Mediaboss Marketing

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribunes daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

After hours of debate and multiple attempts to kill the legislation from Democrats, Texas is one step closer to banning diversity, equity and inclusion offices in public colleges and universities Friday.

In a 83 to 60 vote, the Texas House gave preliminary approval to one of Lt. Gov. Dan Patricks legislative priorities that would prohibit such offices, programs and any required diversity training.

In an attempt to stop a deluge of amendments from Democrats opposing Senate Bill 17, Republicans approved an amendment offered by the bills sponsor, Seguin Republican John Kuempel, that requires the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to conduct an impact study into the legislation, allow universities to make reasonable efforts to re-assign employees in DEI offices to new positions with similar pay, and shifts the day the bill goes into effect back by three months to Jan. 1.

The coordinating board is the state agency that oversees higher education policy at public colleges and universities.

This amendment was also an attempt to appease Democrats concerns that eliminating diversity offices and programs would put universities at risk to lose federal grants. Rep. Nicole Collier, D-Fort Worth, said the extension will give universities time to ensure current grants can comply with any DEI requirements.

The legislation still needs final passage before it heads back to the upper chamber where the Senate could accept the changes or elect to meet in a conference committee of lawmakers to hash out the differences. If the legislation becomes law, Texas would be the second state in the nation with such a ban, following Florida.

DEI offices have become a mainstay on college and university campuses across the country for years as schools try to boost faculty diversity and help students from all backgrounds succeed.

These offices often coordinate mentorships, tutoring, programs to boost the number of underrepresented groups in fields like science and engineering, and efforts to increase diversity among faculty. They help departments cast a wide net when searching for job candidates and ensure that universities dont violate federal discrimination laws.

House Democrats lamented that the legislation rolls back progress and jeopardizes investments the state has made in its universities. Those who support such offices argue that removing them or weakening their influence will make schools less welcoming places to work and study, turn back efforts to correct past discrimination and stall progress to make public universities' student populations better reflect state demographics.

This legislation is telling us that Texans fear diversity, said Rep. Victoria Neave Criado, D-Dallas. This legislation shows us that folks are so afraid of inclusive practices at public universities that they're willing to go as far as deep funding or public universities.

But Kuempel argued that these offices are not helping to achieve the diversity everyone claims to want.

There is virtually no evidence that DEI programs have closed the gap in terms of minority student outcomes, minority recruitment and faculty hiring, Kuempel told members when he laid out his version of the Senate bill, which attempted to expand the situations in which a university could have a DEI program.

Critics also accuse DEI programs of pushing what they characterize as left-wing ideology onto students and faculty and say that these programs prioritize social justice over merit and achievement.

Texas university students have rejected that criticism.

I think they are upset with the fact that people who have historically been marginalized are getting opportunities that people who have been from majority groups have been getting forever, said Sameeha Rizvi, a student at the University of Texas at Austin who has been organizing against the legislation. So it just feels like a political attack on a very real entity that is meant to help all students.

The compromising amendment offered to end the debate late Friday was not the only change lawmakers made to the House version of the bill.

Earlier in the debate, Kuempel also successfully introduced an amendment that clarifies the legislation bans DEI offices that promote differential treatment, and ensures all hiring initiatives are color-blind and sex neutral.

Kuempels first amendment was an attempt to beat back an attempt from a fellow Republican, Rep. Matt Schaefer of Tyler, to restore language written by the Senate.

The legislation now says any DEI policies, training or programs must be approved by university lawyers or the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and requires the state to audit the universities once every four years. If a school is found to violate the bill, they have 180 days to fix the issue or risk losing state funding. It also allows students and employees to sue a university that violates this law.

It also replaced the changes Kuempel had originally made to the Senate bill that would allow for DEI programs to comply with federal grants and accrediting agencies. Instead, it says that when applying for grants or complying with an accrediting agency, an employee can submit statements that highlight work in supporting first-generation college students, low-income students or underserved student populations.

The House approved that amendment, but Democrats continued to hammer away with additional amendments until Republicans found a way to amend the bill to their liking.

As originally introduced, the Senate version would have required universities to close their diversity offices, ban mandatory diversity training and restrict hiring departments from asking for diversity statements, essays in which job applicants talk about their commitments or efforts to build diverse campuses. When the Senate voted out its version of the bill, members added an amendment that the legislation would not affect course instruction, faculty research, student organizations, guest speakers, data collection or admissions.

