Latest news with #AustinSarat
Gulf Today
05-07-2025
- Politics
- Gulf Today
In a democracy protest is good for the soul
Austin Sarat, Tribune News Service For the last several months, I have organised a weekly 'Stand-Up for Democracy' rally/protest on the busiest street corner in my hometown. On Fridays at 5:30 pm., students, teachers, townspeople, and senior citizens come together, hold signs, and wave at passing drivers, some of whom honk their horns in solidarity. I live in a very progressive town, where last November, Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential candidate, beat President Donald Trump by a margin of more than nine to one. Some of my friends ask, 'Why bother?' They think that we are preaching to the choir or that the president and his colleagues are impervious. These are, in a sense, the wrong questions. Protest is a democratic practice, valuable everywhere, regardless of its immediate impact. That is why it was so important that millions of Americans did their own Stand Up for Democracy events on June 14. While liberals took heart at those numbers, some conservative commentators called them 'utter nonsense.' Writing in The Hill, law professor Jonathan Turley argued, 'The well-funded protests are being fueled by Democratic leaders, who are resuming their claims that citizens must either protest... or accept tyranny in the U.S. Turley went on to call the No Kings day rallying cry, 'Democracy is dying'... an absurdity...., since every indication is that our constitutional system is operating precisely as designed.' 'Precisely as designed'? While I respect Prof. Turley, who is a well-published legal scholar, I don't share his Panglossian view of our current situation. And neither do millions of other Americans. New York Times columnist David Brooks spoke for many of them when he wrote that 'over the centuries, people built...(c)onstitutions to restrain is threatening all of that. It is primarily about acquiring is a multifront assault to make the earth a playground for ruthless men, so of course any institutions that might restrain power must be weakened or destroyed.' While Brooks admitted that 'I don't naturally march in demonstrations or attend rallies that I'm not covering as a journalist,' he concluded, 'this is what America needs right now.' I agree. Developing a coordinated national movement to preserve democracy is an urgent priority. In the meantime, however, people should not wait to make their voices heard. But they need to be realistic about what protesting can and cannot do. That realism requires that those who protest understand that no matter how many of us hold rallies to express our devotion to democracy, we are unlikely to change the minds of those who support Trump. Some, like Turley, will continue to believe he is operating within the bounds of our constitutional system; others are happy with his autocratic tendencies. Conversion is, however, not the point, at least not at this time. Commentators who urge people 'who are demonstrating to reach out to those who are not yet protesting and persuade them to join local groups that are fighting for our democracy' are offering a limited metric. Protesting is a democratic practice in and of itself. In some ways, it is like voting. It is a way of expressing an opinion, standing up for a point of view, rather than trying to change anyone's mind. Think of protest as a regular form of democratic participation, not an aberration or a departure from the routines of democratic life. Protest, Harvard's Stephen Jones says, 'inform(s) politicians of voters' concerns. Protest is an educational process which combats passivity.' If it is non-violent, Jones argues, 'it can deepen democracy's reach.... (and) at the heart of every democracy there is always a history of protest.' Vanessa Williamson, Senior Fellow at Brookings, puts it this way: 'Protest as an essential part of democracy, and...a critical political tool. So if you're thinking to yourself that in any given political fight, there's maybe a stronger party and a weaker party, for the weaker party, the way for them to win is to get people off the sidelines, right?' That's what protests do, even when they are small and carried out in places like the progressive town in which I live. They are important because they make 'grievances and concerns and problems visible to others.' They are a way of being with others in a public arena. Courts have traditionally recognized that and accorded protests First Amendment protections. Gatherings on public streets, sidewalks, or parks constitute, they say, are a 'traditional public forum' where speech cannot be prohibited, except through reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Protests enable members of a democratic community to express their thoughts, cheer on their side, make their voices heard, and combat despair. As the psychologist Radhule Weininger suggests, 'Taking action, especially collectively, can reduce feelings of helplessness....' Weininger notes that 'when joining a rally, participants often report a stronger sense of control over their circumstances and future. Being surrounded by people with shared convictions creates a vital sense of community. Formerly frightened people feel less isolated and cultivate more agency. Moods are elevated and can transform from disheartened to energised and even joyful.' Unlike elections, where votes can be counted and the results known quickly, protests have a long and uncertain time horizon. That is as true for the No Kings protests as it is for any other. That fact is another reason why protesting is so important in a democracy. It helps people practice commitment, discipline, and patience. For those who want more, there is empirical evidence that non-violent protests ultimately yield results. Looking at demonstrations over the last century, Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan Chenoweth found that nonviolent protests led to significant 'political change' 53% of the time compared to 26% for the violent protests. But they remind us that it takes 'around 3.5% of the population actively participating in the protests to ensure serious political change.' Protest works, Professor Zeynep Tufekci explains, 'because they can undermine the most important pillar of power: not repression, is the bedrock of resilient power.' Losing legitimacy, she adds, 'is the most important threat to authorities can do only so much for so long to hold on to power under such conditions.' Protests, on her account, 'are a grab for attention: They are an attempt to force a conversation about the topic they're highlighting.... Successful protests are the ones that win that conversation and in the framing of the issue...' Protests are good for the soul. They can 'change the protesters the cause is so powerful that the protesters don't calculate whether it works or not, but feel morally compelled to show up and be counted.' Showing up and being counted, that's what democracy demands. That's why I'll be back, with whoever shows up, for Friday afternoons Stand Up for Democracy rallies/protests on a street corner in my progressive town.
