Mediaboss Marketing

In recent years, school boards have become one more battlefield in the culture wars polarizing the country. The reasons include the influence of outside money and interest groups as well as national media coverage that fans the flames, according to three experts recently brought together by the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life for a March 16 panel discussion entitled Whats Going on With School Boards? Jen McAndrew, Tisch Colleges director of communications, strategy, and planningand a school committee member in Melrose, Massachusetts, moderated the event, which featured education and political science experts.

Here are a few takeaways:

Local educational issues hitting the national stage is not a new phenomenon and outside money plays a leading role.

Controversy over masking mandates, the teaching of critical race theory, and sexual orientation and gender identity curricula in schools may be the issues of the day, but there is a long history of local educational concerns rising to national prominence. Michigan State political science professor Sarah Reckhow, who co-authored a book entitled Outside Money in School Board Elections, saw the same pattern when she followed races in five school districts across the country a decade ago.

The driving issue in those elections was predominantly charter schools especially in districts associated with large growth and outside money, she said. Donors to candidates involved in the charter school fight included former New York City mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg and Facebook CEO Sheryl Sandberg, according to Reckhow. Brian Reagan, the superintendent of Waltham, Massachusetts public schools, said that on the ballot of his citys recent school committee election was a formerly unknown conservative candidate later discovered to have been funded by an outside group.

Some of the controversial issues school committees are dealing with, like Michigans curriculum transparency bill, seem to be more about providing state and national politicians with talking points than about the needs of local students.

Reckhow spoke about a bill that would require Michigan educators to post curricula, lesson plans, and other teaching content online. It provided plenty of fodder for political sloganeering. We're coming up on election season with a lot of important state races and these sorts of issues are galvanizing, certainly on the conservative side, she said. Labels like parental rights or transparency get attached to the bills that may not deal with the nuances of the local districts and the issues on the ground.

While conservatives have been blamed for much of the lack of civility at school board meetings, the left can also be divisive and inflammatory in its response.

The media have given a lot of coverage to conservatives disrupting school board meetings and threatening members, but the lack of civility is not limited to one side, said Gerard Robinson, vice president for education at the Advanced Studies in Culture Foundation and formerly Virginia and Floridas top education official. For example, in a recent letter decrying the growing threats of violence at school board meetings across the country, the National School Boards Association used what Robinson considered incendiary language, comparing the behavior to domestic terrorism and asking the White House for federal law enforcement intervention. Robinson conceded that some of the conduct has been reprehensible, but the idea that you can use the term domestic terrorism! Fourteen attorneys general have now submitted Freedom of Information Act requests for more information about the letter and the administrations response, and all of them are Republicans. Are we saying that this is not an important issue to the Democrats? asked Robinson.

When the national media swoops in to cover local school boards, polarization intensifies.

The consolidation of the media industry has resulted in the loss or contraction of many local outlets. Often, when school boards are covered, its by the national press drawn to the most contentious issues at the expense of the more specific substantive local issues that might be unique to the district and really important to the students and families in that community, said Reckhow. Another effect of this nationalization is that local school board candidates feel like they have to pick a side when it comes to controversial issues, at the expense of thoughtful, less black-and-white positions, she added.

School boards might be less vulnerable to outside influences if they had broader representation.

Often the composition of school boards does not reflect the demographics of the students and communities they serve, Reagan said, including his district in eastern Massachusetts, where 44% of the population is Latino. Yet students have shown a willingness to participate. A recent controversy over the presence of two LGBTQ+ -themed books in the high school library resulted in a packed school committee meeting at which students spoke eloquently in favor of keeping the books. We need to find ways to get them to be more of a voice on the school committee as well, he said.

Contributing to the homogeneity, Reckhow said, is that few people vote in school board elections and those who do are often older and not people of color.

There is an interesting interplay between the idealistic things we say about school boards being grassroots and participatory institutions, she said, and the reality.

Read more from the original source:
How School Boards Have Become a Nexus of the Culture Wars - Tufts Now

Idaho may not be the reddest state in the country, but one credible survey places it in the top five. All the statewide elective offices are held by Republicans, and both houses of the Idaho Legislature have lopsided GOP majorities.

Although Idaho has been dominated by the GOP for several decades, the legislature has generally been pragmatic and reasonable. That is, until the party was able to close its primary election to all but registered Republicans 10 years ago. That, plus the election of Donald TrumpDonald TrumpOhio GOP Senate candidates tout MAGA bona fides at debate Ex-Trump personal assistant appears before Jan. 6 panel GOP sounds alarm bells over Greitens allegations MORE, the malign influence of Fox News and the increasing involvement of a plethora of right-wing organizations, has turned the state into a battlefield of the culture wars. Those organizations include the Heritage Foundation, the American Legislative Exchange Council and the State Policy Network (SPN), which has affiliates in every state.