Faculty have repeatedly warned lawmakers throughout the legislative session that if this bill passes, it might put state universities at risk of losing federal and private grants because they often require applicants to show how they are considering diversity and equity in their work.

On Thursday, Democrats successfully delayed the debate on the Houses version of a bill meant to change how faculty tenure works at public universities using a point of order that argued the bill analysis was misleading. The House Higher Education Committee has already voted that bill out of committee again, but it has not yet been scheduled to return to the House floor. Senate bills must receive preliminary approval from the House by Tuesday.

Disclosure: University of Texas at Austin has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Tickets are on sale now for the 2023 Texas Tribune Festival, happening in downtown Austin on Sept. 21-23. Get your TribFest tickets by May 31 and save big!

More:
Texas House approves bill that would ban public universities DEI ... - The Texas Tribune

Editors Note: This is the first of a two-part report on the May 16 Board of Education meeting, focusing primarily on the actions and discussion among board members present.

The Board of Education did not successfully address challenges requesting removal of the graphic novels Flamer and Blankets during its May 16 meeting. This was due to numerous tie votes over motions and amendments offered by board members present, which for this meeting was comprised of six members.

In anticipation of a larger crowd, the meeting was held in the Newtown High School cafetorium instead of at the municipal center. That relocated meeting was preceded by a rally organized by the Newtown Democratic Town Committee.

The rally, which drew dozens of participants, was organized to show support for retaining previously challenged books that are under consideration for removal from the Newtown High School library.

Once the meeting convened, it was announced that Board Member Donald Ramsey was absent due to a serious personal issue, according to Board Member Janet Kuzma. Kuzma proposed the board postpone the vote again in light of Ramseys absence, a motion then unanimously rejected by board members.

At that point, the board resumed discussion of the books on the agenda, and the unanimous recommendation of a special review committee that unanimously endorsed keeping both books on the Newtown High School shelves.

The special review committee was by policy only able to vote yes or no The policy gives no limitations on the Board [of Educations] standard practices regarding action taken, said Board of Education Chair Deborra Zukowski, in her opening statement regarding Flamer.

Board Member Dan Cruson said one of his key takeaways from the special review committees report was neither of the challenged books would be considered legally obscene according to the Miller Test, established in the 1973 Supreme Court Case Miller v California. If a work cannot pass the Miller Test, it is not protected speech by the First Amendment of the Constitution.

We had been advised by council previously that this would be an important justification for the removal as well as defending against potential legal challenges that come if we make such a decision, said Cruson. Cruson went on to detail his analysis of how each work in question did not meet the three qualifiers of obscenity during the discussion about Flamer and the discussion about Blankets respectively.

He said if the books are removed, he assumed there will be a legal battle regarding inappropriate removal and the board will lose after spending a lot of time and money.

Kuzma then proposed to retain Flamer, with the caveat that students age 16 and under would require written consent by a parent or guardian. She said this will allow parents to be made aware of the content first.

I am not violating First Amendment rights as I am not voting to suppress ideas but rather evaluate the methods in which they are taught, said Kuzma, who added she also sought legal advice and believes the book to contain sexually explicit material.

She said she is not anti-LGBTQ, and not one public comment had objected to the LGBTQ theme.

Its time we acknowledge this is not the reason for this concern. Its why we arent seeing 23 objections, said Kuzma. She was citing the number of LGBTQ books, according to her, that one can find in the catalog at the high school.

She said she is elected to represent many voices, and asked the board to consider the implications of completely ignoring the parents on one side of this issue.

Larkin supported the amendment and agreed the books do contain sexually explicit content, and urged board members to consider a compromise.

Cruson said he appreciated the attempt at a compromise, a sentiment that would be echoed by Board Member Alison Plante. Cruson said the idea of parents to opt-in to Flamer is shaky legal ground, and when it comes to sexual education and cultural enrichment events, parents arent asked to opt-in.

Motion: Too Restrictive

Plante suggested Kuzmas motion was too restrictive, later saying she is depending on the unanimous recommendation of the special review committee and the superintendent to keep the books in the library.

Plante and Board Member John Vouros both commented on existing mechanisms that serve as parental controls to limit access to certain materials in school. Mechanisms they detailed included opting-out of library books, and requesting their child be exempt from participating in a class where they are at risk of hearing or seeing something objectionable to parents.

