Category: Human Rights

GOP’S NO HEALTHCARE CUT LEFT BEHIND BILL IS PARTICULARLY CRUEL TO WOMEN

If Republicans have their way, women with reproductive health issues will soon be sent to dentists, food banks or nursing homes for help. That’s why the horrifically misnamed Better Care Reconciliation Act may one day be more accurately known as the Population Growth Act of 2017. This is what happens when 13 male senators draft a health care bill in secret.

Apparently, it was not enough for the GOP to simply take insurance away from 22 million people and jack up premiums for those least able to pay. It’s not every day a political party gets to make a real difference in social policy. So the Senate bill, quietly and secretly crafted by that body’s majority leader, Mitch McConnell, and a dozen of his closest bros, went all out and cut off federal funding for Planned Parenthood, the nonprofit organization that provides vital health care services for millions of low income patients, mostly – but not exclusively – women.

Despite its role as a lightning rod for the anti-abortion crowd, Planned Parenthood outlets offer the gamut of health services, including birth control, cancer screenings and STD testing and treatment. Abortion accounts for only 3% of its services and is not even available at many clinics. Yet, as if this consensus-free healthcare debate was not divisive enough, conservatives tossed in their long dreamed of plot to defund Planned Parenthood.

The Senate legislation cuts off all federal funding for Planned Parenthood for only one year. Why just a year? A compromise with those who support the program? Alas, the maneuver is far more conniving and diabolical. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office costs out every change in the healthcare bill, and that math plays a huge role in rounding up votes, both for and against. According to the CBO, the cost of not funding Planned Parenthood carries a ten-year price tag of $130 million. That’s how much budget crunchers say it will cost Medicaid for the obstetrical care of women unable to get contraceptive assistance through Planned Parenthood. So the Gang of 13 Senate guys came up a smoke-and-mirrors workaround: cut the funding for just one year, win a better overall CBO score and then come back, once the limelight of healthcare battles has faded, and make the cutoff permanent.

The bill’s Republican sponsors insist that there are many other federally qualified health providers offering family planning services and that the legislation would transfer funding from Planned Parenthood to those other facilities. The CBO, however, noted that one in five counties served by Planned Parenthood have no federally qualified clinics offering contraceptive services. The New York Times took a look at those alleged Planned Parenthood alternatives cited by the Republicans. The list included, inexplicably, hundreds of ophthalmologists, nursing homes, dentists, cosmetic surgeons, audiologists, addiction treatment centers and food
banks. Pity the poor woman who goes looking for contraceptive services at a dentist office or a food bank, and walks away with a cheap toothbrush and a box of Cheerios.

Anyone suggesting that the CBO’s projected population expansion is crude guesswork should check out a paper published by the New England Journal of Medicine. That research focused on Texas where the state cut off Planned Parenthood funding in 2013. Medicaid pregnancies increased by 27% in the first 18 months. Alina Salganicoff is the Kaiser Family Foundation’s director of women’s health. She told CBS news recently that the burden of this funding cutoff “disproportionately impacts the young and low income, or people who want to get confidential care.” “For a lot of women,” she said, “Planned Parenthood is their only source of care.”

Sadly, complete and utter disregard for women’s health, has been at the heart of the political battle over abortion since Roe v Wade was decided in 1973. Poor women have been denied Medicaid assistance for abortions since the passage of the Hyde Amendment in 1976. Yet, this legalized economic discrimination, renewed by Congress every year since 1976, has never been enough for the anti-abortion forces. They know that Planned Parenthood performs 35% of the abortions that occur in this country, even though the procedure represents only a small part of its medical practice. They want them shut down completely, even if doing so will prevent Planned Parenthood’s low income patients from getting family planning assistance or being screened and treated for diseases. When it comes to their never-ending war on abortion, women without money are always fair game for collateral damage.

However, their leverage this time around, while not great, is better than it was during the Hyde Amendment days of 1976. The Senate had no female members then. There was no need for a select male cabal to secretly legislate away women’s rights; the entire Senate was a male cabal. Today there are 22 women in the U.S. Senate, and two of them – Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska – both Republicans, are opposed to the Planned Parenthood defunding. Majority Leader McConnell can afford to lose only two Republican votes, and he has a growing list of senators who are shaky over various other aspects of the legislation.

It takes a lot of chutzpa and cynicism to call this bill the “Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017”. There is absolutely no “better care” in this act for anybody. And the only thing being reconciled is a tax cut for the rich, on the backs of less fortunate Americans who will lose access to critical health services. If the Republican leadership wants genuine reconciliation, it will deep-six this monstrosity and work with Democrats to pass meaningful legislation that makes “better care” a reality for everyone.

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN WHO SEXUALLY HARASS

The sexual harassment geezerhood is finally enduring some tough days, though hardly tough enough. From Bill Cosby to Bill O’Reilly, these dirty old men have the mental acuity of that Japanese soldier who spent 29 years on an island in the Pacific refusing to accept that World War II had ended. How else do you explain a guy like O’Reilly, 26 years after the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill episode, allegedly telling a subordinate that he’d like to rub her vagina with a falafel?

