- Published Date
- Written by Linda Chavez
Conventions are usually pretty boring affairs, but this week's Republican convention was anything but. Apparently, Donald Trump thinks that's a good thing for the party he now leads. Midweek, Trump tweeted about the controversy surrounding his wife's partially plagiarized Monday speech: "Good news is Melania's speech got more publicity than any in the history of politics especially if you believe that all press is good press!"
If chaos, disorganization and mixed messages on policy are a mark of success, Trump had a banner week. But for those of us watching to see whether Trump could bring a badly fractured party and country together, it was a disaster.
The Trump campaign's refusal to acknowledge that parts of Melania's speech were taken word for word from Michelle Obama's 2008 speech to the Democratic National Convention dominated the news for almost three days. It could have been a one-day story, but the campaign's adamant, blatantly false denials turned it into three. And no sooner had Team Trump put one controversy to bed than it stoked another.
Ted Cruz's failure to endorse the nominee was, apparently, no surprise to the campaign. Staffers had a copy of his speech for three days prior to his delivering it. So why did they extend his time from 10 minutes to 20? The only possible explanation is that they hoped for exactly what happened on the convention floor -- the booing and jeering of Cruz.
But the melee also managed to upstage the evening's star, Mike Pence. Trump's vice presidential pick was supposed to add gravitas to the ticket. Pence warned in his speech that the United States "cannot have four more years apologizing to our enemies and abandoning our friends. America needs to be strong for the world to be safe." But no sooner had he uttered those words than The New York Times published an interview with Trump done earlier that day, which threw those sentiments under the bus.
Trump told The New York Times that he would reverse 67 years of American foreign policy by disregarding Article 5 of the NATO treaty if he felt that member nations haven't "fulfilled their obligations to us." He also said he'd shred NAFTA "in a split second." These are treaties signed by presidents of the United States and ratified by the U.S. Senate.
A Trump administration would mean adios to the rule of law and welcome to rule of one. For those actually listening to what he says he would do, it sounds like a more bellicose version of the current administration -- with the president following the laws he likes and disregarding or rewriting those he doesn't.In a normal election cycle, this would be enough to defeat a candidate. President Gerald Ford's re-election odds famously plummeted when he declared in a presidential debate, "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe," arguing that Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia were free from Soviet interference. In 1976, such blunders could actually doom a candidate. This year, Trump's gaffes have been so numerous and outrageous that no single misstatement or insult seems to stick.
Even Trump's disparaging remarks about America in that same Times article will probably go unnoticed. "When the world sees how bad the United States is and we start talking about civil liberties, I don't think we are a very good messenger," he said when asked why he seemed to be defending Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's jailing of 50,000 people after the failed coup that tried to oust the leader.
Trump also called for pulling out U.S. troops from South Korea, noting that if we hadn't stayed on the peninsula after the Korean conflict, "maybe you would have had a unified Korea." Apparently, it doesn't matter to Trump that that would most likely mean one under the rule of Kim Jong Un, about whom Trump has admiringly said, "You've got to give him credit. ... He goes in; he takes over; and he's the boss. It's incredible."
There is no doubt that Trump's true believers will end the week thinking their guy is a winner. But I can't imagine that most undecided voters will feel the same. The Trump convention gave us controversy, plagiarism, heckles, boos and cries of "lock her up" about the Democratic nominee. It was full of anger, even hatred, and remarkably devoid of policy.
Will any of this matter on Election Day? I think so, not that people will go into the voting booth remembering the missteps made in July. But the likelihood that we will see more of the same for the next 100 days virtually guarantees Republican defeat. This week was Donald Trump's chance to show those not yet in his camp that he can indeed lead the nation to a more prosperous, secure and principled future. He failed, utterly.
- Published Date
- Written by Roger Clegg
On Wednesday last week, just after the President’s speech at the memorial service for the fallen police officers in Dallas, I posted this on National Review Online:
I think it’s a fair question whether a memorial service for the fallen police officers in Dallas was the appropriate venue to talk at all about the shootings in Minnesota and Louisiana, and about bias, bigotry, prejudice, racism, and discrimination in America — “and that includes our police departments.”
