vox--2020-06-15--Jeff Bezos will finally be grilled by Congress

A month and a half after US Congressional members called on Jeff Bezos to testify in an antitrust probe , Amazon has said its founder and CEO would be willing to appear at a hearing — under certain conditions .
It would be Bezos ’ s first time testifying before Congress .
The House Judiciary Committee is investigating Amazon , along with Apple , Facebook , and Google , because of the unprecedented power they wield over the way Americans shop , search , and communicate online .
Bezos ’ s willingness to testify is an acknowledgment of the seriousness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in lawmakers recommending legal action from federal regulators or an overhaul of antitrust laws to rein in Big Tech .
A lawyer representing Amazon told leaders of the House Judiciary Committee in a letter on Sunday that Bezos would be open to testifying if it was alongside the CEOs of the other three tech giants .
He added that the company wanted more clarity on the timing and format of such a hearing , and stressed that other Amazon executives , not Bezos , now run the day-to-day businesses at Amazon that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , led by subcommittee chairman David Cicilline ( D-RI ) , began last summer and has evaluated the ways the tech titans compete against rivals and even their own partners .
The goal is to determine whether current antitrust laws are suitable to check their power or whether new laws need to be written .
In the case of Amazon , lawmakers have expressed concerns about the data Amazon uses to create its own brands that end up competing against small businesses that sell on Amazon ’ s platform .
The committee has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amazon gets away with bullying them because of the e-commerce giant ’ s control over online commerce in the US .
The year-long probe has already included five public hearings , along with massive document requests from the four companies .
At its conclusion , the subcommittee will issue a report on its findings , which may include recommendations for updates to antitrust law .
These findings , and potential recommendations , could put pressure on regulators such as the Federal Trade Commission to take legal action against Amazon in an effort to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to potentially break up certain parts of its business from one another .
They could also lead to new antitrust laws that would more tightly control the practices of the dominant online tech platforms .
It is not yet clear whether the Congressional investigators will try to hold one hearing with all four CEOs or separate hearings for each company — or whether Amazon would make Bezos available in an Amazon-only hearing .
Any one of the CEOs testifying in front of lawmakers has the potential to be a huge newsmaker , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanting to attend .
These hearings are undoubtedly a form of political theater .
But they also have the power to attract more political scrutiny of a company while raising awareness among the general public about issues at a given corporation .
A single hearing with all four CEOs present would mark a historic event in the business world .
But the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic raises questions about how Congress might pull off a hearing with even one big-time CEO right now , let alone all four .
Cicilline ’ s office did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comment on whether it would consider holding the hearing , or hearings , virtually .
“ The testimony of CEOs and the production of internal documents is essential to complete this bipartisan investigation into the state of competition in the digital marketplace , ” Cicilline said in a statement to Recode .
“ The Antitrust Subcommittee will continue to use the tools at our disposal to ensure we gather whatever information is necessary for our work.
” Last week , the Wall Street Journal reported that the European Union was nearing formal antitrust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with its own sellers , which are the small- and mid-sized merchants that sell goods to consumers on Amazon and account for nearly 60 percent of the company ’ s sales .
Some critics say Amazon engages in anti-competitive behavior against these merchants by using their data to unfairly compete against them with its own line of brands , such as Amazon Basics .
The concern is that Amazon profits from these sellers by charging them commissions and advertising fees to access Amazon ’ s huge customer base , but then uses the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to unfairly compete against them .
Likewise , the US Congressional antitrust investigation has also homed in on Amazon ’ s treatment of these merchants .
The original call for Bezos to testify came in the wake of a Wall Street Journal investigation in April that revealed Amazon employees have at times accessed data from individual marketplace sellers to help decide which products Amazon would create and sell under its private-label brands .
A top Amazon lawyer , Nate Sutton , had previously testified that Amazon had policies that precluded its own in-house @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to create its own products .
Amazon said at the time that it would investigate the matter internally but hasn ’ t publicly commented on its findings .
Amazon is facing other scrutiny , too .
Some US lawmakers , policymakers , and even some of Amazon ’ s own white-collar employees are concerned the company hasn ’ t done enough to protect its warehouse workforce during the global health crisis ; they ’ re also questioning why the company fired more than a half-dozen employees who were involved in protests about Covid-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employee activists were fired for violating company policies and has touted myriad precautions it has taken inside its warehouses that it says show it has done more than many of its e-commerce competitors .
Beyond the antitrust investigations in Europe and by US Congress , the Federal Trade Commission has also been probing Amazon on similar antitrust matters , including how it competes with its merchants , and whether Amazon Prime unfairly undercuts competitors on price .
While the Congressional antitrust investigation can ’ t end in legal action , the FTC ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FTC admits it or not , both the EU ’ s expected antitrust charges and the House investigation could apply more pressure for the commission , which in the past has been slow to act , to do something .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

A month and a half after US Congressional members called on Jeff Bezos to testify in an antitrust probe, Amazon has said its founder and CEO would be willing to appear at a hearing — under certain conditions. It would be Bezos’s first time testifying before Congress.
The House Judiciary Committee is investigating Amazon, along with Apple, Facebook, and Google, because of the unprecedented power they wield over the way Americans shop, search, and communicate online. Bezos’s willingness to testify is an acknowledgment of the seriousness of the probe, which could result in lawmakers recommending legal action from federal regulators or an overhaul of antitrust laws to rein in Big Tech.
A lawyer representing Amazon told leaders of the House Judiciary Committee in a letter on Sunday that Bezos would be open to testifying if it was alongside the CEOs of the other three tech giants. He added that the company wanted more clarity on the timing and format of such a hearing, and stressed that other Amazon executives, not Bezos, now run the day-to-day businesses at Amazon that the investigation has focused on.
The investigation, led by subcommittee chairman David Cicilline (D-RI), began last summer and has evaluated the ways the tech titans compete against rivals and even their own partners. The goal is to determine whether current antitrust laws are suitable to check their power or whether new laws need to be written. In the case of Amazon, lawmakers have expressed concerns about the data Amazon uses to create its own brands that end up competing against small businesses that sell on Amazon’s platform. The committee has also heard from small businesses that say Amazon gets away with bullying them because of the e-commerce giant’s control over online commerce in the US.
The year-long probe has already included five public hearings, along with massive document requests from the four companies. At its conclusion, the subcommittee will issue a report on its findings, which may include recommendations for updates to antitrust law. These findings, and potential recommendations, could put pressure on regulators such as the Federal Trade Commission to take legal action against Amazon in an effort to change the way it does business or to potentially break up certain parts of its business from one another. They could also lead to new antitrust laws that would more tightly control the practices of the dominant online tech platforms.
It is not yet clear whether the Congressional investigators will try to hold one hearing with all four CEOs or separate hearings for each company — or whether Amazon would make Bezos available in an Amazon-only hearing. Any one of the CEOs testifying in front of lawmakers has the potential to be a huge newsmaker, with crowds of journalists and other interested parties wanting to attend. These hearings are undoubtedly a form of political theater. But they also have the power to attract more political scrutiny of a company while raising awareness among the general public about issues at a given corporation.
A single hearing with all four CEOs present would mark a historic event in the business world. But the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic raises questions about how Congress might pull off a hearing with even one big-time CEO right now, let alone all four. Cicilline’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on whether it would consider holding the hearing, or hearings, virtually.
“The testimony of CEOs and the production of internal documents is essential to complete this bipartisan investigation into the state of competition in the digital marketplace,” Cicilline said in a statement to Recode. “The Antitrust Subcommittee will continue to use the tools at our disposal to ensure we gather whatever information is necessary for our work.”
Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that the European Union was nearing formal antitrust charges against Amazon related to its dealings with its own sellers, which are the small- and mid-sized merchants that sell goods to consumers on Amazon and account for nearly 60 percent of the company’s sales. Some critics say Amazon engages in anti-competitive behavior against these merchants by using their data to unfairly compete against them with its own line of brands, such as Amazon Basics.
The concern is that Amazon profits from these sellers by charging them commissions and advertising fees to access Amazon’s huge customer base, but then uses the data it collects from those same partners to unfairly compete against them.
Likewise, the US Congressional antitrust investigation has also homed in on Amazon’s treatment of these merchants. The original call for Bezos to testify came in the wake of a Wall Street Journal investigation in April that revealed Amazon employees have at times accessed data from individual marketplace sellers to help decide which products Amazon would create and sell under its private-label brands. A top Amazon lawyer, Nate Sutton, had previously testified that Amazon had policies that precluded its own in-house brands from using data from individual sellers to create its own products. Amazon said at the time that it would investigate the matter internally but hasn’t publicly commented on its findings.
Amazon is facing other scrutiny, too. Some US lawmakers, policymakers, and even some of Amazon’s own white-collar employees are concerned the company hasn’t done enough to protect its warehouse workforce during the global health crisis; they’re also questioning why the company fired more than a half-dozen employees who were involved in protests about Covid-19 working conditions. Amazon has said the employee activists were fired for violating company policies and has touted myriad precautions it has taken inside its warehouses that it says show it has done more than many of its e-commerce competitors.
Beyond the antitrust investigations in Europe and by US Congress, the Federal Trade Commission has also been probing Amazon on similar antitrust matters, including how it competes with its merchants, and whether Amazon Prime unfairly undercuts competitors on price. While the Congressional antitrust investigation can’t end in legal action, the FTC’s probe could. And whether the FTC admits it or not, both the EU’s expected antitrust charges and the House investigation could apply more pressure for the commission, which in the past has been slow to act, to do something.


