Fully Present Post 50

I’ve been largely silent about the war between Israel and Hamas because I realize that I’m likely to offend people I care about who are personally impacted by what is happening. In truth, I am deeply sympathetic to both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. At the same time, I absolutely despise the leadership on both sides. I’m vehemently against oppression and violence and I am in favor of a two-state solution. I am neither anti-Semitic nor anti-Muslim. I respect the dignity, basic rights, and humanity of all people groups. Having worked with college age students for 25 years, I honestly believe that 99% of the students protesting the historic mistreatment of the Palestinians and the current war in Gaza feel the same way as I do. But their message is being lost.

The main reason for their messaging problem is that this country has a difficult time processing nuance, particularly when emotions are high. Nuance doesn’t make for good sound bites. Nuance takes more time to explain than people have the patience to hear. Nuance requires critical thinking skills that clearly half the country lacks. Nuance requires an exceptionally high level of communication skills that most people, especially college students, haven’t developed to the degree required to be fully understood.

The other reason the students are struggling to gain support for their protests is that there are unruly folks among them who steal the attention of the news outlets that pursue sensationalism for views and profits. I watch in horror everyday as the news media amplifies the occasional anti-Semitic rants and threats coming from a few protesters while putting a mic in the face of the rare Jewish student who feels threatened, not necessarily by specific acts of violence towards them, but by the subject matter of the protest itself.

The news media paints the protesters as anti-Semitic, creating an avenue for conservative politicians to hold public hearings where they could brow-beat college presidents about their radical anti-Semitic colleges where Jewish students are being continuously threatened while they do nothing. Although untrue, university donors only hear the headlines, and some of these presidents lost their jobs. It’s as though defending free speech and the right to protest is limited to donor-approved speech and non-confrontational protest. Nuance is completely lost. The monied interests behind the news media know that the public and politicians aren’t hearing the full story. The reality is that sound bites fit the narrative of those who pay for them. And right now, that means ending the student protests by painting the students as radical, immature, naive, and anti-Semitic bullies who don’t know any better. However, their stated demands prove this isn’t true.

Honestly, these students know enough to understand that the Israeli government has been mistreating the Palestinian people unfairly for many years. They know what oppression looks like. They know that if you kick a dog long enough, that dog might eventually bite you. They know Hamas is evil and visited that evil upon innocent Israelis on October 7th and wrongly continues to hold innocent people hostage while hiding behind a helpless population. They don’t support Hamas. But they don’t support Netanyahu either. They know that indiscriminate bombing and strategic starvation of innocent women and children is wrong. They heard how Netanyahu referred to the Palestinian people as animals and not human. They understand right and wrong and proportionality.

In truth, these are educated young people who are full of energy and who have a stake in the future of the world. They rightly want to shape the world they will live in. So, they protest, demanding that their college sever ties with the Israeli government whom they see as the root cause of the conflict. They want better for Israelis and the Palestinians. To garner greater attention, they set up camps in violation of university rules. They know that the Administration can’t ignore rule breakers and that is the point.

But the public likes order. Disorder gets attention, but when the stance is nuanced, the messaging is difficult. The students believe they are morally right even if the news media convinces the “adults” that they are uninformed radicalized brats who need to study and stop disturbing the peace. The reality is that there are more Jewish students among the protesters than there are Jewish students being threatened. But very few of the Jewish students who are protesting Netanyahu’s policies are being highlighted.

History has shown us that when protest is met with silence, it only gets bolder and louder and more dangerous. The aggrieved will be heard! As a former university administrator, I understand this. I believe Netanyahu is unwittingly creating more future enemies for Israel as he prosecutes his war on Hamas without regard for innocent human suffering. I also believe President Biden was throwing away his prospects for re-election by his silence on the student protests.

So, this past week, I became so frustrated by President Biden’s silence in the face of growing campus chaos that I emailed him three times in 24 hours. I’m certain others contacted the White House as well, especially after Trump went on record praising the police action against the protesters, altogether ignoring student grievances and even their right to protest. He was doing what authoritarians do.

Within two hours of my final email, President Biden did an unscheduled press conference. He touched on pretty much every talking point I articulated in my emails, except the reason for the protest: a ceasefire and humane treatment for Palestinians moving forward. While he emphasized the right to protest peacefully, he fell short in acknowledging the actual grievances the students had. He didn’t tell them that he is doing his best to bring an end to the violence and starvation in Gaza and to have the hostages released. He didn’t push hard enough against the characterization of protesters as anti-Semitic. His curt responses at the end showed everyone that he is above all else a politician who relies on donors to fund his campaign, so he can’t say too much to disrupt the fully funded media narrative against the students.

When all is said and done, I support the students. I believe that 99% of them are fighting for the right thing: an end to the slaughter of innocent lives and a peaceful transition to a two-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians can live in security, dignity, and opportunity. I hope these same students will vote to re-elect President Biden this November because he really is the lesser of two evils with regard to protecting the lives of the Palestinian people and mitigating a growth of anti-Semitism because of Netanyahu’s inhumane policies.

Almost daily, I’m tempted to throw up my hands and surrender this crazy fight to preserve the civil liberties of all Americans. Negative news reports, unhinged poll results, and ridiculous social media posts set my heart racing. I’m stressed and have to take frequent breaks to relax so I can regain my rational thought in order to respond prudently. I often posit that since most young people are too pre-occupied to pay attention to the wrecking ball coming for their freedoms, then perhaps I should just let it come. It would certainly be less stressful. But even if I respond on social media, Facebook and Instagram have minimized my political posts in accordance with their new community standards so that it feels like I’m shouting in an abandoned forest. And that’s frustrating!

The problem is that I care. I care about my children, nieces, nephews and grandchildren as well as my former students. I care about their ability to live their lives in accordance with who they are and what they value. I care about their ability to breathe clean air and drink clean water. I care that they have opportunities to thrive. I don’t want them to live their lives under religious tyranny, legalized discrimination, lack of affordable health care, or constant threat of violence or climate related natural disasters. So, I fight on even when I’m infuriated by their lack of attention and willingness to engage in their own protection beyond the task of voting. So, I push for at least that (voting) while simultaneously reminding MAGA lawmakers and their supporters that there are Americans who oppose their agenda. In my thinking, silence is a form of consent and pushing people to defend their position can have a moderating effect.