The SPN group in Idaho bears the ill-fitting name Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF). The organization has developed significant clout in the Idaho Legislature in recent years with its hard-edged culture war tactics and dark money support. Legislators defy the IFFs wishes at their peril. It is a principal reason for the increasingly extreme legislative body.

A sampling of the culture war issues dealt with by lawmakers in the last two years provides a flavor of the extremist nature of the body. There have been numerous bills to hamstring the states ability to stop the spread of the coronavirus. A law was passed to prevent the teaching of critical race theory, although legislators were unable to say what it is or where it could be found in the state. Weve seen legislation to protect the licenses of doctors who prescribe horse dewormer for COVID-19, to send librarians to jail for giving out materials harmful to minors and to criminalize medical treatment of transgender kids. Oh, and of course, the House passed a massive election reform bill, despite voter fraud being virtually non-existent in the Potato State.

In response to this alarming situation, several Idahoans from across the political spectrum, including me, came together last year to form the Take Back Idaho Committee (TBI) to educate and motivate Idahoans of all stripes to replace divisive culture warriors with responsible representatives in the May 17 GOP primary election. That will include convincing independent voters to register for the Republican Party, since that is where most legislators are selected in Idaho.

There are several issues TBI is using to discredit IFF and its hard-right supporters. Public education is our primary issue, something that is vitally important to most voters.

The education issue is being turned against IFF-supported candidates by using the groups own words. Its agenda is to do away with public education. IFFs president has proclaimed: I dont think government should be in the education business. It is the most virulent form of socialism (and indoctrination thereto) in America today. IFF legislators have fought against adequate education funding in Idaho, then claimed that Idaho schools are failing. It seeks to discredit the school system by making the false claim that kids are being indoctrinated with critical race theory.

In Idaho, as elsewhere across the country, the heart of most rural communities is the local public school. Sports and other school activities bring the community together. If that school fails, the community suffers. When IFF is asked how kids will be educated if it is successful in closing the public schools, and no private school is nearby in this rural state, it points to online schools the very same schooling that IFF railed against as unacceptable during the pandemic.

This is an issue that resonates with a wide cross-section of voters. If Terry McAuliffeTerry McAuliffeCan divisive culture warriors be booted out of an extremely red state? The Memo: Biden, Democrats feel new political pain on inflation The 'other war' happening right under Joe Biden's nose MORE lost the Virginia governorship on the education issue, it was for his incredible mishandling of it. Education in Idaho and elsewhere has largely been a matter of local control by elected school boards. They have been good stewards in this state and elsewhere. It is IFF and its affiliates that want to put control of schools in the hands of extremist legislators who will see that kids are indoctrinated to their extreme way of thinking.

The way to win elections against IFF and its SPN affiliates is to take the contest to them, rather than sitting back and defending against their specious claims. TBI has shown that IFF and its supporters have made no contribution to solving the chronic problems of the state educating our kids for good jobs, fixing its deteriorating infrastructure or working with business and agriculture to meet the challenges of the future. Thats what governing used to be and can return to being if we are able to get rid of these extremists.

Idaho will be a test case this year to see whether extremist organizations and their acolytes can take over and control a sovereign state or whether they and their supporters can be ousted by energized locals who support responsible, pragmatic government. If the extremist culture warriors can be booted out in this extremely red state, it can be done anywhere.

Jim Jones is a Vietnam combat veteran who served eight years as Idaho attorney general (1983-1991) and 12 years as a justice on the Idaho Supreme Court (2005-2017). He is a regular contributor to The Hill.

Continued here:
Can divisive culture warriors be booted out of an extremely red state? | TheHill - The Hill

STOCKBRIDGE Roughly two months ago, a school board in McMinn County, Tennessee, voted unanimously to remove the two-volume graphic Holocaust novel Maus from its schools curriculum over concerns about rough, objectionable language and a drawing of a nude woman.

Written by cartoonist and editor Art Spiegelman, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Maus depicts the author interviewing his father about his experiences as a Polish Jew and Holocaust survivor.

In taking the action, the McMinn County school board seemed oblivious to the so-called Streisand Effect, in which the suppression of controversial material backfires and instead spawns an intense interest that would otherwise not have occurred.

A public library was the fitting venue for a discussion of book banning, as two distinguished authorities on publishing led a dialogue Saturday at the Stockbridge Library Museum & Archives.

