be one of the biggest winners from this term
Even setting aside the possibility that the Court dismantles abortion rights, the Court also heard several significant religion cases this term that could hand victories to the Christian right.
Trump v. Pennsylvania and Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania concern whether employers with religious objections to birth control may deny health coverage for birth control to their employees. The Trump administration gave nearly all of these employers a broad ability to do so, although it is far from clear that the administration acted lawfully when it did this.
There is a possibility, however, that the Court will hold that religious employers always have a broad right to deny birth control coverage to their employees, regardless of whether the current administration believes that they should have this right.
Two other cases, Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru and St. James School v. Biel, involve the “ministerial exemption” to civil rights laws. Broadly speaking, religious ministers are exempted from anti-discrimination law — a church may fire its preacher because that preacher is a woman, or because they are black. But the definition of who qualifies as a “minister” is unclear.
Both Morrissey-Berru and Biel involve Catholic school teachers who spent a minority of their time teaching religious subjects. If the Court concludes that these teachers qualify as ministers, it could open the door to many other employees of religious employers being defined as ministers as well — stripping those employees of civil rights protections in the process.
Finally, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue concerns whether the state of Montana is obligated to reinstate a scholarship program for private school students, and to permit students at religious schools to obtain these scholarships.
Espinoza could also potentially strike down a state constitutional provision forbidding the state from making “any direct or indirect appropriation or payment from any public fund or monies” to religious institutions, on the (somewhat anachronistic) theory that this provision was inserted into the state constitution because of anti-Catholic bigotry.
Trump could gain broad new power to fire people
Most federal agencies are led by a cabinet secretary or some other official who can be fired by the president. A few agencies, often described as “independent” agencies, are led by either a single individual or a multi-member board that can only be removed from office for incompetence, malfeasance, or similar cause.
Seila Law v. CFPB involves the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), one of a few agencies with a single director who can only be fired by the president for cause. The plaintiffs in this case claim that this unusual arrangement is unconstitutional under a theory known as the “unitary executive.” They also claim that the entire CFPB must be struck down, but the Court is unlikely to sign onto that radical claim.
Assuming that the Court does not toss out the entire agency, the immediate stakes in this case are small and could benefit Democrats — if the president can fire the head of the CFPB, former Vice President Joe Biden could immediately appoint his own choice to lead that agency if he becomes President Biden.
But the long-term stakes are potentially very significant. Most independent agencies — agencies like the Federal Reserve or the Federal Communications Commission — are insulated from the president for good reason. If the president could easily fire members of the Fed’s board of governors, then they could potentially pressure the Fed to juice the economy in an election year and change the outcome of that election. If the president had direct control over the FCC, they could potentially target news networks that run critical coverage of their presidency.
It is unclear whether the Supreme Court will hold that the president has the power to fire members of multi-member boards. But, at oral argument, the Court’s Republican majority appeared very likely to say that an agency cannot be led by a single individual who cannot easily be fired by the president.


vox--2020-06-11--Inside Jack Dorsey’s radical experiment for billionaires to give away their money

Billionaires are notoriously bad at something that should be quite easy : giving away their money .
In the pantheon of the ultra-rich , Jack Dorsey , as the world ’ s 410th-wealthiest person , is hardly the stingiest offender .
But he has now kick-started one of the most radical experiments in this era of historic income inequality — whether it is possible to quickly give away more than $ 1 billion of his money , and to do it effectively .
Dorsey is putting the lie to the claim from billionaires that this is impossible and that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ study , total privacy , and , most of all , our patience , in order to smartly disburse their fortunes .
“ I have a lot of ideas about philanthropy — that I ’ m not ready to share or talk about , ” Jeff Bezos , now the world ’ s richest man , said a decade ago when asked about his plans .
“ Sometimes I think we try to solve problems before we understand the problem.
” “ Our philanthropy is something I want to take my time with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ co-founder Sergey Brin , now the world ’ s 14th-wealthiest person , said back in 2009 .
Since then , he has largely remained AWOL in the world of major giving .
This has been the sermon preached by America ’ s billionaires .
And by modeling an alternative , Dorsey is offering one of the most convincing rebuttals .
Dorsey , the co-founder of Twitter and Square with a net worth of $ 5 billion , has taken his time .
But then he said this April that he would give away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a new charitable vehicle , Start Small , for coronavirus relief efforts , primarily .
It was , by far , the largest dedication of money to Covid-19 by a billionaire .
What was more striking , though , was Dorsey ’ s willingness to disclose each gift in real time on a public Google spreadsheet .
Dorsey has now given away $ 90 million to five dozen nonprofit groups , both around the globe and in his backyard , on immediate needs and on longer-term rebuilding projects , for coronavirus issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this with a standout record when it comes to supporting minorities — a record that is earning Dorsey respect from experts and is surprising even those who originally saw the announcement as a self-serving publicity junket .
“ I hope all of Silicon Valley is looking at what Jack is doing .
I hope everyone who has signed the Giving Pledge is looking at what Jack is doing , ” said Bob Pilon , whose REFORM Alliance took home $ 10 million from Dorsey .
Pilon is worried about billionaires acting like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is always going to be put to the absolutely most impactful use .
But if you can get those dollars out there quickly , get them to effective organizations , I think that ’ s going to add a lot of value.
” The “ earn now , figure out the giving later ” approach became gospel in the world of billionaires , primarily for its convenience .
Stephanie Ellis-Smith , who advises the mega-wealthy on how to give away their money , called this phenomenon “ analysis paralysis.