Fighting is hardest when you’re dealing with stubborn and uneducated people who have been led to believe a fictional version of American history and who have a distorted view of Christianity, our constitution, and humanity itself. It’s mentally taxing and takes a lot of time and emotional energy to listen to their unsubstantiated pronouncements, deeply flawed and even dangerous proposals, threats of violence, and incomprehensible defense of Trump as their persecuted “savior” who will right this sinking ship.

I’m thankful for the rising voices of Christians who are finally speaking up and proclaiming that what these MAGA are promoting is not in fact “Christianity” but a dangerous form of white nationalism that completely contradicts the teachings of Christ and gives Christianity itself a bad name. MAGA claim that this country was established by and for white Christian protestants and that the original constitution provided freedoms intended for them. However, they are willing to extend a measure of freedom to the rest of us. In other words, second class citizenship awaits women, people of color, and LGBTQ folks if they were to take power. The freedoms we enjoy today will be gone tomorrow and our lives will be subjected to their self-serving view of “Judeo-Christian” values and their unscientific view of humanity and the planet on which we reside. And because they believe climate change is a hoax, they will drill and thwart any efforts to address environmental issues in favor of cheap energy.

Given the current make-up of the Supreme Court, if Trump were to win this next election and if the GOP capture both the House and Senate, I predict several immediate outcomes: 1) All legal actions against Trump will end. 2) Trump will hand Ukraine over to Putin and encourage Israel to completely remove the Palestinians. 3) There will be mass deportations across the country, creating a shortage of workers to be replaced by prisoners as legalized slave labor, child labor and the impoverished elderly. 4) There will be a nationwide ban on abortions followed by an attempt to ban contraception, endangering the lives, life-prospects, and livelihoods of women. 5) There will be a gradual elimination of the safety net, forcing labor and stretching charities to the breaking point. 6) There will be a ban on gender reassignment surgery for everyone, increasing suicides. 7) There will be a ban on same sex marriage and public displays of homosexuality and transgender. 8) There will be widespread censorship of the media, entertainment, and an expanded ban on books. 9) The Department of Education will be eliminated along with reduced funding for public schools, and the Bible will be required as the main text for morality and science, enraging educators. 10) The guaranteed individual freedoms in the constitution will be suspended in the name of public safety and national security. 11) Environmental regulations will be relaxed in favor of corporate profits, causing more pollution. 12) Massive tax cuts for the wealthy will be passed, defunding government agencies into oblivion. 13) There will be an immigration bill that favors white protestant immigrants and bans Muslims, homosexuals, and others. 14) There will be an uptick in police brutality and arrests along with a substantial growth in the prison population (slave labor) which will grow to include political protestors, abortionists, the unhoused, homosexuals, transgender, rebellious professors and teachers, and the mentally ill. 15) There will be more tariffs imposed on goods coming from China, raising the prices on everything. And finally, 16) There will be actions taken to ensure that MAGA wins all future elections.

Of course, no one really knows what Trump will do because he doesn’t articulate policies beyond his desire to get revenge, deport and ban undesirable immigrants, remain in power with absolute immunity, and bask in the adoration of his followers. To these ends, I predict that he will do the bidding of the nefarious characters around him who have a clear vision for remaking America. I predict that they are going to need a lot of complicit able-bodied police, a lot of loaded guns, and a whole lot of new prisons to accomplish their vision because I also predict that the youth and pre-occupied adults who aren’t paying attention today, will be more than willing to fight then.

Lately, I’ve met the nicest people during my trips to the grocery store, the doctor’s office, the post office and to restaurants. People seem to be going out of their way to be kind, engaging, and helpful. Some don’t even work at the place; they’re just patrons like me. Workers and patrons alike are engaging in empathetic conversations with me about food, the weather and just life in general. I welcome the engagement. Sometimes, it starts with a simple, “How’s your day going?” On several occasions, someone has noticed me reaching for a product and asked what I was planning to do with it. Other times, it’s just a comment on a shared circumstance like a really long line. I’ve received a lot of compliments on my gray hair. My everyday lived experience out and about is nothing like what I’m seeing on the news or on social media. You’d think there was a “Karen” lurking around every corner to challenge your right to exist, or an undocumented criminal lying in wait to rob or assault you, or a non-binary person screaming at you for using the wrong pronoun, or some MAGA cult member itching to start a fight over politics. I’ve experienced none of this.

What I realize is that most people are decent. Like me, they simply want to live in a society where people treat others with dignity and respect and where they can simply go about their day peacefully with positive interactions sprinkled throughout. We are social beings who want to be accepted for our basic humanity, and I think that the pandemic really robbed us of the daily connections that helped keep us emotionally healthy. So, I welcome the now more frequent simple and positive conversations with strangers sharing a common space. It brightens my day and I’m pretty certain it brightens theirs as well. I can tell by the smiles and the parting wishes for a great day.

The problem is that we have collectively given economic and social incentives to the media and content providers to highlight the most indecent behaviors. The market rewards poor behavior with views. The more socially deviant, the better because we are mesmerized by violence, sex, and craziness. Videos of outrageous “Karen” behaviors go viral. Other examples of rare but indecent behaviors that are exploited for gain are the rare teacher who pushes inappropriate material on students, the heinous crime of an illegal migrant, the “smash and grab” thieves running wild in a store, the high-speed car chase through crowded streets, the star who wears the most revealing outfit at an awards show, or the politician who makes the most xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, and racist statements. Highlighting indecent behavior promotes more indecent behavior. And even worse, the constant onslaught of rare but outrageous behaviors and unusual but scary events, skew our perception of reality and makes us vulnerable to support those who intentionally generalize atypical indecent human behavior as typical to use as a fear tactic.

I am convinced that many of the culture war issues are in fact manufactured. Politicians realize that it is effective to turn rare indecent incidents into epidemics of indecency. Let’s face reality. Not one of us has ever been forced to attend nor to take our children to a drag show or a drag queen story time. It will be rare for any of us to encounter a dangerous transgender person in a public restroom. We are far more likely to be murdered by another American citizen and someone we actually know, than by an undocumented migrant. And almost none of our children have been in a classroom with a teacher who is actively working to make them gay or to question their gender identity. The books being banned are about accepting differences among people; not creating them. And the goal is to reduce bullying by promoting understanding and tolerance.