vox--2020-06-15--King Arthur Flour’s Baking Hotline Has Never Been Busier — and the Questions Are Getting Personal

On March 14 , COVID-19 was declared a national emergency in the U.S. , hand sanitizer profiteers made headlines , and states had yet to issue stay-at-home orders .
It was also Pi Day — that is , the date 3/14 , which is often cheekily observed by baking or eating pie .
The date stands out to Martina Pochop because she ’ s a baker and because when she went to work the next day , she noticed a flood of new calls and emails .
Pochop works as a baker support specialist at King Arthur Flour ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of her job is answering calls on the company ’ s Baker ’ s Hotline , a number anyone can call for advice on their doughs and batters .
“ It was literally overnight , ” she says .
“ Everything just started tumbling down an endless path in search of flour.
” King Arthur Flour quietly launched its Baker ’ s Hotline in 1993 .
While it may not be as well known as the Butterball Turkey Talk Line , it displays a level of homespun commitment not seen in other culinary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hotline is staffed by 15 people who answer calls and emails for eight to 12 hours a day , 357 days a year .
Most have culinary degrees and worked as professional bakers , chocolatiers , and chefs before coming to King Arthur , where they generally work in education , recipe-developing , or product-testing roles in addition to answering the hotline .
They ’ ve picked up the phone so many times that many can recite their opening line as if in their sleep : baker support specialist Maggie Perry recently answered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pediatrician with , “ Hi , this is Maggie at King Arthur.
” The holidays and summer ( baking contest season ) tend to be busy for the Baker ’ s Hotline , but those pale in comparison to the pandemic .
In April , queries to the King Arthur hotline surpassed the four busiest weeks over the winter holidays , with a total of 10,406 calls and 7,740 emails , requiring six additional bakers working in other departments to step in and answer emails .
It hasn ’ t let up : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unrelenting call volumes for three months , and during this time , the hotline has become a magnet for lonely , anxious human behavior and lots of questions about sourdough .
The baker support specialists have seen a few patterns emerge .
Before the pandemic , most calls came from regular bakers on the older side , with some “ frequent fliers ” who called mostly just to chat .
But in March , they started hearing from more beginner bakers who couldn ’ t easily ask family members for advice about old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and bread flour — sometimes it was because they ’ d recently lost someone , other times because they lived far away and couldn ’ t reach them by phone .
Perry also noticed that once schools shut down , parents started calling about homeschool baking projects .
“ [ Baking is ] one of those magical things .
It ’ s science , it ’ s math , ” she says .
And more people were asking about finicky projects like pâte à choux or macarons , recipes whose long timelines newly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking for weekend time-sucks .
As grocery store shortages went beyond sanitizer and toilet paper , calls about ingredient substitutions flooded the hotline .
When grocery stores ran low on bread , people called in to ask for recipe suggestions , solutions to rising issues , and once , if it was possible to bake bread on a grill because it was too hot to turn on the oven .
Callers looking for a challenge tried out sourdough , “ which , for people who have never baked before , is quite an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Pochop says .
There were more calls about cookies , but ones baked with alternative flours , since all-purpose was scarce .
More time and fewer options at the grocery store have indeed made baking more popular than ever , and King Arthur ’ s sales have gone up as much as 600 percent accordingly ( as have hits to its website ) .
But it ’ s not the only thing driving thousands more callers to the Baker ’ s Hotline .
According to Pochop , who has been with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last couple of months , people have seemed the most lonely.
” Baked goods in particular are so often tied up with nostalgia and relationships ; people seem especially anxious about messing up recipes that their loved ones usually made , or just want to talk to someone — anyone — about how much a recipe means to them .
A caller may technically be asking about how to halve a recipe , but what they really want to talk about is how they ’ d usually make a full recipe to share @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t actually give them everything that they need , ” Perry says .
“ You can just let them know that you ’ re there and that a lot of other people are calling with the same feelings.
” “ We hear from people who just don ’ t know who else to call.
” King Arthur baker specialist and customer support shift lead Amanda Schlarbaum recently spoke to a woman who broke down crying after asking a yeast-related question .
Her parents lived far away and she didn ’ t know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ She was like , ‘ I can ’ t even believe I ’ m crying over bread.
’ And I ’ m like , you know , that ’ s where we all are right now.
” The caller ended up spending $ 55 to send her parents a homemade loaf .
In retrospect , the Baker ’ s Hotline was primed to be a source of comfort during quarantine .
King Arthur has a reputation for its teaching culture ; its resources are notably beginner-friendly and easygoing .
“ If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ successfully followed before , then hey , stick with it .
Or try this one and compare .
All good , ” PJ Hamel writes in the company ’ s oft-recommended primer on sourdough starter .
On King Arthur ’ s social media platforms , bakers have always felt comfortable posting panicked photos of explosively large doughs or asking extremely specific questions .
And when bakers tag @ kingarthurflour in photos of their finished products , the company responds like an enthusiastic friend .
“ What a lovely bundt , Marilyn !
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s tweeted creation .
“ Pairing ingredients and recipes is like putting two partners together for a dance .
Will they fluidly tango ?
Your stunning Kaiser Rolls clearly answer that question !
” the company replied on Facebook when a baker paired King Arthur ’ s bread flour with a Cook ’ s Illustrated recipe .
Hotline staffers are armed with all of King Arthur ’ s online resources and cookbooks , as well as fat binders of their own creation filled with handwritten notes on questions that have been asked before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions that extend outside the baking realm .
In late April , Schlarbaum picked up the phone to a stranger who wanted to know how much extra sauce she should make if she ’ d bought an extra pound of oxtail .
“ She was so nonchalant about it , ” Schlarbaum says .
As Easter in quarantine approached , Pochop received a few questions about ham and potatoes .
Even non-baking questions are usually culinary in nature , so if they can , the staffers try to answer them .
After all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your house , see your more cooking-inclined family , or even get through to most customer service lines — but there is one line that promises , seven days a week , to connect you with an actual human who will earnestly try to help you out , no matter how specific your problem .
“ On a daily basis we hear from people who just don ’ t know who else to call and they saw our number on the bag of flour that they have in their hand , ” says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of calls has been recently , the questions are the same as they ’ ve always been , just modified by the constraints of a global crisis .
People still call about wedding cakes , but they ’ re making a miniature version because the couple is celebrating without family and friends .
Schlarbaum called fellow hotline staffers to discuss a mascarpone filling for her own quarantine birthday cake .
People are baking to relieve stress , just as they always have done , only now the stress and the baking have increased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for something that you can accomplish , ” Perry says .
“ You ’ re looking for something that feels good and can take care of other people.
” People are maybe a little more emotional if their buttercream isn ’ t mixing properly , but Schlarbaum jumps into therapist mode , advising deep breaths and walking away for 15 minutes .
“ I tell them when I make buttercream , I ’ ve ruined it every single time.
” Most calls end with a relieved baker and sometimes a few extra minutes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t want to hang up yet .
“ Right now , people are bored and anxieties are running high , ” Schlarbaum says , “ and I think people just need someone to be like , ‘ No , no , the bread will be fine .
Just let it rise another half an hour .
It ’ ll be okay.
’ ” Erin Berger is a freelance writer and former culture editor at