” Billionaires feel almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advisers say , and feel such a responsibility to not screw up giving it away that they end up doing nothing — stockpiling money into private foundations or donor-advised funds and saving the hard decisions for their retirements , if they ever make them at all .
The worst-case scenario is a mistake that brings them ignominy , such as Mark Zuckerberg ’ s divisive $ 100 million gift to Newark schools in 2010 , which has become a cautionary tale for well-intentioned billionaires who fear a similar public failure .
“ What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who have intent to give away very significant resources , but they delay the actual giving , ” billionaire John Arnold told Recode last year .
“ The intent is always in the future .
And then they get too close to death.
” But advocates dream that times are a-changin ’ in the world of the mega-rich — if only someone could show that it ’ s not so hard to avoid fumbles while moving real money .
And that ’ s why so many eyes are on Dorsey as he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ old model was optimizing for fear of failure and , in my opinion , the philanthropist ’ s legacy , ” said Jen Carolan , who is well wired into Silicon Valley charity as a former managing director at New Schools Venture Fund , an education reform philanthropy .
Dorsey , who declined a request for an interview about this thinking for this story , is also among the first billionaires to direct major giving programs after the new wave of backlash to billionaire philanthropy .
And some believe there are signs that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least grappled with these critiques : As he walked five miles to and from work in 2018 , he listened to the audiobook of Winners Take All , an influential , searing critique of billionaire philanthropy by Anand Giridharadas .
To some extent , Dorsey ’ s model is specific to this moment : The coronavirus ups the incentives for decisiveness and rapid-fire grants to people suffering right now from the pandemic .
A spate of publicized killings of unarmed black people has spurred an urgent push to address racial injustice in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fund right now is a relatively easy decision .
But in other ways , Dorsey ’ s approach is highly replicable for the billionaire class — even after the pandemic — by serving as a proof point that a lot of the process and bureaucracy that stalls their charitable giving are gratuitous .
So how is he doing it ?
A sole person , Vanessa Terry , who also oversees Dorsey ’ s family office , is directing the donations , casting a dramatic contrast with the lumbering foundations of his peers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with some potential grantees .
The speed this enables is the defining element of Dorsey ’ s giving , eight nonprofit leaders who received funding from him described in interviews .
A formal application ?
Pass .
A reporting requirement ?
Nah .
A site visit ?
Not even possible these days .
George McGraw , the head of the Navajo Water Project , which connects indigenous people to water sources , said that one phone conversation with Dorsey ’ s team was basically all it took to land $ 1 million .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ had an answer .
And within a few days , the money was in the account , ” he recalled .
“ I ’ ve never seen anything like this.
” This light touch has introduced new hurdles that some see as unfair : When Dorsey unfurled his six-tweet thread on April 7 , nonprofits around the world raced to figure out how to get in front of Dorsey , who offered no public point of contact or website .
And that has largely ended up favoring two groups of people : those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who could get an idea in front of the Twitter CEO ; and those with connections to celebrities — or are celebrities themselves .
McGraw and others were able to get Dorsey ’ s attention through mutual friends who connected them .
Pilon , along with other grantees like the cities of Oakland and San Francisco , were able to secure gifts because their mayors had long-standing personal relationships with Dorsey .
The traditional grantmaking process is not totally fair or meritocratic either , to be sure .
But some activists say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because it didn ’ t offer the hoi polloi an easy way to at least make their case , despite his high-minded promise to “ operate transparently.
” To some extent , this hurdle is a trade-off for his trademark speed .
Tyrone Grandison , who advises three nonprofits that he has been struggling to get in front of Dorsey , has taken to tweeting at Dorsey ’ s handle to try to get ahold of him .
He said the whole experience left him “ disappointed ” in a project that showed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the right networks trumps everything else , ” he said .
“ The initial claims of transparency in philanthropy were good in theory but have faltered in implementation.
” “ It ’ s frustrating that the transparency is only on the allocation end , ” said Cris Mercado , a social entrepreneur who spent a few days this spring trying to find a point of contact at Start Small .
“ It feeds into the ‘ exclusive club ’ feel that often surrounds tech.
” Some nonprofit heads have even asked for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spreadsheet , hoping the long-shot request may at least yield a human contact .
Contrast that with what it ’ s like to know — or be — a celebrity .
Half of the total gifts Dorsey has given away have been made in a pooled donation with celebrities , such as Rihanna and Jay-Z .
Several other donations have gone to charitable foundations tied to movie stars like Sean Penn or artists like Eminem and P. Diddy .
Many of these celebrities are Dorsey ’ s personal friends , the type of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasingly party and co-invest with .
That raises the possibility that Dorsey is motivated in part to do favors for his famous buddies .
That matters , says Hilde Van den Bulck , who wrote a book on celebrity philanthropists , because celebrity-created charities have a checkered track record , with some , such as the millions that Madonna spent to build a school in the African nation of Malawi , turning out to be boondoggles meant to do more for celebrities ’ brands than for the world .
“ They will pick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it may not necessarily be , say , the priority in fighting Covid , ” said Van den Bulck .
“ There are some celebrities out there who think the Earth is flat.
” One surprising upside of this celebrity focus ?
Dorsey ’ s reliance on the priorities of his celebrity friends seems to be giving him a unique funnel into nonprofits that serve minority populations , something that many billionaires and foundations struggle to do .
Most of the celebrities Dorsey is working with are black or Latino .