Let the parents decide so we can move on, said Vouros. Its all about the children, and youve heard them, youve listened to them. They know best.

I cant support thinking that anybody in this district should be making decisions for other peoples children unless parents have given you that consent to do so, said Larkin.

Kuzma said, the parents dont know these books exist, and therefore they cannot opt-in. She said her concern was that kids could thumb-through books at the library without parental knowledge. This is a concept Zukowski would later reference as Ramseys core concern one he discussed at a previous meeting.

I cannot believe that they would just walk in there, take a book off the shelf, when they have this [smartphone] which is so much more graphic than anything you have in that library, said Vouros about high schoolers.

Some parents are very strict about what they allow their kids to see on their [mobile] phones, said Kuzma in her response.

Zukowski said she agrees that Flamer is not obscene or pornographic, but said the book does include explicit sexual content. She said one scene was a full scene of masturbation, which fits the definition of sexually explicit.

She said she received a letter from a high schooler who said she goes to the library during her free periods. There is a lot of information I think would be relevant that the process does not give us access to, said Zukowski.

Zukowski said as far as she knows, the districts wifi system filters out sexual images, which was contested by multiple students and community members who said they had successfully tried searching for sexually explicit content at the meeting during the second public participation.

She returned to her concern about age-appropriateness from a prior meeting, and referenced a group she identified as the Graphic Novels and Comics Roundtable, which she said has over 1,000 members around the world and is associated with the American Libraries Association.

According to Zukowski, the roundtable group put the recommended age for Flamer at 17 and above, and cited that as a reason why she does not feel it is appropriate for young children, 13, or 14 years old. Cruson countered that there is no organization all publishers voluntarily participate in and there is no universal rating system for books and graphic novels.

Zukowski asked whether there were books that could provide comparable value that do not include sexual content, which Assistant Superintendent Anne Uberti said was a difficult question to answer, and that would take library media specialists an extensive amount of time to review.

The overriding opinion ... particularly with Flamer, was it tells a unique autobiographical story that fits the time that we live in and would be helpful to students, said Uberti.

Compromise Amendments

A motion to retain Flamer on the shelves with the 16 and under caveat failed as Kuzma, Larkin, and Zukowski voted in favor and Plante, Vouros, and Cruson were opposed. Larkin then proposed an amendment requiring written consent for students ages 15 and under.

I dont want to remove the book, but we need to come to a compromise, said Larkin, citing those who have concerns about the content of the graphic novel. I didnt hear many voices even acknowledge those concerns, she added.

As Ms Kuzma said, we do represent all of the community, and for us to be completely dismissive of the people who had concerns and not problem-solve for them is not something Im willing to do, Larkin said, adding she would like to leave with a decision and expressed that a compromise was necessary.

Vouros proposed keeping the books but forming a committee of parents and educators who are both pro and con to discuss age restrictions.

We had a committee, it gave us a decision, said Plante, who said she appreciates the spirit of compromise.

What Im uncomfortable with is the board wading into an operational area over which we dont have responsibility, said Plante, who added they have hired administrators to deal with operational matters.

Im actually really comfortable with it being 15 [years of age]; I couldnt defend 15 as a starting point Its a much easier defense at 16 as the age of consent, said Larkin.

Cruson said he is uncomfortable with an opt-in process, that age wont make a difference to him, and he agrees with Plante.

The motion to amend on the 15 and under idea failed with the same split, prompting Larkin to ask those who voted against if there was a compromise they were comfortable with, that was not part of an existing mechanism, and that acknowledges there is sexually explicit content and extreme vulgarity in Flamer.

She asked why they would make materials available to students with the vulgarity level she noted, to which an audience member said First Amendment.

There are off-ramps in the First Amendment which I think a lot of peoples legal advice didnt tell them because it didnt suit their narrative, so Im not particularly worried about the First Amendment, said Larkin, which prompted a reaction from some audience members.

Zukowski called to clear the room besides the press, then changed her mind while members of the crowd voiced they were adamant to stay. She called for the audience members to act civilly.

Larkin said, to clarify, that she does care about the First Amendment, and part of the legal advice the board received around the First Amendment did have off-ramps when sexually explicit content and extreme vulgarity were introduced.

