ASEAN countries need to re-think their economic strategy

By Jeyakumar Devaraj

Published 26 May, 2025

First published at Think Left.

The Parti Sosialis Malaysia (Socialist Party of Malaysia, PSM) wishes you a warm welcome to Malaysia as you arrive for the ASEAN Summit 2025 meeting that commences on Monday 26th May 2025. We are happy that ASEAN Leaders will be meeting to discuss strategies to improve the well-being of the people of ASEAN.

ASEAN countries have witnessed significant economic growth in the past 50 years. In Malaysia, for example, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased 25 times in real terms in the last 5 decades. But the majority of people in the bottom 80% of the population (B80) in all ASEAN countries are burdened with debt and mired in economic problems. This paradox of economic hardships persisting despite impressive rates of expansion of our respective GDPs, arises from our “export-led growth” pattern of development where we rely on low costs of production (ie low wages of between 1/5th to 1/15th of the wages in advanced countries) to produce for the markets of Western countries and Japan.

In addition, the ongoing competition between ASEAN countries for Foreign Investment (FDI) has led to a progressive reduction of corporate tax rates. In Malaysia corporate tax has decreased from 40% of corporate profits in 1988 to its current 24% of profits. This in turn has caused a contraction in the ratio of government income to GDP. For Malaysia this ratio has decreased from 30% in the 1980s to only 15% last year. This reduction in government revenue has severely restricted the government’s ability to strengthen the social safety net for our people.

Hence, it is necessary for ASEAN countries to re-think our economic strategy. The PSM hopes that Your Excellencies will use this Summit meeting as an opportunity to evaluate the following proposals. 

Developing the internal market of the ASEAN region

For the past 5 decades, countries in ASEAN have followed the advice of the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO to rely on foreign investment (FDI) to drive the construction of manufacturing industries and rely on the markets of rich countries in Europe and North America for goods created by factories in ASEAN.

This development model cannot continue forever because

• The West only represents 12% of the world’s population. It is impossible for them to generate enough gross demand for all countries in the world.
• The rate of GDP growth in Western countries is now low because of the relocation of many factories to Asian countries, where manufacturing costs are much lower. A process of “de-industrialization” has taken place in Western countries in the past 40 years, and this has led to the loss of high-paying factory jobs. These have been replaced by precarious jobs in the service sector with low and unstable incomes.

If the internal market in the ASEAN region (which has a combined population of 690 million) can be developed it will bring several benefits to our economy including

• Increased demand for goods and services. Businesses in ASEAN, including our small traders, will benefit from the expansion of aggregate demand in ASEAN.
• Opportunities for new investments
• Generation of new jobs.
• Increase in tax collection
• Reduction in dependence on the European and United States markets.

Strategies to increase the wages of ordinary workers in ASEAN countries

At present, the wages of ordinary workers in ASEAN countries are approximately 1/6 (Malaysia) to 1/15 (Cambodia) of the wages of ordinary workers in European countries and the United States. One reason is the competition between ASEAN countries to attract foreign investors by offering ourselves as countries where manufacturing costs are low.

However, the low wage policy makes it difficult for ordinary workers in our countries to make ends meet, and prevents a fairer distribution of national income to the working class. In addition, household demand is the largest contributor to gross demand of any country. But, when the majority of consumers are low-wage workers, how can the gross demand of households grow in a robust manner?

Currently, countries in ASEAN are afraid to increase the minimum wage because the risk of creating a “comparative disadvantage” in the competition for FDI. That risk can be overcome if several ASEAN countries — Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines in particular — can agree to increase their minimum wages (which currently vary) by 10% every year (calculated taking their current wage level as the base) for the next five years. How this can be enforced needs to be discussed in depth. Our recommendation is to include this approach in the ASEAN Free Trade Agreement, so that import taxes can be imposed as a “fine” against countries that fail to comply with the minimum wage increase schedule that has been agreed to.

Stopping the race to the bottom in corporate tax

Government spending is another major contributor to a country’s gross demand. In all countries in ASEAN the ratio of government expenditure to GDP has decreased in the last 50 years. In Malaysia for example, government spending has decreased from 35% of GDP in the 1980s to 20% of GDP now. The main reason is the reduction of corporate tax from 40% on company profits in 1988 to 24% on corporate profits this year. Malaysia had to reduce the corporate tax rate because it is competing with Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia for foreign investment. Currently, corporate tax in Thailand is 20% and in Singapore, 17%.