Headlines over the last six months have clearly established that you are never too old for sexual predation. Roger Ailes, the 76-year-old former Fox News CEO, faced sexual harassment accusations from more than 20 women who had worked for him. The initial case had been filed by former Fox Anchor Gretchen Carlson. She settled for $20 million. Ailes lost his job, but walked away with $40 million. O’Reilly, Fox’s 67-year-old star commentator, bit the dust a few days ago, on the heels of a New York Times investigation showing that the company had paid out $13 million to settle sexual harassment suits against him. Fox finally fired him and gave him $25 million. See the mathematical pattern here? Under Fox’s “Fair & Balanced” notion of distributive justice, there is approximately twice as much money distributed to the harassers than there is to the harassed.

Then there’s Cosby, 79, allegedly the Golden Arches of sexual abuse, with – at last count – 58 women drugged and violated. With an estimated net worth of $400 million, the former comedian has assembled a top notch legal and PR team to help him issue repeated denials, just as Ailes and O’Reilly have done. It remains to be seen how well his money was spent. Jury selection begins May 22 in a Norristown, PA court where Cosby faces sexual assault charges.

There is, of course, one prominent septuagenarian in this aging pack of sexual predators who has lost neither fame nor employment from extending his reach beyond the bounds of decency. That would be Donald J. Trump, the 45th president of the United States of America. According to statisticians who track these things, the commander in chief has been accused of sexual assault and/or harassment by 15 women since 1980. A number of those suits remain active.

You might think that dodging the sexual assault bullet, at least for now, would prompt Trump to keep his distance from less fortunate fellow perpetrators. Just the opposite. Trump has served as a highly placed sexual harassment consultant to all of them. For example, drawing on his own approach of castigating, insulting and threatening to sue his accusers, the Donald was dumbfounded that Cosby was using a passive, reticent defense. Here’s what he told the E Channel: “. . . he should say something because he is being accused of terrible things,” Trump said. “And to have absolutely no comment ― I think he’s getting very bad advice from a PR standpoint.”

The president’s role with Ailes and O’Reilly was more breathtaking. He participated in meetings and conference calls with Ailes leading to the $40 million buyout. Early in the O’Reilly quagmire, after numerous sexual harassment accusations surfaced, President Trump declared that O’Reilly “is a good person,” He told the New York Times, “I don’t think Bill did anything wrong.” As president, Trump leads the executive branch, including the agency that handles sexual harassment cases, making his comments a most extraordinary verbal pardon.

Given his coziness with Fox News and its former accused sex offenders, Trump has managed to make one positive and deliciously ironic contribution to the battle against sexual harassment. His behavior is being held out as an example of what not to do in the workplace. According to the Hollywood Reporter, 21st Century Fox, parent of Fox News, is using the infamous Trump “grab-them-by-the-pussy” Access Hollywood tape in human resource training on sexual harassment. In the 2005 recording, Trump is heard boasting that he gets by forcing himself on women because he is famous. Although the revelation didn’t keep Trump from being elected, HR trainers hope the president’s abhorrent conduct will be a reminder for employees on how not to behave.

As much as I’d like to believe that the well-financed fall of two Fox giants represents a cultural sea change for sexual harassment victims, I’m afraid such an assessment is far off the mark. Experts in this field say most people who experience sexual harassment at work don’t come forward out of fear, of losing their jobs, not being believed, how they will look to their family and friends. Gretchen Carlson, a former Miss America making seven figures as a top on-air performer says she kept silent for years out of fear. Think of what it must be like for a minimum wage bank teller or grocery clerk.

Sexual harassment at work is an offense of power. It’s about powerful men (mostly) taking what they want because they can. The revelations about Ailes and O’Reilly didn’t just pop up. Fox spent years and millions of dollars quietly settling litigation with nondisclosure clauses. The company’s business plan was to pay whatever it had to for the sexual harassment by men they saw as profit centers. The strategy was jettisoned only when the harassment costs grew more expensive, including the loss of 50-some advertisers and a possible disruption of Fox Cochairman Rupert Murdoch’s plan to purchase a lucrative British satellite television operation.

And therein lies the lesson from this whole sordid affair. The eradication of sexual harassment will come only when offending employers are hit hard in the pocketbook, much harder than they are now. CEOs would have a quick come-to-Jesus moment on this issue if the EEOC had the authority to levy eight or nine figure fines, on top of punitive damages. Don’t count on that happening anytime soon, not with an unabashed sexual harasser in the White House.

LET’S BUILD A WALL AROUND NORTH CAROLINA TO PROTECT THE REST OF US

True to my stereotypical Minnesota-Scandinavian roots, I’m a pretty laid back guy. I don’t spend much time wallowing in anger. But North Carolina is really pissing me off. (Stop now, sports trolls; I’m not talking about the Final Four). This is about the Final One Hundred and Seventy, the idiots who make up the state’s general assembly. Wait, my math is wrong. Make it 171 Tar Heel bozos, 170 in the general assembly, and the poorest excuse for a “reform” governor since the likes of George Wallace and Lester Maddox.

There are, to be sure, some kind, intelligent, even wonderful people in North Carolina. They just don’t get elected to public office. The result is a disastrous déjà vu of barbarically fascist legislation and a human rights record that rivals Syria’s.

Just a year ago, then-Governor Pat McCrory courageously ventured out on a political limb in order to strip away the dignity and basic rights of LGBT people. The general assembly passed, and a smiling governor signed, what came to be known as the Bathroom Bill. The law’s original intent was to make transgender folks use a public restroom based on their birth certificates. That meant, for example, that a 35-year-old buxom woman with long flowing blond hair, in a clinging dress and stiletto heels, must hobble into a men’s room if she was identified as a male at birth. Stunned commentators at the time envisioned a genitalia monitor for every stall. But the law was even more abhorrent. Fully transitioned lady and man parts didn’t matter; toilet venue was based solely on whether the M or F box was checked at birth.

