Mamdani in fresh political heat over college admission declaration
In a recent report, the New York Times stated that Mamdani had claimed both Asian as well as Black or African American status in a college application to Columbia University in 2009.
Mamdani's political opponents have attacked the 33-year old politician for claiming African American status to advance his chances of admission into Columbia at a time when the university used race-sensitive affirmative action policies to enhance diversity in the student body.
Mamdani - who was born in Uganda to filmmaker Mira Nair and Indian-Ugandan academic Mahmood Mamdani - has said that he does not identify as African-American but as an 'American born in Africa'.
'Most college applications don't have a box for Indian-Ugandans, so I checked multiple boxes trying to capture the fullness of my background,' Mamdani was quoted as telling the New York Times.
Mamdani's father - the noted Columbia Professor Mahmood Mamdani - spent much of his academic career in Uganda and other African academic institutions and traces his roots to Gujarat.
The controversy has sparked a vigorous debate on questions of race and identity politics, which remain sensitive and highly resonant issues in American politics.
Incumbent New York City Mayor Eric Adams - who is running as an independent to secure re-election in November - has attacked Mamdani
'The African American identity is not a checkbox of convenience,' Adams said. 'It's a history, a struggle, and a lived experience.
For someone to exploit that for personal gain is deeply offensive,' he added.
The campaign of former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who was recently defeated by Mamdani for the Democratic nomination in the mayoral election, has also weighed in.
'This issue must be fully investigated because, if true, it could be fraud and just the tip of the iceberg,' said a spokesperson for Cuomo's campaign.
However, Mamdani's opponent from the Republican Party, Curtis Sliwa, has called for all parties to move on and focus on the core issues concerning New Yorkers.
'Even people who don't agree with him on the issues will rally to his defence when they think the attacks are unfair or over the top,' said Sliwa, who will also challenge Mamdani in the general election in November.
Despite the controversy, Mamdani remains the front-runner to become Mayor of New York City in November.
According to a poll conducted by polling firm American Pulse, 35.2% of likely voters in New York City said they would vote for Mamdani in the November election.
Former Governor Andrew Cuomo came in second with 29% of public support while Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa and incumbent Mayor Eric Adams came third and fourth respectively.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
14 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Express View: For India, is BRICS worth it?
The 2025 BRICS Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil ended over the weekend with a wide-ranging declaration on global and regional issues. But few outside the hapless desk officers in various foreign offices around the world and policy wonks in think tanks would want to pore over the 126-paragraph, 47-page, over-16,000-word declaration. With such familiar phrases as 'multipolar world', 'Global South', 'inclusive', 'sustainable' and 'global governance', it will certainly impress the enthusiasts who see BRICS as a powerful instrument to upend the global order. Many in the West do fear BRICS for the same reason. There is no reason to believe that US President Donald Trump would have had the time to read the long declaration, but he has repeated his earlier claim that BRICS is 'anti-American' and threatened to impose additional tariffs on members of the forum. But the hopes and fears of BRICS engineering a global transformation are misplaced. For, the forum is riddled with several contradictions of its own and its grasp has always been larger than its reach. As irony would have it, if anyone is trying to build a 'post-American order', it is Trump. In less than six months, he has overturned many traditional assumptions about US global policies and is seeking to radically overhaul the international system that Washington built after World War II and that was modified by it at the turn of the 1990s. Consider, for example, the BRICS talk about reforming the Bretton Woods system; Trump is doing precisely that by pressing for change at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The BRICS call to save the World Trade Organisation is a sad (and hypocritical) cry in the wilderness with Trump well on his way to demolishing the rule-maker for world commerce. Even more damaging is that leading members of BRICS have been queuing up in Washington to negotiate bilateral deals with Trump holding a gun to their heads. They are not saving the WTO but protecting their own national trade with America by looking for bilateral deals. China has cut a limited deal. Vietnam, another communist country, announced a trade deal of its own. India hopes that its intensive trade negotiations with Trump's Washington in the past few months will bear fruit this week. Equally far-fetched is the idea that members of BRICS can submerge their bilateral differences to collectively blunt American dominance. For India, the economic and security challenges presented by China are much bigger than those posed by American hegemony. Two BRICS states — Saudi Arabia and the UAE — are as worried as Israel and the US about the nuclear weapons programme of a third member, Iran. But here is the rub. Trump's actions to overhaul the global economic, financial, and security order have produced great global churn. The Rio declaration has no answers, only hot air, in response to the Trump challenge. The circumstances that persuaded India to found BRICS and promote it for three decades are no longer present. Yet the political groupthink in Delhi is so entrenched that no questions are asked about the virtue of India investing so much political and diplomatic capital in a forum that does little to serve the country's current interests. With India taking over the chair of BRICS, the time to ask those questions is now.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
20 minutes ago
- Business Standard
UN adopts resolution on Afghanistan's Taliban rule despite US objections