I dont want to pull the books, I just dont think its age-appropriate at a younger age, said Larkin, who again asked for compromise from other board members, questioning if they were voting in a block.

Vouros said what he goes back to is the trust parents will know best what is right for their child and says he can work with parents if they need help as he is qualified. If it doesnt work, we can revisit, said Vouros.

I dont know if there is a compromise other than what already exists. I just havent heard one yet, said Cruson. Im not saying I am fully opposed to one, but an opt-in is not something I am comfortable with, so if it is another age opt-in, no, I would not support the motion.

Opaque Procedures

If theres a compromise that can make sure they can limit access to it for their kids while leaving open access to all of the other students, I could see my way clear to agree, said Cruson, who referenced he understood there were already procedures in place.

Zukowski said the procedures were in place somewhat opaquely.Uberti then clarified this policy.

There is an opportunity for parents to reach out to library media specialists regarding different issues with books. To be fair, that has never been something that we have used for this purpose, said Uberti.

Uberti said if a fourth grader reads too many graphic novels, a parent may ask the library media specialist to encourage them to read something else. She said a compromise may be to allow parents to provide a list of books they would like their children not to be allowed access to in the library.

It would be interesting to see how many high school parents come up with lists of books. If we have hundreds of lists of books, we have a problem. If we have two, we have hopefully satisfied those parents concerns, said Uberti.

This is a compromise at the policy level. For these two particular books, no list is necessary, said Zukowski.

What we can do is say I move to amend the motion by adding parents who wish their children not to access Flamer provide written notification to the library media specialists at the high school, Zukowski said, and Uberti asked her to specify checking it out as they cannot monitor access.

Kuzma expressed she is still uncomfortable with the amendment, and the motion to retain the book Flamer at the Newtown High School library failed along the same party line split. The same motion failed for the retention of Blankets after further discussion of that work.

Plante said she doesnt believe consensus is achievable, nor was it a priority for the Board of Education.

One groups preferences and rights cannot infringe on the rights of others, said Plante. She brought up that the books are not part of the curriculum, and that Flamer has never been checked out at the library, and Blankets hadnt been checked out for eight years.

Plante referenced some of the book challengers asserting that exposure to the books would create emotional disturbance, sexual misdemeanors, and poor coping skills in children. She said she asked a high school crisis counselor, who advised her she could not recall any instances of any student she has counseled who said they were influenced by a book and thats not how it happens.

Plante said books may actually have a protective effect for teens with suicidal ideation, compensating for a lack of social or family support if the reader can identify with the book and quoted a study from International Journal for Environmental Research and Public Health to corroborate this.

Plante cited the special review committees observations about the resiliency of the protagonist in Flamer, and agreed the books are not obscene.

These books, when taken as a whole, do have substantial literary value as evidenced by the numerous awards theyve won, she said, adding that it was the unanimous decision of the committee, making the boards decision very clear.

Our default position must be that books are good, and we should move toward more access, and not less, said Plante, who referenced different parts of the special review committees report in support of her viewpoint.

Removing books or putting them on a restricted shelf can create stigma around a topic and stifle conversations, she said.

Cruson moved that the Board of Education accept the recommendation of the special review committee, which was rejected with the same 3-3 split. According to Zukowski who said she got advice from a lawyer ties mean no action could be taken.

We will have to have another meeting where we may or may not be able to take action, said Zukowski. Melillo confirmed her assessment.

Without consensus, the books remain status quo, but we have not completed the policy as it is laid out, said Melillo, who added that legal advice was to have another board meeting to come to a consensus.

No motions were added, and the second public participation session began.

Full reporting on both sessions of public participation will appear in the May 26 print edition of The Newtown Bee, and online at newtownbee.com.

Reporter Noelle Veillette can be reached at noelle@thebee.com.