Of course, North Carolina lawmakers never think small when it comes to obnoxiousness. Disgusted with renegade liberals on the Charlotte City Council, and their audacity to pass an ordinance prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification, the legislation expanded to retroactively revoke the authority of cities to ban discrimination. It was much more than a bathroom bill. It was a mandate to discriminate against lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people.

The rest of the world reacted in horror, spurring economic boycotts by corporations, entertainers and athletic groups. According to one estimate, good old North Carolina homophobia and transphobia were on track to cost the state $3.7 billion over a span of 12 years. That quickly translated into political problems. Most of the state’s voters could have lived with the discrimination, but they had no hankering to pay that kind of money for it. McCrory, the Republican governor who championed the law, was defeated in November by Democrat Roy Cooper, who promised to get the measure repealed.

In a hyper-technical sense, Cooper, and a new session of the state’s general assembly, pulled off that repeal last week. And then simultaneously replaced it with an equally atrocious law. Up against a NCAA deadline to either dump the law or face a continued boycott, the state’s lawmakers pulled a quick sleight of hand by ditching one bad law and adopting another. As a result, there is now a moratorium on any anti-discrimination protections for LGBT folks through 2020. The new law prohibits cities and counties from banning such discrimination.

Governor Cooper, the Democrat elected on the promise of cleaning this mess up, sheepishly issued this baffling understatement: the “compromise was not a perfect deal or my preferred solution.” No shit, Sherlock. He runs for governor as a savior for human rights and then signs a bill banning them for more than three years. That’s no compromise. It’s a complete capitulation to right wing nut jobs who want it all: an end to the boycotts and continued discrimination.

It obviously never occurred to the governor that he was bargaining from a position of strength. He didn’t win the election because of his opponent’s anti-gay-and-trans views. He won because the state got hit hard economically over the legislation. The NBA pulled its all-star game out of Charlotte. The NCAA canceled games and threatened to withhold years of events from the state. Numerous corporations pulled back on plans to build or expand in North Carolina. Hundreds of entertainers refused to perform there, including: Bruce Springsteen, Ringo Starr, Pearl Jam, Dave Matthews Band, Cyndi Lauper, Maroon 5 and Itzhak Perlman. This was a fight, brilliantly guided by the Human Rights Campaign, that cost North Carolina hundreds of millions of dollars and greatly diminished the quality of North Carolina life.

A governor committed to human rights for all would have vetoed the sham repeal and, if overridden, let the boycott continue. Obviously, the majority of assembly members need to feel more heat before they can see the wisdom in doing the right thing. Hopefully, the NCAA, the NBA and other corporate and entertainment forces will continue to stay clear of this state until that happens.

This is what it is like in Donald Trump’s America where the federal government leaves human rights up to the states. Protection from discrimination should not be legislated by zip code. But that is exactly what is happening as a result of Trump putting state’s rights above human rights. Just this year, legislators in 16 states have filed two dozen bills to scale back legal protections for transgender people. Nonsense has a way of spreading, making the continued boycott even more essential.

North Carolina lawmakers are not apt to see the error of their ways without pressure. After all, this is the only state in the country with a law that prohibits cotton growers from using elephants to plow their fields. Of course, the state was fine with purchased black people doing the same thing, and even fought a war to keep those slaves in the cotton fields. Don’t get me wrong. I’m all in favor of elephants’ rights, but humans need them too.

TECH JOBS: SEXUAL HARASSMENT WITH BENEFITS

During the last decade of my career as a union rep, the biggest challenge was trying to hang on to basic benefits that had been won years ago. In the beleaguered newspaper industry, that battle was all uphill. We reduced sick leave and vacation time. We froze pensions and scaled back medical insurance. The pain was aggravated by almost daily reports from the booming tech startups that were offering a smorgasbord of benefits to die for (here and here): one year of paid leave for new mothers and fathers, on-site child (and dog) care, acupuncture and improv classes, free meals, midday siestas in a “nap pod,” $4,000 in “baby cash” for employees with newborns, and unlimited paid vacations.

As accomplished as I was at making outrageous arguments with a straight face, I would have had a hard time staying in character while pounding the table over nap pods. Besides, our entire focus was on trying to maintain some semblance of medical insurance and a modest retirement plan. Those shiny tech benefits formed a cruel oasis in our desert of retrogressions. Based on recent developments, however, all that glitters in Silicon Valley employee relations is not, by any stretch of the imagination, gold. As Paul Harvey used to say, here’s the rest of the story:

Despite its cutting edge image, the tech industry is a bastion of sexual harassment, a throwback to the pre-Clarence-Thomas days when male supervisors didn’t differentiate between the workplace and a pick-up bar, five minutes before last call. According to Fortune Magazine, 60 percent of the female tech workforce say they have experienced unwanted sexual advances on the job, most of them from a superior. Some 39 percent of those women said they did not report the harassment out of fear it would hurt their careers.