The scope of the president’s remarks aside, here is what seems to me to be the most problematic paragraph of his speech:
“And so when African Americans from all walks of life, from different communities across the country, voice a growing despair over what they perceive to be unequal treatment; when study after study shows that whites and people of color experience the criminal justice system differently, so that if you’re black you’re more likely to be pulled over or searched or arrested, more likely to get longer sentences, more likely to get the death penalty for the same crime; when mothers and fathers raise their kids right and have “the talk” about how to respond if stopped by a police officer — “yes, sir,” “no, sir” — but still fear that something terrible may happen when their child walks out the door, still fear that kids being stupid and not quite doing things right might end in tragedy — when all this takes place more than 50 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, we cannot simply turn away and dismiss those in peaceful protest as troublemakers or paranoid. (Applause.) We can’t simply dismiss it as a symptom of political correctness or reverse racism. To have your experience denied like that, dismissed by those in authority, dismissed perhaps even by your white friends and coworkers and fellow church members again and again and again — it hurts. Surely we can see that, all of us.”
Now, the president is saying here that the evidence is in, and it shows that our criminal justice system is biased. Not only is that not true, but it ignores what is true: that by far the biggest reason African Americans experience the criminal justice system differently is that they are much more likely to commit crimes. I am not happy about that, and it can be changed, but it has to be recognized.
Finally, the president ignored another, equally large elephant in the room: He said not a word about the catastrophic out-of-wedlock birthrate among African Americans, especially in our inner cities. I’m not happy about this fact either, but it too has to be faced. That’s what drives racial disparities in our country, including disparities in crime rates. It drives differences in life outcomes within racial groups as well as among them, by the way, and there is no doubt that the problem is getting worse among non-Hispanic whites and Latinos, too.
More than seven out of ten African Americans are born out of wedlock, more than six out of ten Native Americans, and more than five out of ten Latinos; versus fewer than three out of ten whites, and fewer than two out of ten Asian Americans. That is a huge range, and it is no coincidence that it lines up precisely with how well the different groups are doing in any aspect of American life you want to look at.
The rise in out-of-wedlock birthrates is the single most important domestic problem our country faces. Will the president ensure that this becomes part of the national conversation we are having on race and crime?
* * *
Alas, I had to follow up that post with another one two days later:
I noted Wednesday that, in his speech at the Dallas memorial service, “the president ignored [an] elephant in the room: He said not a word about the catastrophic out-of-wedlock birthrate among African Americans, especially in our inner cities.”
I noted that I’m not happy about this fact, but it has to be faced. I said that this is what drives racial disparities in our country, including disparities in crime rates, so that a disproportionate number of young black males find themselves at odds with the police.
I pointed out that more than seven out of ten African Americans are born out of wedlock, more than six out of ten Native Americans, and more than five out of ten Latinos; versus fewer than three out of ten whites, and fewer than two out of ten Asian Americans. That is a huge range, and it is no coincidence that it lines up precisely with how well the different groups are doing in any aspect of American life you want to look at.
I concluded that the rise in out-of-wedlock birthrates is the single most important domestic problem our country faces. And I asked, “Will the president ensure that this becomes part of the national conversation we are having on race and crime?”
The answer is, “No.”
President Obama had every opportunity to say something, anything about this issue at tonight’s town hall. He talked a lot about the underlying problems in inner-city communities that lead to more crime there. So he talked about the need there for more jobs and better schools and mental health care. He talked, naturally, a lot about guns. And he went through this litany several times.
He talked about how these communities needed to be healthier. He said a lot about the need for more government programs, and he even said that parents need to parent. When he was talking with a single mom with six children, he proudly noted that he was raised by a single mom.
So, as I said, President Obama had every opportunity to mention the fact that children who are raised by married parents are much less likely to get into trouble than those who aren’t.
But he didn’t. Not a single word.
- Published Date
- Written by Roger Clegg
The draft Democratic platform that has just been released is about what you would expect on civil-rights issues, especially in the criminal-justice area. The draft language condemns our nation’s “institutional and systemic racism” and our “mass incarceration,” and it affirms that “black lives matter.” Felons should be allowed to vote, and our marijuana laws have an “unacceptable disparate impact” on African Americans. There’s also plenty on LGBT rights, where “there is still much work to be done.”
