Saturday, January 04, 2025

The devastating truth about the GOP's war on education

Thom Hartmann
January 1, 2025 
ALTERNET


Thousands of Trump supporters gather at the Supreme Court to show their support for President Trump after the election. (Shutterstock.com)

“Those who control the present, control the past; and those who control the past control the future.” —George Orwell, 1984

From outlawing the polio vaccine to ignoring the scientific consensus on gender dysphoria to refusing to wear masks in hospitals to trying to strip evolution and science from our schools, stupid has become fashionable in today’s GOP.

When Republican politicians want to score points, they criticize their opponents as having had “elite” educations; the GOP’s war against Ivy League colleges was particularly evident during the student protests of Israel’s slaughter in Gaza. Congressional Republican inquisitors' voices dripped with scorn and contempt as they grilled university presidents.


It wasn’t always this way.

I remember when the USSR launched Sputnik, the first satellite to orbit the Earth. It was the fall of 1957, I was six years old, and my dad and I watched it arc over our house from our backyard one clear October night. My best friend’s father, a ham radio operator, let us listen on his shortwave radio to the “beep beep beep” it was emitting when it was over North America. I’d never seen my dad so rattled.

That dramatic technological achievement lit a major fire under the Eisenhower administration and Congress. In his January 27, 1958 State of the Union address, Republican President Eisenhower pointed to Sputnik and demanded Congress fund a dramatic transformation of America’s educational system:

“With this kind of all-inclusive campaign, I have no doubt that we can create the intellectual capital we need for the years ahead, invest it in the right places--and do all this, not as regimented pawns, but as free men and women!”

In less than a year Congress wrote and passed the National Defense Education Act that poured piles of money into our public schools and rolled out programs for gifted kids.

I was lucky enough to be enrolled in one of those in 1959: by the time I left elementary school I was functioning at high school and college levels in math, science, and English. I’d had two years of foreign language and two years of experimental music instruction. IQ tests were all the rage: mine was 141 and my best friend, Terry, was 142, something he never let me forget.

Most all of those programs died over the following decades as a result of Reagan’s war on public education, which began with his bringing private religious school moguls like Jerry Falwell and bigots like Bill Bennett into the White House.


Repudiating Eisenhower’s embrace of public education, Reagan put Bennett in charge of the Department of Education, which Reagan had campaigned on shutting down altogether. Bennett is probably best known for defending his proclamation that:
“If you wanted to reduce crime you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every Black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.”

Much like Bennett back in the day, the catch phrase among white supremacists and their fellow travelers today is that “Western Civilization” is either under attack or at risk because we teach history, tolerance, and critical thinking skills in our public schools, which are often racially integrated. The answer, Republicans will tell you, is to defund our public schools.

When Reagan was elected in 1980, the federal share of total education spending in America was 12 percent; when he left office in disgrace in 1989 amid “Iran/Contra” rumors he’d cut a deal with the Iranians to keep the American hostages to screw Jimmy Carter, that share had collapsed to a mere six percent. (It’s three percent today.)


Reagan also wanted to amend the Constitution to allow mandatory school prayer, and unsuccessfully proposed a national tax credit — a sort of tax-system-based national voucher system — that parents could use to send their kids to religious schools like Falwell’s.

Reagan made anti-intellectualism a political weapon, repeatedly criticizing colleges and professors throughout his political career. When asked why he’d taken a meat-axe to higher education and was pricing college out of the reach of most Americans, he said that college students were “too liberal” and America “should not subsidize intellectual curiosity.”

Four days before the Kent State Massacre of May 5, 1970, Governor Reagan called students protesting the Vietnam war across America “brats,” “freaks” and “cowardly fascists,” adding, as The New York Timesnoted at the time, “If it takes a bloodbath, let’s get it over with. No more appeasement!”


Before Reagan became president, states paid 65 percent of the costs of colleges, and federal aid covered another 15 or so percent, leaving students to cover the remaining 20 percent with their tuition payments.

That’s how it works in many developed nations; in most northern European countries college is not only free, but the government pays students a stipend to cover books and rent.

Here in America, though, the numbers are pretty much reversed from pre-1980, with students now covering about 80 percent of the costs. Thus the need for student loans here in the USA.


Ever since Reagan’s presidency, the core of Republican positions on public education has been five-fold:

1. Let white students attend schools that are islands of white privilege where they don’t have to confront the true racial history of America,
2. Use public money to support private, for-profit, and religious schools that can accomplish this (and cycle some of that money back to Republican politicians),

3. Destroy public schools’ teachers’ unions,
4. End the teaching of science, critical thinking, evolution, and sex ed, and,
5. Bring fundamentalist Christianity into the classroom.



Earlier this year, Republican Senator Marco Rubio called America’s public school system a “cesspool of Marxist indoctrination.”
“Dangerous academic constructs like critical race theory and radical gender theory are being forced on elementary school children,” Rubio wrote for the American Conservative magazine, adding, “We need to ensure no federal funding is ever used to promote these radical ideas in schools.”

Instead, multiple Republican-controlled states are now actively gutting their public schools with statewide voucher programs and instituting mandatory bible instruction or posting of the Ten Commandments. Book bans and panics around queer kids using bathrooms or playing sports are the new wedge issues.


There is no more powerful urge we humans can experience than to protect and defend our children. For most people it beats hunger, sex, and money. So if you’re a politician looking for an issue to motivate voters, just tell them their children are under attack. It’s cynical but effective.

In an interview for Semafor, Trump’s former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo laid it out:
“I tell the story often — I get asked ‘Who’s the most dangerous person in the world? Is it Chairman Kim, is it Xi Jinping?’ The most dangerous person in the world is [American Federation of Teachers President] Randi Weingarten. It’s not a close call. If you ask, ‘Who’s the most likely to take this republic down?’ It would be the teacher’s unions, and the filth that they’re teaching our kids…”

Just a few months ago, Donald Trump laid out his plan to deal with the “major problem” America is facing. That problem, he said, is:

“[W]e have ‘pink-haired communists teaching our kids.’”

Turning the Constitution upside down and arguing the Founders intended to protect teaching schoolchildren religion, Trump elaborated, arguing that mixing religion, politics, and education was the intention of that document:
“The Marxism being preached in our schools is also totally hostile to Judeo-Christian teachings, and in many ways it’s resembling an established new religion. We can’t let that happen. For this reason, my administration will aggressively pursue intentional violations to the establishment clause and the free exercise clause of the Constitution.”

As Jonathan Chait wrote for New York magazine:
“More ominously, at every level of government, Republicans have begun to act on these beliefs. Over the past three years, legislators in 28 states have passed at least 71 bills controlling what teachers and students can say and do at school. A wave of library purges, subject-matter restrictions, and potential legal threats against educators has followed.”