Venus Ginés @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when she asked Beyoncé ’ s foundation to fund her Houston women ’ s health organization , Dia de la Mujer Latina , with about $ 200,000 .
She ended up getting $ 500,000 — with almost all of the money coming from Dorsey , not Beyoncé .
“ Latino groups rarely get acknowledged , ” Ginés said .
“ It was just mind-boggling that somebody of his stature would think about our little organization , tucked away in Houston.
” The stats bear this out , too .
Dorsey is doing better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US charitable foundations when it comes to targeting his money to benefit the marginalized , better than 80 percent of them when it comes to benefiting people of color , and better than 97 percent of them when it comes to boosting immigrants and their families , according to mid-May research compiled by Ryan Schlegel of the National Center for Responsive Philanthropy .
Dorsey is earning similar applause in San Francisco , which , despite its poverty , tech billionaires have long neglected in favor of pet projects and moonshot ideas like life-extension @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a close observer of the Bay Area ’ s social sector , said she was “ pleasantly surprised ” by the local groups Dorsey had backed , saying the nonprofits he chose required real work to discover and were “ well-respected within their own communities , ” especially among people of color .
Any of this is only assessable because of one thing Dorsey has done that is definitely replicable : All of his gifts are disclosed on a Google spreadsheet .
Charitable foundations don ’ t typically disclose grants until as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax filings , while limited liability companies — philanthropic vehicles like Dorsey ’ s or Zuckerberg ’ s — aren ’ t legally required to disclose anything .
Matthew Goudeau , a longtime Bay Area fundraiser who worked with Dorsey ’ s team to land the single biggest gift to the city of San Francisco ’ s coronavirus relief fund — $ 15 million — considers that transparency “ pretty radical.
” “ In San Francisco especially , there ’ s been this tradition among the old-time families : You give quietly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this era of mass communication and transparency , that doesn ’ t work anymore.
” There is little doubt that this transparency brings Dorsey goodwill , too , as a good Samaritan , which is especially important after a bruising 2018 fight over a San Francisco tax to combat homelessness that portrayed him as a stingy tech billionaire , along with a questionable prior charitable record .
Every funding announcement brings a new row on the spreadsheet , and often a new @ Jack tweetstorm about the nonprofit — one that also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social-minded billionaire .
But that , too , is replicable .
Rather than creating a charitable foundation adorned with the billionaire ’ s surname that lives long after their death , advocates hope the publicity Dorsey is getting serves as a potent sweetener for the billionaires who can ’ t figure out what to do with their fortune until they ’ re on their deathbed .
“ I want to give out all my money in my lifetime , ” Dorsey said on a podcast earlier this month to his friend Andrew Yang @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5 million .
“ I want to see the impacts , selfishly , in my lifetime.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Billionaires are notoriously bad at something that should be quite easy: giving away their money.
In the pantheon of the ultra-rich, Jack Dorsey, as the world’s 410th-wealthiest person, is hardly the stingiest offender. But he has now kick-started one of the most radical experiments in this era of historic income inequality — whether it is possible to quickly give away more than $1 billion of his money, and to do it effectively. Dorsey is putting the lie to the claim from billionaires that this is impossible and that they need enormous teams, decades of deep study, total privacy, and, most of all, our patience, in order to smartly disburse their fortunes.
“I have a lot of ideas about philanthropy — that I’m not ready to share or talk about,” Jeff Bezos, now the world’s richest man, said a decade ago when asked about his plans. “Sometimes I think we try to solve problems before we understand the problem.”
“Our philanthropy is something I want to take my time with and develop and systematize,” Google co-founder Sergey Brin, now the world’s 14th-wealthiest person, said back in 2009. Since then, he has largely remained AWOL in the world of major giving.
This has been the sermon preached by America’s billionaires. And by modeling an alternative, Dorsey is offering one of the most convincing rebuttals.
Dorsey, the co-founder of Twitter and Square with a net worth of $5 billion, has taken his time. But then he said this April that he would give away what was then one-third of his assets to a new charitable vehicle, Start Small, for coronavirus relief efforts, primarily. It was, by far, the largest dedication of money to Covid-19 by a billionaire. What was more striking, though, was Dorsey’s willingness to disclose each gift in real time on a public Google spreadsheet.
Dorsey has now given away $90 million to five dozen nonprofit groups, both around the globe and in his backyard, on immediate needs and on longer-term rebuilding projects, for coronavirus issues and for racial justice, and all of this with a standout record when it comes to supporting minorities — a record that is earning Dorsey respect from experts and is surprising even those who originally saw the announcement as a self-serving publicity junket.
“I hope all of Silicon Valley is looking at what Jack is doing. I hope everyone who has signed the Giving Pledge is looking at what Jack is doing,” said Bob Pilon, whose REFORM Alliance took home $10 million from Dorsey. Pilon is worried about billionaires acting like perfectionists. “Not every single dollar is always going to be put to the absolutely most impactful use. But if you can get those dollars out there quickly, get them to effective organizations, I think that’s going to add a lot of value.”
The “earn now, figure out the giving later” approach became gospel in the world of billionaires, primarily for its convenience. Stephanie Ellis-Smith, who advises the mega-wealthy on how to give away their money, called this phenomenon “analysis paralysis.” Billionaires feel almost burdened by their enormous wealth, wealth advisers say, and feel such a responsibility to not screw up giving it away that they end up doing nothing — stockpiling money into private foundations or donor-advised funds and saving the hard decisions for their retirements, if they ever make them at all.