Speaking of “Black Lives Matter” – This USA Today op-ed explains how Black Lives Matter and anti-Israel Palestinian protestors are sharing notes — and this is supposed to make us more sympathetic to both of these groups. Somehow, that was not my reaction.
The ‘Wise Latina’ Dissents – And speaking of criminal-justice issues: I thought I should note Justice Sotomayor’s controversial dissent in a recent drug search case. A sample passage, citing the usual suspects:
[I]t is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny. See M. Alexander, The New Jim Crow 95–136 (2010). For generations, black and brown parents have given their children “the talk”—instructing them never to run down the street; always keep your hands where they can be seen; do not even think of talking back to a stranger—all out of fear of how an officer with a gun will react to them. See, e.g., W. E. B. Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk (1903); J. Baldwin, The Fire Next Time (1963); T. Coates, Between the World and Me (2015).
More “White Privilege” – Campus social justice warriors are always complaining about “white privilege.” I wonder if they’ll say anything about this development: Fox News reports, “Al Qaeda urges lone wolves to target whites, to avoid ‘hate crime’ label.”
And just to be safe, I think they should focus on Episcopalian golfers.
The Problem with Diversity Training – The Washington Post reports: “In the cover story of the latest issue of the Harvard Business Review, sociologists from Harvard University and Tel Aviv University explore the counterintuitive idea that some of the most common tools for improving diversity — one of which is mandatory training — are not just ineffective. They could be detrimental to improving the number of women and minorities in the managerial ranks.”
The story elaborates on this and explains that it’s not just mandatory training but “other tactics often aimed at helping with diversity — such as skill tests to help prevent bias in the hiring process or grievance systems where employees can log complaints — [that can lead to] declines in the number of women and minorities in the companies’ workforces over time.”
Seems that those mandatory diversity sessions make people grumpy, and managers “don’t like being told whom they want to hire, so they often distribute tests selectively, … while grievance systems can make managers feel threatened and retaliate.”
Conversely, “In addition to voluntary training programs, [the] research found that college recruitment aimed at women and minorities, as well as the addition of mentorship programs, diversity task forces and diversity managers, all led to improved diversity among managers over time. Creating a diversity task force within a company, for example, led to a 30 percent increase in Asian men and a 23 percent increase in black women over five years.”
If you don’t like reading the Washington Post, you can read the Fox News version of the story here.
So, am I happy that even Harvard and the mainstream media are willing to concede the abuses and shortcomings that politically correct bean-counting has caused? Sure, but my happiness is tempered by two interrelated things. First, there is no mention of the fact that there are legal prohibitions on race-and sex-based hiring; and, second, it’s accepted that companies should be striving to achieve “diversity” rather than just hiring and promoting the best qualified people.
Clinton–McAuliffe Coordination on Felon Voting? – Sure looks like it, according to this Washington Examiner article, which begins:
New Clinton campaign emails show that there was communication with top ally and Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe on his plan to let 206,000 felons vote in the fall election, a move GOP officials said was aimed at guaranteeing Hillary Clinton the purple state.
My friend Hans von Spakovsky notes that the emails reveal that the governor was working with progressive groups, who are his political allies, instead of with state election officials, who were surprised by his action. That is, he was acting not like a government official but more in the mode of a campaign consultant for the Democratic party.
Hans and I, by the way, wrote a column on Governor McAuliffe’s felon reenfrachisement action right after he took it.
Justice Clarence Thomas’s Silver Anniversary – Clarence Thomas is marking his twenty-fifth anniversary as a Supreme Court justice, and to celebrate the occasion the Federalist Society sponsored a podcast with some of his former law clerks and C. Boyden Gray, who was White House counsel at the time of Justice Thomas’s nomination. You can listen to it here (I phone in with a question about how the justice chooses his law clerks, by the way).
- Published Date
- Written by Linda Chavez
Americans are increasingly pessimistic about race relations, nearly eight years after many of us hoped we had ushered in a new, post-racial era with the election of the first African-American president. A New York Times poll taken in the wake of the killing of two black men by police in Louisiana and Minnesota and the assassination of five Dallas police officers by a black veteran shows that 69 percent of Americans believe race relations are generally bad, with 60 percent saying they believe race relations are getting worse. But why now, when so many markers of racial equality have improved? And why does America's racial divide continue to be black and white while America's population is no longer primarily black and white?