Three generations of Newtown residents including these two plucky unidentified advocates were among nearly 100 who turned out, many toting signs ahead of a Board of Education meeting May 16 at Newtown High School. The rally was organized by the local Democratic Town Committee to support a district library book review panel that unanimously recommended retaining the books Flamer and Blankets, which are under consideration for removal by the school board. Bee Photo, Glass

From left, Superintendent of Schools Chris Melillo, Board of Educations Chair Deborra Zukowski, and board members John Vouros, Dan Cruson, Janet Kuzma, Jennifer Larkin, and Alison Plante are pictured during the May 16 meeting in the Newtown High School cafetorium. Bee Photo, Veillette

James Gaston, a long-time local Democratic leader, speaks before a rally that drew about 100 supporters to Newtown High School before a May 16 Board of Education meeting during which deliberations were expected to conclude regarding the possible removal of two controversial books from the high school library. Bee Photos, Glass

Chair Deborra Zukowski and Board Member John Vouros are pictured during a discussion about the graphic novel Flamer. Bee Photo, Veillette

Former Board of Education chair and current Legislative Council member Michelle Embree Ku is pictured speaking during the May 16 rally outside Newtown High School. Former school board chair Keith Alexander also attended and spoke supporting keeping the books Flamer and Blankets on the NHS library shelves.

Daniel Grossman was among attendees at the pre-meeting rally, and then attended and spoke during the Board of Educations public participation segment.

Read this article:
BOE Ties On All Motions, Amendments Along Party Lines: Still No ... - The Newtown Bee

STAFF REPORT

Nancy West, the founder and Executive Editor of InDepthNH.org, will be the recipient of the Michael Donoghue Freedom of Information Award given by the New England First Amendment Coalition (NEFAC) on June 1 in Boston.

The award is given each year to a journalist or team of journalists for a body of work that protects or advances the publics right to know. The FOI Award is named for Michael Donoghue, who worked for more than 40 years at the Burlington Free Press and previously served on NEFACs board of directors. He has been an adjunct professor of journalism and mass communications at St. Michaels College in Colchester, Vt., since 1985.

Previous years recipients of the award include the Worcester Telegram & Gazette last year for its efforts that involved a multi-year legal battle against the Worcester Police Department for access to internal affairs reports; the Bangor Daily News in 2021 for its investigation into the misconduct of police and corrections officers in Maine that led to at least three legislative proposals to institute more oversight over law enforcement in the state; and in 2020, Hearst Connecticut Media Group, which spent six months digging through 1,600 pages of public documents and filing more than 100 public record requests to investigate abuse allegations connected to the Boys & Girls Clubs.

Wests award is for continuing to persevere in journalism at a time when financial insecurity is threatening local newsrooms across the country. She is simultaneously serving as an investigative reporter and lead fundraiser for InDepthNH.org, which has grown to more than 2 million pageviews a year. Wests reporting last year included stories on the death of a mentally-ill inmate and the need for transparency within his prison, the lack of response by public officials to two tragedies involving homeless women, and this year to the secrecy surrounding a car crash involving a Portsmouth Police Department employee.

The founder of the New Hampshire Center for Public Interest Journalism, the nonprofit corporation that operates InDepthNH.org, West spent 30 years as a reporter for the New Hampshire Union Leader, eschewed retirement and began the nonprofit online news organization eight years ago. The centers mission is to help keep those in power accountable and to give voice to marginalized communities.

As Bob Charest, chairman of the New Hampshire Center for Public Interest Journalism board of directors, explains: Wests supposed retirement consists of juggling many important stories at a time, fundraising for a fledgling independent nonprofit news site, and chasing people who sometimes dont want to talk to her. Theres a good chance that a lifetime of investigative reporting work by West has not made her the most popular person in the room, but it has resulted in change and many marginalized people receiving fair treatment and favorable outcomes.

The New England First Amendment Coalition will present the award during the 13th annual New England First Amendment Awards ceremony on June 1. The invitation-only event will be held at Tuscan Kitchen Seaport in Boston.

Also being honored will be former Boston Globe Editor Brian McGrory, current chair of the Boston University journalism department, who will receive the 2023 Stephen Hamblett First Amendment Award.

Portland, Maine, resident Susan Hawes will receive the Antonia Orfield Citizenship Award for her successful public records battle against Cumberland County in Maine.The award is given to an individual who has fought for information crucial to the publics understanding of its community or its government.

Hawes engaged in a protracted battle for information about the Cumberland County Jail and its employment practices. When she learned of a car accident in 2019 involving a county jail employee who fell asleep at the wheel after working two consecutive 16-hour shifts, Hawes began filing Freedom of Access Act requests with the county to obtain overtime records for its corrections officers. Hawes, whose husband also worked at jail, knew first-hand the unreasonable demands placed upon the officers and became determined to hold the commissioners accountable.