The worst-case scenario is a mistake that brings them ignominy, such as Mark Zuckerberg’s divisive $100 million gift to Newark schools in 2010, which has become a cautionary tale for well-intentioned billionaires who fear a similar public failure.
“What I’ve seen firsthand is many people who have intent to give away very significant resources, but they delay the actual giving,” billionaire John Arnold told Recode last year. “The intent is always in the future. And then they get too close to death.”
But advocates dream that times are a-changin’ in the world of the mega-rich — if only someone could show that it’s not so hard to avoid fumbles while moving real money. And that’s why so many eyes are on Dorsey as he tests a new way.
“The old model was optimizing for fear of failure and, in my opinion, the philanthropist’s legacy,” said Jen Carolan, who is well wired into Silicon Valley charity as a former managing director at New Schools Venture Fund, an education reform philanthropy.
Dorsey, who declined a request for an interview about this thinking for this story, is also among the first billionaires to direct major giving programs after the new wave of backlash to billionaire philanthropy. And some believe there are signs that Dorsey, more than others, has at least grappled with these critiques: As he walked five miles to and from work in 2018, he listened to the audiobook of Winners Take All, an influential, searing critique of billionaire philanthropy by Anand Giridharadas.
To some extent, Dorsey’s model is specific to this moment: The coronavirus ups the incentives for decisiveness and rapid-fire grants to people suffering right now from the pandemic. A spate of publicized killings of unarmed black people has spurred an urgent push to address racial injustice in the US. Choosing what issue areas to fund right now is a relatively easy decision. But in other ways, Dorsey’s approach is highly replicable for the billionaire class — even after the pandemic — by serving as a proof point that a lot of the process and bureaucracy that stalls their charitable giving are gratuitous.
So how is he doing it?
A sole person, Vanessa Terry, who also oversees Dorsey’s family office, is directing the donations, casting a dramatic contrast with the lumbering foundations of his peers. Dorsey himself has appeared on calls with some potential grantees. The speed this enables is the defining element of Dorsey’s giving, eight nonprofit leaders who received funding from him described in interviews.
A formal application? Pass. A reporting requirement? Nah. A site visit? Not even possible these days.
George McGraw, the head of the Navajo Water Project, which connects indigenous people to water sources, said that one phone conversation with Dorsey’s team was basically all it took to land $1 million.
“Within a few hours, we had an answer. And within a few days, the money was in the account,” he recalled. “I’ve never seen anything like this.”
This light touch has introduced new hurdles that some see as unfair: When Dorsey unfurled his six-tweet thread on April 7, nonprofits around the world raced to figure out how to get in front of Dorsey, who offered no public point of contact or website. And that has largely ended up favoring two groups of people: those who had relationships with Silicon Valley insiders, who could get an idea in front of the Twitter CEO; and those with connections to celebrities — or are celebrities themselves.
McGraw and others were able to get Dorsey’s attention through mutual friends who connected them. Pilon, along with other grantees like the cities of Oakland and San Francisco, were able to secure gifts because their mayors had long-standing personal relationships with Dorsey.
The traditional grantmaking process is not totally fair or meritocratic either, to be sure. But some activists say Dorsey’s grand experiment is flawed because it didn’t offer the hoi polloi an easy way to at least make their case, despite his high-minded promise to “operate transparently.” To some extent, this hurdle is a trade-off for his trademark speed.
Tyrone Grandison, who advises three nonprofits that he has been struggling to get in front of Dorsey, has taken to tweeting at Dorsey’s handle to try to get ahold of him. He said the whole experience left him “disappointed” in a project that showed so much promise.
“Having access to the right networks trumps everything else,” he said. “The initial claims of transparency in philanthropy were good in theory but have faltered in implementation.”
“It’s frustrating that the transparency is only on the allocation end,” said Cris Mercado, a social entrepreneur who spent a few days this spring trying to find a point of contact at Start Small. “It feeds into the ‘exclusive club’ feel that often surrounds tech.”
Some nonprofit heads have even asked for permission to edit Dorsey’s public spreadsheet, hoping the long-shot request may at least yield a human contact.
Contrast that with what it’s like to know — or be — a celebrity. Half of the total gifts Dorsey has given away have been made in a pooled donation with celebrities, such as Rihanna and Jay-Z. Several other donations have gone to charitable foundations tied to movie stars like Sean Penn or artists like Eminem and P. Diddy. Many of these celebrities are Dorsey’s personal friends, the type of celebrities that Silicon Valley figures like Dorsey increasingly party and co-invest with.
That raises the possibility that Dorsey is motivated in part to do favors for his famous buddies. That matters, says Hilde Van den Bulck, who wrote a book on celebrity philanthropists, because celebrity-created charities have a checkered track record, with some, such as the millions that Madonna spent to build a school in the African nation of Malawi, turning out to be boondoggles meant to do more for celebrities’ brands than for the world.
“They will pick what they think is cool — but it may not necessarily be, say, the priority in fighting Covid,” said Van den Bulck. “There are some celebrities out there who think the Earth is flat.”
One surprising upside of this celebrity focus? Dorsey’s reliance on the priorities of his celebrity friends seems to be giving him a unique funnel into nonprofits that serve minority populations, something that many billionaires and foundations struggle to do. Most of the celebrities Dorsey is working with are black or Latino.
Venus Ginés had barely heard of the Twitter founder when she asked Beyoncé’s foundation to fund her Houston women’s health organization, Dia de la Mujer Latina, with about $200,000. She ended up getting $500,000 — with almost all of the money coming from Dorsey, not Beyoncé.