Blacks made up just 13 percent of the population in 2014, while Hispanics (who may be of any race) made up 17 percent and Asians 6 percent, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Non-Hispanic whites made up 62 percent of the population in 2014, but that was down significantly over the previous few decades, largely because of the increase in Hispanics and Asians. Yet when we think of race relations, we rarely think about the white/Hispanic divide or the white/Asian divide or even the black/Hispanic or black/Asian divide.
History is partially to blame. No group faced the systemic, state-sponsored discrimination that African-Americans faced -- not to mention their arrival on these shores in chains, not of their own free will. Nonetheless, broad state-sanctioned discrimination is largely a thing of the past, and even overt individual discrimination is infrequent, with plenty of laws aimed at preventing it and a vast federal, state and local bureaucracy to enforce those laws.
But laws alone cannot change hearts. And to ignore that racial prejudice is still very much alive in our society is to dismiss the real pain that many African-Americans endure on a regular basis. Life is different for black Americans, even if they are wealthy and accomplished, yet many whites fail to appreciate how this affects their fellow citizens.
Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., recently noted that he has been stopped frequently by police for doing nothing more than driving a late-model car in an affluent neighborhood. Even Capitol Police officers have mistakenly stopped him from entering Senate buildings, despite the pin he wears designating he is a member of Congress, with one officer telling him, "The pin, I know. You, I don't. Show me your ID." What these officers see is a black man in a place they don't expect him to be.
These slights and embarrassing encounters leave a mark, which some victims can more easily dismiss than others. Scott hasn't let them define or enrage him, but he decided to speak out nonetheless in hopes that his fellow conservatives would not just dismiss the anger and hurt experienced by many African-Americans.
It's the beginning of a dialogue that needs to take place. But it has to be a two-way dialogue -- one in which African-Americans must listen, as well. Scott has been the victim of stereotypes, but the most potent stereotypes sometimes embody a grain of truth, which is what makes them so powerful. The uncomfortable grain of truth is that black men commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime -- including about half of homicides, according to the Department of Justice. If we want to understand white attitudes, we cannot ignore this fact and the impact it has on increasing prejudices among whites.
The human mind is quick to generalize, and absent specific information about an individual, humans are likely to draw on group characteristics to make a quick judgment. Too many whites see blacks, especially black men, and think danger. Too many blacks see whites, especially those in authority, and imagine bigots. These perceptions feed off each other and infect even those who don't necessarily embrace them. Until we can fix both parts of this unfortunate equation, racial prejudices are unlikely to disappear.
- Published Date
- Written by Linda Chavez
July Fourth is traditionally a day to celebrate not only America's founding but also the exceptional nature of our great country. Coming this year in the middle of one of the nastiest presidential campaigns in recent memory, it would certainly be refreshing to hear from candidates on American exceptionalism, but somehow I doubt that either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is up to the task. They should take a lesson from one of our greatest presidents, Abraham Lincoln, who, even before he became president, understood that we are a unique people, unlike any other in human history.
We think of the 2016 campaign as one of the most contentious ever, but the 1858 campaign for U.S. senator from Illinois makes the current presidential campaign look like a schoolyard tug of war. At the time, senators were elected not in a popular vote as they are today but by the legislatures of their respective states. Nonetheless, Stephen Douglas, the incumbent Democratic senator, and Republican Abraham Lincoln, a former one-term representative from Illinois, appealed directly to the people in the course of the campaign through a series of debates, which became known as the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Lincoln lost his bid to become senator when the Republican Party failed to gain control of the Illinois Legislature, but the debates formed the basis of Lincoln's national reputation and set the stage for the 1860 presidential race, which was the most consequential in our nation's history.
The issue of slavery was very much the focal point of the debates in 1858. The immediate issue was not the abolition of slavery or the emancipation of slaves -- something that would come later and take the Civil War to accomplish -- but whether slavery could be expanded into the new western territories of Nebraska and Kansas. Over and over again, through the course of the debates, Lincoln returned to what he saw as America's founding principles, the adherence to which binds Americans more strongly than any ties of blood or soil.