Susan Fowler was not among that 39 percent. She recently quit her engineering job with Uber because of what she described as a culture of rampant sexual harassment. She described her experiences in a blog post that has managed to shed a glaring light on what had been a dirty little secret of tech employment. Fowler said her manager repeatedly asked her to have an affair. She went to Uber’s Human Resources Department where, to her astonishment, she was told that it was the guy’s first offense and they were not inclined to take any action beyond a warning. Fowler said she later learned that her manager had made similar overtures to several other female subordinates, all of whom had also gone to HR and gotten the same “first offense” line. More women have since come forward with related accusations against other managers. In a quick clean-up effort at damage control, Uber brought in former attorney general Eric Holder to help with a corporate-wide sexual harassment investigation.

This kind of predator conduct was common in most workplaces 30 years ago. It went hand-in-hand with a male-dominated hierarchy and the subservient role carved out for women workers. Sexual harassment is a large umbrella. It includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, lewd and offensive gender-based comments and related harassing behavior based on sex. All of that was perfectly legal until the late 1970s when federal courts, for the first time, ruled that the Civil Rights Act’s prohibition against sex discrimination covers sexual harassment. That led to seven-figure damages against employers who failed to protect their employees from sexual harassment.

All of a sudden, companies were adopting strict no-harassment policies and training supervisors to keep their hands and ribald thoughts to themselves. A lot of whining men stumbled through the 1980s, blathering to each other about how “a poor guy just doesn’t know what he can do or say these days”. By the mid 1990’s most of them had figured it out. That’s not to say sexual harassment came to an abrupt halt. It never left us, but the law and threat of punitive damages changed the workplace culture and dramatically slowed it down.

And then the tech boom hit, and it was the 1970s all over again. These nerdy, otherworldly digital gurus who redefined the workplace to make it fit a whole new approach to functionality, came programed with a manly way of thinking that had been outlawed 40 years ago. Since Susan Fowler blew the whistle on Uber, scores of women from other tech companies have come forward with their horror stories. Haana told the Guardian that her Silicon Valley manager put his hand up her shirt and groped her while they walked down the street after an off-site meeting. Joe told a leading tech blog that he witnessed a top executive repeatedly hit on and touch female staffers Joe supervised. Joe went with the women to report the incidents to the CEO but nothing was done.

Here’s how Wired.com described the culture of tech workplaces: “Kegerators, or at least well-stocked beer fridges, are standard fixtures at tech companies, right up there with ping-pong tables and beanbag chairs. Some, like GitHub and Yelp, even offer multiple brews on tap. Conferences and meetups are awash with free drinks.”

Clearly, this industry has carved out an alternative universe for a work environment, replacing the conventional office’s structure and rigidity with a party-like atmosphere that intentionally blurs the line between work and fun. Unfortunately, that’s not the only line being discarded. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not contain a sex discrimination exemption for cool, innovative tech companies. A word of caution to women seeking employment there: nap pods, child care and oodles of paid time off are worthless without a guarantee of a workplace free of discrimination and harassment. Sadly, such a venue seems to be a rarity in the tech industry.

TRUMP WINS THE GEORGE WALLACE HUMAN RIGHTS AWARD

In kowtowing to the baser instincts of social conservativism, Donald Trump took another sledge hammer to basic human rights this week. With the stroke of a pen, he rescinded the federal government’s position that transgender students should be allowed to use school bathrooms and locker rooms based on their gender identity. For many on the right, still smarting over their smashing gay marriage defeat, this was some sort of bizarre solace, a token illusion that their revered life style of the 1950s is still in place. For Trump, who supported LGBT rights in a prior life, the move gave him a much needed fix of the fuel that keeps him going: adulation and worship by his base. Sad, isn’t it, that grown adults can feel so good by forcing kids who look, dress, act and feel like boys to use the girls’ restroom (and vice versa)?

Now if Trump had been the straight shooting, down-to-earth non-politician his rally crowds think he is, he would have said something like this: “Frankly, I couldn’t care less what bathroom people use. Caitlyn Jenner is a fantastic woman and a dear personal friend. I’ve told her she can use the Ladies’ Room of her choice at Mar-a-Lago anytime. But many of the wonderful people who voted for me really hate this whole transgender thing, and I just have to throw them a bone because they love me so much.”

He didn’t say that, of course. Instead, like the politicians he so despises, Trump put the oldest spin in the book on his latest human rights assault by declaring, “This is not a federal matter. This is for the states to decide.” Press Secretary Sean Spicer was ready with the talking point: “We believe this is a states’ rights issue.” They both uttered the words like they thought they had just come up with the idea.”

Quite the contrary. This 45th president, who fancies himself as an outsider with a mandate to drain the political swamp, tapped into an argument that is drenched in the swamp’s DNA, dating all the way back to 1776. Every politician who ever opposed human rights did so by wrapping themselves in the flag of “states’ rights.”

Shortly after the American Revolution, the founding fathers worked up a constitution. The original draft banned slavery in the new union of 13 colonies. Virginia, however, insisted that any prohibition on slave ownership by this neophyte federal government was a deal breaker. The slave ban was dropped and the states’ rights gambit was born. It has been a goiter on the body politic ever since, heralding a civil war, periodic threats of succession and an ongoing lame, clichéd excuse for withholding basic human rights.

It doesn’t matter whether the battle is over slavery, whites-only lunch counters, gay marriage or transgender bathroom use. Politicians on the national stage rarely come right out and rave about how cool it is to discriminate. “States’ rights” is their rhetorical stand-in for “discrimination.” It’s more noble sounding to pound your chest in support of the rights of states to run their own shows than it is to advocate against those seeking equality.