“Latino groups rarely get acknowledged,” Ginés said. “It was just mind-boggling that somebody of his stature would think about our little organization, tucked away in Houston.”
The stats bear this out, too. Dorsey is doing better at allocating money than 95 percent of US charitable foundations when it comes to targeting his money to benefit the marginalized, better than 80 percent of them when it comes to benefiting people of color, and better than 97 percent of them when it comes to boosting immigrants and their families, according to mid-May research compiled by Ryan Schlegel of the National Center for Responsive Philanthropy.
Dorsey is earning similar applause in San Francisco, which, despite its poverty, tech billionaires have long neglected in favor of pet projects and moonshot ideas like life-extension research and colonizing Mars. Kim-Mai Cutler, a close observer of the Bay Area’s social sector, said she was “pleasantly surprised” by the local groups Dorsey had backed, saying the nonprofits he chose required real work to discover and were “well-respected within their own communities,” especially among people of color.
Any of this is only assessable because of one thing Dorsey has done that is definitely replicable: All of his gifts are disclosed on a Google spreadsheet. Charitable foundations don’t typically disclose grants until as long as two years later in obscure tax filings, while limited liability companies — philanthropic vehicles like Dorsey’s or Zuckerberg’s — aren’t legally required to disclose anything.
Matthew Goudeau, a longtime Bay Area fundraiser who worked with Dorsey’s team to land the single biggest gift to the city of San Francisco’s coronavirus relief fund — $15 million — considers that transparency “pretty radical.”
“In San Francisco especially, there’s been this tradition among the old-time families: You give quietly,” he said. “Now, in this era of mass communication and transparency, that doesn’t work anymore.”
There is little doubt that this transparency brings Dorsey goodwill, too, as a good Samaritan, which is especially important after a bruising 2018 fight over a San Francisco tax to combat homelessness that portrayed him as a stingy tech billionaire, along with a questionable prior charitable record. Every funding announcement brings a new row on the spreadsheet, and often a new @Jack tweetstorm about the nonprofit — one that also invites gushing praise for a benevolent, social-minded billionaire.
But that, too, is replicable. Rather than creating a charitable foundation adorned with the billionaire’s surname that lives long after their death, advocates hope the publicity Dorsey is getting serves as a potent sweetener for the billionaires who can’t figure out what to do with their fortune until they’re on their deathbed.
“I want to give out all my money in my lifetime,” Dorsey said on a podcast earlier this month to his friend Andrew Yang, to whose nonprofit he gave $5 million. “I want to see the impacts, selfishly, in my lifetime.”


vox--2020-06-11--Big tech companies back away from selling facial recognition to police. That’s progress.

Microsoft president Brad Smith announced on Thursday that his company did not sell facial recognition to the police , and would not until the government passes federal legislation regulating the technology .
His statement follows a Wednesday announcement from Amazon explaining that the company would institute a one-year moratorium on police use of Rekognition , the company ’ s facial recognition software .
That change also comes after IBM ’ s announcement earlier this week that the company would no longer offer facial recognition products , citing the technology ’ s potential for abuse or misuse .
As scrutiny of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as though there could be a referendum on the surveillance tools police can access , though it ’ s notoriously difficult to determine what surveillance systems police departments actually have .
Law enforcement agencies and tech companies are typically secretive about these products , which are by no means limited to just facial recognition .
Still , this is certainly a sign that the needle of public acceptance of facial recognition is moving .
For years , advocacy groups like the American Civil Liberties Union ( ACLU ) and the digital rights group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alarm that facial recognition raises significant privacy and surveillance concerns .
And researchers like Joy Buolamwini , Timnit Gebru , and Deborah Raji have demonstrated that these technologies can come with concerning built-in racial and gender biases .
The timing of these facial recognition announcements is important .
The recent scrutiny of the technology comes amid ongoing anti-police brutality demonstrations , which have drawn increased attention to the surveillance tools large technology companies can and do sell to law enforcement .
The news also comes as lawmakers have zeroed in on law enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their potential use on protests , which was the subject of a letter sent by members of Congress to leaders of several federal agencies earlier this week .
Now , amid several big companies making announcements about facial recognition , it ’ s possible lawmakers will be more anxious to regulate than before .
Amazon ’ s Rekognition has faced criticism and opposition for years Launched in 2016 , Amazon ’ s Rekognition software is part of the company ’ s cloud computing division , Amazon Web Services ( AWS ) .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims that its facial recognition “ provides highly accurate facial analysis and facial search capabilities that you can use to detect , analyze , and compare faces for a wide variety of user verification , people counting , and public safety use cases.
” Since its debut , the company has tried to push the technology to a whole host of law enforcement entities ; it has been tested by police departments in Oregon and Orlando , Florida .
Amazon ’ s Rekognition technology specifically has been called out by critics who have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racial and gender bias .
Despite the company ’ s initial pushback on the work of Buolamwini and Raji , Amazon is now reconsidering its plan for Rekognition .
“ We ’ re implementing a one-year moratorium on police use of Amazon ’ s facial recognition technology , ” the company now says .
“ We ’ ve advocated that governments should put in place stronger regulations to govern the ethical use of facial recognition technology , and in recent days , Congress appears ready to take on this challenge .
We hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time to implement appropriate rules , and we stand ready to help if requested.
” Notably , Amazon carved out exceptions to the moratorium .
The company said it will continue to allow organizations that fight human trafficking and find missing children to use the technology .