Are there people in America who lack common decency? Of course there are. I once took a sociology class on social deviance. The professor said it was a class about “nuts, sluts, and perverts.” They certainly do live among us, and we definitely want to curb their behavior when it harms others, not promote it. I don’t know any person from either political party that wants to normalize violence, open borders for terrorists, human trafficking and drug dealing, pedophilia, rudeness, bullying, or the sexualization of children. Anyone who is pushing that narrative is lying. Most people are decent and prefer decency to indecency.

The problem is that the media outlets are incentivized to give the indecent airtime and we are too quick to watch the spectacle on television and on social media. There is an old saying that the things that get rewarded, get repeated. We have collectively rewarded the media and content providers with our views and clicks for which they are monetarily rewarded. They likely know that our viewership and clicks are linked to our disapproval, but that is not the point. Outrage, fear, and incredulity sell best. They know that we may watch a bridge collapse in horror, and that the effect is our fear that the bridge in our area may also collapse. They know that the extra attention given to the nearly naked singer accepting an award on television only encourages other young singers seeking attention to also dress that way. Ratings are not approval, but they are money. Often there is dismay and outrage behind the views, but the goal is to make a profit and that comes from viewership. The negative consequences to societal norms be damned.

I recall when Trump first came on the political scene. I was appalled by his crude and dangerous rhetoric. Almost daily, he would call into NBC’s Today Show and talk nonsense. I actually wrote to them and asked that they stop giving him airtime every morning or I would stop watching. Apparently, I was in the minority and people kept tuning in to hear the next outrageous thing Trump had to say. They continued to take his calls. I haven’t watched them since. The profit incentives within corporate media made Donald Trump a political contender and today they keep his candidacy alive. They know he is a clear and present danger, and yet they can’t forgo the profit from the impending train wreck. I won’t ever forgive them for it.

In short, we get the society we are willing to pay for with our clicks and our views. If we want less violence, explicit sex, rudeness, and lude behaviors to fill our television and social media feeds, then we simply need to turn the channel or scroll past them. Most people are decent, experience everyday decency, and yet also desire decency within the public square. It’s within our collective power to restore it with decent viewing habits.

For most of my adult life I have understood the portion of Martin Luther King, Jr’s “I have a Dream” speech wherein he says that he dreams that one day his children will be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin to be the end goal, the aspiration, and the victory in the fight for racial equality and social justice. After watching multiple interviews, including his Ted Talk, I’ve observed that Coleman Hughes has essentially ignored the situational context of Dr. King’s words and reframed the aspiration of colorblindness as the only legitimate foundation for public policy and moral interpersonal behavior today. While he acknowledges the persistence of racial bias (calling it stupid), he mischaracterizes the opposition to colorblindness by diversity, inclusion, and equity (DEI) advocates as neo-racist. As a former DEI worker, I don’t know anyone on the left who would disagree that colorblindness remains the ultimate goal, in the sense that our race has no bearing on our treatment, opportunities, nor outcomes, using measurable economic, health, and social outcomes as a metric for how we are doing. However, some would argue that it is too soon to center colorblindness in every public policy decision. But I do think Coleman has a point worthy of discussion.

I think Coleman is correct in his assertion that socio-economic status is a more accurate metric to determine government-based policies to help people succeed and for the most part, that is already in place. When using poverty as a measure, programs do in fact capture a disproportionate number of black and brown people because they remain disproportionately poorer. However, Coleman rarely addresses why this remains the case except to blame single family homes, inattentive parents and neighborhood violence. I would argue that many black people remain impoverished in large part due to public policy decisions in housing, school funding, policing, and rampant individual discrimination, so I differ from Coleman in that regard. That said, I’ve seen the poverty-based strategy at work in government-funded Trio Programs like Upward Bound. Entry to the six Trio Programs is based on socio-economic factors like family income and first-generation college status and so students in these programs come from all racial backgrounds and that’s a good thing.

I personally benefited from race-based Affirmative Action programs because in the 1970’s there were very real race-based barriers to college and career opportunities. Opponents, like Coleman and conservatives, often fail to acknowledge that Affirmative Action did not lower admission standards or job qualifications, but it provided preference to those whose race had historically (and legally) prevented their access. There were no quotas, but public schools and employers were required to give preference to women and people of color over white males if they met the qualifications for entry. The purpose was to right a historic and legal policy of discrimination based on race and gender. What Affirmative Action did was provide competition to white men who had enjoyed a monopoly on the best schools and the best jobs based on their race and social connections.

I do agree with Coleman that the days of legal discrimination have since passed and that Affirmative Action came to give unwarranted and certainly unnecessary preference to the sons and daughters of highly educated minority professionals. For example, I was able to provide my children with every educational and economic advantage when they were young. Since times have indeed changed, absent the covert bigotry of an individual college or job recruiter, they did not need to rely on Affirmative Action for their college admission or job. In essence, the extra points given to them by admission policies seem unfair when compared to a black child born to more dire circumstances. As a DEI professional, I made this argument on multiple occasions. In fact, later arguments to keep Affirmative Action in place centered on the educational benefits of diversity as opposed to access to opportunity for low-income students. The problem was that the stigma of admitting or hiring “less qualified” candidates remained.

The problem is that opponents to diversity hiring conveniently ignore years of public policy and poverty that limit the educational opportunities of women and people of color while also limiting their opportunity to enter spaces that would provide them connections and resume building experiences. Coleman sites the over-representation of black men in the NBA as an example of merit-based entry without regard to race. But is it really? I would argue that the NBA and the NFL are over-represented by black males, not because they are inherently better at the game, but because the opportunity structure in the country funneled their energies into these easily accessible sports as opposed to academic endeavors.

I think a lot of people struggle with Coleman’s insistence to use colorblindness as a guide for all public policy decision-making right now. His stance seems to ignore the evidence of the lingering harms caused by historically race-based discrimination. While he does acknowledge slavery and Jim Crowe as immoral and harmful, he fails to fully acknowledge their lingering effects. And worse, he fails to acknowledge how the pseudo-science of eugenics infected the national mindset with a belief in white superiority and black inferiority. It is naive to expect average people to change their way of thinking and behaving just because it is the right thing to do. When confronted by prominent conservative comments blaming the Maryland bridge collapse on DEI and pointing their fingers at the black governor and black major as examples of DEI, he simply characterized them as “stupid” and possibly racist. He fails to connect the dots that people in positions of power and policy making continue to view blackness as inherently inferior.