George W. Bush followed the trend, bragging about his pathetic performance in college at Yale’s 2001 commencement:

“To those of you who received honors, awards, and distinctions, I say, well done. And to the C students I say, you, too, can be president of the United States!”

Similarly, JD Vance gave a speech in 2021 titled Universities Are The Enemy.

This isn’t the first time elected officials have used public education as a political weapon. In 1844, 25 people died and over 100 were severely injured in riots in Philadelphia over whether there should be daily Bible readings in that city’s schools. Two churches and several city blocks of homes were burned to the ground.

The Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 didn’t provoke riots, but was a major event in the history of public education. Tennessee high school teacher John Scopes was charged and convicted of the crime of teaching evolution. Mississippi and Arkansas joined Tennessee in passing laws making such instruction a crime that stood until the 1967 repeal of the Butler Act.

While Republicans across the country successfully rode a wave of white outrage about Critical Race Theory in November’s election, polls suggest the issue is really meaningful only to a fragment of the American electorate: an anti-science “Christian” subset of white Republican voters.

The annual PRRI American Values Surveyfound:
“Americans overwhelmingly favor teaching children history that includes both the good and bad aspects of our history so that they can learn from the past, versus refraining from teaching aspects of history that could make them feel uncomfortable or guilty about what their ancestors did in the past (92% vs. 5%).
“There are no substantial partisan differences, though Republicans favor excluding aspects of history slightly more (7%) than Democrats and Independents (both 4%). There are few differences across religious traditions or demographics. This consensus holds up across different levels of exposure to critical race theory: 92% of those who have heard a lot about critical race theory, 94% of those who have heard a little, and 93% of those who have heard nothing about it state that we should teach children the good and bad of history.”

Nonetheless, they note:
“[A] majority of Republicans (54%), compared with 27% of independents and only 7% of Democrats, believe that teachers and librarians are indoctrinating children.”

America spent $794.7 billion on primary education last year. For-profit private schools and megachurches that run schools look at that pile of money and drool. Republicans are committed to delivering as much of it to them as possible, regardless of the damage it does to our nation’s kids.

Their strategy for privatizing our public schools is pretty straightforward, and echoes the plan of action Republicans are using right now to replace real Medicare with the privatized Medicare Advantage scam.

First, they falsely claim that they’ll deliver a better product at a lower cost. In the education realm, we see this with Florida and several other Red states now offering vouchers that can be used at private or religious schools to every student in the state.

(Nearly 2,300 private schools in Florida accept vouchers, but “69 percent are unaccredited, 58 percent are religious, and nearly one-third are for-profit.”)

As more and more students use the vouchers to flee public schools, the public schools sink into deeper and deeper financial troubles, which cut the quality of teaching and upkeep of the school buildings, causing even more students to use the vouchers.

Because the vouchers never cover the full cost of private school tuition (typically they pay for half to two-thirds), the truly poor can’t use them: the result is that the public school system becomes ghettoized, leading to even more flight by middle- and upper-class (mostly white) people.

Once the public schools are dead and the state has transitioned entirely to private schools, the state will claim budget problems and begin to dial back the amounts available for vouchers. (The same will happen with Medicare Advantage once real Medicare is dead.)

This will widen the relationship between the educational and wealth divides; the racial and class cleavage will become so great that the state will have effectively gone back to a “separate but equal” educational system. Which, of course, is the GOP’s goal and has been since 1954.

Republicans are generally convinced — and surveys show they’re right — that when people have a good, well-rounded education they will vote for Democrats, who explicitly value science and egalitarian social values.

Thus, keeping our kids ignorant and destroying one of America’s largest unions, all while helping their education and religion industry friends get rich, is a complete win-win.

Much of this battle is playing out in state houses around the country, but there’s a huge and well-funded effort to take control of local school boards as well.

Driving this ethos with a constant flood of anti-intellectual, anti-science propaganda is an army of rightwing podcasters, YouTubers, hate radio hosts, and the billionaire-owned Fox “News” network (among others). They argue, essentially, that “stupid is the new smart.”

Barely coherent politicians like Tommy Tuberville and Marjorie Taylor Greene are their heroes. Donald Trump, who still refuses to release his grades, is their avatar. Bob Kennedy is their avenging angel. And people with college educations — and teachers/professors — are their enemies.

Bottom line: the Republican war on public education and science is real, and if we want to stop it we must get involved. Show up for your local school board meetings and, if you have the time and ability, run for a position on the board.

Lobby your state legislators and support pro-science and pro-education politicians. It’s time to make smart cool again!

Our children’s and grandchildren’s futures are literally at stake.
AMERIKA

Op-Ed 


Teachers Turn to Study Groups for Anti-Racist Learning as History Is Whitewashed


Amid right-wing attacks on classrooms, study groups light a “fire of hope” among anti-racist educators.

December 30, 2024

\Ayo Walker / Truthout

It is hard to overstate the burdens public school educators have been asked to carry over the last several years.

There are the perennial stressors: inadequate funding, crumbling infrastructure, the inundation of schools with standardized testing, and too little time to plan, grade and collaborate with colleagues. Then came the COVID-19 pandemic: isolation, building closures, remote teaching, reopenings and severe staff shortages. Wielding the cudgel of “learning loss,” elites laid the blame for the traumatic impacts of a pandemic at the feet of teachers and public schools.

And through all that, there has been the steady and sinister growth of book bans, curricular gag orders and the criminalization of trans-affirming policies — all of which seek to muzzle educators from telling the truth and extending care to students. Today, almost half of all public school students have a teacher who has been prohibited from teaching the truth about systemic racism in U.S. history. As one teacher told the Zinn Education Project, “I’m terrified to say anything about enslavement because it might make students ‘uncomfortable.’ I also can’t recommend any books because a parent might not like it and then I could be charged with a felony.”

The impact of the relentless attacks on educators from right-wing forces is difficult to quantify, but a 2022 survey provides some insight into the harm being caused. According to a report by the National Education Association, “A staggering 55 percent of educators are thinking about leaving the profession earlier than they had planned.” The report also reveals that a disproportionate percentage of Black (62 percent) and Latinx (59 percent) educators — already underrepresented in the field — are considering an early departure from teaching. Many factors are pushing educators away, from health risks during the pandemic to low pay and a lack of respect that stems from politicians who aim to scapegoat educators for the social problems they refuse to address. Especially distressing is the toll taken by the ongoing criminalization of truth in education. As one teacher from Tennessee shared regarding the impact of educational gag order legislation on her decision to leave teaching, “I just can’t. I can’t do this. I really value being honest with students. I really don’t think I can navigate teaching in such a watered-down type of way.”

The fear of retribution for teaching the truth has created such a chilling effect that an astounding two-thirds of U.S. teachers now report self-censoring discussions on race, gender identity and sexuality in their classrooms.