See the original post here:
InDepthNH Founder Nancy West To Receive Freedom of ... - InDepthNH.org

If theres one thing Galesburg City Council members and the mayor can agree on, its that they cant agree on much.

A divided governmental body isnt necessarily a rarity, or always a bad thing. But theres a feeling among some Galesburg aldermen and Mayor Peter Schwartzman that the divide is becoming too wide at Galesburg City Hall.

Although there were some glimmers of working together at Mondays City Council meeting, accusatorial rhetoric continued to flow, and fingers were pointed literally.

Ive been on the Council for 14 years, and followed it for many years before that, and never in my life have I seen a more divided Council EVER, said Second Ward Alderman Wayne Dennis. I just dont know what to say.

I think the constant division is slowing down city business.

Seventh Ward Alderman Steve Cheesman has been on the Council for just two meetings, but sees the conflict. Cheesman ran on a platform of trying to unite the Council and urged his fellow council members to try narrow the divide at Mondays meeting.

There are some strained relationships that are centered around a lack of trust, as well some hurt feelings, Cheesman said Thursday. Those are some things were going to have to work through.

I think all of us will try to put the best interest of the city at the forefront as we go forward. We have to work together and find common ground, and learn to compromise on the issues in front of us. We have to put things behind us, and start anew.

We cannot afford to continue down a beaten and broken path. We owe it to all of Galesburg to make peace. Galesburg Mayor Peter Schwartzman

Schwartzman made an impassioned plea to at least ignite the healing process during his closing comments Monday, offering to shake the hand of each council member for what he termed an olive branch for peace.

My specific comments were not premeditated but obviously the recent friction between councilors, me and the city administration is on my mind all the time, said the first-term mayor and before that, longtime Ward 5 alderman.

As I alluded to in the meeting, in any relationship one runs into challenging times. However, if the parties want the relationship to be sustained, they must make peace sometime. We cannot afford to continue down a beaten and broken path. We owe it to all of Galesburg to make peace.

Ironically, Schwartzmans plea for peace just as Mondays lengthy and tense council meetings were ready to wrap up was interrupted by a verbal exchange between an audience member and an alderman.

In front of a still crowded council chambers and broadcast live on local cable TV and streamed online on the city website, Ward 3 alderman Dwight White took offense to an obscene gesture directed to him by Michael Acerra the husband of Fifth Ward council member Heather Acerra.

White left his seat, yelled get him out of here several times and demanded Acerra be barred from future meetings. White started to approach Acerra before being restrained by audience members and Police Chief Russ Idle.

Before the altercation, White had twice called out Acerra for rolling his eyes at him.

When contacted by WGIL, Acerra confirmed he made two different obscene gestures directed at White. Acerra said he offered an apology to White after the meeting, and later sent a written apology to Schwartzman.

I deeply regretted that I had lost my composure and that I had lashed out and upset the proceedings and what I thought were terrific conciliatory comments by the mayor, Acerra said. Both gentlemen were very gracious and accepted my apology.

White, too said he regrets his actions.

I neglected to remember one of the things I want to fight for are his First Amendment rights, White said. Everybody has First Amendment rights to free speech, and (Acerra) has First Amendment rights.

His gesture might have been offensive to me, but that falls within his First Amendment rights. So, I should honor that, whether I liked it, or not. And moving forward, I will DEFINITELY honor that.

White confirmed Acerra apologized to him after the closed session Monday, adding I told him, hey, everythings cool. Everything is fine. Dont worry about it.

Schwartzman said the altercation was an event that cannot be repeated, adding the audience must show respect to elected leaders even if they dont agree with them on certainissues. The mayor also said council members should have better ways to address disrespect.

Legal questions: Why did local law firm quit? Why does Galesburg Council need legislative counsel?

The April election resulted in three new council members Evan Miller in Ward 3, Heather Acerra in Ward 5 and Cheesman in Ward 7 and so far has resulted in an apparent shift of majority votes on the Council.

Accusations of collusion and secret meetings have be alleged by both Schwartzman and White.

White addressed the issue at Mondays meeting, and again in a Thursday interview with WGIL.

How many times did you hear them say WE? White said. WE did this or WE did that. I wasnt included in the WE. If theyre going to leave people out of the conversation, how do you think those people are going to feel? Its that simple. They didnt consult me, or Sarah Davis.

If they are putting together an agenda and its just obvious that they are how would you feel?