Andr Bernard, a veteran publisher and vice president of the Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, led the discussion that also featured special guest Martin Marty Baron, the newly retired journalist who, most recently, led the newsrooms of the Boston Globe and the Washington Post. Bernard used the banning of Maus as a jumping off point for a discussion of free speech that veered eventually into journalism.

Baron-led newsrooms have won a total of 17 Pulitzer Prizes, including perhaps most famously one for the Globes investigation into the concealment by the Catholic Church of the priestly sex abuse of young people in the Boston area, later portrayed in the Academy Award-winning film Spotlight. As executive editor of the Miami Herald, Barons newsroom also won a Pulitzer for coverage of Elin Gonzlez, the Cuban boy who was the focus of a fierce immigration and custody dispute in South Florida.

Bernard asked Baron why he thought the school board had banned Maus, to which Baron replied: The stated reasons were the violence, the nudity, the profanity, suicide all of that. But the question is what was the real reason? Spiegelman, when he was asked about it, said, Well, I guess they would like to have a nicer Holocaust.'

Baron further pointed out that the arguments against Maus nudity, violence, and suicide could apply to so many other things. The nudity alone could prove impractical.

What are we going to do? he asked rhetorically. Not have students go into art museums and see Gauguin, Degas, and Rousseau and all these great artists of history because theres nudity?

And so it went.

As Wendy Pearson, who heads the Stockbridge Library, pointed out in her introduction, book banning is nothing new But as the culture wars grow ever more strident and aggressive, libraries, schools and even bookstores are under increasing pressure to strip their shelves of material tagged as subversive, obscene or otherwise offensive.

Bernard spoke of the utter futility of banning books when so much information about them is available online anyway. Thats especially true for children. After all, the Harry Potter novels and Charlottes Web have been banned in some jurisdictions.

If you pull a book from the school library, a kid is likely to look it up on his phone more than they are going to go to a school library, Bernard added.

Baron said the issue is larger than banning books. He pointed to the recent efforts of newly elected Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia to bar teachers from teaching discriminatory and divisive concepts in the states public education system.

The history of the country is filled with divisive concepts, going back to the founding of the country, the Civil War, slavery, Baron said. The issue is bigger than books.

The discussion then transitioned to a debate on cancel culture, a form of ostracism stemming from ones political views or personal preferences. The term is typically used by those on the right who object, for example, to student uprisings on college campuses when conservatives are invited to speak.

But, as the efforts of conservative politicians to ban books and former President Donald Trumps calls to boycott companies such as AT&T and Amazon clearly demonstrate, cancel culture is hardly a partisan tactic (AT&T owned CNN at the time and Amazon President Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post).

Republicans seem to be the ones doing the most canceling at the moment, Baron surmised.

It was a perfect segue to a discussion of a New York Times editorial from last week, America Has a Free Speech Problem, in which the papers editorial board inveighed against what it called social silencing and the destructive loop of condemnation and recrimination around cancel culture.

The editorial came under intense criticism from those on the left, including journalist and professor Jeff Jarvis, who, in a series of tweets, excoriated the paper for drawing a false equivalency between book burning and criticizing hate.

But those on the right, including the conservative magazine Reason, lauded the piece, largely on the grounds that the editorial reads like it could have been written by someone who works at Reason.

Baron took issue with the lead paragraph, which labeled as fundamental the right of Americans to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned. In fact, no such right exists.

Its true that Americans have a right to their opinions, but they dont necessarily have a right not to be shamed or shunned, Baron said, adding that he was surprised that a paper with the resources of The Times could have published an editorial whose lede was so flawed.

The bigger issue is whether the shaming and the shunning have gotten out of hand and whether its caused people to feel that they cannot really express themselves on controversial issues and I think that is actually the truth, Baron observed, clearly indicating that he agreed with much of the rest of the editorial.

And in a note of supreme irony, Baron added, As best I can tell the people who object to the editorial are the people who like to do the shaming and shunning.

Baron was asked about the future of journalism in the digital age and where he sees it going. He thinks its unlikely there will be many print newspapers or print publications in general, for that matter 10 years from now.

When he first became editor of the Miami Herald in 2000, Baron, now 67, said the internet existed but few people used it, in part because broadband speeds had low penetration rates in those days. Now stories come at breakneck speed, youre learning things on the fly and producing stories minute-by-minute.

One controversy that could be considered a clash of cultures that enveloped Baron at The Post concerned a young reporter who posted a controversial tweet about the death of basketball superstar Kobe Bryant. Baron suspended the reporter, Felicia Sonmez, but after her union criticized the move, she was reinstated.

I wanted us to adhere to our strict standards on social media and news reporters not expressing individual opinions. These days younger journalists seem to feel they have a right to self expression, notwithstanding their jobs as news reporters. I dont agree with that.