Because of the continuing negative mindset regarding the character and intellect of black people among those who make policy and those who put policy into practice, I think we must also make laws that ensure that those who violate colorblindness in their implementation of non-discriminatory public policies should be held civilly accountable. There are many examples of non-compliance with colorblind policies. There are police who over-monitor blacks, ticket them, or brutalize them. There are judges who issue harsher sentences to black perpetrators compared to white perpetrators for the same crime. They, like police should be sanctioned or removed. Banks who make it more difficult for blacks to access capital or who target blacks for sub-prime loans should be sued. The list of individuals violating the principles of colorblindness with impunity is long. Coleman never addresses the penalty for such harmful actions that will have lasting negative affects on victims and their families.

I’m glad we are having this conversation about the merits of colorblindness in 2024. I still see it as an aspiration. I just think it is important to address the topic with an eye to history, practical applications, and human nature.

Our political leaders, particularly Republicans, are playing a dangerous game with the emotions of citizens. They are following Trump’s lead. He knows that strong emotions, particularly fear and resentment among the uneducated and uninformed will literally smother rationality. Over the past several months, I’ve watched people descend into levels of fear and resentment that turns them into mean-spirited people. The rhetoric employing buzz words like “invasion” and “unfair prosecution” and “pedophiles” and “CRT” or “DEI” have enraged average people who lack education, accurate news, and economic opportunities. In fact, a recent NPR poll found that 28% of Republicans either strongly agreed or agreed that they may have to resort to violence to get the country back on track. Only 12% of democrats responded this way. Those who lack reason and the ability to persuade others often resort to “might makes right” or violence to force their will. We’ve seen this happen repeatedly in our history, and as recently as January 6, 2021.

Through a lifetime of observation, I’ve concluded that human beings, particularly men, resort to violence when rational thinking and reasonable words fail them. Two of the most potent emotions that override rational thinking are fear and resentment. Fear is a defense mechanism designed to protect us from imminent danger while resentment is a feeling of indignation from being wronged. The fact that Trump and Republicans have weaponized these emotions is not just disturbing, but a threat to our Constitution, our unity as a nation, and to the civil liberties of women and all minorities.

What must be acknowledged is that there is a grain of truth in many of the assertions that are worrisome. For example, the border does have serious issues that our current laws and policies are not fully addressing. Too few know that Trump crushed a bi-partisan bill that would address the border crisis because he wants to run on the chaos at the border. Not surprisingly, undocumented immigrants are not committing the level of violent crimes Trump would like Americans to believe. He literally told a crowd this past week that migrants were hiding in their bushes and crawling through their windows waiting to harm them. He had a sign on his podium that read, “Stop Biden’s Border Bloodbath”. This is fear-mongering at its worse. It’s amazing how he is able to point to two incidents in a nation of over 300 million people and call it an epidemic of migrant violence against Americans.

There is also truth to the fact that food and energy prices have risen. But that is true across the entire world because we are recovering from a pandemic and Russia invaded Ukraine, disrupting grain shipments. The reality is that the U.S. is doing much better than every other country in the entire world when it comes to inflation and economic recovery from the pandemic. The unemployment rate is historically low, wages are rising, and the stock market is booming. But some people feel stretched, particularly those who aren’t willing or able to take advantage of economic opportunities available to them. There are people who refuse education or job skill training or a move that will lead them out of poverty. They are looking for easy money that requires no real effort on their part. Some folks resent a social system that demands education and effort and then turns around and discriminates against them at every turn. And it is even easier to build resentment among hardworking folks against thieves, drug dealers, “illegal immigrants” and freeloaders. Trump advocates shooting these people on the spot and asking questions later. What’s concerning is that resentment among his supporters is so high that his violent suggestion garners applause.

Republicans are alarmed that women are making strides in society. According to Pew Research, women are completing degrees at higher rates than men, allowing them to compete for higher paying jobs. For years, twice as many black women have been earning degrees as black men and it is not surprising that their marriage prospects have shifted as a result. More black women are either single or marrying outside their race. The level of resentment among black men toward black women is evident on social media. Many white men have joined them in their resentment of independent women. What amazes me is that some of these frustrated black men are turning to Trump and the Republicans because they offer control over women.

Trump and the Republicans are also fueling resentment against women and people of color because of their historic and meteoric rise to prominence in our country. They are telling the under-educated who lack opportunities that women and people of color are taking what is rightfully theirs through diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The irrational resentment that permeates the airways and social media against women and people of color is unpresented. Several Republicans have commented that they wouldn’t trust a black airline pilot or heart surgeon, citing DEI hires. That’s ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is the lawmaker who tried to blame the bridge collapse on probable DEI initiatives at the shipping company without any evidence. They are working hard to fuel fear and resentment.

The solutions Trump and the Republicans are offering make sense to those who want to return to the days when women and people of color were oppressed, and LGBTQ folks were in the closet. Instead of improving our public schools, they want to abolish them in favor of private religious schools and home schooling, thereby ensuring that women and the poor are under-educated and more easily controlled so they pose little to no competition, particularly to white heterosexual males. They want to return women to the limited role of wife and mother again and they expect women to be satisfied with that. Some are publicly admitting that they want to remove a woman’s right to vote while others are saying that birth control is poison to the female brain.

They have a role for black and brown males too: entertainment, manual labor, or prison. More difficult to deal with are Asians and Jewish men. The rise in anti-Asian sentiment and Jewish hatred is neither new nor unexpected. To white males, the cultural emphasis on education, hard work, and personal ambition among Jews and Asians is viewed as a threat that they are ill-prepared to deal with fairly. As always, they will resort to violence, intimidation, or deportation to control and limit the progress of both Asians and Jews.

Reasonable people will go along with almost any despicable behavior if their fears and sense of resentment is activated. This is precisely what the Trump-led Republican Party is trying to do. It is important that we counteract Trump’s narrative with reality at every opportunity. We must sound the alarm since about 38% of Americans have purposefully tuned out the news because it is so depressing. And it is even more important that we actively support rational candidates who support the rule of law and our constitution. We must provide them with our finances, our voices, and our votes before it is too late.