In his first inaugural speech as governor of Alabama in 1963, George Wallace brought the local house down with these words of inspiration, “I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” A year later, as a candidate for president, Wallace said the same thing with different words: “Integration is a matter to be decided by each state. The states must determine if they feel it is of benefit to both races.”

And the rest, as they say, is history. Blacks would still be drinking from segregated water fountains in Alabama, if they had to wait for the white folks there to see the benefit of integration. That is the essence of “states’ rights.” Congress took the states’ right to discriminate away from them in 1964 when it passed the Civil Rights Act and made equality a federal right.

Eight years later, Congress expanded that right by passing a law prohibiting educational institutions receiving federal funds from discriminating on the basis of sex. That statute was the basis for the Obama administration’s advisory warning to schools that banning students from using restrooms consistent with their gender identity would constitute illegal discrimination.

Trump, in preparing for a presidential run in 2000, called for federal legislation to shield the LGBT community from discrimination. In his latest incarnation, however, the president trotted out the old, worn battle cry of states’ rights. That leaves transgender kids like Gavin Grimm, a Virginia teen, with the painful indignity of using a girl’s bathroom while looking every bit like a teenage boy straight out of central casting. That’s what it means to leave human rights decisions in the hands of the states.

The question of federal versus state control of human rights split the Democratic Party for years. Eventually, the party lost southern Democrats to the Republicans. The battle was just warming up in 1948 as the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia debated the merits of a federal civil rights law. A young Minneapolis mayor by the name of Hubert H. Humphrey rose to the microphone to support the platform plank in a speech many historians view as one of the best examples of political oratory. Here’s what Humphrey told his fellow delegates:

“To those who say that this civil rights program is an infringement on states’ rights, I say this: The time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states’ rights and to walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights.”

That was 1948. It is now way past time for us to escape from that shadow, once and for all. We need that sunshine of human rights. We need it for everyone. And we need it now.

THE NEW JOURNALISM: ONE STEP OVER THE LINE OF DETACHMENT

The country’s new political climate has jarred some journalists into rethinking the whole ethical construct of impartiality. This introspection is long overdue. For many years, most media organizations have insisted that newsroom employees refrain from any political activity beyond private thoughts in order to guard against even an appearance of bias.

That meant, of course, that news staffers could not publicly voice political opinions, attend protest marches or campaign for candidates. Many news managements were such strict constructionists on this rule that they, in effect, demanded their charges take a vow of intellectual celibacy. If you think that is an exaggeration, I’d be glad to introduce you to two reporters who were once suspended for attending a Bruce Springsteen concert.

The principle behind this non-involvement ethic is rational and understandable. It’s execution, however, has been the subject of intense debate among journalists since the days of the linotype machine. There is general agreement that reporters need psychic and emotional distance between themselves and their scope of coverage. If you report on city hall, you can’t manage the mayor’s re-election campaign. Such a conflict skews interests and damages credibility. So how about a hockey writer who puts a school board candidate’s campaign sign on her lawn? No problem? Believe me, journalists have been disciplined for far less. It’s always been a question of where to draw the line. Thanks to the politics of Donald Trump, that line seems to be moving a bit.

Helene Cooper covers the Pentagon for the New York Times. She had an intensely personal reaction to Trump’s executive order banning refugees from certain countries. When Helene was a 13-year-old girl in Liberia, a military coup took over the government. One soldier shot her father. Another raped her mother. Over the next frantic weeks, Cooper’s mother did everything she could to get her family out of the country. Eventually, they found safety and a better life in America. The only reason I know that is because Cooper wrote about it in a first-person New York Times account. Days earlier, she wrote the Times’ initial report of Trump’s refugee ban. To be sure, Cooper’s moving, poignant personal story was no partisan political act. Yet, it offered compelling testimony in opposition to the president’s immigration position by a reporter who continues to be able to craft excellent news reports from Washington. The Times moved the line by running Cooper’s personal essay.

Jim Schachter is vice president for news at New York’s public radio station, WYNC. In a recent “On the Media” segment, he described his reaction when he learned his wife and daughters were going to participate in last month’s Women’s March. He told them he would not share their tweets or post their pictures on social media because “. . .you’re going to engage in an act of politics. . .that is anathema to me as a journalist.” The line seemed pretty clear to him. Then, a few days later, Trump issued his restrictions on refugee resettlement. Schachter said his “head was a mess” because his mother and mother-in-law were refugees from Nazi Germany. This wasn’t a “political matter,” he said, “this was a human rights matter.” Then he remembered that his wife and daughters had argued that the Women’s March was also a human right matter. Schachter moved the line.

That line between human involvement and journalistic detachment is apt to keep on moving throughout the Trump years because we are no longer dealing with arcane political issues. It’s one thing to keep your opinions to yourself on tax reform. It’s something else when basic human rights are being shredded.

Another force helping to move the line comes from the newsroom presence of millennials, people of color and those with an LGBT orientation. Many young reporters seem more capable than their elders of elegantly balancing a strong set of beliefs with their journalistic skillsets. They, along with those from marginalized groups, see the fight for equality with the same passion they have for pursuing truth through their journalism.