Continued reduction of corporate tax rates in ASEAN countries not only hinders the development of the region’s internal market, it also restricts fiscal flexibility for the government to implement programs to help ordinary people and to protect the environment. It has also caused an increase in national debt in most ASEAN countries.

This matter should be taken seriously by ASEAN and specific steps taken to increase corporate tax gradually and simultaneously to reach a higher level — we recommend 30% of the company’s gross profit — within a period of 10 years. This means that Malaysia would be required to increase corporate tax by 0.6% every year for the next 10 years, while Thailand has to increase by 1% every year so that both countries can achieve the goal of 30% within a period of 10 years. Again, effective measures to implement this. perhaps by tweaking the ASEAN FTA, has to be discussed.

An effective carbon tax

The “cap and tax” system is a good way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Under this system, the largest emitters of carbon dioxide will be given limits (the “cap”) for carbon dioxide production, based on the type of industry and the scale of production. A tax will be imposed on carbon dioxide emissions that exceeds the set limit.

Vietnam has imposed a carbon tax at a rate of USD 0.50 per ton of carbon dioxide, and Indonesia is planning to launch it at a rate of USD 5 per ton. But these rates are far less than the carbon tax imposed in Europe. France is charging USD 52 per ton and Sweden is currently charging USD 137 per ton of carbon dioxide. As is well known, too low a carbon tax rate will not incentivise the corporate sector to switch to renewable energy sources.

The fact is, ASEAN countries are anxious that the carbon tax will increase the cost of energy, transport and goods such as cement and iron, thus harming the country’s competitiveness in the race to attract foreign investment (FDI). This concern can only be addressed if the carbon tax is implemented at about the same rate in all ASEAN countries. Negotiations on how this can be done should begin.

The problem of youth unemployment and under-employment

Young people between the ages of 20 and 35 are facing serious problems in making a living. Job opportunities are reduced, and new graduates are unable to find jobs commensurate with their education/training. The work that can be found often is lowly paid and most of it is short-term contract work without guarantees or social protection. The problem of lack of work can be overcome

1. if more government positions are created in the health sector, welfare sector and environmental sector – to restore rivers, forests and to create a “circular” economy. But the fiscal space is narrow for most ASEAN countries. Government revenue is currently insufficient to launch initiatives like this;
2. if the private sector in ASEAN decides to produce more goods or services. But this path is constrained by the slow growth rate of domestic aggregate demand, because in general the wages received by workers in this region are 1/6/ to 1/15 of the wages received for the same work in Western countries; and
3. if the number of hours of work per week is reduced gradually such that available work is shared out among all those who need to work.

The problem of youth unemployment should be recognized by ASEAN governments as a serious and worsening problem, and studies and discussion sessions should be organized to find effective measures to overcome this problem which, if failed to be handled effectively, will lead to frustration and radicalization of our youth.

Joint ventures to pioneer a new green industries

It is very important for ASEAN countries to work together to make electric buses of various sizes, solar panels, machinery to recycle organic waste to generate electricity and so on. These industries are very central to transition to a green economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These new industries, if they can be “on-shored” in ASEAN, will also generate jobs for our people and develop domestic gross demand in the ASEAN region.

Apart from the six proposals above pertaining to economic issues, we hope this ASEAN Summit will also look into the following two issues.

Better treatment of refugees

ASEAN countries need to improve our treatment of refugees. We should, at the very least

1. grant refugees the right to work legally. Currently they are forced to work illegally and this exposes them to exploitation by irresponsible employers. Currently we have approximately 2 million legal migrant workers in Malaysia, and approximately 160,000 refugees recognized by UNHCR. Malaysia can easily reduce its intake of migrant workers a bit so that jobs can be given to refugees. The same situation also exists in Thailand and other ASEAN countries; and
2. use part of the fees collected for work permits for refugees to pay for the cost of medical treatment of refugees and their families in government hospitals.

The implementation of these two steps will protect some of the basic rights of refugees in our countries.

Creating a check and balance mechanism for the ASEAN Extradition Agreement

Currently ASEAN countries have agreed that if a citizen from country “A” escapes to another ASEAN country “B”, country “B” must arrest and send back that person if requested by country “A”.

We have no objection if this agreement is only used to arrest criminals, but, considering that some countries in ASEAN have yet to attain a reasonable level of human rights, we feel it is necessary to create a mechanism to filter “extradition” requests to ensure that people who flee because of human rights or political issues are not sent back to their home countries. We should establish a check and balance process where if the person can show evidence that he is not a criminal, but a human rights activist or a political refugee, he or she should be granted asylum for a longer period.