At times when our government is stuck or moving in the wrong direction, I thoroughly believe it is our civic duty to petition our government on issues of public policy. Thankfully, it remains one of our constitutional rights. So, my third public policy letter to speaker Johnson addressed the need to reform our inadequate immigration laws to address the crisis at our southern border. I share this letter with you in hopes that you will write your own letter.

Dear Speaker Johnson,

As promised, I am sending you another letter to address an important topic regarding good public policy.  I understand that you have publicly stated that you intend to pass legislation using the Bible as your guide.  As a Christian myself, I conduct my personal life in accordance with my understanding of the teachings of Christ.  However, our Constitution has a different standard when it comes to our laws, freedoms, and basic rights.  Good public policy should uphold the purpose of our laws as established in the Constitution:  providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our descendants.  You serve the people so you can pass laws that benefit the people, not a particular political party or a particular presidential candidate.  You take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Recently, I saw you walk away from bi-partisan legislation that would finally address border security and the migrant issues at our southern border at the behest of Donald Trump who wants to campaign using chaos at the border.  Not only is this shameful, but it is harmful to America, and I believe you are in violation of your duty to defend this nation and promote the general welfare. 

Since you call yourself a Christian and proclaim to want to legislate in accordance with your Christian beliefs, I must point out that your Party is at odds with many Biblical verses that address how to treat migrants or immigrants.  You should read Leviticus 19:34, “The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” God never changed His stance on immigrants from Old Testament to New.  Matthew 25:40 reads, “I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.” 

Since the beginning of time, human beings have migrated out of necessity, whether fleeing starvation, violence, oppression, persecution, or a lack of opportunity. Jesus Himself was a migrant fleeing to Egypt when King Harold sought to kill Him. Our nation was founded by and built by people fleeing horrible circumstances and seeking a better life.  Today is no different for many of the migrants showing up at our border and your Christian faith demands compassion from you, not distain and public demonization of them.   

That said, it is good public policy to enact immigration laws that offer a faster path to legal entry for family members of citizens, needed workers, and for human beings fleeing eminent violence, oppression, and persecution.  Modern technology allows us to prevent starvation abroad and therefore eliminates the need for migration based on hunger.  I actually agree that it is good public policy to know who is coming into our country to ensure their good intentions as well as their physical and mental health.  We should provide those we admit with work permits upon entry.

To accomplish this, we must increase the number of judges or adjudicators to quickly process claims.  We must increase the number of border security officers.  And we must update our immigration laws to allow for many more guest workers, faster processing of asylum claims, family unification requests, and immediate issuance of work permits to those we admit. We must employ technology and more highly trained border officers to detect drug and human traffickers. Because Mexico is dangerous, I think the “remain in Mexico” policy is inhumane.  It is also inhumane to continuously announce that the “border is open” to encourage continued migration and chaos.

I am for legal immigration.  Immigration provides our country with an innovative and economic edge. We need more workers to support our aging population and forcing women to give birth isn’t the best public policy answer.  It is counterproductive for Republicans to demonize migrants as rapists, terrorists, murderers, and poisoners of the blood of our nation.  Your Party has too many Americans scared out of their minds that migrants are hell bent on killing them when they are far less likely to commit crimes than Americans. Others are convinced that Democrats are bringing them here to vote illegally.  That too, is nonsense. They aren’t voting because they have no pathway to register to vote, yet your Party forces the false narrative that thousands of them go to the polls and vote for Democrats.  How absurd.   

The fear-mongering has to stop as it stokes violence against people who do not deserve it.  Muslim bans and banning of people of color from “shit hole” countries does not reflect the kind of America I want to live in.  Our diversity is our beauty and our strength. Immigrants add new flavors to our taste pallets, stimulate innovation and invention, increase our connection to the world, and grow our economy.  Learning multiple languages and about other cultures is an addition, not a subtraction, that contributes to brain health and international cooperation.

With that, I urge you to improve upon and then pass the bi-partisan border security bill now and demonstrate your loyalty to the American people, the Constitution, and your Savior Jesus Christ, as opposed to loyalty to Donald Trump whom I view as a true enemy of the people and our Constitution.

Sincerely,

Dr. Juanita Hall

As women and LGBTQ folks become more visible in public life and excel educationally, economically, and socially, it seems that some young men, including black men, are viewing women and LGBTQ folks as a threat to their longstanding power. These insecure young men are embracing the misogynist political views of the right, embodied in Trump. They aren’t turned off by his sexual assault nor by the right’s attack on transgender rights. In fact, they are happy to roll back women’s rights and would prefer to push LGBTQ folks back in the closet. Under Biden, the Violence Against Women Act was reauthorized, the Respect for Marriage Act and the Equality Act were signed into law. These are anti-discrimination laws designed to provide protection, equal justice, and opportunity under the law. Speaker Johnson voted against all three. This week, I wrote a third letter to Speaker Mike Johnson, arguing against his use of the Bible to deny women and LGBTQ rights and in favor of honoring our Constitution. I hope you will join me in voting blue this November and exercising your right to petition our government.

Dear Speaker Johnson,

This is my third letter addressing public policy and your insistence on using the Bible as your guide to passing the laws that govern our nation.  I, too, am a Christian.  However, I believe the Bible is intended as a guide for my personal life, not the lives of others. The Ten Commandments were for the Old Testament Jewish nation and Jesus never preached a government takeover of the laws using the Bible, but He instead preached the conversion of our individual hearts to loving God and loving our neighbor as ourselves.  He charged His followers with preaching the gospel, not making laws. He made it clear that His Kingdom is not of this earth and not made with human hands, so I really don’t understand how what you are trying to accomplish is any different than the Taliban.  The supreme law of this land is our Constitution, and it guarantees each of the freedom of religion.

I am thankful to be free to follow Christ and to live according to what I believe is right.  Our Constitution says that this is true for all citizens, whatever their religious beliefs or lack thereof. The job of the legislature is to pass laws that “establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.”   However, I view your insistence on using the Bible as a guide to legislate in opposition to upholding the Constitution and the freedoms it provides to all citizens, especially women and members of the LGBTQ community.