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Republican admits he voted for the GOP megabill, though key elements were ‘unknown' to him
On the surface, the House Republicans' massive reconciliation package — the inaptly named 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' — focused on redistributing wealth from the bottom up. Republican policymakers set out to reward the wealthy with tax breaks, while punishing struggling families with cuts to health care and food assistance. But before last week's House vote on the legislation, GOP officials tucked all kinds of smaller provisions into the bill, some of which have gone largely overlooked. For example, as Austin Sarat, a political science professor at Amherst College, explained in a piece for MSNBC, the Republican's proposal 'snuck in a little noticed but very important provision into the megabill that would effectively remove from judges the ability to hold litigants who defy court orders in contempt.' The apparent goal, Sarat added, was to 'insulate [Donald Trump] from judicial accountability.' With this in mind, Republican Rep. Mike Flood held a town hall meeting with constituents in his Nebraska district, and some wanted to know why the congressman would vote to restrict the ability of federal courts to hold the president and his administration in contempt of court. As HuffPost noted, Flood had to admit something deeply embarrassing: He didn't know that was in the bill. 'I do not agree with that section that was added to that bill,' Flood said, prompting a roar of disapproval from the crowd. 'I do believe that the federal district courts, when issuing an injunction, it should have legal effect.' Then Flood got unusually candid for a member of Congress. 'I am not going to hide the truth. This provision was unknown to me when I voted for that bill, and when I found out that provision was in the bill, I immediately reached out to my Senate counterparts and told them of my concern,' Flood said. As part of the same comments, the GOP lawmaker said he intends to tell his Republican colleagues the party 'cannot support undermining our court system' — despite the fact they put this provision in the legislation, and despite the fact that Flood already voted for it. At face value, Flood's apparent ignorance (I'm assuming he was actually in the dark and didn't lie to his constituents about his foreknowledge) isn't too surprising. House Republican leaders wrote and rewrote their not-so-beautiful bill in the middle of the night, and it was changed repeatedly in response to backroom deals. House Speaker Mike Johnson and his leadership team then rushed the bill onto the floor for a vote before members could read it. But at that point, it was incumbent on policymakers such as Flood to use their leverage, slow the process down and tell their party that they wouldn't vote for a bill this important without knowing what's in it. The Nebraska Republican didn't do anything of the kind. He chose instead to link arms with his far-right brethren and pass the wildly regressive legislation — while effectively wearing a blindfold about its contents. No wonder his constituents didn't seem pleased. As for the road ahead, the reconciliation package is now pending in the Republican-led Senate, where it's unclear whether the provision in question will remain intact. Watch this space. This article was originally published on
Gulf Today
03-03-2025
- Politics
- Gulf Today
Is this what education in a democracy looks like?