Shaya Tayefe Mohajer is a former Associated Press reporter and an Iranian-American. She recently wrote a piece for the Columbia Journalism Review criticizing newspapers, including the San Francisco Chronicle and the New York Times, for prohibiting reporters from participating in the Women’s March. While working for the AP, Mohajer said she followed the news service’s edict insisting that reporters “refrain from declaring their views on contentious public issues in a public forum . . .and must not take part in demonstrations in support of causes or movements.” Those rules, she noted, were originally written by white men who handed them down to the generations of white men who replaced them, and none of them ever had to worry about the lack of equality. No longer bound by AP’s rule, Mohajer said she went to the Women’s March “not just because I understand inequality to be real and would like to live to see its end, but also because I’m deeply grateful for my right as an American to peaceful protest, and I intend to use it to call for a basic tenet of journalism: fairness.”

The line between advocacy and news reporting should not be removed. A Washington Post political reporter is never going to circle the White House on a lunch break with a sign that says “Trump Sucks”, and then replace it with a notebook and attend the afternoon press briefing. Yet, it’s well past time to modify the line, to relax its rigidity. There has been talk of replacing reporters with robots, but it hasn’t happened yet. Until it does, they need to be treated like real people, complete with real beliefs. And, absent a direct conflict with their job, they should be allowed to stand up for those beliefs. With a government poised for an assault on human rights, speaking truth to power is everyone’s job, even if it means an end to the illusion of journalism’s intellectual celibacy.

HIDDEN FIGURES, ALTERNATIVE FACTS AND ANOTHER WEEK IN TRUMP LAND

The latest stupid alternative fact spit out by the netherworld of the racist right is that the compelling and award-winning film, “Hidden Figures” is a falsified piece of “politically correct” propaganda. A number of creepy websites, all to the right of Breitbart, are insisting that the untold story of three African American women who helped launch NASA’s space program in the 1960s is a total fabrication. (Here, here and here.)

One of the downsides of Internet technology is that crazy people have a platform. The nuts, bigots and lunatics have been with us always. I used to work nights in a newsroom. People called with all sorts of idiotic story ideas, particularly after the bars closed. One man insisted he had proof that thousands of Jews were quietly moving into town and planned to take complete control of all financial institutions. Another guy was certain his backyard squirrels were wired by the Feds to monitor his conversations. It was no big deal. We just hung up on them. Now they all have websites. Including, no doubt, the squirrels.

It’s been that kind of week. There was a Muslim ban that the president said wasn’t a ban. Then Alternative Facts Queen Kellyanne Conway defended the ban by pointing to the “Bowling Green Massacre”, only to find out later that there never was such a massacre. And now we have the white power nuts totally outraged over the notion that the white men launched into space 50 years ago might have had some support on the ground from black women.

I saw “Hidden Figures” on Inauguration Day. It was a wonderful, uplifting diversion from the installation of a president whose campaign was fueled, at least in part, by a longing for the good old days of white male privilege. The film was made from Margot Lee Shetterly’s book with the same name. Both were based on the following established facts: Prior to the days of IBM and Apple, the calculations for space exploration were done by mathematicians and their slide rules and adding machines. In NASA’s facilities in Langley, Virginia, these folks were called computers. During those Jim Crow days in Langley, there was a “Computer East” for white employees and a “Computer West” for blacks. The film tells the story of three female computers from the west group: Katherine Johnson, (Taraji P. Hensen), Dorothy Vaughan (Octavia Spencer) and Mary Jackson (Janelle Monáe). Their work, and particularly the genius-level mathematical skills of Hensen’s character, Katherine, played a vital role in a number of NASA’s most spectacular achievements, including John Glenn’s orbit of the earth in 1962.

In many ways, the story was as sad as it was compelling. Those women persevered through the abhorrently oppressive conditions of segregation. Yet, thanks to their spirit and incredible skill, they made it possible for a very white America to achieve greatness in space. The depressingly sad part of the story is that it took more than 50 years for it to be told. Of course, the racist webmasters point to that delay as evidence of fabrication. It was well known, they say, that the space agency was all white in the 1960s and that “Hidden Figures” is simply an attempt to erase white history.

Actually, the racists were partly right. The space program, according to Smithsonian research, was lily white back in the late 1930s and very early 1940s. But, thanks to pressure from civil rights leaders, President Franklin Roosevelt signed an executive order in 1941 demanding that the Langley operation and other federal agencies immediately open their doors to black employees. That was back in the day when presidential orders were based on inclusion instead of exclusion. Not only that, the star of it all, Katherine Johnson, is very much alive at 98 and continues to tell her own story. She was awarded the Medal of Freedom by former president Obama in 2015.

Of course, bigotry has always lurked in the shadows of the web. Sadly, it has now left those shadows and is performing on the main stage. The sites decrying the whitewash of “Hidden Figures,” are filled with posts of support and alignment with the Trump administration. For example, these pieces: “Trump Them Again – Use Executive Orders to Stem Creeping Bilingualism”; “Racketeering Refugees: What the Million Marching Pussyhatters Really Want”; and “Trump’s Wall Says to the World ‘This is OUR Country, We Decide Who Comes Here.’”

No, not every Trump voter is a racist. Yet it is undeniable that the right wing populism that propelled him, like similar movements around the world, was fueled by anger over changing demographics that have diluted the power of white privilege. Writer Zach Beauchamp, in a fascinating and well-researched piece for Vox.com, argued that the outcome of the 2016 presidential election had less to do with economic angst in the heartland and more with white antipathy toward a changing population. Wrote Beauchamp, “What unites far-right politicians and their supporters, on both sides of the Atlantic, is a set of regressive attitudes toward difference. Racism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia — and not economic anxiety — are their calling cards.”