No one is pushing anyone to be gay.  No one is challenging heterosexual marriage. No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion.  No one is asking you, your wife, or your children to change their gender.  As a Christian, I believe it is my responsibility to treat people the way I want to be treated and as an American, I believe it is my duty to insist that civil liberties and equal access to every benefit and opportunity that the country has to offer is enjoyed by all citizens.  How individuals love or live their lives is between them, their conscience, their family, their doctor, and their God. These personal matters need to be kept personal and without state intervention so long as other living and breathing people are not injured.  And let me be clear, information about alternative lifestyles is not injurious, but helpful.  As a mother, a grandmother, and a retired educator, I have seen that learning about alternative lifestyles actually encourages tolerance, understanding, and results in less bullying and violence.  This helps to ensure domestic tranquility and promotes the general welfare.  Have you forgotten that Jesus commanded us not to judge others, but to love?  Have you forgotten how He treated the woman who was going to be stoned for adultery? Compassion changes hearts, not compulsion.   Let God be the judge.  

As a black American female who cares about the Constitution, I am committed to petitioning my government to ensure justice and liberty for all.  I do not believe that women and LGBTQ folks are less deserving of justice and the freedom to pursue their best lives. But for too long, this nation has denied women and LGBTQ folks opportunity, justice, and liberty.

My mother was subjected to physical abuse at the hands of my father for many years. I’ve stood between my mother and major injury a few times, once in front of a loaded gun.  I regularly called the police, but they did nothing.  We left our comfortable home and went into hiding to escape the violence, living in seedy motels until my grandparents stepped in to find us a permanent home in a safe neighborhood.

I, myself, have been sexually assaulted on three separate occasions and each had a negative impact on me, and I’ve never had justice.  The first time, I was ten and my white adult neighbor cornered me in his living room while my brothers were playing in his backyard. I never told my parents because my violent father would have killed him and gone to prison, thrusting us into certain poverty. The second time, I was 16 and my high school chemistry teacher cornered me in the storage room.  I stayed silent because I knew that no one would take the word of a black girl over a white chemistry teacher.  And the third time was by my boss, a white man who called me into his office, closed the door and tried to sexually assault me.  I escaped his horrific assault and left the building, quitting that well-paying job, and facing financial distress.  I, like so many women, lived without justice and with thwarted opportunities, and it is not right.   

I understand that you voted against the Violence Against Women Re-Authorization Act, the Equality Act, and the Respect for Marriage Act.  This is disappointing and shows a lack of understanding, care, and respect for the challenges some citizens face as they, too, pursue life, liberty and justice and happiness. 

Bigotry is not Christlike behavior and condoning legal discrimination against citizens is bad public policy that works against our Constitutional principles, makes life unbearable for women and LGBTQ people and harms our economy, mocks justice, and undermines our unity and domestic tranquility as a nation. Do better as a Christian and especially as a legislator.  Our Constitution is a great guide for good public policy while the Bible is good guidance for your personal life.

Sincerely,

Dr. Juanita Hall  

Voting citizen of the United States

This week I wrote a letter to Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, who has publicly stated that he will seek legislation that is in alignment with the Bible. This is a clear violation of our freedom of religion if we allow representatives to pass laws that violate the liberties and rights guaranteed by our Constitution. As citizens, it is up to us to insist upon our rights and not to assume that others will not infringe upon them. Join me in exercising our Constitutional right to petition our government while this right remains in place.

March 9, 2024

Dear Speaker Mike Johnson,

This is the first of several letters I plan to write to you regarding good public policy that fully honors the establishment clause of our Constitution and does not strip away the rights of citizens who live religious lives or secular lives, devoid of religion.

As a citizen of this country, I must exercise my civic duty to express my thoughts and ideas about how our nation is governed.  I’m thankful that we have a Constitution that helps guide our public policy and laws in service all the people.  As a Christian, I’m thankful for the establishment clause that clearly prohibits the establishment of a state religion and protects the free exercise of religion.

This means that I am free to practice my Christianity and to make personal decisions based on my religious beliefs and that no other religion has the right to impose their religious decisions on me. It also means that Christians do not have the right to impose our religion on others just because we take over state houses.  My greatest fear is that you and Christian nationalists are trying to do just that. 

With you as one of the leaders, I see Christians in our state and federal government trying to enact laws and public policy in accordance with their interpretation of the Bible as opposed to the actual Constitution that leads us toward equal rights and equal justice.  The topic for this letter is abortion.

Although I have never had an abortion; I would not deny any woman the right to obtain one.

Religion should not have a say in this public policy or legal issue because people and religions disagree on when a human life begins.  I happen to be a Christian mother and grandmother that believes that the Bible teaches that life begins at breath, not conception. I believe that a fetus capable of breath outside the womb is a life worth saving whenever possible.  We can argue the Bible but ultimately you should be allowed to follow your belief as to whether or not your wife or your underage daughter can have an abortion, but not everyone else’s.  No law should prohibit abortion for those who have different beliefs on the issue because of the establishment clause.

The reality is that 40-60% of fertilized eggs are naturally aborted through miscarriage.   Some Christians must think heaven is full of non-viable fertilized eggs, unborn embryos, and fetuses. I don’t.  I had a friend who gave birth to a baby with a beating heart and no brain. It never took a breath.  Not every fertilized egg will result in a live birth because they are not all viable and some have the misfortune to implant in the Fallopian tube where they are destined to perish and will kill the mother if she doesn’t get medical care.

The issue is women’s healthcare as good public policy.  It is good public policy to ensure that women have access to medical care that ensures safe and appropriate reproductive care.  It is good public policy to ensure that women who give birth are emotionally ready to, are physically able to, and have the mental and financial ability to provide adequate care for those babies once they are born.  It is good public policy to encourage adoption for women strong enough to give birth, but unable to care for the child.  Being able to make the personal decision regarding abortion based on our own religious beliefs is good public policy and is in keeping with the establishment clause of the Constitution.

Despite feelings of anxiety, I secured a pencil and paper to take notes and then tuned in to C-Span (which is free of commentary) to watch the State of the Union. I observed with interest the upbeat demeaner of the people milling about the chamber chatting. I watched the formal entry of the Supreme Court, absent three conservative members. I watched the Cabinet members making their way down the aisle, greeting representatives from both sides of the aisle. And then, I nervously watched the President’s entry and slow progress toward the podium as he stopped to greet multiple representatives. And not surprisingly, I was disgusted by the red MAGA hat-wearing Margorie Taylor’s Greene’s rule-breaking and her tasteless taunting of the President.