Amazon declined to comment further on the reasoning behind the moratorium , any plans to end its police partnerships with Ring , or non-police law enforcement access to its technology .
Today , the exact details of how Rekognition is being used by law enforcement remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told the press earlier this year that the company doesn ’ t know the number of departments that have used Rekognition or how they ’ re using it .
The technology and its use by law enforcement have received significant pushback from civil liberties advocates and researchers .
That concern has roots in research published in 2018 by Buolamwini and Gebru , highlighting the extent to which facial recognition systems could have racial and gender biases , which was based on earlier work by Buolamwini .
That research provided a foundation for research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Amazon ’ s Rekognition incorrectly matched the faces of 28 lawmakers with the faces of people who had been arrested .
The organization called on Congress to put a moratorium on the sale of the technology to law enforcement .
Then , in a follow-up report , Buolamwini and Raji studied bias in Rekognition and found that Amazon ’ s system also had significant racial and gender bias and that it performed worst on women with darker skin .
Amazon published two company blog posts pushing back against their results , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who rallied to defend Buolamwini and Raji ’ s research and called on Amazon to stop selling the technology to law enforcement .
Other civil liberties and rights organizations have also protested the company ’ s sales to law enforcement .
Last year , activists from Fight for the Future traveled to Capitol Hill to conduct live facial recognition on government representatives , demonstrating how invasive the Rekognition technology could be .
Amazon employees also spoke out against the company ’ s sale of facial recognition to law enforcement — along with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which works with Immigration and Customs Enforcement — in 2018 , though the company did not accede to their request to stop selling Rekognition to police .
It ’ s not yet clear what role , if any , these Amazon employees played in this most recent decision .
Not everyone is happy with how Amazon is addressing issues with Rekognition .
Evan Greer , the deputy director of Fight for the Future , called Amazon ’ s announcement “ a public relations stunt.
” The Surveillance Technology Oversight Project , a New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company ’ s move “ too little , too late.
” Its director , Albert Fox Cahn , added in an emailed statement , “ Amazon shouldn ’ t just end this practice for one year or one decade ; it should end it forever.
” Now eyes are on Congress — and on facial recognition companies you ’ ve never heard of The call for regulation shouldn ’ t be surprising .
There is currently no comprehensive federal law governing facial recognition , and some localities have taken up the task themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previously floated its own recommendations for how it believes facial recognition ought to be regulated , and like many other facial recognition providers , the company also wants to avoid patchwork regulation that means different laws exist in different states .
Meanwhile , critics of facial recognition technology have warned that corporate calls for regulation should be met with skepticism , as companies can push laws that are weak and ultimately defend their interests .
Remember that these companies are known to have extensive budgets for lobbying .
There ’ s also concern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Amazon , and Microsoft turn away from providing the technology temporarily , smaller providers of facial recognition will step in to take their place .
Recode reached out to two providers of this technology , Vigilant Solutions and NEC , but did not hear back by the time of publication .
In a statement shared with Recode , Hoan Ton-That , the founder and chief executive of Clearview AI , said that his company ’ s technology “ is not intended to be used as a surveillance tool relating to protests or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he looks forward “ to working with government and policymakers to help develop appropriate protocols for the proper use of facial recognition.
” As Recode has previously reported , however , Clearview has repeatedly misrepresented various aspects of its work , including how well the technology works and who its clients are .
Still , that three companies as large as Amazon , IBM , and Microsoft are pressing pause on the use of this technology , however temporarily , is notable and could be a sign that norms surrounding facial recognition are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to other companies that sell the tech , as well as to federal lawmakers , who have now been given an informal deadline by one of the world ’ s largest companies .
“ Their products have the alarming potential to infringe on Americans ’ privacy rights in ways that we would have thought unimaginable not long ago , ” Sen. Edward Markey ( D-MA ) said after Amazon ’ s announcement .
“ Pressing pause on the use of this technology by law enforcement is a positive step , but what Amazon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and get out of the business of dangerous surveillance altogether.
” That differs from other ideas from legislators about what the future of federal facial recognition legislation should be .
For instance , earlier this year , Sen. Jeff Merkley ( D-OR ) told Recode that the technology should be usable when law enforcement is able to obtain a warrant and seemed to draw a distinction between facial recognition that could be used for constant surveillance and facial recognition that would be used during an investigation .
Some federal lawmakers have also previously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ housing .
What that regulation will ultimately look like remains unclear .
The fact that Amazon , at least , is only pausing its facial recognition business — Microsoft seems to be just waiting until legislation is in place before moving forward — seems to imply that some companies assume a ban on the technology ’ s use by police is not on the table .
With or without regulation , many organizers still warn that facial recognition might simply be too dangerous to use in the first place .
Update , June @ @ @ @ @ @ @ piece has been updated to include more context and the news that Microsoft would not offer facial recognition to police until the passage of federal legislation regulating facial recognition .
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Microsoft president Brad Smith announced on Thursday that his company did not sell facial recognition to the police, and would not until the government passes federal legislation regulating the technology. His statement follows a Wednesday announcement from Amazon explaining that the company would institute a one-year moratorium on police use of Rekognition, the company’s facial recognition software.
That change also comes after IBM’s announcement earlier this week that the company would no longer offer facial recognition products, citing the technology’s potential for abuse or misuse. As scrutiny of law enforcement ramps up, it looks as though there could be a referendum on the surveillance tools police can access, though it’s notoriously difficult to determine what surveillance systems police departments actually have. Law enforcement agencies and tech companies are typically secretive about these products, which are by no means limited to just facial recognition.