The Right’s Push to Whitewash History Is a Precursor to Fascism
As a new school year begins, we must resist turning schools into right-wing indoctrination centers. By Henry A. Giroux , Truthout  August 18, 2024


But there is another story about teachers — buried beneath the headlines of doom and despair — that must be told to fully understand this era of education; this is a story about solidarity, community, hope and resistance.

As we have seen educators come under attack for teaching the truth about U.S. history, we have also seen them rise up and fight back. For the past three years, hundreds of educators have participated in the annual Teach Truth National Day of Action, organizing banned book swaps, historical walking tours, rallies, and more. In addition, thousands of educators have participated in the Black Lives Matter at School Week of Action, and many are increasingly joining the call for the Year of Purpose activities.

There is one story of educator resistance that has not been reported on: the Teaching for Black Lives (T4BL) study groups and the more than 3,795 educators from across the country — including in states that have prohibited anti-racist education — who have come together over the last several years to read, learn, reflect, and struggle for justice in classrooms and schools. Hundreds of T4BL study groups have formed since 2020, including groups comprised of teachers across Florida, educators from Wake County School District (K–12) in North Carolina and educators from Hayward Unified School District (pre-K–12) in California.


Two-thirds of U.S. teachers now report self-censoring discussions on race, gender identity and sexuality in their classrooms.

At most schools, isolation is the norm. Teachers scarcely have time to use the bathroom between classes, answer emails and plan lessons during their prep periods, and eat a nourishing meal during their lunch “break.” We have yet to see a place on a school’s daily bell schedule labeled “time to build meaningful relationships with other adults in the school.” Too often, professional development is imposed on educators and feels tangential to the most pressing issues in education. Study groups provide educators with a reliable structure of support and community, while allowing educators to direct their own professional development.

“Participating in this study group has reminded me that I am not alone in my district. This work can often feel really isolating, and it was so encouraging to meet with colleagues who are also passionate about equity,” says Crystel Weber from Gresham, Oregon. Similarly, Sarae Pacetta from Portland, Maine, reflects, “Our study group has been an anchor for all of us.…We are each other’s touchstones when we need to process an issue.”

No doubt, this moment calls for copious and varied forms of organizing — in our unions, at our local school and library boards, and in collaboration with community and parent groups. But as we fight the current wave of attacks on education, it is critical that we ground ourselves in what we are fighting for, not just against. Small, educator-led communities of study and reflection can provide that grounding. Study group members have told us that their groups have been a vital source of strength, support and guidance during budget cuts and right-wing attacks on education. “Having a national network of support and like-minded colleagues is a balm during these challenging times,” said one study group member.

A mainstay of school mission statements is that the educational program should create “life-long learners.” Yet, this value is rarely prioritized by school leaders when it comes to educators. Study groups encourage educators to claim time to learn — through book study and discussion, online classes and participatory workshops. We cannot apply principles of equity and justice that we ourselves have not learned.

“I’ve learned so much about the accurate and hidden history of Black Americans and how our systems continue to affect them,” says Teri McAllister, a teacher in Everett, Washington, on the impact of collective study. “This learning experience has deepened my commitment to creating change.”

Heidi Given from Somerville, Massachusetts, shares, “Our study group provided a platform to explore histories we were never taught, and to develop pedagogical practices for sharing those histories with our students.”

Yet these groups aren’t just about educators deepening their understanding of Black history and intersectional social issues; the T4BL study groups have also inspired educators to move from discussion to action, and to tackle issues of racial justice directly within their communities and schools.


The role of study groups is frequently underestimated in historical accounts of social change, yet these gatherings are often the bedrock of movements for social justice.

A T4BL study group in Florida — a state where draconian laws have been deployed to fire educators who teach the truth about racism — inspired educators to get active in their union to organize against the onslaught of anti-education bills imposed on them in recent years. In Madera, California, a T4BL study group took a deep dive into the discipline data at their school, and a member reported that their group “completely restructured” their school discipline approach. This included hiring an intervention specialist and transforming the position of the teacher who had supervised in-school suspensions to abandon a punishment model and become a trained restorative justice practitioner who “works closely with our intervention specialist, counseling team, and student psych services.” In Kansas City, Missouri, study group leader Michael Rebne and other educators participated in Teach Truth Days of Action by organizing events at historic sites to highlight the importance of truthful education, especially as right-wing anti-history bills threaten to mandate lies and omissions in classrooms across the country.

The role of study groups is frequently underestimated in historical accounts of social change, yet these gatherings are often the bedrock of movements for social justice. Study groups create spaces for individuals to explore ideas, develop critical consciousness and build the ideological foundations necessary for collective action. From the Black freedom struggle to the labor movement, study groups have brought together individuals eager to learn, strategize and ultimately transform society.

In the early 20th century, Black intellectuals and activists such as W. E. B. Du Bois and the members of the Niagara Movement met regularly in study groups to discuss racial justice and civil rights, laying the groundwork for the NAACP. During the civil rights movement, study groups were instrumental in the formation of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), where young activists learned about direct action and Black liberation. In 1962, the Afro-American Association (AAA) emerged as a study group at Merritt College in Oakland, California, bringing together Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale alongside other students and educators to explore Black history and revolutionary ideas. Some of the texts they studied included Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth and the speeches and writings of Malcolm X. The discussions and debates they engaged in through the AAA laid the ideological groundwork that eventually inspired Newton and Seale to establish the Black Panther Party. In the late 1960s and 1970s, the Black Panther Party used study groups to educate members about systemic racism, political economy and the global struggle for liberation.

This important tradition continued into the 21st century. In 2008, for example, educators in Chicago started a study group around Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine, which explains how the richest 1 percent have enriched themselves in the neoliberal era by taking advantage of political and economic crises to amass even more wealth and promote free market policies. Through their discussions, they examined the forces driving the privatization of public education and the urgent need for a new approach to unionism. This group of educators formed into the Caucus of Rank-and-File Educators, which soon ran Karen Lewis for president of the Chicago Teachers Union. Her victory marked a turning point as the union, under Lewis’s leadership, led some of the most significant teacher strikes in modern history, using a social justice unionism lens to advocate for teachers, students, and their communities.

In a time when forgetting history has been mandated by law, we must remember the power of study groups as an antidote to isolation and fear. As T4BL study group coordinator Jill Groff put it: “I would share that when the apathy seemed pervasive and morale was low, being in this group lit a fire of hope to keep me going and remember my why. I so appreciate the fellowship and support of people who genuinely love kids, all kids, and go above and beyond every day to fight for them, to make lessons to inform and empower, and just to be in a space with so many wonderful educators with shared values and goals.”