First, and most importantly, I was relieved to observe the undeniable vitality and strong mental acuity of the president. Even with signs of his lifelong speech impediment, his speech was coherent and full of substance. In fact, I counted 32 specific public policy topics that he covered in his speech. Of course, some received a lot of attention. Some he simply mentioned as topics for congress to address, such as artificial intelligence, a ban on assault weapons and reasonable gun regulations, the Voting Rights Act, the banning of books and history, funding for education at all levels, raising the minimum wage, and the Violence Against Women Act.

He spent more time on what he considered the most pressing topics of the day, including the existential attack on our freedom and democracy, not just abroad, but at home. He called out Trump’s acquiescence to Putin and the war in Ukraine as well as Trump’s lack of support for NATO followed by the announcement of Finland and Sweden to the NATO ranks. He then messaged Putin that we will not walk away, nor will we bow down. Without skipping a beat, he called out the lies leading to January 6th and how some seek to bury the truth. His strong statement, “You can’t love your country only when you win” resonated with many, including me.

He moved on to address the necessity of protecting reproductive rights, including IVF and codifying Roe v. Wade. I was surprised when he called out the Supreme Court to acknowledge how women can continue to exercise their political and electoral power to safeguard abortion rights.

He briefly highlighted his accomplishments including the economic comeback from Covid-19, the expansion of health insurance, narrowing of the racial wealth gap, the Pact Act for veterans, the expansion of manufacturing, the 46,000 new infrastructure projects, the Chips Act, getting inflation under control, cutting student loan debt for millions of public service workers, the price cut to $35 for insulin for seniors, and having corporations pay a 15% minimum tax. He called upon congress to do something about “shrinkflation” that affects us all. And he made a point of calling upon congress to make the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, again promising that no one making less than $400,000 a year would have to pay more.

There were promises made should he be re-elected and have a democratic congress to work with. He would lower the cost of insulin for all Americans to the current Medicare low of $35 and he would cap all prescription out-of-pocket cost to $2000 per year. He would make healthcare insurance savings permanent for the 100 million Americans on Obamacare. He would restore the Child Tax Credit that lifted 50% of children out of poverty.

There were a few new initiatives he announced such as appointing his wife, Dr. Jill Biden, to oversee a new women’s health research project, providing first time homebuyers with a $400/month tax credit for 2 years and eliminating title insurance, cutting red tape for home builders and helping them renovate 2 million homes to bring rent costs down, the new Climate Corp to employ young people to deal directly with the climate crisis, and reducing the credit card late fees from $35 to $8 and requiring junk fees related to purchasing tickets to be stated up front.

On everyone’s mind, including mine, were border security and the Israel and Hamas War. I was glad that he exposed how Trump squashed the bi-partisan bill that would have dealt with border security. He spelled out everything that was in the bill, including more border patrol, more judges, and the technological equipment to help detect and confiscate fentanyl. And I was glad that he expressed his empathetic condolences to the parents of the young nursing student who was murdered by an undocumented immigrant from Venezuela and then turned it around to remind congress to pass the border security bill.

Regarding aid to the Palestinians, he announced the building of a temporary pier to provide more humanitarian aid beyond the air drops and the few trucks Israel permits to enter. While desiring a ceasefire, he continues to support Israel’s effort to eliminate Hamas and the safe return of the hostages. In my opinion, this is a no-win situation between the leadership of two sides who are hell-bent on destroying each other. There is no position the president can take that will satisfy everyone.

There were many other highlights in his speech, but the one that stands out the most is when he addressed the age issue head on. He made the issue about whether the ideas were forward looking or backward looking. He made it about whether we would forge forward in pursuit of our aspiration for equality for all or return to the past.

I’m wholeheartedly voting for Biden, not only because my reservations about his age and fitness were dispelled, but because his values and his aspirations for this country most closely mirror my own. If the same is true for you, I hope you will join me in donating to his campaign. And if you are able to do more, I hope you lend your time and energy to supporting him as well. We absolutely have a vested interest in the direction our country moves in this year.

In part one, I explained the nature of tribal membership and how it emerged as a human survival mechanism in an environment full of threats and challenges. I explained how white evangelical Christian tribes began to feel threatened by an increasingly secular society against which they could no longer compete nor fully retreat. As I mentioned in part one, I left the black Christian church to attend a predominately white evangelical church during my teens in the 1970’s before politics was introduced. As a black person, I felt comfortable in a setting that fully embraced the notion of “colorblindness” and therefore accepted me so long as I complied with the unstated, but crystal clear, normative standards of whiteness while avoiding any public acknowledgment of historic wrongs and ongoing discrimination I faced outside the church.

However, life in a bubble like this can’t possibly last and it didn’t. The outside world creeped in at every turn around issues of pre-marital sex (and abortion), feminism, and LGBTQ rights. These became unavoidable threats to the tribal order as women steadily gained independence and gays slowly emerged from their closets. I recounted how political power was introduced to the white evangelical church, first as a means of self-preservation and then as a vehicle to bend society to its conservative will. Sadly, the Gospel of Jesus Christ was gradually replaced by a growing greed for political power and a desire to force society into submission. White evangelical Christians, along with the few people of color in their ranks who subscribe to a white hegemonic standard, joined hands with white nationalists to form a tribe hell bent on elevating white supremacy and “Christianity” through a campaign to “Make America Great Again” lead by Donald Trump. Standing in their way is democracy itself and a humanistic moral conviction that resonates with millions. It is the ideology of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

I began doing diversity work in 1997 through a community organization loosely affiliated with the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish organization formed to prevent another genocide by building human tolerance for differences. The Anti-Defamation League provided our community group of volunteers with three full days of training in how to facilitate conversations to help build an understanding, tolerance, acceptance, and hopefully an appreciation for diversity in any setting that would have us. Over the years, our initiative grew to encompass inclusion efforts and most recently, a call for equity.