We hope that Your Excellencies will be able to discuss the issues that have been highlighted in this letter. We apologize if parts of our presentation are somewhat blunt. We speak out of the desire to create a more equitable and wholesome ASEAN region, and are prepared to meet with any committee that is tasked with looking further into these proposals.

Wishing you a most productive Summit meeting. We hope you have a pleasant stay in Malaysia.

Sincerely,

Jeyakumar Devaraj
Chairperson
Socialist Party of Malaysia (PSM)

These proposals have been endorsed by 55 Malaysian Non-Governmental Organisations.

 

Moral Cyclone in Texas

Demolishing Academic Freedom and Civil Rights

by Greg Moses / May 26th, 2025

When you think of Feb. 14 do you think of Valentine’s Day? On Feb. 14, 2022, the University of Texas at Austin Faculty Council adopted a fateful resolution affirming that “educators, not politicians, should make decisions about teaching and learning” (doc. 19141). Little did they realize that their forthright declaration of a principle old as Plato would be waved around like a bloody shirt. Republican politicians went hunting for Socrates.

Three years later, on Apr. 15, 2025, the Lt. Governor of Texas was still denouncing the “rogue faculty senate at the University of Texas” because it had “foolishly questioned the Texas Legislature’s authority over higher education” (ltgov.texas.gov).

But before we get into the story of the Valentine’s Day resolution or how it is being torched by Republican politicians, it is important to note that the Lt. Governor’s 2025 attack on the 2022 resolution commits the ethical fallacy of mistaking ought for is, right for might.

The Valentine’s Day resolution was an argument about what should be done: politicians should not assert authority over teaching, and faculty should be expected to “stand firm against encroachment on faculty authority.” The Lt. Governor, on the other hand, rebuked the faculty council for questioning a fact that they did not question: “the Texas legislature’s authority over higher education.”

Why would the UT-Austin Faculty Council adopt a long argument that politicians should not interfere in college teaching if the council was assuming that politicians did not have the power to interfere? In fact, as we will see, the UT-Austin Faculty Council had very good reasons to believe that the legislature was going to try to interfere with faculty scholarship and teaching, as happened soon enough.

Mature wisdom lies on the side of the faculty in this preview debate. It makes little sense to argue that politicians should tell college faculty what to teach or how to teach it. The UT-Austin faculty were right to declare that they would “stand firm against encroachment on faculty authority.” Little did they know that their Valentine’s Day resolution would serve as a pretext to firehose faculty and douse the flames of civil rights progress, not only at their campus, but all across their great state.

*****

With about one week left to go before the end of the 2025 regular session, the Texas Legislature is preparing to join the Lt. Governor’s call to continue punishing faculty and their councils (also known as senates). Determined to drill Texas faculty in lessons they will not be able to “stand firm against,” the Lt. Governor in his capacity as president of the Texas Senate, is urging passage of Senate Bill 37, a law that would abolish faculty councils as we know them by Sept. 1.

The Lt. Governor is already boasting credit for “significantly weakened tenure” in Texas, following the passage of SB 18 in 2023. He counts the attack on tenure as part of “the largest pushback against wokeness in higher education in U.S. history,” an offensive that also included the passage of SB 17 in 2023 that relentlessly banned diversity, equity, and inclusion activities on campus.

Now he wants to crush faculty governance, too. In place of existing councils elected by faculty, SB 37 would require college presidents to appoint at least one member to the council from each college or school and then name the primary officers of the council (“a presiding officer, associate presiding officer, and secretary from the members.”)

Furthermore, among more than 20 pages of provisions in SB 37, college trustees will newly be required to “approve or deny the hiring of” deans or chief academic officers (commonly known as provosts). Collegial norms of shared governance usually treat the position of dean or provost as a matter for college presidents to decide “with the advice of, and in consultation with, the appropriate faculty” (AAUP Redbook 11^th 119).

Under SB 37’s takeover of faculty councils, the provost, in turn, would be charged with identifying council members who are guilty of “misconduct,” and if the president agrees with the provost, a faculty council member shall be summarily removed from the council.

The general effect of SB 37 is to increase the authority of politically appointed trustees into spheres of academic operations so that influence flows more smoothly from the governor’s desk. Recent revisions to the bill would even require at least two trustees to serve on presidential search committees. Furthermore, the governor would appoint a statewide higher ed ombudsman who will take complaints, conduct investigations, and refer cases to the state auditor or legislature, including recommendations to withhold funding.