Before the formal debates between Lincoln and Douglas began in August, both men gave speeches to respective audiences shortly after the Independence Day holiday. In Lincoln's speech in Chicago, he noted that the Fourth of July celebrations popular at the time had become almost a form of hero worship.
"We run our memory back over the pages of history for about 82 years and we discover ... a race of men living in that day whom we claim as our fathers and grandfathers," he said. "But after we have done all this, we have not yet reached the whole," he added. And it is what Lincoln said next that should be repeated for today's voters:
"There is something else connected with it. We have, besides these men -- descended by blood from our ancestors -- among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men. They are men who have come from Europe -- German, Irish, French and Scandinavian -- men that have come from Europe themselves or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things."
In Lincoln's view, what made Americans American was that they could find these words written in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal." Americans read that, "and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to (the Founding Fathers), that it is the father of all moral principle in them and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that declaration, and so they are."
Unfortunately, we are in danger of losing that principled definition of what it means to be American. The left encourages immigrants to hold on to their past, not adopting a new American identity but retaining their native language and allegiances. The right frets that today's immigrants cannot or will not become Americans as previous waves did. Neither is right.
A much smaller portion of America's population now than in Lincoln's day can claim to be descended from that first group of Americans who broke with King George III. Nor do most immigrants come from Europe now. But all of us, no matter where our ancestors came from or how recently they came, are still bound by the principles of our founding. It is adherence to that American creed that we should celebrate this July Fourth -- and we should insist that those who want to lead us pledge allegiance to it.
- Published Date
- Written by Roger Clegg
1. There’s really little to say about the Dallas shootings. They were horrific and inexcusable.
2. Does Black Lives Matter bear some of the blame for them? The argument would be that, by relentlessly vilifying the police and shrilly insisting that they are targeting black men, it encourages counter-assassinations. But, as Kevin Williamson points out, there’s a big jump from even overheated rhetoric to an action like the Dallas snipers. Yes, it shows that words matter, and those elements of BLM that have used irresponsible words should take a hard look in the mirror. And BLM’s supporters should ask whether they are really comfortable in supporting an organization that contains such elements.
3. There’s more to say about Louisiana and Minnesota.
4. But the first thing to say about both is that we don’t have all the facts. Remember Ferguson, all right: It turned out that the police officer there acted entirely reasonably. It may turn out that way in these two cases as well. The Minnesota governor was wrong to prejudge the matter.
5. After all, we already know that the Minnesota case did not involve an “unarmed black man,” and it may turn out that the Louisiana case didn’t either (certainly the video suggests that the police at least thought that the black man there was armed, and maybe he was). When the police are dealing with armed suspects, the equation obviously changes.
6. The Louisiana man, who was much loved by his family but also had a long criminal record, certainly appeared to be resisting arrest; whether it was reasonable for the police to conclude that he posed a serious enough threat to warrant being shot is, as I said, a question we can’t yet answer.
7. We don’t know what actions the Minnesota man took that might have provoked a shooting (by a Hispanic policeman, incidentally); we have only the statements by his girlfriend that he did nothing provocative. Our heart has to go out to her, as it does to the family of the Louisiana man, but again we have to await more facts on what precisely the police were reacting to.
8. Even if it turns out that in one or the other case the police acted unreasonably, it’s a big jump from that to a conclusion that the police acted unreasonably because of race. It’s still wrong and still a tragedy, but it might not be a racially tragic wrong.
9. And even if it turns out that in one or the other case the police acted unreasonably because of race, it’s a big jump from that to a conclusion that the police commonly act unreasonably and that they commonly act unreasonably because of race. President Obama’s suggestion to the contrary last week from Poland was unpersuasive and unhelpful. Each case provides some evidence, surely, but each is only one encounter among thousands of police encounters every week. Even the very liberal Chronicle of Higher Education acknowledges that the research in this area is inconclusive.