And that is exactly what communities of learning can provide: a fire of hope. Not a saccharine hope that delivers neither substance nor sustenance, but a hope rooted in a set of shared commitments — to learn together, analyze together, organize together and act together — for more justice in our classrooms and schools.

This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.


Jesse Hagopianis a Seattle educator, an editor for Rethinking Schools magazine, a founding steering committee member of Black Lives Matter at School and serves as the director of the Teaching for Black Lives Campaign for the Zinn Education Project. Jesse is the author of the forthcoming book from Haymarket Books, Teach Truth: The Attack on Critical Race Theory and the Struggle for Antiracist Education, editor of More Than a Score: The New Uprising Against High Stakes Testing, and the co-editor of the books, Teaching for Black Lives, Black Lives Matter at School and Teachers Unions and Social Justice. You can connect with Jesse on IG @jessehagopian or via his website, www.IAmAnEductor.com.


Ursula Wolfe-Rocca is a high school social studies teacher in Portland, Oregon. She is an editorial board member of Rethinking Schools and has worked on a variety of Zinn Education Project campaigns.
I Entered Law to Protect My LGBTQ Community. I Need Solidarity From Colleagues.


The legal profession must fight to protect us — the lawyers, law students and legal workers fighting for a better world.
December 31, 2024

Lawyer and transgender rights activist Chase Strangio speaks after arguing in a transgender rights case before the U.S. Supreme Court on December 4, 2024, in Washington, D.C.
Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images


Did you know that Truthout is a nonprofit and independently funded by readers like you? If you value what we do, please support our work with a donation.

On December 4, 2024, Chase Strangio became the first openly transgender person to orally argue a case before the Supreme Court. Strangio, a co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, appeared on behalf of the parents of a 16-year-old daughter challenging a law in Tennessee that banned puberty blockers, hormone therapies and gender-affirming surgeries for transgender youth. While the presence of Strangio in the country’s highest court is so important, many trans law students like myself worry we may not have the same opportunity in the future with the way things are headed.

I came into this profession to fight for my community, but by the time I graduate, I fear that legal protections for trans people will have been dismantled and that practicing law as a trans person will be unsafe. Tennessee was one of 19 states that passed such laws in 2023 — my first year of law school. Today, more than half the states in this country have enacted anti-trans laws, with 93 percent of transgender youth aged 13 to 17 living in states where such legislation has either been proposed or passed.

These are not symbolic laws; they are lethal. State bans on gender-affirming care have already resulted in an uptick in past-year suicide attempts among transgender and nonbinary young people. Indeed, even in states where such bans have not been implemented, a staggering 86 percent of trans and nonbinary youth report that the relentless political attacks have worsened their mental health. The impact of these laws, though, cannot be reduced only to statistics — they have affected not only hundreds of thousands of trans youth individually but also our community as a whole.

Take me, for example. Law school’s first year is brutal — it is intensive and arguably a hazing ritual designed to break you down. However, I could barely concentrate on my legal studies with the far right trying to literally erase my existence. This looked not only like the murder of members of my community at Club Q in Colorado Springs an hour away from my law school, but also the coordinated legislative attacks against trans people across the country.

Every day it seems to grow more and more impossible to envision any future where trans people will ever be safe. But I’m a staunch believer that the law can be used as a sort of harm reduction and that we can keep each other safe. This fight against anti-trans hate compelled me to dedicate my time during my first year to writing about the legislative onslaught on my community, advocating at the state capital, and participating in local mutual aid efforts. Yet, I found myself feeling deeply isolated. Many of my fellow law students, as well as my professors, were not only unaware of these attacks but indifferent, believing it wasn’t their community being targeted and that they were “safe” in Colorado.


Trans Candidates Triumph in Key Elections Despite GOP’s Anti-Trans Ad Campaign
“It’s clear that trans people are not going back without a fight, and we can win,” Allison Chapman told Truthout. By Zane McNeill , Truthout November 6, 2024


This sense of abandonment was especially painful within a legal environment that prides itself on its commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion, public interest and social justice. Because of the hard work and dedication of LGBTQ lawyers, the American Bar Association (ABA) has passed countless policy resolutions, actively opposed various pieces of discriminatory legislation, and filed amicus briefs in landmark cases — including U.S. v. Skrmetti. The ABA has also implemented initiatives like the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Center, the Commission on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and the Pipeline Diversity Directory to foster inclusion in the profession. Similarly, affinity groups like the National LGBTQ+ Bar Association and the National Trans Bar Association issue public statements, advocate for the LGBTQ community and provide resources for LGBTQ law students.


“What do we do when the courts won’t save us? Are we playing by rules that no longer exist?”

While those efforts are important, they occur within the boundaries of a profession that remains stubbornly conservative and slow to change. According to one 2020 ABA study, LGBTQ lawyers regularly encounter tremendous discrimination and bias in disproportionate measures compared to other colleagues. Similarly, a 2022 diversity report by the National Association for Law Placement showed that LGBTQ populations make up a small component of the legal profession, with many LGBTQ professionals facing distinctive challenges in their workplaces.

For example, my friend Robb Livingood, a trans attorney from West Virginia, went to law school to protect the vulnerable but ended up becoming a plaintiff in his own discrimination case. In 2018, he interviewed for a position at the Public Defender Corporation, Fifth Judicial Circuit, but the employer’s interest waned during the in-person meeting, seemingly due to transphobia. He filed a complaint with the West Virginia Human Rights Commission, which in 2020 found enough evidence to move forward with his claim. In 2021, an administrative judge ruled that Livingood had been a victim of sex discrimination under the West Virginia Human Rights Act, awarding him over $100,000 in lost wages and attorney fees.

“Even though I am from West Virginia, I honestly did not expect the onslaught of anti-transgender discrimination when I came out, especially not in the public interest sector where I aspire to work. I expected a lot better from West Virginia, especially from those charged with protecting the vulnerable,” Livingood told me. “While I did file a Human Rights Commission complaint against one local Public Defender office for sex-based discrimination in my early years of gender journey, that instance of discrimination was by no means isolated. The discrimination I took to court was just the tip of the iceberg. There were other situations where it was obvious, but less provable, that transphobia was the culprit behind negative employment decisions.”

Despite the court’s ruling, he has not yet received the $100,000 awarded to him by the court and, three years later, the Public Defender Corporation is continuing to fight the ruling. Moreover, if the Supreme Court were to overturn Bostock v. Clayton County, discrimination like what Livingood faced might well become legal again.

Anti-LGBTQ laws add to the already overwhelming stress placed on transgender law students who are trying to navigate a field riddled with similar instances of discrimination. These laws feed stress, anxiety and depression, turning what should be places of learning into hostile spaces and piling the odds even higher against us in an already biased job market.


While it’s easy to feel crushed under the weight of these barriers, we are also rooted in the histories of resistance paved by our elders and ancestors.