On March 14, COVID-19 was declared a national emergency in the U.S., hand sanitizer profiteers made headlines, and states had yet to issue stay-at-home orders. It was also Pi Day — that is, the date 3/14, which is often cheekily observed by baking or eating pie. The date stands out to Martina Pochop because she’s a baker and because when she went to work the next day, she noticed a flood of new calls and emails. Pochop works as a baker support specialist at King Arthur Flour’s Norwich, Vermont headquarters, and part of her job is answering calls on the company’s Baker’s Hotline, a number anyone can call for advice on their doughs and batters. “It was literally overnight,” she says. “Everything just started tumbling down an endless path in search of flour.”
King Arthur Flour quietly launched its Baker’s Hotline in 1993. While it may not be as well known as the Butterball Turkey Talk Line, it displays a level of homespun commitment not seen in other culinary help lines. The Baker’s Hotline is staffed by 15 people who answer calls and emails for eight to 12 hours a day, 357 days a year. Most have culinary degrees and worked as professional bakers, chocolatiers, and chefs before coming to King Arthur, where they generally work in education, recipe-developing, or product-testing roles in addition to answering the hotline. They’ve picked up the phone so many times that many can recite their opening line as if in their sleep: baker support specialist Maggie Perry recently answered a call from her child’s pediatrician with, “Hi, this is Maggie at King Arthur.”
The holidays and summer (baking contest season) tend to be busy for the Baker’s Hotline, but those pale in comparison to the pandemic. In April, queries to the King Arthur hotline surpassed the four busiest weeks over the winter holidays, with a total of 10,406 calls and 7,740 emails, requiring six additional bakers working in other departments to step in and answer emails. It hasn’t let up: King Arthur’s staff has experienced unrelenting call volumes for three months, and during this time, the hotline has become a magnet for lonely, anxious human behavior and lots of questions about sourdough.
The baker support specialists have seen a few patterns emerge. Before the pandemic, most calls came from regular bakers on the older side, with some “frequent fliers” who called mostly just to chat. But in March, they started hearing from more beginner bakers who couldn’t easily ask family members for advice about old recipes or about the difference between all-purpose and bread flour — sometimes it was because they’d recently lost someone, other times because they lived far away and couldn’t reach them by phone. Perry also noticed that once schools shut down, parents started calling about homeschool baking projects. “[Baking is] one of those magical things. It’s science, it’s math,” she says. And more people were asking about finicky projects like pâte à choux or macarons, recipes whose long timelines newly appealed to those working from home or looking for weekend time-sucks.
As grocery store shortages went beyond sanitizer and toilet paper, calls about ingredient substitutions flooded the hotline. When grocery stores ran low on bread, people called in to ask for recipe suggestions, solutions to rising issues, and once, if it was possible to bake bread on a grill because it was too hot to turn on the oven. Callers looking for a challenge tried out sourdough, “which, for people who have never baked before, is quite an adventure, to say the least,” Pochop says. There were more calls about cookies, but ones baked with alternative flours, since all-purpose was scarce.
More time and fewer options at the grocery store have indeed made baking more popular than ever, and King Arthur’s sales have gone up as much as 600 percent accordingly (as have hits to its website). But it’s not the only thing driving thousands more callers to the Baker’s Hotline. According to Pochop, who has been with the company since 2017, “in the last couple of months, people have seemed the most lonely.”
Baked goods in particular are so often tied up with nostalgia and relationships; people seem especially anxious about messing up recipes that their loved ones usually made, or just want to talk to someone — anyone — about how much a recipe means to them. A caller may technically be asking about how to halve a recipe, but what they really want to talk about is how they’d usually make a full recipe to share with their grandchildren. “You can’t actually give them everything that they need,” Perry says. “You can just let them know that you’re there and that a lot of other people are calling with the same feelings.”
“We hear from people who just don’t know who else to call.”
King Arthur baker specialist and customer support shift lead Amanda Schlarbaum recently spoke to a woman who broke down crying after asking a yeast-related question. Her parents lived far away and she didn’t know when she’d see them again. “She was like, ‘I can’t even believe I’m crying over bread.’ And I’m like, you know, that’s where we all are right now.” The caller ended up spending $55 to send her parents a homemade loaf.
In retrospect, the Baker’s Hotline was primed to be a source of comfort during quarantine. King Arthur has a reputation for its teaching culture; its resources are notably beginner-friendly and easygoing. “If you have a process you’ve successfully followed before, then hey, stick with it. Or try this one and compare. All good,” PJ Hamel writes in the company’s oft-recommended primer on sourdough starter. On King Arthur’s social media platforms, bakers have always felt comfortable posting panicked photos of explosively large doughs or asking extremely specific questions. And when bakers tag @kingarthurflour in photos of their finished products, the company responds like an enthusiastic friend. “What a lovely bundt, Marilyn!” reads a reply to one user’s tweeted creation. “Pairing ingredients and recipes is like putting two partners together for a dance. Will they fluidly tango? Your stunning Kaiser Rolls clearly answer that question!” the company replied on Facebook when a baker paired King Arthur’s bread flour with a Cook’s Illustrated recipe.
Hotline staffers are armed with all of King Arthur’s online resources and cookbooks, as well as fat binders of their own creation filled with handwritten notes on questions that have been asked before. And they’re game for questions that extend outside the baking realm. In late April, Schlarbaum picked up the phone to a stranger who wanted to know how much extra sauce she should make if she’d bought an extra pound of oxtail. “She was so nonchalant about it,” Schlarbaum says. As Easter in quarantine approached, Pochop received a few questions about ham and potatoes.
Even non-baking questions are usually culinary in nature, so if they can, the staffers try to answer them. After all, imagine you can’t leave your house, see your more cooking-inclined family, or even get through to most customer service lines — but there is one line that promises, seven days a week, to connect you with an actual human who will earnestly try to help you out, no matter how specific your problem. “On a daily basis we hear from people who just don’t know who else to call and they saw our number on the bag of flour that they have in their hand,” says Pochop.
As unprecedented as the volume of calls has been recently, the questions are the same as they’ve always been, just modified by the constraints of a global crisis. People still call about wedding cakes, but they’re making a miniature version because the couple is celebrating without family and friends. Schlarbaum called fellow hotline staffers to discuss a mascarpone filling for her own quarantine birthday cake. People are baking to relieve stress, just as they always have done, only now the stress and the baking have increased tenfold: “You’re looking for something that you can accomplish,” Perry says. “You’re looking for something that feels good and can take care of other people.”
People are maybe a little more emotional if their buttercream isn’t mixing properly, but Schlarbaum jumps into therapist mode, advising deep breaths and walking away for 15 minutes. “I tell them when I make buttercream, I’ve ruined it every single time.” Most calls end with a relieved baker and sometimes a few extra minutes of chatting, just because the caller doesn’t want to hang up yet.
“Right now, people are bored and anxieties are running high,” Schlarbaum says, “and I think people just need someone to be like, ‘No, no, the bread will be fine. Just let it rise another half an hour. It’ll be okay.’”
Erin Berger is a freelance writer and former culture editor at Outside magazine, based in Santa Fe, New Mexico.


vox--2020-06-15--The deaths of 2 black men by hanging, and calls for investigation, explained