Among the many professional indignities that SB 37 will inflict upon faculty across Texas is the provision that strikes their right to serve on faculty grievance reviews. The president and provost will then have sole authority over faculty grievances. Prohibiting faculty representation during grievance reviews contradicts professional standards of the American Association of University Professors, which assumes the existence of faculty grievance committees, and which states that “In collegial work environments, due process includes an opportunity for peer participation in the review process” (AAUP Redbook 11th 215).

According to the Lt. Governor, the extreme undoing of faculty shared governance in Texas is necessary because “senates must have a clearly defined role at our universities.” What role is that? According to the Lt. Governor, “faculty senates generally serve a purpose and help Boards of Regents make critical decisions impacting university students in Texas.” But apparently, this role does not include issuing Valentine’s Day resolutions which assert faculty responsibility for teaching or that declare faculty resistance against external pressure in the classroom.

Once again, mature wisdom would counsel the Lt. Governor that he is correct to say that “senates must have a clearly defined role.” However, there is a critical flaw in his selection of the Senate that is out of bounds. And he still has time in the coming week to reign in the senate that is running amok.

*****

Historical tragedies like SB 37 have backstories. In his Apology, Socrates explained to the jury how the accusations against him resulted from long simmering attitudes about his vocation and political choices. Likewise, behind the world-historical clampdown now being imposed on Texas college campuses, we find grudges against civil rights and academic freedom that have been ripening for years.

When the Valentine’s Day resolution of the UT-Austin Faculty Council publicly affirmed “the rights and academic freedom of faculty to design courses, curriculum, and pedagogy, and to conduct related scholarly research,” they were hoping to immunize their community against political attacks. “More specifically,” the 2022 resolution warned that “state legislative proposals seeking to limit teaching and discussions of racism and related issues have been proposed and enacted in several states, including Texas.” Mindful of attacks already underway, the resolution affirmed “the fundamental rights of faculty to academic freedom in its broadest sense, inclusive of research and teaching of race and gender theory” (doc. 19141).

The Valentine’s Day resolution was presented to the council by the Pharmacy professor who chaired the faculty Committee of Counsel on Academic Freedom and Responsibility that drafted the resolution. Minutes of the meeting report that the resolution was “co-sponsored and endorsed by the University Faculty Gender Equity Council (UFGEC), the Council for LGBTQ+ Access, Equity, and Inclusion (Q+AEI), the Council for Racial and Ethnic Equity and Diversity, and the Faculty Council Executive Committee” (doc. 19152).

Broad outlines of the UT faculty resolution followed a “Template for Academic Freedom” that was published in 2021 by the American Association of University Professors, PEN, the American Historical Association, the Association of American Colleges and Universities, and then endorsed and adopted by numerous reputable groups and faculty senates, all of whom were concerned about growing right-wing attacks on academic freedom.

The “Template Academic Senate Resolution,” finalized on Sept. 21, 2021, and posted to Google Docs, made an attempt to stand fast against the swift backlash that was sweeping the nation following the global protests against the killing of George Floyd on May 25, 2020. The Texas legislature led the backlash to closely monitor what could or could not be taught about racism in America. When the Texas Governor signed HB 3979 on June 15, 2021, he issued a terse signing statement that called the bill “a strong move to abolish critical race theory in Texas.” He vowed that “more must be done,” and he promised to add the issue to the summer’s special session agenda (gov.texas.gov).

*****

One year to the day before the Texas Governor signed the bill banning what he called “critical race theory” in public schools, and two years before the Valentine’s Day resolution, the UT-Austin Faculty Council adopted an updated statement on “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.” Passed unanimously by the 55 voting members present, the refreshed statement pledged “to provide equitable access and inclusion in all our activities” (doc. 18263). Although the language had been approved by the council’s executive committee on May 15, 2020, ten days before the murder of Houston Native Son George Floyd, the widescale protests of June 2020 made the timing seem momentous.

Minutes of the June 15, 2020, faculty council meeting are worth quoting at length, because, as the book of Proverbs advises, “let the wise listen and add to their learning” (Prov. 1:5). The council minutes presented below have been edited to remove personal names, just as we have done with the Governor and Lt. Governor above:

The University President discussed racial equity, diversity, and inclusion in the wake of the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and many other Black people. Central leadership has put out a statement and are meeting with the various groups that have made requests for action, including student athletes, other student groups, the Precursors, and other alumni groups. The President said, “I want to listen to them and hear what they’re feeling, what they’re seeing, what their priorities are, and work together…on our set of actions.” He has been working with the Vice President for Diversity and Community Engagement and the Division of Diversity and Community Engagement (DDCE) to reconsider the University’s Diversity and Inclusion Action Plan. Additionally, they have been working with the Vice Provost for Diversity and the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost on faculty diversity, and the President and Provost are “nearing adoption of the plan that was brought forward.” Recent reports from the Campus Contextualization Committee will inform how they think about physical aspects of the campus. The President shared a conversation he had with a Black student leader who described “all the little ways that it was difficult to feel like she fully belonged.” A minority student taking a campus tour pulled her aside to ask, “What’s it really like here at UT?” Her response: “It’s really hard, but it’s worth it.” The President said his exchange with that Black student leader “hit me,” and he thought “we can do better” by recruiting diverse talent, making sure they enjoy their UT Austin experience, and ensuring they feel empowered to contribute.