10. More nonblacks, after all, are shot by the police, some reasonably and some unreasonably.
11. Assuming that some (disproportionate, because of their race) number of African Americans are shot unreasonably by the police, what do we do about it? I’m open to the possibility of better training and better community relations, and quicker and sterner measures against bad actors; but bear in mind that less aggressive policing will hurt only law-abiding people (especially those African Americans who — disproportionately — live in high-crime areas), and hiring by the numbers will only result in less qualified policemen, which is also not in the interests of the community, whatever its color.
12. The police should not profile on the basis of race, in their shooting or anything else that they do but, as I noted in this Senate testimony, the degree to which they do so has been greatly exaggerated. What’s more, the unpleasant fact is that the reason for this profiling is that a disproportionate amount of crime is committed by African Americans, a problem that is, in turn, rooted in inner-city culture (particularly the breakdown of the black family). This doesn’t excuse profiling, but it does help explain it, and so long as this problem persists then so will some amount of profiling. Those who want to eliminate racial disparities in this country have to get serious about most important racial disparity of all, namely that more than seven out of ten African Americans now are born out of wedlock.
Justice Ginsburg on Future Racial-Preference Challenges – In an interview in which she opined on much that a sitting justice has no business opining on, Justice Ginsburg had this to say about a topic in the Center for Equal Opportunity’s neck-of-the-woods: “[Ginsburg] said court majorities this term moved to shut down tactics used by opponents of abortion and of affirmative action in higher education in two major cases. Ginsburg said she doesn’t expect to see any more such cases after the court upheld the use of race in college admissions in Texas and struck down Texas abortion-clinic regulations that the state said were needed to protect patients.”
So, what are the “tactics” of racial-preference opponents that she thinks the court has “shut down” — bringing lawsuits against schools that are engaging in such discrimination? It’s risible to suggest these policies should be meekly accepted, or that the Court’s decisions have drawn such clear lines on what is and is not acceptable that future litigation is pointless. And I would note that in the five instances in which the Court as heard such challenges, a majority ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor three times (Bakke, Gratz, and Fisher I). In the other two instances (Grutter and Fisher II), the plaintiff lost by one vote.
- Published Date
- Written by Linda Chavez
Antonin Scalia's death has made many conservatives fearful of what would happen if a Democratic president were to appoint the next justice to take his place on the Supreme Court. But several cases decided by the high court this week suggest that even if a Barack Obama (or Hillary Clinton) appointee had been in place, the ultimate result would not have been much different -- and those cases included such divisive issues as affirmative action, immigration and warrantless searches. This doesn't suggest that the current ideological split on the court is meaningless; it is significant. But the ability of the high court to ignore precedents or legislative dictates is still limited, and Armageddon is not quite around the corner.
On affirmative action, those of us who believe in strict colorblind equal opportunity had a minor setback, but one that would not have been reversed even if Justice Scalia were still on the court. The case, Fisher v. University of Texas, involved a white woman who was denied admission to the university. In 1997, the Texas Legislature passed a bill to guarantee automatic admission to the state university system to any Texas resident who graduates in the top 10 percent of his or her class. The legislation was passed with a Republican-dominated state Senate and signed by then-Republican Gov. George W. Bush in an attempt to increase minority representation in the elite university system by ensuring that students who attend high schools composed predominately of minorities have an equal chance of admission with those who attend predominantly white schools.
The effort came after a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in 1996, Hopwood v. Texas, knocked down a race-based preference system that awarded extra points toward admission to minority group members. Abigail Fisher's claim challenged not the 10 percent plan directly but changes made to the plan by the university when it decided that the program hadn't achieved a "critical mass" of diverse students and adopted a "holistic" approach to include other factors -- for example, consideration of race, socio-economic status, language spoken at home and whether a student is from a single-parent family -- as part of a student's overall eligibility.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion that UT's program meets the strict scrutiny required whenever government takes race into account in setting admission policies. This was, regrettably, the first time Kennedy voted to uphold race as a factor in college admissions. But unless Kennedy had joined Justice Samuel Alito -- who wrote a stirring dissent -- the likelihood is that another liberal on the court would simply have deadlocked the decision 4-4 (Justice Elena Kagan recused herself because she had been an Obama administration solicitor general arguing for upholding the program in an amicus brief earlier), thus allowing the appeals court decision in favor of the university to stand. As it is, the decision still leaves open other challenges to less carefully crafted race-based programs in college admissions.