“Anti-trans legislation generates fear around being trans or even an ally, alienates trans and gender-nonconforming people, and tries to make gender nonconformity and transness taboo. I think this can make law school and the legal profession even more difficult to navigate than they already are,” Hannah Reynolds Martínez, a law student and activist, told me. “There are already structural barriers to the legal world for trans lawyers and law students: trans folks are likely to be overrepresented in public sector legal jobs, receive lower average salaries than their cisgender counterparts, and tend to be less likely to find employment in private firms. But adding in the additional barriers of legislation that denies gender-affirming health care and social stigmatization of transness, a legal career can become even more challenging.”

For many of us, the thought of practicing law in states with hostile laws feels impossible — whole regions are becoming no-go zones, shrinking our opportunities and mobility. Some of us might not even get to law school, disheartened before we’ve even begun.

“Trans lawyers and law students should be able to work in affirming and safe spaces, as well as [be] able to express themselves freely. However, some states with hostile legal and political environments may force trans folks to reconsider their employment, whether they can be out at work and in other environments, and more,” Martínez said.

With another Trump administration looming, these threats feel suffocating. Title IX protections could be dismantled, stripping away critical safeguards against discrimination in law schools. Far right judicial appointments have accelerated the erosion of anti-discrimination protections and make it even more dangerous for trans students to clerk or argue in court. This perceived erosion of judicial impartiality and the far right capture of the courts have also eroded many trans students’ faith in the profession.

“I’ve had a clear-cut plan for the next few years that includes getting into the best law school I can, securing appellate clerkships for afterward, and positioning myself to do impact litigation. However, the day after the election, I found myself questioning these goals for the first time. What’s the point of appellate advocacy if the Supreme Court and many lower courts will be overrun by far right appointees for the majority of my lifetime?” Julian Applebaum, a trans activist and incoming law student who has interned with the ACLU told me. “The ACLU’s motto for bringing big civil liberties suits is a triumphant ‘We’ll See You in Court!’ But that implies that we can rely on the courts for fair, transparent and impartial standards of ruling. What do we do when the courts won’t save us? Are we playing by rules that no longer exist?”


“Recent Supreme Court decisions signal that the federal judiciary will not be a reliable shield against anti-trans legislation.”

This doubt about the law’s current capacity to bring about positive change is something many of us can relate to. For example, many of the classes that I have taken in law school, such as administrative law and constitutional law, feel almost pointless now after the far right Supreme Court has overturned precedents like Chevron and Roe v. Wade and seem poised to dismantle equal protection as we know it.

Additionally, anti-trans federal and congressional policies will further limit the number of safe and affirming job opportunities for trans law students. For instance, while Applebaum is still planning on going to law school, he told me that the election has disrupted what he once felt was a stable career path. He said that he is deeply concerned that he will have to decline opportunities like summer internships with the Department of Justice, congressional offices, or other federal entities, especially if the Trump administration and Republican congressional majorities roll back protections for transgender staff.

“What if I work on Capitol Hill for my congressperson and I use the men’s bathroom (I’m a trans man, and I would refuse to use the women’s room) and I am disciplined for violating the new rule Rep. Mike Johnson enacted? And then Nancy Mace or Fox News or whoever blasts my face on national news for an absurd culture war spat? I don’t want to put myself through that,” Applebaum said.

Even getting licensed to practice law could become a minefield. The subjective “good moral character” requirements of bar applications could be used against trans applicants. Committees might probe into our gender identity and medical history although that would obviously have no bearing on our competence to practice law. In conservative states, we could be rejected outright if our identities are seen as incompatible with some narrow, outdated definition of “moral” values. Mental health history could become another weapon. And with high rates of depression in our community — often the direct result of systemic oppression — there’s a real fear that trans identities could be re-pathologized, making this bias even worse.

For trans folks in states like Florida, the barriers are even higher. Laws that restrict legal name changes or gender marker updates threaten to invalidate something as basic as a state ID. My own updated gender marker could lead my own ID to be flagged as “fraudulent” in Florida. Trans applicants may be forced to answer invasive questions about these changes and, if the names and gender markers on our birth certificates, driver’s licenses, academic transcripts, and other documents do not match because of such restrictive laws, we may face delays, confusion or outright rejection of our bar application.

While it’s easy to feel crushed under the weight of these barriers, to feel like the odds are insurmountable, I have to remind myself that we may feel like we are in uncharted territory, but we are also rooted in the histories of resistance paved by our elders and ancestors.

People such as Pauli Murray, Phyllis Randolph Frye and Kylar W. Broadus remind us of what resilience looks like in the face of systemic oppression. Murray’s work — as a legal scholar and civil rights activist — laid the groundwork for major victories like Brown v. Board of Education. A Black, gender-nonconforming person, Murray wrote about the experience of living “in-between” genders while pursuing justice in a world not built for them. Frye became an attorney and judge, overcoming estrangement, job loss and relentless discrimination in the 1970s to become the “grandmother of the transgender rights movement.” Broadus, a Black transgender man, has made a career out of advocating for transgender legal protections and workplace rights, including being the first openly transgender person to testify before the U.S. Senate. Strangio, Applebaum, Livingood, Martínez and I are in great company.

There are so many other trans attorneys who did not feel safe to be out, but still paved the way for a future where Strangio could argue in front of the country’s highest court. Their courage may not have been visible, but it’s no less meaningful. They — along with figures like Murray, Frye and Broadus — give me hope. They remind me that even in the darkest of times, our fight to exist, to thrive and to make change matters. And while the law is often an instrument of power that upholds capitalism and white supremacy, there may also be some merit in attempting to use it to protect our communities from further state violence as a form of collective defense.

But the legal profession must also fight to protect us — the lawyers, law students and legal workers fighting for a better world.

“Now more than ever, trans people, including law students and lawyers, need local-level protections,” says D Dangaran, co-chair of the National Trans Bar Association (NTBA). “Recent Supreme Court decisions and the argument in United States v. Skrmetti signal that the federal judiciary will not be a reliable shield against anti-trans legislation.”

Law schools, bar associations and employers should move beyond symbolic gestures of inclusion to take active steps to make these spaces truly equitable.

“I think now, more than ever, it’s necessary for the legal field to step up to advocate for marginalized communities in the light of anti-trans, ableist and racist policies and rhetoric that harm underrepresented legal professionals,” Martínez said. “Law schools, bar associations and advocacy groups should start centering trans voices in their scholarship, leadership and preparation for the upcoming administration now. Trans advocates and professionals are best positioned to address how individual schools and organizations can support their community.”

This will mean robust anti-discrimination policies, structured mentorship programs for trans professionals, and advocating for the improvement of mechanisms of accountability in causing harm.