Robert Fuller was “ the sweetest person you know , ” Tommie Anderson , Fuller ’ s best friend , told local station KABC this week .
“ He could make two people who didn ’ t like each other sit in a room together.
” But the 24-year-old Fuller was found dead on Wednesday , hanging from a tree in a square across from City Hall in Palmdale , California .
Authorities initially said he had died by suicide , but his family and many others are calling for a deeper investigation .
“ My brother was not suicidal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Diamond Alexander , said at a rally on Saturday .
“ He wasn ’ t. ” Fuller was the second black man found dead by hanging in the area in a matter of weeks .
On May 31 , Malcolm Harsch , 38 , was found outside a library in Victorville , California , about 50 miles away from Palmdale .
The investigation into his death is ongoing , but his family is worried it will be ruled a suicide , according to the New York Times .
The men ’ s deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its fourth week of protests against police violence and racism , spurred by the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis .
Especially given the manner of Fuller ’ s death , many fear that the men in California could have been victims of hate crimes .
“ If you can suggest suicide , ” said Laurielle Stewart , a protester , on Saturday , “ I can suggest a lynching.
” After firefighters found Harsch ’ s body apparently hanged with a USB cable , authorities told his family they did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were suspicious , according to the Victor Valley News .
“ Amidst the current racial tension and following the protesting the night prior to his body being discovered we were truly troubled to learn of his passing particularly of how his body was discovered , ” family members said in a statement to the newspaper .
“ He is an African-American man whose body was found hanging from a tree !
” Moreover , the family said , “ Malcolm had very recent conversations with his children about seeing them soon .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to anyone who truly knew him.
” Officials are continuing to investigate Harsch ’ s death , but his sister , Harmonie Harsch , is doing an investigation of her own .
“ It has been stressful , ” she told the New York Times .
“ It doesn ’ t sound right.
” As Harsch ’ s family grieved his death , Fuller ’ s body was found at 3:39 am in Palmdale ’ s Poncitlán Square , according to the Times .
“ Although the investigation is ongoing , it appears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” the Los Angeles County Sheriff ’ s Department said in a statement Friday .
“ Sadly , it is not the first such incident since the COVID-19 pandemic began , ” the city of Palmdale said in a statement , according to CNN .
“ The city remains committed to addressing mental health issues during these difficult times .
We are in this together.
” But his family , too , were deeply skeptical .
“ Everything that they ’ ve been telling us has not been right , ” Alexander @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We ’ ve been hearing one thing .
Then we hear another .
And we just want to know the truth.
” Many others shared their skepticism .
“ Why was it right here in public , in front of City Hall , next to a church , in front of a library ?
” said one woman at a press conference on Friday , according to the Times .
“ Why was it like that ?
Who would do that ?
No black man would hang himself in public like that.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Palmdale on Saturday , demanding answers in Fuller ’ s death , according to LAist .
And more than 200,000 people have signed a petition calling for a full and transparent investigation by authorities in Palmdale .
“ This was not a case of suicide but murder , ” the petition reads , demanding that authorities “ find the persons responsible for his lynching and justice for Robert Fuller and his family.
” In the wake of protests , the city of Palmdale issued a statement in support of an independent investigation Saturday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barger called on California ’ s attorney general to investigate .
Meanwhile , Fuller ’ s autopsy was conducted on Friday , but the cause of death has been deferred , according to KABC .
Both Harsch and Fuller died as millions protested around the country and the world in the wake of the deaths of George Floyd , Breonna Taylor , Tony McDade , Ahmaud Arbery , and other black Americans killed by police or white civilians .
Activists have been calling for investigations into their deaths , as well as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence .
And for many in California , the hanging deaths of two black men can not be separated from the context of a country grappling with centuries of racist killing .
“ I feel like somebody murdered my best friend and they used this tree to cover it up , ” Anderson , Fuller ’ s friend , told KABC .
“ There ’ s a lot of Black Lives Matter things going on and I feel like they want to put it on — it was mental issues , it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact that a young man was hung from a tree.
” 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 during a pandemic and an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Robert Fuller was “the sweetest person you know,” Tommie Anderson, Fuller’s best friend, told local station KABC this week. “He could make two people who didn’t like each other sit in a room together.”
But the 24-year-old Fuller was found dead on Wednesday, hanging from a tree in a square across from City Hall in Palmdale, California.
Authorities initially said he had died by suicide, but his family and many others are calling for a deeper investigation. “My brother was not suicidal,” Fuller’s sister, Diamond Alexander, said at a rally on Saturday. “He wasn’t.”
Fuller was the second black man found dead by hanging in the area in a matter of weeks. On May 31, Malcolm Harsch, 38, was found outside a library in Victorville, California, about 50 miles away from Palmdale. The investigation into his death is ongoing, but his family is worried it will be ruled a suicide, according to the New York Times.
The men’s deaths have been highlighted as the world enters its fourth week of protests against police violence and racism, spurred by the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Especially given the manner of Fuller’s death, many fear that the men in California could have been victims of hate crimes. “If you can suggest suicide,” said Laurielle Stewart, a protester, on Saturday, “I can suggest a lynching.”
Malcolm Harsch’s family doubts his death was suicide
After firefighters found Harsch’s body apparently hanged with a USB cable, authorities told his family they did not suspect foul play. But family members were suspicious, according to the Victor Valley News.
“Amidst the current racial tension and following the protesting the night prior to his body being discovered we were truly troubled to learn of his passing particularly of how his body was discovered,” family members said in a statement to the newspaper. “He is an African-American man whose body was found hanging from a tree!”
Moreover, the family said, “Malcolm had very recent conversations with his children about seeing them soon. He didn’t seem to be depressed to anyone who truly knew him.”
Officials are continuing to investigate Harsch’s death, but his sister, Harmonie Harsch, is doing an investigation of her own. “It has been stressful,” she told the New York Times. “It doesn’t sound right.”
Fuller’s family, too, are demanding answers
As Harsch’s family grieved his death, Fuller’s body was found at 3:39 am in Palmdale’s Poncitlán Square, according to the Times.
“Although the investigation is ongoing, it appears Mr. Fuller, tragically, committed suicide,” the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department said in a statement Friday.
“Sadly, it is not the first such incident since the COVID-19 pandemic began,” the city of Palmdale said in a statement, according to CNN. “The city remains committed to addressing mental health issues during these difficult times. We are in this together.”
But his family, too, were deeply skeptical. “Everything that they’ve been telling us has not been right,” Alexander said at a rally on Saturday. “We’ve been hearing one thing. Then we hear another. And we just want to know the truth.”
Many others shared their skepticism. “Why was it right here in public, in front of City Hall, next to a church, in front of a library?” said one woman at a press conference on Friday, according to the Times. “Why was it like that? Who would do that? No black man would hang himself in public like that.”
Hundreds of protesters came together in Palmdale on Saturday, demanding answers in Fuller’s death, according to LAist.
Hundreds have moved several hundred feet from Palmdale City Hall to the tree where Robert Fuller’s body was found. pic.twitter.com/kFrn0Natbc — Josie Huang (@josie_huang) June 13, 2020
And more than 200,000 people have signed a petition calling for a full and transparent investigation by authorities in Palmdale. “This was not a case of suicide but murder,” the petition reads, demanding that authorities “find the persons responsible for his lynching and justice for Robert Fuller and his family.”
In the wake of protests, the city of Palmdale issued a statement in support of an independent investigation Saturday, and Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger called on California’s attorney general to investigate. Meanwhile, Fuller’s autopsy was conducted on Friday, but the cause of death has been deferred, according to KABC.
Both Harsch and Fuller died as millions protested around the country and the world in the wake of the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Tony McDade, Ahmaud Arbery, and other black Americans killed by police or white civilians. Activists have been calling for investigations into their deaths, as well as a larger reckoning around police brutality and racist violence.
And for many in California, the hanging deaths of two black men cannot be separated from the context of a country grappling with centuries of racist killing.
“I feel like somebody murdered my best friend and they used this tree to cover it up,” Anderson, Fuller’s friend, told KABC. “There’s a lot of Black Lives Matter things going on and I feel like they want to put it on — it was mental issues, it was depression, it was something other than the fact that a young man was hung from a tree.”


vox--2020-06-15--The Supreme Court has given trans people reason to hope again

I met Aimee Stephens , the transgender woman at the center of perhaps the biggest LGBTQ court cases in US history , the day before the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments over whether it is legal for employers to fire queer or trans workers simply for being LGBTQ .
Monday morning the court ruled that it is not , in fact , legal to fire queer workers for being themselves .
“ I found it a little overwhelming when I realized that I could be in the history books , ” Stephens told me that morning .
“ Somebody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ d be happy and satisfied to be that person.
” The first emotion I had upon seeing Monday ’ s decision was relief ; the second was elation .
And then I thought about Stephens , who passed away just a few weeks ago .
She never lived to see her years-long legal fight come to such a momentous end .
That was the moment I shattered and the tears started flowing .
As a trans person , and as a journalist who has spent my whole career explaining why discrimination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discrimination as the court just held , this feeling of victory is an unfamiliar one .
Cisgender lesbians , gay men , and bisexual people have been here before , perhaps most notably in the 2015 Obergefell ruling legalizing marriage equality .
But for trans people , who have been told for decades to wait our turn for basic human rights , who have been spat on and laughed at and have over and over watched our sisters of color get murdered in cold blood , this was the first time the high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our lives .
The past few years , with the Trump administration ’ s repeated attacks on LGBTQ rights at large and transgender rights specifically , have been grim .
It started early with the administration almost immediately rolling back an Obama-era memo for schools to fairly treat trans students .
Then in July 2017 , Trump announced he would be ordering the military to ban trans people from serving .
The administration went after trans prisoners as well in May 2018 , deciding that in most cases , trans people should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at birth .
It has been a dark four years , with countless lives lost , and we had little reason to believe that we ’ d find any respite from a conservative Court now .
Many trans people had begun to lose hope before Monday ’ s ruling Allowing myself to feel hope is something I haven ’ t done since the earliest days of my transition , when I came out to my employer and friends and family on October 1 , 2016 , in the waning days of the Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tide might have been turning for trans Americans .
We had seemingly won the moral battle over North Carolina ’ s hideous bathroom bill , the administration had finally recognized that we have unique struggles , and they attempted to assuage some of them through administrative fiat .
Still , the election loomed large , and much hope was dashed when President Donald Trump was elected .
Things have gotten progressively worse for us since then .
The past week has maybe been the grimmest yet .
We started with beloved author @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how trans women and our rights should be considered a threat to women and children .
We also lost two of our black sisters , Riah Milton in Ohio and Dominique “ Rem ’ Mie ” Fells in Pennsylvania , who were brutally murdered .
They were the 13th and 14th trans women in the US to be killed this year , according to the Human Rights Campaign .
Then came an attack on trans homeless people , culminating in the Department of Housing and Urban Development announcing a proposed rule Friday allowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to their biological sex .
It seemed to end Friday with the Trump administration finalizing a Department of Health and Human Services rule that had been in the making for years , one that said sex is defined by biology , essentially giving doctors , insurers , and other medical providers the right to turn away LGBTQ people .
This rule would inevitably fall hardest on the trans community since so many of us depend on access to transition care just to exist peacefully in our own bodies .
But then on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prison guards laughing at Layleen Polanco , a black trans woman who was locked up on Rikers Island in New York City because she couldn ’ t post $ 500 bail , as she lay lifeless in her cell .
Several of my trans friends , most of them white , privileged professionals in their fields , quietly talked privately about calling suicide hotlines .
The trendlines were too awful .
It felt like we had run out of chances and society was closing its fist around our lives .
Then we realized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision day and that the court was running out of time in its current session to rule on the Stephens case and two other cases on LGBTQ employment rights .
That was the moment I lost hope .
I even tweeted about it .
The trans community has been bracing for a bad Supreme Court result for months now .
There was simply no way that a conservative Court , with two justices appointed by a president who specifically ran on arguably the most anti-transgender platform in US history , would rule our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I sat in the courtroom last fall as cisgender attorneys argued to the cisgender justices over my rights as a trans person .
The very first succession of questions , from Chief Justice John Roberts , was about bathrooms and dress codes .
“ In other words , if the objection of a transgender man transitioning to [ a ] woman is that he should be allowed to use , he or she , should be allowed to use the women ’ s bathroom , now , how do you analyze that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to them argue for nearly three hours over where I should go to the bathroom was one of the most frustrating experiences of my life .
And even if somehow trans people were going to prevail at the court , I thought , we ’ d have to go through Justice Neil Gorsuch , a Trump appointee .
He showed sympathy to the arguments made by Stephens ’ s attorney .
“ I ’ m with you on the textual evidence , ” he said late in arguments , referring to the Stephens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , okay ?
” It was a tiny glimmer of hope , but surely foolhardy .
Trans people never have that kind of luck .
And yet at 10 am Monday , when the Court finally released the opinion , there it was .
“ Held : An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII , ” read the decision .
And its author ?
Gorsuch himself .
It ’ s a strange feeling , winning such an unexpected yet decisive victory with the trans community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t know yet how this decision will carry into the future , but it is a moment that will stick with trans Americans for a long time .
It was then that I suddenly recognized that strange feeling coming over me : hope .
I thought again about my conversation with Stephens back in October .
I asked her how she was feeling about her case ; her answer gives the trans community and our allies guidance on what to do next .
“ Regardless of whether it ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a lot of work to do , ” she said .
“ When this part ’ s over , we just work on the next issue , and work hard and keeping going.
” 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