The Faculty Council Chair Elect thanked the many participants involved in revising the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion statement, which was then presented by a Professor of African and African Diaspora Studies. The Professor said that, in 2018, UT Austin adopted a diversity statement for the first time, but a number of constituencies on campus felt the statement was “not particularly inclusive.” The new Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Statement addresses the issue of inclusivity in the second paragraph: “The University is dedicated to attracting highly qualified students, faculty, and staff of all races, ethnicities, peoples, nationalities, religious backgrounds, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, socioeconomic statuses, disabilities and health histories regardless of their marital, parental, age, veteran, or citizenship status.” A Professor of English proposed an amendment to change “provide” to “providing” in the first sentence, which the FCEC accepted.

A Professor of Classics shared the story of James Reeb, a Protestant minister killed in Selma, who “believed that it was impossible for White people who were in comfortable living situations to do anything for the Black minorities while still living where they were living.” He related this insight to “what we’re doing here with this diversity statement,” adding that the statement “will only have meaning if the resources and the commitment are there to really do something.” He added that the percentage of Black students at UT Austin “never varies from somewhere around 4 percent in a state where there are 13 percent African Americans.” The Professor of African and African Diaspora Studies remarked that “only about 42 percent of the student population is White,” but agreed that Professor of Classic’s “basic observation is absolutely correct.” He asked, “Why hasn’t the White majority [at UT Austin] changed things so that…we don’t have the problems that we have? I think it’s a challenge for all of us.” The Professor of African and African Diaspora Studies agreed that more action is necessary, but reasoned that the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion statement would set goals, aspirations, and principles to which UT Austin could be held. A Senior Lecturer in Management seconded the Professor of Classic’s concern that a new diversity statement on its own would not solve the problem. He said, “If we’re going to do something, we have to make a commitment to being able to recruit in the marketplace, and the marketplace is more competitive than we’ve ever seen.”

A Clinical Professor from the School of Law suggested that the word “opportunities,” be switched to “access” since the phrase “equal opportunities” in terms of education has come to stand for the narrow hypothesis that students can simply be given a “level starting place” and then “the rest is just…so-called meritocracy.” The Professor of African and African Diaspora Studies said he would be in favor of changing the wording. Chair of Staff Council and Executive Assistant for the McDonald Observatory said calling UT Austin a “campus” in the last sentence risks overlooking colleagues who work in physical areas other than the 40 Acres. The Faculty Council Chair responded that, from one perspective, “campus is everything.”

An Associate Professor from the School of Design and Creative Technologies suggested changing “on a diverse campus” to “at a diverse University” to address the concern about excluding parts of UT Austin not within the 40 Acres. She also proposed that the last sentence read “learning and working on a diverse campus” instead of “learning on a diverse campus” to emphasize the important role played by staff. The Faculty Council Chair said the 2018 diversity statement focused on students, but the new statement has been expanded to explicitly include staff and facility. The Professor of African and African Diaspora Studies supported changing the wording. The Faculty Council Chair noted that “this is not the final version”; it will be forwarded to “many, many other groups and administration offices” after being voted on by Faculty Council.

The Professor of African and African Diaspora Studies closed by saying, “coming together as a University community around these kinds of commitments and statements is particularly important at this time.”

The Faculty Council unanimously approved the proposed new UT Austin Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion statement. (Doc. 18300)

The wide representation of faculty, staff, and administration voices resonated with a national awakening that was rolling across the world in June of 2020. Language of the resolution stipulated that “Final approval resides with the President” (doc. 18263). Momentum of the 2020 faculty council meeting is worth remembering, the way we cherish the last few seconds of life and love before the family van gets smashed by a rogue truck.