“Shield laws, mutual aid and private protections are critical tools moving forward. NTBA is working towards creating toolkits and best practices guides for courts, schools and the legal profession to treat trans and nonbinary law students, members of the profession, and parties in court with dignity and respect,” D Dangaran said.

Legal organizations should set an example by creating spaces where trans people can not only survive but succeed because of policies that match up with the equity and justice they proclaim. If we are to build a better future, the profession must join us in creating it — where we not only can exist without fear, but also be supported in building a liberatory future for trans people together.

“To the other trans and gender-nonconforming law students and practitioners out there, your existence is a form of protest and resistance. Your resilience is enough, if you don’t have anything more to give,” Martínez said. “Your challenges are what make you a strong advocate. We need lawyers and legal professionals like you.”


This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.


Zane McNeill is a trending news writer at Truthout. They have a Master’s Degree in Political Science from Central European University and are currently enrolled in law school at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. They can be found on Twitter: @zane_crittheory.
With Trump at the Helm, Nuclear Uncertainty Is Set to Grow in 2025

Eighty years after the first atomic bombs, experts say it’s past time to rein in nuclear weapons.

By Jon Letman
December 31, 2024

A U.S. Army soldier with the 51st Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear Company, of Fort Stewart, Georgia, stands watch at a decontamination field site at the Muscatatuck Urban Training Center, Indiana.Master Sgt. Michel Sauret

When the clock strikes noon on January 20, 2025, Donald Trump will once again be given launch authority over the U.S.’s nuclear arsenal in a time of nuclear uncertainty and growing risks. From the volatility of the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East to rising tensions on the Korean Peninsula and potential clashes around Taiwan and the South China Sea, the danger of miscalculation points to a perilous future.

After decades of hard-fought arms control agreements and a major reduction in the U.S. nuclear stockpile between 1989 and 2009, the deteriorating global security environment is contributing to a greater reliance on nuclear weapons. Today, all nine nuclear-armed nations are “modernizing,” upgrading or expanding their stockpiles; spending on nuclear weapons is surging, international arms control agreements have been all but abandoned, and the threshold for nuclear use is falling.

These conditions, paired with cavalier threats to use nuclear weapons, in particular nonstrategic “tactical” nuclear weapons, have led nuclear analysts and experts to warn that we’re headed in the wrong direction. In early 2024, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists set the Doomsday Clock at 90 seconds to midnight, the closest the symbolic clock has been to global catastrophe


Time for a New Start

February 5, 2025, will mark the one-year countdown until the New START Treaty, the last remaining agreement limiting strategic arsenals of Russia and the United States, expires. Unless the treaty is extended or the two countries agree to abide by the limitations even without a formal extension, the world’s biggest nuclear rivals could rapidly begin building up their arsenals or uploading warheads onto submarine-launched ballistic missiles and intercontinental ballistic missiles.

The U.S. is poised to spend in excess of $756 billion over the next 10 years on its existing nuclear weapons modernization, but according to Daryl Kimball, executive director of the nonpartisan Arms Control Association, the number is likely much higher. Kimball said a larger nuclear arsenal is financially untenable and would only spur Russia and China to follow suit: “In the end, nobody gets ahead in an arms race. We just have more nuclear firepower and less security.”


Costly Replacement of ICBMs With Sentinel Missiles Increases Risk of Nuclear War
Many of our unmet needs as US citizens are due in part to the cost of the US nuclear arsenal. By Richard Krushnic , Nancy Goldner , Jonathan Alan King , Truthout
October 15, 2024

Kimball sees the year ahead fraught with nuclear challenges: elevated tensions between the U.S. and Israel with an Iran that has nuclear knowledge and capabilities that can’t be bombed away and the likelihood that Trump, further emboldened by his like-minded ally, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, will return to his maximum pressure approach to Iran, which includes the reinstatement of severe sanctions and restrictive measures.

There’s also the potential for renewed hostile rhetoric between Washington and Pyongyang with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un dismissing the prospect of future diplomacy with the U.S. based on his past experience. Since the failed Trump-Kim Hanoi summit in 2019, North Korea’s nuclear program has accelerated, its ballistic missile capabilities are greater, and it recently designated South Korea a “foreign, hostile state.”

With so many nuclear challenges, Kimball said, “it would have been a dangerous situation no matter who was elected, but there’s going to be even more unpredictability under Donald Trump.”
New Nukes? New Tests?

Among the many nuclear uncertainties the world faces in 2025, researchers at the Federation of American Scientists’ Nuclear Information Project are closely watching three key areas: alliance management, nuclear rhetoric and the potential resumption of underground explosive nuclear testing. Mackenzie Knight, a senior research associate with the project, said the way the U.S. manages its alliances with NATO nations and other partners like Japan and South Korea could have far-reaching implications for nuclear stability.

For example, if the U.S. under the incoming Trump administration were to dramatically reduce support for the U.S.-Republic of Korea alliance, South Korea has the domestic capability in terms of economy, infrastructure and technology to pursue its own nuclear weapon if it chooses to do so. Recent public opinion polls indicate widespread support among South Koreans for Seoul developing its own nuclear weapon, although survey results vary.

If a tenth country decided to pursue nuclear weapons, the first to do so since North Korea, the implications would be enormous. Likewise, if the U.S. were to resume underground explosive nuclear testing, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) would be gravely undermined. Although the CTBT has not yet entered into force, it has been ratified by 178 of 187 signatory nations and is recognized as an effective treaty preventing nuclear weapons explosive testing.

Speaking on a public panel in November, Corey Hinderstein, acting principal deputy administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), addressed the question of a resumption of U.S. underground nuclear testing, saying, “… the answer was no. The answer remains no. And the answer to whether we need to conduct a nuclear test is also no and that is a technical conclusion and a political conclusion. And I don’t see that technical conclusion changing any time soon. The political conclusion could change. The technical conclusion is that there is no technical question about the safety, security, reliability or effectiveness of our nuclear arsenal that we envision that we could answer through an underground nuclear test.”

Knight told Truthout that she expects Trump will appoint new NNSA leadership, but given the complex dynamics that drive nuclear policy, it’s unclear to what degree new appointments may impact the agency’s work.

Knight and others have expressed concern over former Trump administration officials who have discussed the possible resumption of U.S. underground explosive nuclear testing. Over the summer, Trump’s former national security adviser, Robert O’Brien, wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine: “The United States has to maintain technical and numerical superiority to the combined Chinese and Russian nuclear stockpiles. To do so, Washington must test new nuclear weapons for reliability and safety in the real world for the first time since 1992 — not just by using computer models.”