I met Aimee Stephens, the transgender woman at the center of perhaps the biggest LGBTQ court cases in US history, the day before the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments over whether it is legal for employers to fire queer or trans workers simply for being LGBTQ. Monday morning the court ruled that it is not, in fact, legal to fire queer workers for being themselves.
“I found it a little overwhelming when I realized that I could be in the history books,” Stephens told me that morning. “Somebody’s gotta do it and I’d be happy and satisfied to be that person.”
The first emotion I had upon seeing Monday’s decision was relief; the second was elation. And then I thought about Stephens, who passed away just a few weeks ago. She never lived to see her years-long legal fight come to such a momentous end.
That was the moment I shattered and the tears started flowing.
As a trans person, and as a journalist who has spent my whole career explaining why discrimination against trans people should be considered sex discrimination as the court just held, this feeling of victory is an unfamiliar one.
Cisgender lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people have been here before, perhaps most notably in the 2015 Obergefell ruling legalizing marriage equality. But for trans people, who have been told for decades to wait our turn for basic human rights, who have been spat on and laughed at and have over and over watched our sisters of color get murdered in cold blood, this was the first time the high court has seriously contended with the realities of our lives.
The past few years, with the Trump administration’s repeated attacks on LGBTQ rights at large and transgender rights specifically, have been grim. It started early with the administration almost immediately rolling back an Obama-era memo for schools to fairly treat trans students. Then in July 2017, Trump announced he would be ordering the military to ban trans people from serving. The administration went after trans prisoners as well in May 2018, deciding that in most cases, trans people should be housed according to their assigned sex at birth.
It has been a dark four years, with countless lives lost, and we had little reason to believe that we’d find any respite from a conservative Court now.
Many trans people had begun to lose hope before Monday’s ruling
Allowing myself to feel hope is something I haven’t done since the earliest days of my transition, when I came out to my employer and friends and family on October 1, 2016, in the waning days of the Obama administration.
Back then, I felt the tide might have been turning for trans Americans. We had seemingly won the moral battle over North Carolina’s hideous bathroom bill, the administration had finally recognized that we have unique struggles, and they attempted to assuage some of them through administrative fiat.
Still, the election loomed large, and much hope was dashed when President Donald Trump was elected. Things have gotten progressively worse for us since then.
The past week has maybe been the grimmest yet. We started with beloved author J.K. Rowling writing a 3,700-word screed about how trans women and our rights should be considered a threat to women and children. We also lost two of our black sisters, Riah Milton in Ohio and Dominique “Rem’Mie” Fells in Pennsylvania, who were brutally murdered. They were the 13th and 14th trans women in the US to be killed this year, according to the Human Rights Campaign.
Then came an attack on trans homeless people, culminating in the Department of Housing and Urban Development announcing a proposed rule Friday allowing shelters to strictly house homeless trans people according to their biological sex.
It seemed to end Friday with the Trump administration finalizing a Department of Health and Human Services rule that had been in the making for years, one that said sex is defined by biology, essentially giving doctors, insurers, and other medical providers the right to turn away LGBTQ people. This rule would inevitably fall hardest on the trans community since so many of us depend on access to transition care just to exist peacefully in our own bodies.
But then on Saturday, security footage was released showing prison guards laughing at Layleen Polanco, a black trans woman who was locked up on Rikers Island in New York City because she couldn’t post $500 bail, as she lay lifeless in her cell.
Several of my trans friends, most of them white, privileged professionals in their fields, quietly talked privately about calling suicide hotlines. The trendlines were too awful. It felt like we had run out of chances and society was closing its fist around our lives.
Then we realized that Monday would be a Supreme Court decision day and that the court was running out of time in its current session to rule on the Stephens case and two other cases on LGBTQ employment rights.
That was the moment I lost hope. I even tweeted about it.
I don’t have any hope left — Katelyn Burns (@transscribe) June 14, 2020
The trans community has been bracing for a bad Supreme Court result for months now. There was simply no way that a conservative Court, with two justices appointed by a president who specifically ran on arguably the most anti-transgender platform in US history, would rule our way in our first major court case.
I sat in the courtroom last fall as cisgender attorneys argued to the cisgender justices over my rights as a trans person. The very first succession of questions, from Chief Justice John Roberts, was about bathrooms and dress codes. “In other words, if the objection of a transgender man transitioning to [a] woman is that he should be allowed to use, he or she, should be allowed to use the women’s bathroom, now, how do you analyze that?” he asked immediately. Listening to them argue for nearly three hours over where I should go to the bathroom was one of the most frustrating experiences of my life.
And even if somehow trans people were going to prevail at the court, I thought, we’d have to go through Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee. He showed sympathy to the arguments made by Stephens’s attorney. “I’m with you on the textual evidence,” he said late in arguments, referring to the Stephens case. “It’s close, okay?”
It was a tiny glimmer of hope, but surely foolhardy. Trans people never have that kind of luck.
And yet at 10 am Monday, when the Court finally released the opinion, there it was. “Held: An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII,” read the decision. And its author? Gorsuch himself.
It’s a strange feeling, winning such an unexpected yet decisive victory with the trans community at such a low point. We don’t know yet how this decision will carry into the future, but it is a moment that will stick with trans Americans for a long time. It was then that I suddenly recognized that strange feeling coming over me: hope.
I thought again about my conversation with Stephens back in October. I asked her how she was feeling about her case; her answer gives the trans community and our allies guidance on what to do next. “Regardless of whether it’s a favorable decision or not, we still have a lot of work to do,” she said. “When this part’s over, we just work on the next issue, and work hard and keeping going.”


vox--2020-06-15--We have to protect each other from the coronavirus

The news from America ’ s emerging Covid-19 hot spots did not get any better over the weekend .
Florida hit a record high in new cases on Saturday .
Texas just missed doing the same , but the direction in that state and several others is clear : Cases are going up .
An ICU nurse in Arizona warned their wards are filling up with “ the sickest patients I ’ ve ever taken care of , ” according to this Facebook post shared by Reuters reporter Yahaira Jacquez .
“ I barely see my family because I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Current Covid-19 hospitalizations in the state topped 1,400 on Saturday , nearly doubled from a month ago .
More coronavirus patients are in the ICU there than ever before .
Arkansas , Texas , and North Carolina also saw new highs in Covid-19 hospitalizations over the weekend .
Red flags have been raised all over the country .
That post from the Arizona nurse ends , after restating the health care workforce ’ s resolve to give the best care to their patients , with a plaintive plea : “ All I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mask in public !
” It is truly the least any of us can do .
With states relaxing their lockdown orders , it will be incumbent on all of us , as individuals , to take a few mildly inconvenient but helpful steps to slow the spread of Covid-19 .
The stakes are high , as should be clear by now .
Death rates may be falling overall , but that is partly a reflection of New York City finally enjoying some relief after a traumatic couple of months .
Remember : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread starts up again .
We don ’ t yet know what the final toll will be , in human lives , of rushing into reopening without taking the necessary precautions to protect ourselves and others .
But we are already beginning to see the tragic consequences of cavalier attitudes .
Houston Chronicle reporter Jenny Deam tweeted Sunday that a 42-year-old hotel worker she had met had died from the coronavirus .
The man had told his doctor that he had served a large party on Memorial Day weekend .
“ Doctor said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very ‘ touchy feely ’ and few if any masks , ” Deam shared .
“ The guy died [ Saturday ] afternoon after doctors and nurses worked for hours to save him.
” From that description , it seems this event violated every one of the CDC ’ s new guidelines on staying safe post-lockdown .
You ’ re supposed to wear masks , you ’ re supposed to maintain your distance if you can , and you are supposed to limit your time with other people .
People should think about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to other people , environment , activity , and time spent together .
More distance is better , outdoors is safer than indoors , activities that involve lots of exhaling ( like singing or shouting ) are more dangerous than quieter ones , and a longer time spent with others is more dangerous than a shorter time .
Perhaps a helpful way to think about the risk is this : Imagine everyone is smoking , as Ed Yong suggested in the Atlantic , and you ’ d like to avoid inhaling as much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indoor space , that smoke is going to get dense and heavy fast .
If the windows are open , some of that smoke will blow away .
If fewer people are in the space , less smoke will accumulate , and it might not waft over to you if you ’ re standing far enough away .
But spend a lot of time in an enclosed space with those people , and the smoke grows denser .
The denser the smoke , the more likely it is to affect you .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The more of it you inhale , the more likely you are to get sick .
We can ’ t assume this Houston man would still be alive if every precaution had been taken .
The uncomfortable truth is we are all going to live with Covid-19 risk until there is a vaccine or a treatment .
But it does seem safe to say that the people around him did not do everything in their power to keep themselves and the workers serving them safe .
If we are going to start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be willing to accept a little inconvenience to slow the virus down .
Americans have done a good job of social distancing so far : According to a recent AP/NORC poll , 90 percent of people say they are wearing masks , as of early June , up from 78 percent in early April .
But while most people are also still avoiding crowded places and contact with high-risk people , adherence to those preventive measures is starting to dip a bit , according to the survey .
That is worrisome .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t mean eternal lockdown .
It ’ s simply unrealistic to shut down society for six months or a year and , besides , there is of course a real and measurable cost to people ’ s financial stability and physical and mental health .
But the trade-off for some resumption of normal life should be tolerating a few impositions in order to protect ourselves and others .
The evidence is pretty persuasive that wearing masks reduces Covid-19 ’ s spread , as Lois Parsley covered for Vox .
If you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affect your skin , Vox ’ s Terry Nguyen has some tips for that .
As Vox ’ s German Lopez and Amanda Northrop reported , we should start thinking about our behavior in terms of harm reduction .
Hanging at home with your housemates is , of course , the safest option .
But outdoor activities can also be thought of as a moderate risk , especially with some easy precautions like wearing a mask and washing your hands .
Even outdoor gatherings can be acceptable once in a while , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s really indoor gatherings , the highest-risk events , that should be avoided as much as possible .
The government can of course do more to make reopening safer .
It can increase funding for contact tracing , it can be cautious in relaxing its social distancing guidance , it could even provide more money to help reduce the financial pain of the crisis and relieve some of the urgency about reopening .
States and the feds could also do more to protect older people in nursing homes , where so many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a poor response .
Despite the federal government ’ s promises to send more protective gear to those facilities , the workers at nursing homes report much of what they have received from the feds is unusable , according to a new Wall Street Journal report .
That needs to be fixed .
But we can ’ t depend on the government entirely .
Reopening is upon us , and it ’ s the responsibility of each person to do what we can , for our sake and everyone ’ s , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of control .
The early signs are troubling .
There is no time to waste .
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 .