The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on Monday over US objections calling on Afghanistan's Taliban rulers to reverse their worsening oppression of women and girls and eliminate all terrorist organizations. The 11-page resolution also emphasises the importance of creating opportunities for economic recovery, development and prosperity in Afghanistan, and urges donors to address the country's dire humanitarian and economic crisis. The resolution is not legally binding but is seen as a reflection of world opinion. The vote was 116 in favour, with two the United States and close ally Israel opposed and 12 abstentions, including Russia, China, India and Iran. Since returning to power in Afghanistan in 2021, the Taliban have imposed harsh measures, banning women from public places and girls from attending school beyond the sixth grade. Last week, Russia became the first country to formally recognize the Taliban's government. Germany's UN Ambassador Antje Leendertse, whose country sponsored the resolution, told the assembly before the vote that her country and many others remain gravely concerned about the dire human rights situation in Afghanistan, especially the Taliban's near-total erasure of the rights of women and girls. The core message of the resolution, she said, is to tell Afghan mothers holding sick and underfed children or mourning victims of terrorist attacks, as well as the millions of Afghan women and girls locked up at home, that they have not been forgotten. US minister-counsellor Jonathan Shrier was critical of the resolution, which he said rewards the Taliban's failure with more engagement and more resources." He said the Trump administration doubts they will ever pursue policies "in accordance with the expectations of the international community. For decades we shouldered the burden of supporting the Afghan people with time, money and, most important, American lives, he said. It is the time for the Taliban to step up. The United States will no longer enable their heinous behaviour. Last month, the Trump administration banned Afghans hoping to resettle in the US permanently and those seeking to come temporarily, with exceptions. The resolution expresses appreciation to governments hosting Afghan refugees, singling out the two countries that have taken the most: Iran and Pakistan. While the resolution notes improvements in Afghanistan's overall security situation, it reiterates concern about attacks by al-Qaida and Islamic State militants and their affiliates. It calls upon Afghanistan "to take active measures to tackle, dismantle and eliminate all terrorist organizations equally and without discrimination. The General Assembly also encouraged UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to appoint a coordinator to facilitate a more coherent, coordinated and structured approach to its international engagements on Afghanistan.
Mint
34 minutes ago
- Mint
The great dealmaker is conspicuously short of trade deals
The world's trading system is now a reality-TV show. 'We invite you to participate in the extraordinary Economy of the United States, the Number One Market in the World," President Donald Trump proclaimed in letters dispatched to many of America's partners on July 7th. Then he threatened them with tariffs set to take effect on August 1st: 25% for Japan and South Korea, 32% for Indonesia and 36% Thailand. How serious is this deadline? Mr Trump first announced 'reciprocal" tariffs on April 2nd, only to withdraw them a week later, and grant countries another 90 days to reach deals. As the new deadline of July 9th loomed, it became clear that the administration's boast of '90 deals in 90 days" would fall flat. Negotiators have lined up only two 'frameworks", with Britain and Vietnam. Rather than admit failure, Mr Trump has doubled down, issuing a new deadline and posting threats to the world. Trade deals, it turns out, take time. Japan jumped to the front of the queue in April after Ishiba Shigeru, its prime minister, had a friendly phone call with Mr Trump. Its chief trade negotiator even donned a MAGA hat for the cameras during a visit to Washington. But after seven rounds of talks in three months, America is learning just how slow trade negotiations can be. Deals typically take 18 months to strike because they are complex and politically fraught. Although Mr Trump wants talks with Japan to settle all of America's grievances, from the trade deficit and defence spending to non-tariff barriers such as regulations on cars, Japan has its own constraints. Its government has ruled out concessions that would anger farmers ahead of an election to the upper house of parliament on July 20th or put its car industry at risk. Meanwhile, American tariffs on Japanese autos are already in place under a separate measure, meaning they were never tied to the July 9th deadline. Trade negotiations also require clarity on aims, which is in short supply in Mr Trump's talks with South Korea. In March he claimed that the Asian country maintained tariffs four times higher than America's, baffling officials. South Korea has a free-trade agreement, renegotiated during Mr Trump's first term, under which its tariff on American manufactured goods is near zero. Last week, Lee Jae-myung, South Korea's president, admitted that 'the two sides are not really clear what they want." And the agenda has since sprawled. America has raised issues including digital taxes on its tech firms, cost-sharing for its troops, network fees for platforms such as Netflix, South Korean investment in shipbuilding and an Alaskan pipeline, and restrictions on the export of location-based data by Google and others. With Mr Trump's tariff deadline now, in many cases, extended by three weeks, America's trading partners face a difficult calculation. They suspect he may delay again if they fail to reach an agreement, but cannot rely on him doing so. Such an imbalance—with export-reliant partners suffering more than America in the event of a deterioration in relations—gives Mr Trump leverage. Most will try to defuse the threat by conceding where they can, promising to buy more American gas and farm goods or to tweak regulations. Where concessions are especially unpalatable, they will stall and hope that domestic politics shifts or that small offers buy time. The goal is to yield just enough to avoid the full weight of tariffs, while avoiding outright capitulation. Over a dozen tariff letters have gone out; more are expected in coming days. For now, one name is missing: the European Union. With Canada, China and Mexico enjoying separate negotiations, and Britain and Vietnam signed up, the EU is the biggest partner still in play. It is racing to secure a preliminary deal to lock in a tariff rate of 10%. The bloc wants exemptions for aeroplane parts, wine and better terms for its carmakers, including a deal that would allow those with plants in America to ship more vehicles from Europe at lower rates. Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission's president, has also hinted at granting leeway for American tech firms on digital rules and closer co-operation on China, even as the bloc has prepared an arsenal of counter-measures that it could turn to if negotiations head south. Officials are working on a slim 'agreement in principle". If it is signed in the coming days, others may look on in envy—and wonder if the EU's threat of retaliation helped seal the deal.