The Project 2025 manifesto, a right-wing blueprint for the next Trump administration created by the Heritage Foundation, contains arguments for upscaling and increasing the U.S. nuclear arsenal, as well as a call to “Restore readiness to test nuclear weapons at the Nevada National Security Site to ensure the ability of the U.S. to respond quickly to asymmetric technology surprises.”A U.S. Army soldier carries a stretcher through a decontamination training site at the Muscatatuck Urban Training Center, Indiana.Master Sgt. Michel Sauret

“The concern here is several-fold. One, environmental,” Knight said. “Explosive nuclear testing was halted for a reason … it’s very harmful to the environment. And the other concern is that the desire to resume nuclear testing is based on political reasons.”

“Calls to prepare to resume explosive testing or develop the capability to do so,” Knight added, would be “incredibly concerning for the risk of nuclear war breaking out.”

Knight said the U.S. has overwhelmingly conducted more explosive nuclear testing than any other country and has the least to gain by resuming explosive nuclear testing. “If the U.S. decides to do so, it just green-lights other countries to engage in nuclear testing once again and they have way more to learn and much more to benefit from doing so.”

Knight noted the pivotal role of Congress in advancing or blocking funding that could support efforts to resume nuclear explosive testing, as well as nuclear weapons programs which are over budget and behind schedule. The same is true, she said, for the uncertain future of a nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile introduced by the first Trump administration, it was determined to be “cost prohibitive” by the Navy during the Biden administration, but could again be pursued in the new Trump administration despite financial and industrial challenges.

Knight and her colleagues continue to closely follow documents, reports and open-source satellite imagery that can reveal nuclear weapons-related activities. For example, specific language in military budgetary documents indicated construction of new infrastructure hinting at the possible return of U.S. nuclear gravity bombs to an airbase in the United Kingdom. In 2021, the same analysts discovered the construction of a new nuclear missile silo in China.
Calling Dr. Strangelove

Immediately after the U.S. election, Council For a Livable World, a nonpartisan organization that promotes policies to reduce nuclear weapons, identified nine goals for the incoming Trump administration, including demanding greater accountability over nuclear weapons modernization and systems considered “strategically questionable,” adhering to the New START Treaty, and upholding the taboo on explosive nuclear weapons tests.

The council’s executive director, John Tierney, told Truthout that he is concerned about how the Trump administration could respond to China’s rapid expansion of its nuclear forces.

“It’s ridiculous to think that the number of missiles and bombs that we have right now are not a suitable deterrent,” Tierney said. Currently, the U.S. has a total nuclear stockpile of around 3,700 warheads. Of these, approximately 1,770 warheads are deployed and available for delivery by strategic launchers. In comparison, China possesses an estimated stockpile of approximately 500 nuclear weapons.

Tierney is watching how the U.S. manages its own nuclear stockpile as it spends what could ultimately surpass $1.5 trillion to modernize an arsenal that includes Sentinel, a weapon system designed to replace the U.S.’s aging Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. Tierney said that besides being grossly behind schedule and far over budget, Sentinel’s “very existence is an impediment to security.” Calling for closer scrutiny of the program, he described Sentinel as a “relic of the Cold War” which drains resources other programs more essential to U.S. security.

One area where Tierney sees potential for positive change is increased public engagement on nuclear weapons issues: “We’ve got to grab the public’s attention and give them the notion they can do something.” Without the public pressure that existed in the 1960s, ‘70s and ‘80s, Tierney said, nuclear treaties, agreements and norms wouldn’t have happened.

He sees a great need for a cultural shift that would introduce more music, books, movies, and other popular media, as well as more frequent reporting on nuclear issues. “It’s been a long time since Dr. Strangelove,” said Tierney.
A Reason for Hope

The year 2025 offers one bright spot in the form of an international agreement that is gaining member states. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), also called the nuclear weapon ban treaty, entered into force in 2021 and now has 94 signatories and 73 states parties, the latter being countries that have signed and ratified the treaty, including, most recently, Indonesia.

Leading efforts to advance the treaty is the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), a global civil society coalition. Susi Snyder, ICAN’s program coordinator, told Truthout the treaty has crossed the threshold of more than half of UN members either signing or ratifying the treaty, with more on the way.

Next March, the TPNW’s Third Meeting of States Parties will be held in New York as a forum in which nations that have ratified the treaty can assess nuclear risks and realities and pursue implementation of treaty obligations and objectives. In addition to civil society and international organizations, the meetings are also open to countries that have not yet ratified the treaty but intend to do so or are willing to participate as an observer.

Snyder expects to see a growing number of observer nations that could include Germany, Norway, Australia and, in what would mark a major shift, Japan which is reportedly mulling participation as an observer. Because these countries are considered nuclear endorsers — meaning they enable, host or support the possible use of nuclear weapons — their participation as observers would be significant, having the potential to influence other endorsing nations, as well as the nine nuclear-armed states, all of which remain opposed to the treaty.

Parliamentarians may also participate as observers, equipping them to brief members of their own government. For example, in the U.S., Massachusetts Congressman Jim McGovern observed the Second Meeting of States Parties and is among a handful of Congress members calling for the U.S. to join the ban treaty. Similar efforts are underway in Australia and will likely spread to other nonsignatory nations.
80 Years Is Enough

In December, the Japanese NGO Nihon Hidankyo received the 2024 Nobel Peace Prize for its more than seven decades of work seeking the complete abolition of nuclear weapons. The group’s members are hibakusha — Japanese survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. The award was presented just ahead of the 80th anniversary of the atomic bombings. Snyder sees 2025 as a yearlong opportunity for people everywhere to reexamine the urgent need to eliminate nuclear weapons once and for all.

Snyder is based in the Netherlands, one of five NATO countries that host U.S. nuclear gravity bombs on military bases. She noted a nuclear conflict between the U.S. and Russia could lead to catastrophe — not just for nuclear hosting nations like the Netherlands, but the entire world. Pointing to her own community, Snyder said, “We know that we’re at risk. It’s taking that knowledge and not letting it freeze us and not letting it stop us, but recognizing this is actually an opportunity for action. That’s how wesee it. We see the local mayor talking about this issue. We encourage the local parliamentarians to do something and to demand action from the government.”

To bring the issue of nuclear weapons into daily life, Snyder said, is to commit to solutions because “it is a solvable problem. The tools exist and we just need to make it a priority for action.” Snyder pointed to ICAN’s more than 700 partners around the world and said the issue is something everyone can get involved in.

“We’re all looking at making it really clear, after 80 years this issue has gone on long enough. Well, let’s fix it.”

This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.