The challenge for those of us who believe that America’s greatness lies in those differences, in our embrace of diversity, is to draw a bright line for the battles to come. There can be room for compromise on health care, tax reform, education funding and the environment. But when it comes to matters of basic human rights, dignity, nondiscrimination and equal opportunity, there can be no retreat, no surrender. If we return to the days of Hidden Figures, America will not only have sacrificed its greatness, it will have lost its soul.

FINDING OUR WAY FROM THE ASHES OF DEFEAT

The defeat this week of a right wing Republican governor in North Carolina was much more than just a consolation prize for progressives. It was a well-timed reminder of how movement power can withstand severe electoral setbacks, particularly when it comes to matters of justice and human rights. While Republicans won every other contest in the Tar Heel State, Gov. Pat McCrory bit the dust largely because of what was seen as his unyielding opposition to LGBT rights.

McCrory conceded Monday to his Democratic opponent in an election that had been too close to call. In the end, he lost by 10,000 votes (out of 6.8 million), while Donald Trump carried the state by four percentage points and the incumbent Republican senator won reelection by six points.

The general consensus among political observers is that the governor was done in by what came to be known as the Bathroom Bill. The legislation, signed by McCrory in March, was about much more than bathrooms. It initially targeted the transgender community by allowing public restroom use only in accordance with a person’s birth gender. In its final form however, it prohibited cities from enforcing discrimination bans on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Flash back now, for just a moment, to those dark, gloomy, I’m-moving-to-Canada days of 2004. Not only did an unpopular George W. Bush manage to win reelection, Republicans picked up seats in both the House and Senate. But wait, there’s more. Constitutional amendments prohibiting same sex marriage were on the ballot in 11 states, and they all passed overwhelmingly. Bush’s political strategist, Karl Rove, was credited with the wildly successful plan of pushing the anti-marriage amendments as a turnout lure for social conservatives, many of whom might not have made the trip to the polls just to vote for Bush. I still remember that deep feeling of hopelessness and angst after the election. Not only did we have four more years of George W., the notion of marriage equality appeared to be dead and buried. Gallop validated the malaise a few months later with a poll showing that only 37 percent of the country supported same sex marriage.

Yet, something altogether different was happening. Thanks to the Human Rights Campaign and other LGBT groups, not only did the movement never stop, it picked up momentum and steam. They won marriage equality laws in key states like New York and Maryland. Men married men. Women married women. The sun came up the next day, and attitudes quickly changed, with a speed unparalleled in the history of civil rights. Other states followed suit. By 2012, Gallop’s annual tracking showed for the first time that a majority of Americans supported gay marriage. In large part, those rapidly changing views fueled the 2015 Supreme Court decision that declared marriage equality as the law of the land.

That very same LGBT movement was responsible for the defeat of North Carolina’s Bathroom Bill Governor. The well-oiled and brilliantly strategic Human Rights Campaign has had staff on the ground in North Carolina all year. Having already succeeded at planting the notion of gay and transgender rights as a basic fairness issue in the country’s psyche, they moved quickly to convert it into a business issue. Entertainers and professional sports teams canceled events because of the law. Business decided against relocating to North Carolina. Top corporate giants like Pepsi, Google, Apple and American Airlines all put the heat on the state over this discriminatory law. Although McCrory didn’t initiate the legislation, he made the political miscalculation to support it in order to curry favor with social conservatives. It became the albatross that ended his career.

The moral of the story should be clear. Despite how it felt at the time, all was not lost in the 2004 election. If the Human Rights Campaign had cashed in the chips on election night 12 years ago, several hundred thousand marriages would never have happened and a homophobic governor would have had four more years to wreak havoc in North Carolina. To be sure, movements have their ups and downs. But the quest for justice, fairness and equality never ends. It’s not the destination that changes, it’s the roadmap. It is up to us to find the right route and follow it, with our eyes always fixed on the prize.

NO RELIGIOUS LIBERTY FOR A HUNGRY CHILD

There was an amazing piece of news out of western Pennsylvania this week. You may have missed it because it happened the same day Angelina and Brad told us it was over; we process grief at different speeds. To fill you in: a school cafeteria worker quit her job when she had to deny a young boy a hot lunch because of a balance due on his account.

As reported by the Washington Post, Stacy Koltiska said she was working the cafeteria register at Wylandville Elementary School in the unincorporated town of Eighty Four, about 25 miles southwest of Pittsburgh. She said she will never forget the little boy’s eyes as he stood there with a tray of hot food. Due to a new school policy, the lunchroom staff is prohibited from giving hot lunches to anyone whose parents owed $25 of more for past meals. Because of the balance owed, Koltiska was duty bound by her work rules to deny him the hot lunch.

Under the policy, the parents will be charged $2.05 for their son’s meal, the one that Koltiska had to dump into the garbage. In lieu of hot food, the debtors’ child was handed a cold sandwich consisting of two slices of wheat bread and a single piece of what Koltiska called “government cheese.” So she quit, right then and there. She told the Post that her religious faith does not allow her to deny a hot meal to a hungry child. “As a Christian, I have an issue with this,” she explained. “It’s sinful and shameful is what it is.” She said she resigned out of a moral obligation. “God is love, and we should love one another and be kind,” Koltiska said. “There’s enough wealth in this world that no child should go hungry, especially in school. To me this is just wrong.”