*****

A Jan. 2025 interim report by the Texas Senate Higher Education Subcommittee alleged that: “Following the political unrest in the summer of 2020, a small group of extremists sought to seize the opportunity to transform public institutions – with the goal of reshaping Texas universities into institutions focused on social justice and equality of outcome” (p. 9). And this is the dark alchemy of how one Texas Senate interim report, signed by three members of a five member subcommittee, came to rebrand June 2020 as a time of “political unrest” and to infer that a gathering at that time of faculty, staff, vice presidents, and the president of UT Austin was but “a small group of extremists.”

The Texas Senate subcommittee interim report of 2025 went on to stipulate that “several legislators received reports from constituents and stakeholders across the state detailing curriculum and course content related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) throughout Texas public institutions.” The lawmakers could have pointed out that the law banning diversity, equity, and inclusion on campus (SB 17) specifically protected classroom teaching. However, in the eyes of the Senate Interim Subcommittee lawmakers, reports about course content were judged to evidence unseemly disrespect for their work: “Though this does not explicitly violate the letter of the law, it contradicts its spirit and does not reflect the expectations of Texas tuition-payers and taxpayers” (p. 33).

SB 37 was therefore crafted in 2025 to compel a new “spirit” of compliance in Texas Higher Education. The spirit of the ban on diversity, equity, and inclusion mandated by SB 17 was not being fully assimilated throughout Texas college classrooms. Faculty council meetings like the ones that happened in June 2020 or Valentine’s Day 2022 would not happen again if trustees, appointed by the governor, could be empowered to more closely supervise the selection of presidents, provosts, and deans; if, in turn, presidents could be empowered to appoint a significant share of faculty council members along with all three of their presiding officers; and if, finally, presidents and provosts would be given sole authority to remove faculty council members from their seats.

SB 37 ensures that a spirit of uncontradicted compliance shall emanate from the high source of the Texas Governor’s office down through faculty councils and into the entire curriculum of Texas higher education, fully satisfying what the Senate Subcommittee Interim Triumverate characterized as “the expectations of Texas tuition-payers and taxpayers” alike.

*****

Two years after the George Floyd moment, and eight months after the Texas Governor signed the ban against “critical race theory” in public schools, the Valentine’s Day resolution of 2022 was a conscious attempt to rescue civil rights and academic freedom from the disaster that threatens them today. The resolution was debated in an open meeting, where dissent was duly reported in the minutes.

An associate professor of Finance accused the council of requiring “adherence to critical race theory….  and now you are complaining about this hypothetical threat that there might be a ban.” He complained that the council resolution did not make mention of the Chicago Statement or the Kelven Report which encouraged institutions to remain neutral and abstain from “declaring a collective opinion on political and social issues” (goacta.org). Minutes report that his dissent concluded with the declaration that the legislature “did not give you autonomy so you could turn our school into a social justice indoctrination camp. They absolutely should be monitoring this.” Two responses are recorded in the minutes.

A professor of Human Development and Family Science argued that the council resolution did not compel faculty to take any particular positions regarding race or gender theory, but “those people who do research on these areas, historians who have been studying the historical impacts of racism, they have the expertise … and they should have the right to be able to speak about it.”

And a professor who served on the drafting committee argued that the resolution received unanimous support from the committee “after considerable work and thought and interaction with people of other universities.” Citing the great American rule of resistance, that “we have all got to hang together or we will all hang separately,” the professor of Integrative Biology warned that: “It is critical race theory today. It is going to be … climate change or evolution tomorrow, so it affects all of us.” Minutes reflect that the resolution passed “by majority vote: forty-three in favor, five against, and three abstaining” (doc. 19152).

*****

A moral cyclone of backlash is howling to punish Texas faculty for their so-called “wokeness.” When the House Higher Education Committee heard testimony regarding the anti-tenure bill (SB 18) in 2023, long hours produced not a single witness in its favor. Not one. Yet the committee approved the bill that the Lt. Governor now brags about passing because it significantly weakens tenure.

Similarly, this year, the Texas AAUP counts about three witnesses speaking for SB 37, but 300 witnesses against, a ratio of 100-to-one “Texas tuition-payers and taxpayers” pleading with Texas politicians that “educators, not politicians, should make decisions about teaching and learning” in Texas. But once again, the fix was in, the railroad operation blared full steam ahead, and the bill was adopted by the committee along party lines, with Republicans in control.

Finally, under the afternoon light of a simmering Texas sun, on May 24, 2025, when SB 37 was being debated in the Texas House of Representatives, Republicans made it a point to drown out the debate under a crescendo of bar car chatter. The chair of the House tried to gavel them to order. The Democrat who held the floor yelled “shut up!” But the House Republicans, who are on record for mandating orderly classrooms in public schools, could not be bothered to stop talking over the debate.