The news from America’s emerging Covid-19 hot spots did not get any better over the weekend. Florida hit a record high in new cases on Saturday. Texas just missed doing the same, but the direction in that state and several others is clear: Cases are going up.
An ICU nurse in Arizona warned their wards are filling up with “the sickest patients I’ve ever taken care of,” according to this Facebook post shared by Reuters reporter Yahaira Jacquez. “I barely see my family because I’m scared to give it to them.”
Current Covid-19 hospitalizations in the state topped 1,400 on Saturday, nearly doubled from a month ago. More coronavirus patients are in the ICU there than ever before. Arkansas, Texas, and North Carolina also saw new highs in Covid-19 hospitalizations over the weekend. Red flags have been raised all over the country.
That post from the Arizona nurse ends, after restating the health care workforce’s resolve to give the best care to their patients, with a plaintive plea: “All I ask is that you WEAR a damn mask in public!”
It is truly the least any of us can do. With states relaxing their lockdown orders, it will be incumbent on all of us, as individuals, to take a few mildly inconvenient but helpful steps to slow the spread of Covid-19.
The stakes are high, as should be clear by now. Death rates may be falling overall, but that is partly a reflection of New York City finally enjoying some relief after a traumatic couple of months. Remember: Deaths are the most lagging indicator once spread starts up again. We don’t yet know what the final toll will be, in human lives, of rushing into reopening without taking the necessary precautions to protect ourselves and others.
But we are already beginning to see the tragic consequences of cavalier attitudes. Houston Chronicle reporter Jenny Deam tweeted Sunday that a 42-year-old hotel worker she had met had died from the coronavirus. The man had told his doctor that he had served a large party on Memorial Day weekend.
“Doctor said he told him it was packed, very ‘touchy feely’ and few if any masks,” Deam shared. “The guy died [Saturday] afternoon after doctors and nurses worked for hours to save him.”
From that description, it seems this event violated every one of the CDC’s new guidelines on staying safe post-lockdown. You’re supposed to wear masks, you’re supposed to maintain your distance if you can, and you are supposed to limit your time with other people.
As Vox’s Brian Resnick explained:
People should think about Covid-19 risk in four dimensions: distance to other people, environment, activity, and time spent together. More distance is better, outdoors is safer than indoors, activities that involve lots of exhaling (like singing or shouting) are more dangerous than quieter ones, and a longer time spent with others is more dangerous than a shorter time. Perhaps a helpful way to think about the risk is this: Imagine everyone is smoking, as Ed Yong suggested in the Atlantic, and you’d like to avoid inhaling as much smoke as possible. In a cramped indoor space, that smoke is going to get dense and heavy fast. If the windows are open, some of that smoke will blow away. If fewer people are in the space, less smoke will accumulate, and it might not waft over to you if you’re standing far enough away. But spend a lot of time in an enclosed space with those people, and the smoke grows denser. The denser the smoke, the more likely it is to affect you. It’s the same with this virus: The more of it you inhale, the more likely you are to get sick.
We can’t assume this Houston man would still be alive if every precaution had been taken. The uncomfortable truth is we are all going to live with Covid-19 risk until there is a vaccine or a treatment.
But it does seem safe to say that the people around him did not do everything in their power to keep themselves and the workers serving them safe. If we are going to start reopening the economy, people have to be willing to accept a little inconvenience to slow the virus down.
Americans have done a good job of social distancing so far: According to a recent AP/NORC poll, 90 percent of people say they are wearing masks, as of early June, up from 78 percent in early April.
But while most people are also still avoiding crowded places and contact with high-risk people, adherence to those preventive measures is starting to dip a bit, according to the survey. That is worrisome. We have to stay vigilant.
That doesn’t mean eternal lockdown. It’s simply unrealistic to shut down society for six months or a year and, besides, there is of course a real and measurable cost to people’s financial stability and physical and mental health.
But the trade-off for some resumption of normal life should be tolerating a few impositions in order to protect ourselves and others.
The evidence is pretty persuasive that wearing masks reduces Covid-19’s spread, as Lois Parsley covered for Vox. If you’re worried about how constant mask-wearing might affect your skin, Vox’s Terry Nguyen has some tips for that. As Vox’s German Lopez and Amanda Northrop reported, we should start thinking about our behavior in terms of harm reduction. Hanging at home with your housemates is, of course, the safest option. But outdoor activities can also be thought of as a moderate risk, especially with some easy precautions like wearing a mask and washing your hands.
Even outdoor gatherings can be acceptable once in a while, so long as you are careful. It’s really indoor gatherings, the highest-risk events, that should be avoided as much as possible.
The government can of course do more to make reopening safer. It can increase funding for contact tracing, it can be cautious in relaxing its social distancing guidance, it could even provide more money to help reduce the financial pain of the crisis and relieve some of the urgency about reopening.
States and the feds could also do more to protect older people in nursing homes, where so many lives have already been lost due to a poor response. Despite the federal government’s promises to send more protective gear to those facilities, the workers at nursing homes report much of what they have received from the feds is unusable, according to a new Wall Street Journal report. That needs to be fixed.
But we can’t depend on the government entirely. Reopening is upon us, and it’s the responsibility of each person to do what we can, for our sake and everyone’s, to be safe and prevent Covid-19 from growing out of control. The early signs are troubling. There is no time to waste.


vox--2020-06-15--Calling the cops on someone with mental illness can go terribly wrong. Here’s a better idea.