Shockingly, there has been radio silence over Koltiska’s plight on the part of the evangelical right and its “religious liberty movement”. I fully expected Kim Davis to show up with a picket sign. She’s the clerk of court in Rowan County Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples because her religious beliefs outranked the law, or so she said. Davis did a few days in jail while relishing the martyr role and the army of Republican politicians who scrambled to her side for a photo op. This was the seminal event in a nation-wide push for legislation establishing the right to discriminate against the LGBT community on the basis of religious belief.

The argument is that people who sincerely hold religious convictions should get a pass whenever there is a conflict between the law and their faith. This has resulted in the passage of legislation in some states allowing florists, caterers and others to refuse to provide services for a gay wedding based on a religious opposition to same sex marriage. It also produced the Supreme Court decision in “Hobby Lobby”, where the justices said a business owner with a theological objection to birth control is free to remove contraception coverage from the company medical plan.

So why aren’t the religious liberty zealots expressing outrage over the school lunch dilemma? Granted, taking hot food away from a hungry child has nothing to do with birth control or the anti-gay agenda, but the religious principle could not be more directly applicable. Kim Davis became an overnight folk hero in some quarters when, as an elected official, she refused to issue gay couples the marriage licenses they were legally entitled to. Poor Stacy Koltiska, following a school board rule she abhorred, dumped the little boy’s lunch into the garbage, handed him a pathetic cheese sandwich and quit her job. Two women; the same God; two different conflicts between their faith and the law. One of them followed the law she disagreed with and then walked away, never to deny another child a hot meal. The other never followed the law, kept her job and went on a speaking tour with a hostile rant about “religious liberty”. Which of them went to a better place is unknown to all but God. But it’s a pretty easy guess.

BODY SHAMING THE NEWS

America may be on the verge of electing its first woman president, but don’t let that fool you into thinking that rampant sexism has left the building. That point was just pounded home in a very personal way. A child kidnapping case that gripped the hearts of Minnesotans for 27 years was solved last week. The man who snatched, sexually assaulted and murdered 11-year-old Jacob Wetterling in 1989 confessed and led authorities to the child’s body. I lived in Minnesota when Jacob was kidnapped and know only too well how visceral that crime was – and is – to Minnesotans. News that his remains had been found quickly sucked the air out of the entire state. It was all anyone talked about.

Well, almost. That, and the couture of a young female television reporter. The diversion came from a Minneapolis Star Tribune columnist who noted that Jana Shortal wore jeans on TV while reporting Jacob’s story and didn’t look good in them. Cheryl Johnson, whose column is called simply “CJ”, wrote that somebody at the local NBC affiliate “didn’t do Jana Shortal any favors with that wide camera shot. . .She looked great from the waist up in a polka-dot shirt and cool blazer, but the skinny jeans did not work. I was among a number of media types who found them inappropriate and, given the gravity of the day’s subject, downright jarring.”

So much for Minnesota Nice. So much for Jana’s bold and daring efforts to abandon what she calls the “lady uniform” as a prerequisite for delivering the news, a lingering legacy of the Roger Ailes school for women in broadcast journalism. Jana, who has been doing a daily breaking news show for the past year, goes on camera in her own clothes because the emphasis is on what she is reporting, not on how she looks. That should not be, but unfortunately is, a revolutionary move for television news in 2016. There was, to say the least, a major firestorm over the C.J. column, which the newspaper promptly pulled from its website and replaced with a full-throated apology.

It is so sad that there are still forces measuring the worth of a woman by how she looks, and a man by what he does. I wrote a research paper on this subject in 1983. It described and quantified a societal tyranny in which women had to either conform to the way a male-dominated culture insisted they look, or pay the price. Mostly, they paid the price. The currency was life threatening eating disorders, chronic stress and/or repeated rejections for the better jobs as a result of not looking the part. The phenomena back then was called “lookism,” and it painfully enforced this toxic double standard. Today, the term is “body shaming” and, as the newspaper columnist demonstrated, it is every bit as insidious.

I gathered the studies more than 30 years ago, all of them showing how companies made hiring, pay and promotional decisions on the basis of how women looked and on what men could do. The empirical evidence was staggering, but not surprising. I was a morbidly obese man when my journalism career took off in the 1970s. Despite being between 200 and 300 pounds overweight, I had the choice of beats on my newspaper and won countless awards and accolades. Women just as capable, if not more, were held back if they were carrying an extra 25 pounds or just didn’t have the “right look”.

Nearly two generations later, not much has changed. Jana Shortal is critiqued not on the quality of her reporting, but on the cut of her jeans. We have a Republican presidential candidate who insults men based on their behavior, but reserves adjectives like fat, ugly and disgusting for the women he wants to diminish.

I cringed when I read Jana’s Facebook reply to the CJ column. Although eloquent and poignant, it was painfully obvious that the columnist’s words hit her hard. A short snippet from her post: “I wore my clothes. The clothes it took me a very long time to feel comfortable in no thanks to the bullies like you who tried to shame me out of them.”


Here was this bright, strong, young woman, anchoring her own news show in a major regional market, and doing it her way, making it about the journalism instead of about herself. And right smack in the middle of reporting the biggest local story of the year, she is attacked by a veteran columnist for not looking good in skinny jeans. It stung something fierce because, far below the intellectual surface of gender equality, complete with its admonishment of body shaming, lurks this ancient notion that women, no matter what else they do, must “look good” doing it. It’s a notion that needs to die. Now.