In other decisions, a divided 4-4 court punted on the issue of President Barack Obama's overreach on immigration, letting stand a lower court's decision to halt the administration's plans to defer deportation and grant work permits to some 5 million immigrants who are here illegally. Another conservative on the court might have allowed a majority to tackle the important issue of presidential authority, but even without the extra vote, the Obama plan did not survive.
So, too, the divided court managed to hand down decisions on other controversial matters that should give some hope to conservatives that all is not lost. In Utah v. Strieff, the high court upheld the admission of evidence collected in what might otherwise have been an illegal police stop. Four justices, including liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, sided with Justice Clarence Thomas in deciding that "attenuating circumstances," namely an outstanding warrant for the subject's arrest, allowed the police to search the suspect and that the evidence -- methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia -- could be used in his prosecution despite the so-called exclusionary rule, which disallows evidence collected improperly.
The court also dealt with cases involving the Hobbs Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, both of which give broad powers to government to prosecute crimes impeding domestic or foreign commerce. The court also struck down Obama Department of Labor regulations that attempted to significantly broaden overtime requirements in the automobile dealership industry from what is mandated in the law. In each of these cases, conservatives and liberals were able to come together, albeit with some punting to the lower courts to decide substantive matters that a more conservative court might have settled. The result was less than perfect, but not quite the abyss many conservatives fear.
- Published Date
- Written by Linda Chavez
Islamic terrorism has become the single biggest threat to stability in the world. Attacks killing many hundreds have occurred over the past 18 months in Bangladesh, Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Egypt, Kenya, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Belgium, France, the United States and elsewhere. But fighting this threat will require more than drone attacks to take out leaders of groups such as the Islamic State -- or even full-scale assaults to recapture territory claimed by the terrorists, as we did recently in Iraq.
As the terrorist killings in San Bernardino, Orlando and Paris prove, Islamists' poison can reach into the very heart of the West to infect those born and raised in nations that value freedom, promoting attacks on their fellow countrymen and neighbors. What is to be done?
Military action is clearly part of the solution where Islamic terrorists control actual territory from which to launch further attacks, but it is insufficient to root out the threat. President Barack Obama has dangerously refused to acknowledge that a radical, fundamentalist interpretation of Islam drives the terrorists.
Indeed, fundamentalist Islam is gaining adherents throughout the world, and autocratic regimes in Iran and the Persian Gulf States already enforce it throughout their populations. If we are to be successful in the fight against Islamic terrorism, we must look to the Muslim world itself for a Reformation.
Unfortunately, there are few bright lights in that firmament. The two major sects of Islam, Sunni and Shiite, have both spawned terrorist movements; and whatever their differences, they share a common enemy in modernism and Western values. And in both, the denigration and subjugation of women plays a fundamental role. But there are glimmers of hope, one of which will be on display in Paris on July 9.
As I have for the past few years, I will be emceeing an event that brings together tens of thousands of opponents of the Iranian regime, in addition to representatives from around the world who oppose Islamic fundamentalism. Addressing the group will be a broad range of dignitaries from various nations, including a bipartisan group of Americans composed of, among others, former governors, Cabinet members, ambassadors and White House officials.
This year's event marks the anniversary of the U.S.-Iran nuclear arms deal, which has strengthened the Iranian regime by infusing much-needed cash into the hands of the ruling mullahs. Iran continues to be a major state sponsor of terrorism, as well as ruthlessly suppressing freedom for its own populace. The chief opposition to the regime is the National Council of Resistance of Iran, whose president-elect, Maryam Rajavi, is an outspoken critic of fundamentalism and the convener of the Paris conference.
"A political, religious and cultural antidote is required to uproot this cancerous tumor permanently," Rajavi said last year in front of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade. "In absence of an alternative interpretation of Islam ... extremist ringleaders will portray the war against fundamentalism as a fight against Islam itself. By doing so, they will then create the most important source of nourishment for this ominous phenomenon."
In Paris this weekend, Muslims -- as well as Christians, Jews and others -- will stand up for the belief that freedom of religious practice is fundamental to reform.