We ’ ve seen it happen too many times .
Someone calls 911 to report a disturbance next door or out in the street .
The police show up .
Things go awry , and the police shoot the person at the center of the disturbance — and it turns out that the person had a mental health issue .
In the US , at least one in four people killed by the police has a serious mental health problem .
Stories of these police killings have been in the headlines for years , with anguished family members decrying officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now , with protests over police brutality going strong across the country , and calls to defund the police becoming increasingly mainstream , many Americans feel there has to be a better way to handle 911 calls .
Some people say there is : Instead of sending police to deal with non-criminal emergencies , why not send mental health experts ?
And instead of pouring more money into police budgets , why not redirect funds to programs that would get those experts out on the streets ?
Oakland , California , is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which has already been tried to good effect in Oregon and , farther afield , in Sweden .
Rebecca Kaplan , Oakland ’ s citywide council member , successfully advocated last year for $ 40,000 from the city budget to be spent on a study on how best to implement the Oregon model there .
The study investigated questions like : What ’ s the best way to complement existing mental health services without competing against them ?
Where in Oakland do most 911 calls related to mental illness originate ?
In which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concentrate a pilot program ?
This month , as the city council debated the budget for the coming year , that study was presented to a meeting of the Oakland Police Commission .
Council members discussed the possibility of launching a pilot called MACRO ( the Mobile Assistance Community Responders of Oakland ) .
The goal is to launch the pilot next year with funding from the city budget , and although supporters are not yet sure what its size and duration will be , they ’ re hopeful it ’ ll make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overpoliced community of people without homes .
They were among those who first called for a non-policing approach .
Other cities from Portland to New York are keeping a close eye on what happens in Oakland , because they ’ re also interested in potentially implementing this approach .
If the model takes off nationwide , it could be an effective way to reduce needless suffering for millions of Americans who have mental illness .
The non-policing approach has been tried elsewhere — and it works In 2015 , Stockholm started test-driving an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It looks like a regular ambulance on the outside , but instead of stretchers , it ’ s got cozy seats — perfect for a therapy session on wheels .
Two mental health nurses and one paramedic travel on board .
Most of the emergency cases they handle involve people at risk of suicide ; sometimes , they involve people having a psychotic episode .
The idea is that making these experts available boosts the quality of care , avoids needless escalation by law enforcement , and minimizes the stigma attached to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used to be the police who handled these kinds of calls , ” Anki Björnsdotter , who works as a mental health nurse aboard the ambulance , told Vice .
“ But just the presence of the police can easily cause a patient to feel like they ’ ve done something wrong .
Mental illness is nothing criminal so it doesn ’ t make sense to be picked up by the police.
” During its first year , the ambulance was requested 1,580 times and attended to 1,254 cases .
That means the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around Stockholm to handle 3.4 cases per day .
“ It has been considered a huge success by police , nurses , healthcare officials , as well as by the patients , ” said Fredrik Bengtsson , who ’ s in charge of mental health emergencies at Stockholm ’ s Sabbatsberg Hospital .
In Eugene , Oregon , the group handling such calls is called Cahoots ( Crisis Assistance Helping Out on the Street ) .
This nonprofit was founded by social activists way back in 1989 , but it ’ s been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the police ’ s sometimes violent and even lethal treatment of people with mental illness has sparked a public outcry .
Cahoots handles non-criminal crises involving people who are homeless , disoriented , or intoxicated , have a mental illness , or are enmeshed in an escalating dispute .
Here ’ s how the Wall Street Journal explained their work : The program in Eugene is unique because Cahoots is wired into the 911 system and responds to most calls without police .
The name Cahoots was intended to be a humorous nod @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closely with police .
Cahoots now has 39 employees and costs the city around $ 800,000 a year plus its vehicles , a fraction of the police department ’ s $ 58 million annual budget .
They are also paid to handle calls for neighboring Springfield .
“ It allows police officers to … deal with crime , but it also allows us to offer a different service that is really needed , ” said Lt. Ron Tinseth of the Eugene Police Department .
In contrast to police officers who typically seek to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employees dress in black sweatshirts , listen to their police radios via earbuds , and speak in calm tones with inviting body language .
In 2017 , Cahoots handled 17 percent of the police calls in Eugene , according to the Journal .
“ When I ’ m talking to a more liberal group of people , I ’ ll make the argument it ’ s the compassionate thing to do , it ’ s the humane thing to do , ” said Manning Walker , a Cahoots medic .
“ When I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I ’ ll make the argument that it ’ s the fiscally conservative thing to do because it ’ s cheaper for us to do this than for the police and firefighters.
” Oakland plans to launch a pilot program inspired by Cahoots .
It will see a mental health counselor and an EMT respond to some 911 calls instead of police .
Anne Janks from the Coalition for Police Accountability , an organization that advocates for constitutional and transparent policing in Oakland , told me she hasn ’ t encountered any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cahoots model .
“ It ’ s actually been heartening for those of us who ’ ve been doing political organizing for a while — we ’ ve been joking that we ’ ve never worked on something before where everyone ’ s supporting it , ” she said .
“ The Cahoots program has proven successful in Eugene to treat those struggling with mental health issues with dignity and respect , and to direct them to services that are more appropriate than spending time in police custody , ” said Kaplan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I believe this is a good model to test in Oakland , and I look forward to sharing the results.
” Already , Cahoots is working with a number of cities — Olympia , Washington ; Denver , Colorado ; New York ; Indianapolis , Indiana ; Portland and Roseburg , Oregon — to see how they might be able to implement the non-policing model .
With any luck , this approach , which is both more empathetic and more cost-effective , can help reduce suffering for millions of people .
Sign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twice a week , you ’ ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges : improving public health , decreasing human and animal suffering , easing catastrophic risks , and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good .

We’ve seen it happen too many times. Someone calls 911 to report a disturbance next door or out in the street. The police show up. Things go awry, and the police shoot the person at the center of the disturbance — and it turns out that the person had a mental health issue.
In the US, at least one in four people killed by the police has a serious mental health problem. Stories of these police killings have been in the headlines for years, with anguished family members decrying officers’ violence toward their loved ones. Now, with protests over police brutality going strong across the country, and calls to defund the police becoming increasingly mainstream, many Americans feel there has to be a better way to handle 911 calls.
Some people say there is: Instead of sending police to deal with non-criminal emergencies, why not send mental health experts? And instead of pouring more money into police budgets, why not redirect funds to programs that would get those experts out on the streets?
Oakland, California, is the newest city to explore this approach, which has already been tried to good effect in Oregon and, farther afield, in Sweden.
Rebecca Kaplan, Oakland’s citywide council member, successfully advocated last year for $40,000 from the city budget to be spent on a study on how best to implement the Oregon model there. The study investigated questions like: What’s the best way to complement existing mental health services without competing against them? Where in Oakland do most 911 calls related to mental illness originate? In which neighborhoods does it make most sense to concentrate a pilot program?
This month, as the city council debated the budget for the coming year, that study was presented to a meeting of the Oakland Police Commission. Council members discussed the possibility of launching a pilot called MACRO (the Mobile Assistance Community Responders of Oakland). The goal is to launch the pilot next year with funding from the city budget, and although supporters are not yet sure what its size and duration will be, they’re hopeful it’ll make a big difference to Oakland’s overpoliced community of people without homes. They were among those who first called for a non-policing approach.
For decades, funding has been reduced for schools and mental health, and increased for prisons and militarized police. To build a just society and a healthier future, we need effective civilian response for mental health and other situations, planned in connection with community. https://t.co/SRSHivLWAr — Rebecca Kaplan, Oakland Council President (@Kaplan4Oakland) June 13, 2020
Other cities from Portland to New York are keeping a close eye on what happens in Oakland, because they’re also interested in potentially implementing this approach. If the model takes off nationwide, it could be an effective way to reduce needless suffering for millions of Americans who have mental illness.
The non-policing approach has been tried elsewhere — and it works
In 2015, Stockholm started test-driving an ambulance devoted entirely to mental health care. It looks like a regular ambulance on the outside, but instead of stretchers, it’s got cozy seats — perfect for a therapy session on wheels. Two mental health nurses and one paramedic travel on board. Most of the emergency cases they handle involve people at risk of suicide; sometimes, they involve people having a psychotic episode.
The idea is that making these experts available boosts the quality of care, avoids needless escalation by law enforcement, and minimizes the stigma attached to people with mental illness.
“It used to be the police who handled these kinds of calls,” Anki Björnsdotter, who works as a mental health nurse aboard the ambulance, told Vice. “But just the presence of the police can easily cause a patient to feel like they’ve done something wrong. Mental illness is nothing criminal so it doesn’t make sense to be picked up by the police.”
During its first year, the ambulance was requested 1,580 times and attended to 1,254 cases. That means the single vehicle was tasked with zipping all around Stockholm to handle 3.4 cases per day.
“It has been considered a huge success by police, nurses, healthcare officials, as well as by the patients,” said Fredrik Bengtsson, who’s in charge of mental health emergencies at Stockholm’s Sabbatsberg Hospital.
In Eugene, Oregon, the group handling such calls is called Cahoots (Crisis Assistance Helping Out on the Street). This nonprofit was founded by social activists way back in 1989, but it’s been garnering more attention in recent years as the police’s sometimes violent and even lethal treatment of people with mental illness has sparked a public outcry.
Cahoots handles non-criminal crises involving people who are homeless, disoriented, or intoxicated, have a mental illness, or are enmeshed in an escalating dispute. Here’s how the Wall Street Journal explained their work:
The program in Eugene is unique because Cahoots is wired into the 911 system and responds to most calls without police. The name Cahoots was intended to be a humorous nod to the fact that they are working closely with police. Cahoots now has 39 employees and costs the city around $800,000 a year plus its vehicles, a fraction of the police department’s $58 million annual budget. They are also paid to handle calls for neighboring Springfield. “It allows police officers to … deal with crime, but it also allows us to offer a different service that is really needed,” said Lt. Ron Tinseth of the Eugene Police Department. In contrast to police officers who typically seek to project authority at all times, Cahoots employees dress in black sweatshirts, listen to their police radios via earbuds, and speak in calm tones with inviting body language.
In 2017, Cahoots handled 17 percent of the police calls in Eugene, according to the Journal. “When I’m talking to a more liberal group of people, I’ll make the argument it’s the compassionate thing to do, it’s the humane thing to do,” said Manning Walker, a Cahoots medic. “When I’m talking to a conservative group, I’ll make the argument that it’s the fiscally conservative thing to do because it’s cheaper for us to do this than for the police and firefighters.”
Oakland plans to launch a pilot program inspired by Cahoots. It will see a mental health counselor and an EMT respond to some 911 calls instead of police.
Anne Janks from the Coalition for Police Accountability, an organization that advocates for constitutional and transparent policing in Oakland, told me she hasn’t encountered any critics of the plan to adopt the Cahoots model. “It’s actually been heartening for those of us who’ve been doing political organizing for a while — we’ve been joking that we’ve never worked on something before where everyone’s supporting it,” she said.
“The Cahoots program has proven successful in Eugene to treat those struggling with mental health issues with dignity and respect, and to direct them to services that are more appropriate than spending time in police custody,” said Kaplan, Oakland’s citywide council member. “I believe this is a good model to test in Oakland, and I look forward to sharing the results.”
Already, Cahoots is working with a number of cities — Olympia, Washington; Denver, Colorado; New York; Indianapolis, Indiana; Portland and Roseburg, Oregon — to see how they might be able to implement the non-policing model. With any luck, this approach, which is both more empathetic and more cost-effective, can help reduce suffering for millions of people.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter. Twice a week, you’ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges: improving public health, decreasing human and animal suffering, easing catastrophic risks, and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good.