Briefly stated, diversity recognizes that humanity, in all its many ways of being, are all deserving of rights, dignity and respect. Diversity embraces the variety of human languages, skin colors, traditions, religions, sexual orientations, gender identities, and histories that shape tribal membership. Diversity asks us to at least tolerate differences by not killing, shaming, and discriminating against those who are different. At best, it asks us to appreciate the contributions to humanity that come from people of every background. It seeks to replace the idea of one hegemonic standard of “normal” and “good” with multiple perspectives of what is normal and what is good. However, exploitation and harm to others in the name of “culture” or “tradition” was not acceptable.

Inclusion asks for a seat at the decision-making table for individuals and tribal groups that were previously excluded because they were not considered part of the “normal” or “good” ideal which was built into a standard called whiteness. Inclusion seeks to enter spaces and take on roles that the dominate tribe historically excluded them from entering. Inclusion stands at the door of whiteness offering new ideas, creativity, broader perspectives, and energy that could improve the whole of society if embraced.

And finally, equity is basic fairness. It acknowledges that intentional efforts are required to ensure that everyone in the society has the basic tools required to at least survive, if not thrive. Equity seeks to repair the damage of historical wrongs that limited access and opportunities for people and groups outside the previously “normal” and “good”. For most of American history, male whiteness was the access ticket to opportunity, justice, capital investment, and even government welfare. Equity seeks to ensure that future generations have equal access to foundational necessities like health, education, and non-discriminatory practices in the public sector.

I began my work at the university in Multicultural and International Programs, doing diversity workshops for students, faculty, and staff. I was among the first chief diversity officers in the nation in 2008 when I was appointed to that post. Although challenging, I loved having the opportunity to help shape the future by advocating for diversity, inclusion, and equity (DEI) at both the interpersonal and institutional levels until my retirement in 2021.

Over the years, I encountered many people, particularly young professionals and students from underrepresented backgrounds, who thought the DEI efforts were far too slow and others, particularly older professionals, usually white males, who thought the efforts were moving far too fast. It was always satisfying to observe white folks begin to understand the gross disparity in resources and environmental considerations that flowed to communities based on race and economics. They wanted desperately to believe in a meritocracy that did not exist. They despaired over a color-blindness that was only a myth. It was a tough balancing act trying to engender patience in those who demanded immediate change while building enough empathy in those with the actual power to change things. I always knew that a moral imperative alone would never be adequate motivation for those who benefit from privilege and power to willingly relinquish it.

But more difficult than the balancing act or delivering a convincing moral imperative was figuring out how to avoid my own prediction of an inevitable backlash. I never did. In conversations with colleagues, I would often remind them that DEI efforts can easily be perceived as a threat to those who have directly or indirectly benefitted from a system that privileges whiteness as normal and good. Who would willingly relinquish a system that gives them the advantages they need to succeed in society, even if it is at the expense of others? The current system, though unfair, is working for them and we are asking them to change it simply because it is the morally right thing to do. As researchers and educators, we tried to present the growing body of empirical evidence to support the benefits of diversity, inclusion, and equity that accrued to students, institutions, businesses, and society as a whole, but it never gained the momentum needed at the personal level to convince white men nor to overcome youthful impatience.

I observed with trepidation the swiftly emerging problem presented by young professionals and students who were tired of asking for change. They started demanding it. I distinctly recall when the term “wokeness” became a way to distinguish between those who were for DEI (“the woke”) and those who dragged their feet (racist, homophobic, xenophobic, and misogynistic). Young professionals and students exacted a price on those who were not perceived as being “woke” enough. They were publicly shamed, boycotted, or “cancelled”.

Some straight Christian white men on campus, young and old, expressed their dislike of the DEI efforts, characterizing them as outright attacks on them. They were considered the bad guy if they didn’t outright acknowledge and renounce their “white privilege”. They expressed feelings of reverse discrimination. They felt like everyone was blaming them for a system they didn’t create. They felt like their hard work was being discounted. And they feared being “replaced” by losing future opportunities to less qualified women or people of color. Their sense of entitlement and their underlying belief that their whiteness automatically made them more worthy and more “qualified” was difficult to explain to them in a way they could hear because emotions ran way too high, and they felt very threatened. So, I wasn’t too surprised when one of the leaders at that Charlottesville march was a student from our university. I also was surprised that white males began disappearing from college campuses.

I tried to explain to colleagues how many white people intellectually embrace the idea of diversity, inclusion, and equity. It makes perfect sense on an intellectual and moral level, however, emotionally they are experiencing a visceral sense of threat and loss. And it was all coming out. The surprise 2016 election of Donald Trump was a result of white people voting on these emotions. They needed to preserve whiteness and Christianity as the cultural norm with its all its advantages, but they could not openly express it prior to the election. As we have seen, that has changed. Anti-wokeness is loud and clear among conservatives and DEI efforts are under attack, even being dismantled and outlawed in some states.

What we are experiencing today is a backlash to female, non-white, and LGBTQ faces taking up spaces in previously all-white male heterosexual domains. Diversity and inclusion efforts empowered people of different religions, sexual orientations, and gender identities to essentially come out of the closet to openly express themselves in ways previously unacceptable to a white Christian normative society. And those white Christians don’t like it. They feel pushed aside by people who are louder than them, more audacious, and possibly more interesting than the vanilla lifestyle previously in place. And the white Christian evangelical church joined by white nationalists with guns in hand are leading the way toward governmental control. We find MAGA members on the Supreme Court and within the Senate and House of Representatives, with Mich Johnson an unapologetic white Christian nationalist assuming the role as House Speaker.

So, here we are. Tribal warfare wherein one side wants to return to white Christian norms as the standard for good and the ticket to access opportunities and full inclusion in society. You can be included if you are like Justice Clarence Thomas or Senator Tim Scott or Congressman Byron Donalds. It is not lost on me that each of these men are dark-skinned and Christian and that they likely enjoy the comfort of color-blindness while fully embracing white cultural hegemony as they ignore history and minimize their own navigation of discrimination without addressing either. At CPAC, the annual conservative convention, the White Christian Nationalists finally admitted that democracy is no longer working and should be replaced. Democracy gives everyone a voice and they no longer desire to hear certain voices.

The rest of us want to preserve democracy while pushing forward with a diversity that is determined to include everyone in society and within the halls of power in a fair or equitable way. It won’t happen without a fight. This coming election will determine our trajectory as a nation. Will we return to legal discrimination, or will we move forward with democracy? It’s not time to be a spectator, but an active participant while we have the chance.