"We reject compulsory religion and any form of compulsion in religion," Rajavi has said. She has spoken out against mandatory veiling laws and against the mistreatment of women and denial of their rights in the name of Islam.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration not only does not support the efforts of Rajavi and her group but also has opposed them at every opportunity. But equal rights for women and freedom of conscience for religious practice are the best way to combat radical Islamic fundamentalism. We can continue to fight the Islamic State group, al-Qaida, Boko Haram and other fundamentalist groups on the battlefield and from the air. We can capture or kill their leaders and their foot soldiers. But until we battle the ideology that has spread around the world, we will not succeed. And the most effective way to do that is to work with those, like Rajavi, who have been doing it for decades. If she is not afraid to name the danger for what it is, why should we hesitate to say that Islamic fundamentalism is a threat to us all?
- Published Date
- Written by Linda Chavez
I'm not usually one for tearjerkers, but this week I watched one that I think every American could benefit from seeing. "McFarland, USA" may not have been a big hit at the box office when it was released in 2015, despite having Kevin Costner in the starring role, but it deserves a wider audience now that it is available through Apple, Amazon and other streaming providers.
The movie, based on actual events that took place in the California city that gives it its name, tells the story of a down-and-out coach who finds himself stuck in a farmworker community in California's San Joaquin Valley, coaching Mexican-American kids who are mostly filling time in school between their shifts picking crops. Coach White -- yes, he happens to be white, but it's his real-life name, as well -- doesn't want to be where he is, but he has no choice. He's been fired from every previous job. His family, a blond wife and two lovely daughters, finds the place alien, from the next-door neighbor who raises chickens in her backyard to the lowriders who parade through the downtown streets in their classic cars after dark. An early scene shows the family exiting a taqueria, where they've unsuccessfully tried to order hamburgers, and then encountering a group of lowriders who have just pulled up. The coach rushes his wife and daughters to the family station wagon and peels out of the parking lot to gales of laughter from the presumed gangbangers.
Much of the movie is about exploding stereotypes -- didactic, to be sure, but entertaining in a way that is neither heavy-handed nor filled with the finger-pointing that often accompanies such efforts. The boys in the film -- seven featured characters -- have difficult lives. But they are not victims, and they do not sit around blaming others or feeling sorry for themselves. They get up every morning at dawn and head to the fields to help their families pick crops. Then they run to McFarland High School to attend class. Then it's back to the fields to finish their jobs. It is while driving outside town that Coach White -- after seeing Thomas Valles running across fields at breakneck speed on his way to work -- comes up with the idea to form a cross-country team of runners for the school.
As I watched the story unfold, I was reminded of my tenure as chair of the National Commission on Migrant Education. From 1989 to 1992, I and my fellow commissioners, which included four members of Congress, held hearings across the country in communities like McFarland. The stories we heard were often heartbreaking, but they were also inspiring. I have never encountered a community with the work ethic of farmworkers. These are people who perform work none of the rest of us can imagine, in conditions that we could not endure.
At one point in the movie, Coach White accompanies his runners to the fields to put in a day's work after one of the families decides they can't let their three sons participate on the team because practices after school and on the weekends are cutting into the family's income. White ends up lying facedown in a cabbage field while one of his students massages his aching back, reassuring the coach that the body takes a while to get used to stoop labor. White's experience that day teaches him that there is nothing these kids can't accomplish.
But the film is about more than the resilience of one group of kids; it's about a whole group of people who are hidden from most of us yet touch our lives every day. If you eat vegetables or fruit, if you consume poultry, beef, pork, eggs or milk, chances are that your food reached your table thanks to a worker like the boys in the film. And chances are it was either an immigrant or a child of an immigrant who was doing the work. Indeed, more than 1 in 4 of those workers today are undocumented immigrants.
With talk of deporting immigrants who are here illegally and shutting our borders dominating the presidential election, I wonder: Who exactly do the supporters of those positions think would take these jobs in a "Make America Great Again" society? The actual boys who were the basis of the story "McFarland, USA" are all grown up now. Most of them finished college -- thanks to running scholarships -- and are teachers or administrators, and there's even a police officer among them. This is America's real greatness, a ladder of opportunity for all.