Still, this is certainly a sign that the needle of public acceptance of facial recognition is moving. For years, advocacy groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the digital rights group Fight for the Future have sounded the alarm that facial recognition raises significant privacy and surveillance concerns. And researchers like Joy Buolamwini, Timnit Gebru, and Deborah Raji have demonstrated that these technologies can come with concerning built-in racial and gender biases.
The timing of these facial recognition announcements is important. The recent scrutiny of the technology comes amid ongoing anti-police brutality demonstrations, which have drawn increased attention to the surveillance tools large technology companies can and do sell to law enforcement. The news also comes as lawmakers have zeroed in on law enforcement’s access to surveillance tools and their potential use on protests, which was the subject of a letter sent by members of Congress to leaders of several federal agencies earlier this week. Now, amid several big companies making announcements about facial recognition, it’s possible lawmakers will be more anxious to regulate than before.
Amazon’s Rekognition has faced criticism and opposition for years
Launched in 2016, Amazon’s Rekognition software is part of the company’s cloud computing division, Amazon Web Services (AWS). On its company’s website, Amazon claims that its facial recognition “provides highly accurate facial analysis and facial search capabilities that you can use to detect, analyze, and compare faces for a wide variety of user verification, people counting, and public safety use cases.” Since its debut, the company has tried to push the technology to a whole host of law enforcement entities; it has been tested by police departments in Oregon and Orlando, Florida.
Amazon’s Rekognition technology specifically has been called out by critics who have shown how it can be rife with racial and gender bias. Despite the company’s initial pushback on the work of Buolamwini and Raji, Amazon is now reconsidering its plan for Rekognition.
“We’re implementing a one-year moratorium on police use of Amazon’s facial recognition technology,” the company now says. “We’ve advocated that governments should put in place stronger regulations to govern the ethical use of facial recognition technology, and in recent days, Congress appears ready to take on this challenge. We hope this one-year moratorium might give Congress enough time to implement appropriate rules, and we stand ready to help if requested.”
Notably, Amazon carved out exceptions to the moratorium. The company said it will continue to allow organizations that fight human trafficking and find missing children to use the technology. Amazon declined to comment further on the reasoning behind the moratorium, any plans to end its police partnerships with Ring, or non-police law enforcement access to its technology.
Today, the exact details of how Rekognition is being used by law enforcement remain unclear. AWS chief executive Andy Jassy told the press earlier this year that the company doesn’t know the number of departments that have used Rekognition or how they’re using it.
The technology and its use by law enforcement have received significant pushback from civil liberties advocates and researchers. That concern has roots in research published in 2018 by Buolamwini and Gebru, highlighting the extent to which facial recognition systems could have racial and gender biases, which was based on earlier work by Buolamwini. That research provided a foundation for research conducted by the ACLU, which found that Amazon’s Rekognition incorrectly matched the faces of 28 lawmakers with the faces of people who had been arrested. The organization called on Congress to put a moratorium on the sale of the technology to law enforcement.
Then, in a follow-up report, Buolamwini and Raji studied bias in Rekognition and found that Amazon’s system also had significant racial and gender bias and that it performed worst on women with darker skin. Amazon published two company blog posts pushing back against their results, which prompted a response from nearly 80 researchers, who rallied to defend Buolamwini and Raji’s research and called on Amazon to stop selling the technology to law enforcement.
Other civil liberties and rights organizations have also protested the company’s sales to law enforcement. Last year, activists from Fight for the Future traveled to Capitol Hill to conduct live facial recognition on government representatives, demonstrating how invasive the Rekognition technology could be. Amazon employees also spoke out against the company’s sale of facial recognition to law enforcement — along with its sale of AWS to Palantir, which works with Immigration and Customs Enforcement — in 2018, though the company did not accede to their request to stop selling Rekognition to police. It’s not yet clear what role, if any, these Amazon employees played in this most recent decision.
Not everyone is happy with how Amazon is addressing issues with Rekognition. Evan Greer, the deputy director of Fight for the Future, called Amazon’s announcement “a public relations stunt.” The Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, a New York-based anti-surveillance legal organization, called the company’s move “too little, too late.” Its director, Albert Fox Cahn, added in an emailed statement, “Amazon shouldn’t just end this practice for one year or one decade; it should end it forever.”
Now eyes are on Congress — and on facial recognition companies you’ve never heard of
The call for regulation shouldn’t be surprising. There is currently no comprehensive federal law governing facial recognition, and some localities have taken up the task themselves of regulating the technology. Amazon has previously floated its own recommendations for how it believes facial recognition ought to be regulated, and like many other facial recognition providers, the company also wants to avoid patchwork regulation that means different laws exist in different states. Meanwhile, critics of facial recognition technology have warned that corporate calls for regulation should be met with skepticism, as companies can push laws that are weak and ultimately defend their interests. Remember that these companies are known to have extensive budgets for lobbying.
There’s also concern that as large technology companies like IBM, Amazon, and Microsoft turn away from providing the technology temporarily, smaller providers of facial recognition will step in to take their place. Two providers of this technology, Vigilant Solutions and NEC, but did not hear back by the time of publication. Following publication, NEC America told Recode in a statement that it supported public safety agencies’ use of facial recognition.
In a statement shared with Recode, Hoan Ton-That, the founder and chief executive of Clearview AI, said that his company’s technology “is not intended to be used as a surveillance tool relating to protests or under any other circumstances” and that he looks forward “to working with government and policymakers to help develop appropriate protocols for the proper use of facial recognition.”