If you want to be an advocate, be an advocate, Baron continued. If you want to be an activist, be an activist. If you want to be a politician, then be a politician. But if you chose to be a news reporter, act like one.

The conversation didnt end there. After the talk, Baron, who owns a home in Stockbridge, stayed around to answer questions from individuals, some in the public forum and others privately after the crowd of 100 or so dispersed.

See the original post here:
Newsman Marty Baron on book banning, 'cancel culture,' and the future of journalism - theberkshireedge.com

The Fifth Amendment is one of the most widely known aspects of civil cases. This is a privilege bestowed upon the civil rights of civilians. It is incorporated in the criminal procedures and other aspects of the constitution of the United States.

The clause of the Fifth Amendment civil case ensures that a defendant can evoke certain benefits. The Fifth Amendment is applicable to all levels of the government. This includes the federal, state, and local levels of the government.

As a civilian, what kind of Fifth Amendment privilege in civil cases can you enjoy? In this article, we will look into the fifth overall amendment of the constitution.

The fifth amendment provides specific privileges to civilians in civil cases. Defendants of a case can invoke the fifth amendment in civil cases that can be useful for them in the case. So, what does the fifth amendment say?

According to the US constitution, the Fifth Amendment provides privileges where a person cannot be upheld to answer for a capital or a criminal act. A person can be held to answer for those acts only with the presence or indictment of a jury. However, there are certain cases that it will not work. For instance, the case involving military or naval forces will not have the scope to invoke the fifth amendment. In addition, if you are involved in the same subject matter twice, you will not be able to enjoy the privilege of the Fifth Amendment.

Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment allows a defendant to never witness against oneself. The defendant of a criminal act cannot be denied from their liberty, due process, property, or life-related issues. The Fifth Amendment has a clause limiting the police procedure. The right to a grand jury investigation has not been added, but the rights to double jeopardy, self-incrimination, and immunity from unlawful taking of private property without remuneration have already been implemented to the states.

The Fifth Amendment rights involve protecting both a defendant and the witness from testifying against themselves. For instance, when a witness is asked to disclose a shred of evidence, the witness can invoke the Fifth Amendment to not testify the evidence. How can the witness do that? The witness must have fear and logic in his or her head that the disclosure can be used against him or her. This can incriminate the person. Therefore, a witness invokes the fifth amendment to save himself or herself.

Just like this, a defendant of a criminal act can also invoke the Fifth Amendment. While others may think that it just proves the defendant is guilty of the crime by not answering the court trial, the Fifth Amendment provides human rights to the defendant. As a result, even a person charged with a criminal case can invoke the Fifth Amendment and enjoy its privilege.

The Fifth Amendment is mostly connected to criminal cases. However, there are some exceptions. If you want to invoke the 5th Amendment to a civil case, there must be certain conditions fulfilled.

The Fifth Amendment privileges can only be enjoyed in a civil case when the person disclosing the evidence fears criminal charges against him or her. To invoke the Fifth Amendment in a civil case, you must have legitimate cause and fear of incriminating yourself that can result in criminal case trials. You must have a logical fear that the testimony can be used to instigate a criminal case against your name. Only then can you use the Fifth Amendment privileges in a civil case.

If you invoke the Fifth Amendment, you get the right not to testify against something as a witness to the crime. Generally, the amendment is invoked to same oneself from disclosing evidence that can be used against that same person. The privilege can be invoked in several scenarios.

In most cases, the Fifth Amendment is invoked in criminal trials. Originally, the Fifth Amendment provides the defendant a privilege to not testify against himself or herself. However, people also invoke it when they are called as a witness to a criminal case of someone else. A criminal case defendant can invoke the Fifth Amendment whenever the person feels that the evidence may be used against him or her. Moreover, the witness can invoke the Fifth Amendment whenever they feel that their testimony can be used to incriminate them. Such a privilege is applicable to any form of a criminal act.

You can assert the Fifth Amendment right in civil cases as well. Even though civil cases do not have criminal penalties, a person can invoke the Fifth Amendment whenever he or she thinks that the evidence can take the case to the criminal court. If there is no substantial fear, the Fifth Amendment cannot be invoked in a civil case.

Apart from trials, you can plead the Fifth Amendment in other proceedings. If you are asked to be a witness in an administrative law proceeding, you can invoke this right. In addition, you can invoke this right during a grand jury investigation proceeding. Moreover, the right of the Fifth Amendment can be invoked if you are arrested and in police questioning. In both state and federal cases, a witness can also invoke this right in the situation of a deposition.