Voices of faculty and their friends in Texas have been scattered against shrill winds of power. Barring a miracle of conscience, the Lt. Governor’s kneecap campaign will be soon visiting a Texas campus near you. Don’t get caught out supporting civil rights, academic freedom, or social justice. And be sure to get your faculty council opinions realigned with the ruling party in Texas, or there will be hell to pay.

BTW: When I think of Feb. 14 I think of the birthday of Frederick Douglass, author of the term “moral cyclone” who was born into bondage as the property of his father. The term “moral cyclone” is an unexaggerated metaphor for the way Texas faculty will soon be reborn as an intellectual labor force in service to Texas politicians who are eager to crack their power whips against any professor “foolish” enough to “stand firm” against the brazen dictates of a newly revised Texas Education Code. Altogether, Feb. 14th has become a mixed-up metaphor for the passion that joins the love of wisdom to the struggle for a democratic outcome, and only by the grace of God will it turn out differently this year than it did for Socrates back when.

*****

NOTE: SB 37 provisions described above reflect the latest updates reported in the House Higher Education Committee Substitute as of press time.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Greg Moses is editor of the Texas Civil Rights Review and a member of the Texas Civil Rights Collective. Read other articles by Greg, or visit Greg's website.

Domestic Violence Is Part of What War Creates

by David Swanson / May 26th, 2025

As Stacy Bannerman has been telling us for decades, the U.S. military has a domestic violence problem. So do some other — and I strongly suspect all — militaries.

The Pentagon has long known about the significantly increased risk of domestic violence by combat-exposed troops, yet has failed to properly inform military members or their families, and has violated laws mandating reporting on the problem.

This lack of transparency and breach of legal responsibilities has left thousands of spouses, children, caregivers, parents, partners, and veterans dead, injured, suffering emotional distress and damages, and often struggling in silence without the resources or support they should have.

This problem is not really a secret. According to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, “As a group, Veterans are more likely to have had traumatic and stressful experiences that may increase their risk of experiencing and/or using aggression in their close relationships. The stress of deployments and separation from their families places stress on the individual and the family unit. Combat trauma as well as military sexual trauma (MST), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and substance misuse can all contribute to an increased risk for experiencing relationship conflict and IPV.”

IPV is intimate partner violence.

There are enough websites on helping veterans and their families with this problem that each victim could probably claim one. But when you sit down and speak with a group of military family members who are working to lobby the U.S. Congress and to sue the U.S. government for help and compensation, words of praise for the VA (Veterans Affairs Department) or any other branch of government are not prevalent. That’s true of many discussions of U.S. healthcare and public services in general, of course, and one of the major reasons for that is how much of our money is dumped into the Pentagon. But if you are a victim of the Pentagon, foreign or domestic, you are likely to have insult added to injury.

I spoke with a number of women whose husbands and/or sons had been involved in U.S. wars. They were decidedly not peace activists. They were in various ways, I think it’s safe to say, supporters of the U.S. military. In some cases, they were full of praise for the U.S. military. Like most members of the U.S. public, they were willing to question the wisdom of many U.S. wars but, in at least some cases, insistent on finding one or more wars to call justified. One spoke of her veteran spouse, saying, “He was in the military, and I was loyal to supporting that. But he did try to kill me.”

One woman’s son, she said, had been fine prior to two tours of “duty,” after which, suffering PTSD, and following various difficulties, he attempted suicide and later murdered his wife, for which he is now in prison in the nation where he and his wife had been living.

Another woman said she suffered PTSD from trying to care for her PTSD-suffering, and TBI (traumatic brain injury)-suffering , husband, who is deeply traumatized and self-mutilates. Any one of numerous incidents she recounted was almost unbearable to contemplate. A number of them included the initial problems plus the VA treating her family more as criminals than as patients: her badly suffering husband repeatedly awakened through the night for his “safety,” his possessions removed without telling him, etc. When her husband phoned 911 because she had said she would kill herself, the men who responded handcuffed her and forced her from her house. A number of these stories ended with “And it was more f—ing faith-based counseling!” or “And their treatment was to give us another copy of the Five F—ing Love Languages!” The Five Love Languages is a book that as far as I know has not cured PTSD, TBI, or moral injury in anyone.

These accounts are full of anger at obnoxious and insulting comments and treatment by the VA, including blaming the victims, accusing the victims of lying, and openly placing bets that a victim will be back again for more “treatment.”