vox--2020-06-15--The Supreme Court’s landmark LGBTQ rights decision, explained in 5 simple sentences

Bostock v. Clayton County , a landmark Supreme Court decision holding that federal law prohibits employment discrimination against LGBTQ workers , was a test of Justice Neil Gorsuch ’ s principles .
He passed .
Gorsuch is a vocal proponent of “ textualism , ” the belief that the meaning of a law turns on its words alone , not on the intentions of the law ’ s drafters .
And Bostock forced Gorsuch to decide between his own conservative politics and following the broad language of a landmark civil rights law .
Gorsuch didn ’ t simply honor his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the majority opinion .
In Bostock , the Court considered Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 , which forbids employment discrimination that occurs “ because of [ an employee ’ s ] race , color , religion , sex , or national origin.
” Though there is little doubt that the people who drafted this law in 1964 did not believe they were enacting a ban on LGBTQ discrimination , the thrust of Gorsuch ’ s opinion is that the expectations of lawmakers in 1964 simply do not matter .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And , as Bostock explains at length , that text clearly prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity .
Gorsuch lays out why in just five crisp sentences on the first page of his majority opinion : Remarkably , Bostock is a 6-3 opinion .
Both Gorsuch , a Trump appointee , and Chief Justice John Roberts , a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush , joined the majority .
Roberts joined Gorsuch ’ s opinion in full and did not write a separate opinion .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ LGBTQ rights plaintiffs in the past .
But the sheer force of the plaintiffs ’ textual arguments in Bostock appears to have weighed heavily on both men .
At the very least , Bostock suggests that this conservative Supreme Court can follow the clear text of a law , even when that reading points in a liberal direction .
Why discrimination against LGBTQ people is sex discrimination Title VII bans any employment discrimination that occurs “ because of ... sex.
” As Bostock explains , this means that if an employer “ intentionally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s sex when deciding to discharge the employee ” or “ if changing the employee ’ s sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer , ” then Title VII has been violated .
Having laid out this rule , Gorsuch then explains why discrimination against LGBTQ employees constitutes “ sex discrimination ” by laying out two examples : Consider , for example , an employer with two employees , both of whom are attracted to men .
The two individuals are , to the employer ’ s mind , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that one is a man and the other a woman .
If the employer fires the male employee for no reason other than the fact he is attracted to men , the employer discriminates against him for traits or actions it tolerates in his female colleague .
That is , if an employer permits its female employees to have sexual and romantic attractions to men but denies that same right to male employees , it is engaged in sex discrimination .
It treats men differently than women .
Thus , Bostock turns on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s text .
Discrimination “ because of ... sex ” occurs whenever an employer treats male employees differently than female employees , or vice-versa .
And , because discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity necessarily requires an employer to treat some male employees differently than some female employees , or vice-versa , such discrimination is illegal .
The text of the law is the only thing that matters in Bostock .
As Gorsuch concludes his opinion , “ ours is a society of written laws , ” and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to overlook plain statutory commands on the strength of nothing more than suppositions about intentions or guesswork about expectations.
” Because Congress “ adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee ’ s sex when deciding to fire that employee , ” the Court must hold that anti-LGBTQ discrimination in the workplace is illegal .
Anti-LGBTQ employers may still gain a religious exemption to Title VII Bostock is , undoubtedly , a major victory for LGBTQ rights — before Bostock , it was still legal for employers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ orientation or gender identity in most states .
But it is unclear whether Bostock will entirely ban workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity .
That ’ s because the Court is also considering whether to grant employers with religious objections to LGBTQ people an exemption from anti-discrimination laws .
In a concurring opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ( 2018 ) , Gorsuch suggested that religious conservatives should enjoy sweeping exemptions from laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hear a case next fall asking whether religious organizations have a broad right to engage in anti-LGBTQ discrimination .
So the fate of individual LGBTQ workers remains unclear — at least for employees with bosses who object to LGBTQ people on religious grounds .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Bostock v. Clayton County, a landmark Supreme Court decision holding that federal law prohibits employment discrimination against LGBTQ workers, was a test of Justice Neil Gorsuch’s principles. He passed.
Gorsuch is a vocal proponent of “textualism,” the belief that the meaning of a law turns on its words alone, not on the intentions of the law’s drafters. And Bostock forced Gorsuch to decide between his own conservative politics and following the broad language of a landmark civil rights law. Gorsuch didn’t simply honor his textualist approach in Bostock; he wrote the majority opinion.
In Bostock, the Court considered Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids employment discrimination that occurs “because of [an employee’s] race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Though there is little doubt that the people who drafted this law in 1964 did not believe they were enacting a ban on LGBTQ discrimination, the thrust of Gorsuch’s opinion is that the expectations of lawmakers in 1964 simply do not matter.
Only the text of Title VII matters. And, as Bostock explains at length, that text clearly prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Gorsuch lays out why in just five crisp sentences on the first page of his majority opinion:
In Title VII, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.
Remarkably, Bostock is a 6-3 opinion. Both Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, and Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush, joined the majority. Roberts joined Gorsuch’s opinion in full and did not write a separate opinion. Neither man has shown much sympathy for LGBTQ rights plaintiffs in the past.
But the sheer force of the plaintiffs’ textual arguments in Bostock appears to have weighed heavily on both men. At the very least, Bostock suggests that this conservative Supreme Court can follow the clear text of a law, even when that reading points in a liberal direction.
Why discrimination against LGBTQ people is sex discrimination
Title VII bans any employment discrimination that occurs “because of ... sex.” As Bostock explains, this means that if an employer “intentionally relies in part on an individual employee’s sex when deciding to discharge the employee” or “if changing the employee’s sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer,” then Title VII has been violated.
Having laid out this rule, Gorsuch then explains why discrimination against LGBTQ employees constitutes “sex discrimination” by laying out two examples:
Consider, for example, an employer with two employees, both of whom are attracted to men. The two individuals are, to the employer’s mind, materially identical in all respects, except that one is a man and the other a woman. If the employer fires the male employee for no reason other than the fact he is attracted to men, the employer discriminates against him for traits or actions it tolerates in his female colleague.
That is, if an employer permits its female employees to have sexual and romantic attractions to men but denies that same right to male employees, it is engaged in sex discrimination. It treats men differently than women.
Gorsuch also applies similar logic to a transgender employee:
Or take an employer who fires a transgender person who was identified as a male at birth but who now identifies as a female. If the employer retains an otherwise identical employee who was identified as female at birth, the employer intentionally penalizes a person identified as male at birth for traits or actions that it tolerates in an employee identified as female at birth. Again, the individual employee’s sex plays an unmistakable and impermissible role in the discharge decision.
Thus, Bostock turns on a simple application of Title VII’s text. Discrimination “because of ... sex” occurs whenever an employer treats male employees differently than female employees, or vice-versa. And, because discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity necessarily requires an employer to treat some male employees differently than some female employees, or vice-versa, such discrimination is illegal.
The text of the law is the only thing that matters in Bostock. As Gorsuch concludes his opinion, “ours is a society of written laws,” and that means that “judges are not free to overlook plain statutory commands on the strength of nothing more than suppositions about intentions or guesswork about expectations.” Because Congress “adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee’s sex when deciding to fire that employee,” the Court must hold that anti-LGBTQ discrimination in the workplace is illegal.
Anti-LGBTQ employers may still gain a religious exemption to Title VII
Bostock is, undoubtedly, a major victory for LGBTQ rights — before Bostock, it was still legal for employers to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in most states.
But it is unclear whether Bostock will entirely ban workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. That’s because the Court is also considering whether to grant employers with religious objections to LGBTQ people an exemption from anti-discrimination laws.
In a concurring opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), Gorsuch suggested that religious conservatives should enjoy sweeping exemptions from laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. And the Supreme Court is expected to hear a case next fall asking whether religious organizations have a broad right to engage in anti-LGBTQ discrimination.
So the fate of individual LGBTQ workers remains unclear — at least for employees with bosses who object to LGBTQ people on religious grounds.