Austin Sarat, Tribune News Service On Feb. 14, the Trump Administration sent a Valentine's Day shocker to American higher education and schools nationwide. The Department of Education sent them a mandate for a new educational orthodoxy, prescribing institutional policies at a level of detail seldom seen in this country. The Department of Education's 'Dear Colleague' letter, the vehicle through which its Office of Civil Rights communicates policy guidance, delivered a radical redefinition of what it calls 'the nondiscrimination obligations of schools and other entities that receive federal financial assistance from the United States Department of Education.' And, while claiming to take inspiration from the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which curtailed affirmative action in college admissions, the Dear Colleague letter goes well beyond that decision while also ignoring or pushing aside key elements of Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion in that case. As an article in Inside Higher Education notes, 'It declared all race-conscious student programming, resources, and financial aid illegal over the weekend and threatened to investigate and rescind federal funding for any institution that does not comply within 14 days.' The letter 'mentions a wide range of university programs and policies that could be subject to an OCR investigation, including 'hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life.'' In the name of protecting civil rights, the Department of Education letter lays out a vision for education that is hardly democratic. It advances its version of what anti-racism in education looks like and leaves no room for dissent, disagreement, or diversity of views. Inside Higher Education was right to label the new Department of Education guidance 'sweeping and unprecedented.' It turns Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which the Dear Colleague cites as authority, on its head. Originally conceived as a tool to protect Black students and other people of color, Trump's Education Department wants to use it as a weapon to protect white individuals. What the Department of Education did is as much a political maneuver as a legal one. It stokes culture war battles. That is clear in its claim that 'educational institutions have toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon systemic and structural racism and advanced discriminatory policies and practices.' The Dear Colleague letter offered no evidence to support this familiar MAGA talking point, even as it accused educational institutions of 'smuggling racial stereotypes and explicit race consciousness into everyday training, programming, and discipline.' As Brian Rosenberg, former president of Macalester College, explains, the letter is 'truly dystopian' and, 'if enforced, would upend decades of established programs and initiatives to improve success and access for marginalized students,' reports Inside Higher Ed. As a result, it will stir up trouble for schools as they begin to dismantle programs that have been essential in making them hospitable for historically disadvantaged groups. That is one of its central goals. Recall that the Supreme Court did not flatly prohibit the targeted use of race in its affirmative action decision. Instead, it said that it would be subject to 'a daunting two-step examination known as 'strict scrutiny'...which asks first whether the racial classification is used to 'further compelling governmental interests... and second whether the government's use of race is 'narrowly tailored.'' The Court found that Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, the named defendants in the suit, 'fail to operate their race-based admissions programs in a manner that is 'sufficiently measurable to permit judicial (review)' under the rubric of strict scrutiny.' The Education Department directive went out of its way to make the 'daunting' strict scrutiny test virtually impossible for any school to pass. It pinpointed what it called 'nebulous concepts like racial balancing and diversity,' and stated flatly that they 'are not compelling interests.' In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the Chief Justice left the door open for colleges and universities to pay attention to race in their admissions decisions. As Roberts put it, 'Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected the applicant's life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university.' 'A benefit to a student,' Roberts wrote, 'who overcame racial discrimination, for example, must be tied to that student's courage and determination. Or a benefit to a student whose heritage or culture motivated him or her to assume a leadership role or attain a particular goal must be tied to that student's unique ability to contribute to the university.' The Dear Colleague letter forecloses even that possibility. As if addressing the Chief Justice directly, Trump's Department of Education said, '(R)ace-based decision making no matter the form remains impermissible. For example, a school may not use students' personal essays, writing samples, participation, and extracurriculars or other cues as a means of determining or predicting a student's race and favoring or disfavoring such students.' 'Relying on nonracial information as a proxy for race,' the department said, 'and making decisions based on that information violates the law.' Perhaps not surprisingly, the department preferred the approach that was laid out by Justice Clarence Thomas in the affirmative action case. Thomas did not think that the decision applied only to admissions. As he put it, 'All forms of discrimination based on race — including so-called affirmative action — are prohibited under the Constitution.' Thomas suggested that the Court's decision advanced what he called a 'broad equality idea.' And he insisted that the educational decisions of schools and colleges 'do not deserve deference.' The Department of Education's Dear Colleague letter agrees. It attacks academic freedom by forbidding universities from offering programming and curricula that 'teach students that certain racial groups bear unique moral burdens that others do not.' As the Boston Globe notes 'PEN America, a left-leaning free speech advocacy group,' sees the letter as 'part of a broader campaign to 'distort the law and bully educational and cultural institutions. In fact, it seeks to impose its own form of indoctrination on schools and colleges....'' Indoctrination and democracy do not go together, just like how the government should not tell colleges and universities what they may or may not teach. That is why colleges and universities need to push back in an organized way. They should use their collective power, mobilize alumni networks, and speak out rather than silently acquiescing.