This ought to be utterly unacceptable, whether you believe destroying Iraq was a noble “service,” or you believe destroying Iraq was a horrific crime that you should nonetheless thank people for the “service” of having committed, or you believe all wars and militaries should be immediately abolished. There’s nobody who should find this acceptable. And yet it persists. And addressing it seems not to make up part of the agenda of “bringing a warrior ethos back to the Pentagon” as espoused by the current Secretary of War.

In fact, despite the culture of endless troop celebration and thanking, there’s a general silence on helping troops and their families deal with violence persistence — violence after the period during which violence is required and praised. Sure, there are tons of websites, but not media reports, not marathons or walks or telethons, not advertising, not Hallmark or Netflix movies. There’s not a general awareness and concern that veterans are more likely to harm or kill themselves or those around them.

When the problem is more dramatically public, when it takes the form of mass shootings, there is a strict vow of silence in corporate media outlets. Reporting that mass-shooters are disproportionately veterans — that is, that mass-shooters are people who have been trained and conditioned to shoot — is simply not done. The most common excuse for this censorship is that it is an effort to avoid prejudice toward veterans. And yet, facts are the opposite of prejudice. The fact that almost all veterans are not mass-shooters is an obvious fact, compatible in the human brain with the fact that without military experience some mass-shooters would probably not have committed their crimes. Men are very disproportionately mass-shooters, a fact that many people allow their minds to grasp without becoming prejudiced against men.

The real reason for the censorship, on mass-shootings, on suicides, and on domestic violence is, I think, the incompatibility between finding fault with veterans or “service members” and the belief that anything members of a military do is a praise-worthy service — so much so that you should support even wars you oppose because you “support the troops.”

The reality is that one of the ways in which war does damage is the horrible harm it does to many, if not all, of the people who do war. It also kills, injures, traumatizes, makes homeless, impoverishes, destroys the environment and towns, costs a fortune, prevents international cooperation, tears down the rule of law, concentrates wealth and power, threatens nuclear apocalypse, encourages bigotry and hatred, excuses spying and secrecy, etc., etc. But one of war’s horrors is that it trains people for years to do great violence, and then gives them a 4-hour debriefing and abandons them to cope with a world in which they are going to have major difficulties but be forbidden to address them with violence.

Like many a holiday originally created for mourning the dead of both sides of a particular war, Memorial Day has been gradually turned into a holiday for celebrating the dead on one side (the U.S. side) of many wars — often a very small fraction of the total dead, it should be noted. The survivors of the proper side are celebrated as well, especially if they keep their mouths closed about what they’re going through.

First published at World Beyond War.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson's books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and War Is a Crime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook. Read other articles by David.

 

What birds can teach us about social learning

New link between a brain region and how zebra finches learn their birdsongs by imitating other zebra finches.

Society for Neuroscience

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBluesky
Email

 

image: 

An adult zebra finch tutor (right) and young pupil (left).

view more 

Credit: Masashi Tanaka, 2025

How does a bird learn its birdsong? Tomoko Fujii and Masashi Tanaka, from Waseda University, explored what drives a zebra finch to approach and imitate other zebra finches to learn its birdsong in a new JNeurosci paper. 

The researchers explored song learning in young male zebra finches as they interacted with “tutor” adults that already knew their birdsongs. Young zebra finches preferably approached tutors that sang longer but less frequently. Fujii and Tanaka next probed the role of a brain region traditionally linked to emotions in mammals (the amygdala) in this song-learning process. To examine the role of the amygdala, the researchers removed it from the young zebra finches. While loss of this brain region did not hinder song imitation, tutor selection became more unpredictable as birds pursued tutors less discerningly. Tracing neural connections in the zebra finch brain further confirmed that the amygdala doesn’t necessarily drive song control and learning, but may play a role in socially selective, imitative behavior, according to the authors.  

### 

Please contact media@sfn.org for full-text PDF. 

About JNeurosci 

JNeurosci was launched in 1981 as a means to communicate the findings of the highest quality neuroscience research to the growing field. Today, the journal remains committed to publishing cutting-edge neuroscience that will have an immediate and lasting scientific impact, while responding to authors' changing publishing needs, representing breadth of the field and diversity in authorship. 

About The Society for Neuroscience 

The Society for Neuroscience is the world's largest organization of scientists and physicians devoted to understanding the brain and nervous system. The nonprofit organization, founded in 1969, now has nearly 35,000 members in more than 95 countries. 

---

Journal

JNeurosci

DOI

10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2435-24.2025 

Article Title

Amygdala Regulates Social Motivation for Selective Vocal Imitation in Zebra Finches

Article Publication Date

26-May-2025