There are other scenarios where a person can invoke this right. For instance, you may be going through both civil and criminal cases. If you are asked to testify in front of a government body while being investigated for a criminal case, you can invoke the Fifth Amendment in the civil case that can incriminate you for the criminal case.

You cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment in any statement. There must be a legitimate reason behind your fear. On the one hand, the Fifth Amendment protects someone from using their answer for criminal prosecution. On the other hand, your answer or the testimony may not be protected by the Fifth Amendment if it does not aid in criminal prosecution in the first place.

If any court wants your fingerprint, blood test, or urine test, you cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment. The right is only applicable to communicable pieces of evidence. The other things are considered non-testimonial. Therefore, preventing the collection of such samples through the Fifth Amendment is not possible.

The Fifth Amendment provides certain human rights to the person standing on a trial or witnessing a trial. Although the right is mostly invoked in criminal cases, the Fifth Amendment privilege in civil cases ensures that no person is wrongfully accused of criminal charges for their own testimony. This is applicable for both the defendant and the witness of a case.

Visit link:
Fifth Amendment Privilege in Civil Cases - Tony Merchant ...

Former President Donald Trump and two of his children filed an appeal in their fight against the New York attorney general's attempt to depose them as part of a civil investigation into the Trump Organization, saying a lower court erred by denying the Trumps' request to quash their subpoenas for testimony.

In their appeal filed Monday, Trump and his children Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. argued that if New York Attorney General Letitia James wants their testimony, she should bring them before a state grand jury investigating the Trump Organization, where witnesses receive transactional immunity for their testimony in New York.

The Trumps' attorneys wrote that if the attorney general's office is allowed to depose their clients, the state's constitutional and statutory protections can easily be "eviscerated if the same agency involved in the criminal investigation simply opens up a 'civil' investigation into the very same matters."

"The question is whether the (Office of the Attorney General) can use the office subpoenas to avoid the grand jury process and compel testimony from those whom it does not wish to grant immunity," the appeal states.

A state judge ruled against the Trumps' request in February, saying they could invoke their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and refuse to answer questions, which Eric Trump did during his 2020 deposition. Attorneys for the Trump family argued that a jury could draw an "adverse inference" if the Trumps opted not to answer questions in depositions.

New York Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron had ordered the Trumps to sit for depositions by March 10, but the former President and his children reached a deal to delay those appearances until after an appeal is decided.

James said in court filings in January that her office's civil investigation had uncovered significant evidence that the Trump Organization used "fraudulent or misleading asset valuations to obtain a host of economic benefits, including loans, insurance coverage and tax deductions" and that financial statements had numerous "misleading statements and omissions."

A parallel criminal investigation conducted by the Manhattan district attorney's office has been looking into the former President and his business and whether they misled lenders, insurers and others by providing false or misleading financial statements about property values. But the investigation has reached an impasse, and two top attorneys resigned earlier this month after Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said he was not prepared to authorize an indictment against the former President, CNN previously reported.

The Trumps' attorneys wrote that it is "undisputed" that the criminal investigation by the Manhattan district attorney's office targets the valuations and appraisals of Trump's properties in financial statements to taxing authorities and financial institutions, just as the attorney general's investigation does. The Trumps' attorneys cited a filing from the attorney general's office in January where it writes that "coordination between parallel civil and criminal proceedings is standard procedure."

In their appeal, the Trumps' attorneys also ask the appellate court to reverse Engoron's decision and allow there to be a hearing on the "scope and extent of coordination" between the Manhattan district attorney's office and the attorney general's office. The Trumps' attorneys want to ask whether two attorneys from James' office are providing information or reporting back to the attorney general's office. The Trumps also want to ask whether the attorney general's office is providing all of the information it has collected to the district attorney's office, and whether it would immediately provide subpoenaed testimony to the district attorney's office, among other questions.

In a statement shortly after the appeal was filed, James said her office will continue to follow the facts.

"Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., and Ivanka Trump were ordered by a judge to comply with our investigation into Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization's financial dealings," James said. "Despite continuous efforts to impede this investigation, no one can stop our pursuit of justice, no matter how powerful they are."

Attorneys for the Trumps again outlined public statements made by James about Donald Trump in their appeal, calling them "an extraordinary and unprecedented barrage of inappropriate public statements" since she ran for office in 2018, threatening to investigate and prosecute Trump and those close to him. The appeal argues that Engoron's decision did not address James' comments, saying they reveal "extraordinary animus" on James' part and cannot be ignored.

The-CNN-Wire

& 2022 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.

See original here:
Trumps file appeal to try and stop depositions in New York attorney general investigation - WKTV