Jon Letman is a freelance journalist on Kauai. He writes about politics, people and the environment in the Asia-Pacific region. Follow him on Twitter: @jonletman.
Jimmy Carter's Daughter Thanks Writer for Focus on Her Dad's Defense of Palestinian Rights

"There is no better way to remember him," said Amy Carter



Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter prepares to place a wreath at the tomb of Yaser Arafat in the West Bank on April 15, 2008.
(Photo: Thaer Ganaim/Office of the Palestinian President via Getty Images)

Jessica Corbett
Dec 30, 2024
COMMON DREAMS

Amid of flurry of reflections on former U.S. President Jimmy Carter following his death at age 100 on Sunday, his daughter Amy Carter thanked one writer for highlighting her father's historic support for Palestinian rights and criticism of Israeli apartheid.

Qasim Rashid, a human rights lawyer and former Democratic congressional candidate who has forcefully criticized the ongoing U.S.-backed Israeli assault on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip over the past nearly 15 months, remembered Carter on Sunday by writing on Substack about the 39th president's stance on Israel and Palestine. Rashid included a clip from a 2007 interview with Democracy Now! about a book that Carter published the previous year, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.

"In this book, President Carter cogently argues that the main obstacle to peace in Israel and Palestine is in fact the hundreds of thousands of illegal settlements that Israel continues to build, all with U.S. backing and support," Rashid wrote, also emphasizing Carter's point from the interview that it is politically risky for elected officials in Washington, D.C. to support Palestinian rights. "Contrast President Carter's clarity and courageous voice with the cowardice and complicit nature of every president since, including their appeasement of the Israeli government's settlement expansion, land annexation, and apartheid enforcement."

Later Sunday, Rashid posted on social media a screenshot of Substack subscriber Amy Carter's response to his article. The 57-year-old—who was arrested as a teenager for protesting apartheid in South Africa—said in part: "There is no better way to remember him and I appreciate that you and your readers are keeping this important part of his legacy alive. Thank you."


While the former president has faced praise and scrutiny from across the political spectrum for various foreign policy decisions and positions, the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize winner's support for Palestinian rights does stand out from those who have held the Oval Office since his single term—which included the Camp David Accords, signed in September 1978 by him, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.

Rashid was not alone in focusing on Carter's controversial 2006 book and broader position on Palestine in the wake of his death—as Israel faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice for slaughtering over 45,500 Palestinians in Gaza and starving those who have managed to survive.

On Monday morning, Democracy Now! shared on social media a version of the 2007 clip Rashid noted, during which Carter stresses that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) "is not dedicated to peace," but rather is working and succeeding at convincing the American public, media, and political leaders to support the policies of the Israeli government.



Journalist Mehdi Hasan—who recently launchedZeteo after his MSNBC show was canceled following his criticism of Israel's assault on Gaza—on Sunday shared "eight critical Jimmy Carter quotes you won't see in most mainstream media obits."

In a Sunday obituary for Foreign Policy, Jonathan Alter—author of His Very Best: Jimmy Carter, a Life—wrote:
The Camp David Accords turned out to be the most durable diplomatic achievement since the end of World War II. "What he has done with the Middle East is one of the most extraordinary things any president in history has ever accomplished," said Averell Harriman, a veteran U.S. diplomat who sometimes gave Carter advice.

Carter was the first president to back a Palestinian state, which along with his rhetoric afterward—including a 2006 book titled Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid—made him the most pro-Palestinian U.S. president ever, a fact that angered American Jews for decades. Based on the Camp David Accords alone, however, he also turned out to be the best U.S. president for Israel's security since Harry Truman. That's because the only army with the capacity to destroy Israel—the Egyptian army—has been neutralized for more than four decades.

Mitchell Plitnick, a political analyst and writer, asserted at Mondoweiss on Sunday that Carter "is a man whose legacy will forever be inextricably linked to Israel and Palestine. Yet that legacy will be built as much on myth as on reality, as with so many other aspects of the history and politics of the 'Holy Land.'"

Calling for Carter's legacy to be "scrutinized carefully and honestly," Plitnick—like Alter—wrote of the Camp David Accords that "Carter understood, as any observer would, that if Israel made peace with Egypt, it would remove the single biggest military challenger in the region and the remaining Arab states would no longer be able to mount a credible threat against Israel."

He also argued that Carter's 2006 book "itself was far less remarkable than the title," given that its substance "made it clear that he was trying to steer Israel away from its own self-immolation on the altar of its occupation."

"The hateful comments that came his way for many years, mostly from the Jewish community but also from the Christian Zionists who share his evangelical beliefs but not his understanding of what those beliefs mean, were horribly misplaced," Plitnick added. "He cared deeply and tried to do what he could to create a better future for Israelis and Palestinians alike. For that, he's been called an antisemite. Every person who ever uttered that slur against him owes him an apology. Now would be a good time to send it."

As The Guardian's Chris McGreal reported on Monday, at least one key person did apologize before Carter died:
Among those outraged by Carter's book in 2006 were members of the former president's own foundation, which has built an international reputation for its work on human rights and to alleviate suffering. Steve Berman led a mass resignation from the Carter Center's board of councilors at the time.

Earlier this year, Berman revealed that he later wrote to Carter to apologize and to say that the former president had been right.

"I had started to view Israel's occupation of the Palestinians as something that started in 1967 as an accident but was now becoming an enterprise with colonial intentions," Berman said in his letter to Carter.

Shortly before Carter's death, Peter Beinart, described as "the most influential liberal Zionist of his generation," said the time had come for the former president's critics to apologize for the "shameful way that the book was received by many significant people."

Leading Muslim groups in the United States have also released statements since Carter's death on Sunday.

"President Carter was a friend of the American Muslim community and a champion for many just causes, including Palestinian freedom," said Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) national executive director Nihad Awad. "Even when President Carter faced vitriolic attacks from anti-Palestinian groups for his prescient book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, he stood firm. He was a humanitarian role model, and we pray that a new generation of political leaders will take inspiration from his legacy."

The U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO)—an umbrella group that includes CAIR—said that it "joined American Muslims in commemorating former President Jimmy Carter as a principled humanitarian who dedicated his post-presidency to pursuing social and international justice, including courageously and forthrightly warning the American public about the harmful influence of pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC and the Israeli government's intent on entrenching a colonial apartheid state on Palestinian land."

In addition to praising Carter's 2006 book, USCMO said that "he candidly called the U.S. 'Road Map for Peace' a sham that intended failure. He went on record, nearly alone among U.S. politicians at the time, to debunk the so-called Israeli 'security wall' as an 'imprisonment wall' to intern West Bank Palestinians. Moreover, he stood alone among his political peers in the U.S. in unfailingly and publicly defending Islam and Muslims against a rising, politically motivated, systematic Islamophobia media campaign as a foil for promoting religious nationalism in American politics."

"We convey our sincere condolences to the family and loved ones of James Earl Carter Jr.," USCMO concluded, "and to the American people who have lost a rarity in our politics—a former president who stood for the best interests of this nation and its stated values of freedom, justice, and democracy, regardless of outside political pressure to sell out those American values."