As Recode has previously reported, however, Clearview has repeatedly misrepresented various aspects of its work, including how well the technology works and who its clients are.
Still, that three companies as large as Amazon, IBM, and Microsoft are pressing pause on the use of this technology, however temporarily, is notable and could be a sign that norms surrounding facial recognition are changing. Eyes will now likely turn to other companies that sell the tech, as well as to federal lawmakers, who have now been given an informal deadline by one of the world’s largest companies.
“Their products have the alarming potential to infringe on Americans’ privacy rights in ways that we would have thought unimaginable not long ago,” Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA) said after Amazon’s announcement. “Pressing pause on the use of this technology by law enforcement is a positive step, but what Amazon should really do is a complete about-face and get out of the business of dangerous surveillance altogether.”
That differs from other ideas from legislators about what the future of federal facial recognition legislation should be. For instance, earlier this year, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) told Recode that the technology should be usable when law enforcement is able to obtain a warrant and seemed to draw a distinction between facial recognition that could be used for constant surveillance and facial recognition that would be used during an investigation. Some federal lawmakers have also previously proposed limiting facial recognition in federally assisted housing.
What that regulation will ultimately look like remains unclear. The fact that Amazon, at least, is only pausing its facial recognition business — Microsoft seems to be just waiting until legislation is in place before moving forward — seems to imply that some companies assume a ban on the technology’s use by police is not on the table. With or without regulation, many organizers still warn that facial recognition might simply be too dangerous to use in the first place.
Update, June 11, 4 pm ET: This piece has been updated to include more context and the news that Microsoft would not offer facial recognition to police until the passage of federal legislation regulating facial recognition.
Update, June 12, 10 am ET: This piece has been updated to note a statement from NEC America.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-06-11--Do the soaring sales of anti-racism books signal a true cultural shift?

In the wake of the waves of police brutality at protests against the police killings of George Floyd , Breonna Taylor , and other black people , Americans are turning to books to try to understand the United States ’ history of structural and institutional racism .
Over the past month , sales of books about anti-racism have surged dramatically .
Every one of the 10 books on the New York Times ’ s combined e-book and print nonfiction best-seller list this week is about anti-racism .
The Times ’ s fiction list is topped by Brit Bennett ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by a black author about race and colorism in America .
Industry tracker NPD BookScan reports that political science civil rights titles saw a sales jump of 330 percent from the week of May 17 to the week of May 23 , while books about discrimination had a sales jump of 245 percent in the same time .
Books like Ibram X. Kendi ’ s How to Be an Antiracist and Robin DiAngelo ’ s White Fragility are sold out everywhere .
The sales boom comes after a slew of publications responded to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reading lists , many of which recommended How to Be an Anti-Racist and White Fragility .
( I compiled one for Vox on police brutality that included both titles . )
And for some critics , the rush to fight white supremacy by recommending books seemed to miss the point .
“ Who is this for ?
” asked Lauren Michele Jackson at Vulture .
“ The syllabus , as these lists are sometimes called , seldom instructs or guides .
It is no pedagogue .
It is unclear whether each book supplies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or are intended as revelatory islands in and of themselves.
” Calls to read more , as many critics have said , can not not and should not replace active work to break down the systems that an anti-racist reading list can make apparent .
They can not be simple acts of virtue signalling .
But historically , enormous sales of political books have sometimes signified a shift in American culture .
It was after Betty Friedan ’ s The Feminine Mystique became a giant best-seller in 1963 that second-wave feminism really took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t necessarily new — other feminists existed and had been writing for awhile — but after The Feminine Mystique sold 3 million copies in three years , it became an unignorable phenomenon .
And that is when change became possible .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

In the wake of the waves of police brutality at protests against the police killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and other black people, Americans are turning to books to try to understand the United States’ history of structural and institutional racism. Over the past month, sales of books about anti-racism have surged dramatically.
Every one of the 10 books on the New York Times’s combined e-book and print nonfiction best-seller list this week is about anti-racism. The Times’s fiction list is topped by Brit Bennett’s The Vanishing Half, a just-released novel by a black author about race and colorism in America.
Industry tracker NPD BookScan reports that political science civil rights titles saw a sales jump of 330 percent from the week of May 17 to the week of May 23, while books about discrimination had a sales jump of 245 percent in the same time. Books like Ibram X. Kendi’s How to Be an Antiracist and Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility are sold out everywhere.
The sales boom comes after a slew of publications responded to the George Floyd protests by publishing anti-racist reading lists, many of which recommended How to Be an Anti-Racist and White Fragility. (I compiled one for Vox on police brutality that included both titles.) And for some critics, the rush to fight white supremacy by recommending books seemed to miss the point.
“Who is this for?” asked Lauren Michele Jackson at Vulture. “The syllabus, as these lists are sometimes called, seldom instructs or guides. It is no pedagogue. It is unclear whether each book supplies a portion of the holistic racial puzzle or are intended as revelatory islands in and of themselves.”
Calls to read more, as many critics have said, cannot and should not replace active work to break down the systems that an anti-racist reading list can make apparent. They cannot be simple acts of virtue signaling.
But historically, enormous sales of political books have sometimes signified a shift in American culture. It was after Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique became a giant best-seller in 1963 that second-wave feminism really took off. Friedan’s ideas weren’t necessarily new — other feminists existed and had been writing for awhile — but after The Feminine Mystique sold 3 million copies in three years, it became an unignorable phenomenon. And that is when change became possible.