Whats next for the Downtown Depot? City Council authorizes lease negotiations

Votes often resulted in 4-3 outcomes with the previous Council, however White said there was never any kind of concerted effort by himself, Sarah Davis and former council members Jaclyn Smith-Esters or Kevin Wallace to vote the same way.

Schwartzman said, I am tired of the bickering. I am tired of the activity of a shadow Council, where a select group of councilors are communicating amongstthemselves and not with me or other councilors.

I ran as mayor to move Galesburg to a better place. Petty squabbles and clogged or privileged communication channels will only hurt our city.

More civil public input or restricting freedom of speech? Galesburg Council considers changes to public comment

Cheesman denied theres a collusion effort and said he believes the accusation is somewhat overblown.

I can see where thats coming from, but I also dont believe there was an intent to ever shut folks out of the decision-making process, Cheesman said. A number of us are new, and there are going to be some missteps along the way. And well learn from them.

But I do truly believe, from talking to everyone, that theres a sincere interest in working together and listening to each other. Were just going through some rough patches right now.

The next time the Council will sit together is at Mondays work session which could be another contentious meeting when changes to public participation rules will be a topic.

White, who said hes going to do more listening and less talking, hopes the Council can start to come together.

Im going to look at the man in the mirror, and thats me, he said. I cant control anyone else, all I have control over is myself. So, Im starting with me.

But we do need to come about some peace. I can get along with anybody. I dont have to be your best friend, but I can work with anybody.

Asked if the Council can put aside some of its differences, Dennis said, You know what? I dont know. We just need to see if we can all come together, which I sure hope happens.

Go here to see the original:
'We owe it to all of Galesburg to make peace.' Can a deeply divided ... - WGIL Radio News

In a bygone era, Americans could be confident that conservatives, like the former General Electric pitchman Ronald Reagan, were friendlier to corporations than their ideological opponents, and that the most aggressive efforts to rein in corporate power were coming from the left.

Today, the relationship that the American left and right each have with Big Business is different. When corporations advance voting rights or acceptance of gays and lesbians, or oppose racism or laws that restrict the ability of trans people to use the bathroom where they feel most comfortable, many progressives are happy to see corporate power exerted as a counter to majorities in state legislatures or even views held by a majority of voters in red states. And some Republicans who pass socially conservative measures into law, like Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida, have responded to corporate opposition with retaliatory rhetoric and actions that cast dissenting corporate speech as illegitimate and antidemocratic.

From the May 2023 issue: How did Americas weirdest, most freedom-obsessed state fall for an authoritarian governor?

These changing relationships to corporate power are shaped by the lefts increasing focus on race and gender relative to class and by the rise of populism on the right. They also reflect the never-ending push and pull between public and private power that is found in all healthy free societies. Politicians on both sides of the aisle sometimes get overzealous in the behavior they try to restrict. Though the right and the left both lose sight of this whenever a company takes a stand they dont like, non-state actorsincluding corporationsplay an important role in tempering excesses of the state. Absent such counterweights to state power, liberty would be at greater risk.

The right has long understood the value of corporate speech when defending free markets and economic liberty. The left now appreciates it more clearly on social issues.

To understand all that has recently changed, recall the world as it looked during President Barack Obamas first term. Before Black Lives Matter or the #MeToo movement or mainstream support for trans rights or the push for diversity, equity, and inclusion bureaucracies, Occupy Wall Street was the focus of grassroots energy on the left. Bernie Sanders, the senator most aligned with that protest movement, introduced a constitutional amendment with radical implications. Constitutional rights are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, it declared in part. On the contrary, corporations are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process, it continued, so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.

Sanderss attempt to end corporate influence on politics by stripping corporations of free-speech rights was a response to the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, which said that First Amendment rights extend to corporations. If the First Amendment has any force, the majority held, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

Many progressives were furious about Citizens United. If corporations have the same free-speech rights as people, the decisions opponents argued, they will be free to marshal power and resources far greater than most people to influence American democracy, calling the integrity of government by the people into question. Conservatives, in turn, argued that corporations were invariably made up of many people, just like labor unions and think tanks and foundations and institutions of higher education. Why should the state have more power to censor associations of people than individuals?

Of course, Sanders and his allies never came close to amending the Constitution and overturning Citizens United. But if they had, I wonder how the left would feel about the change now, as Republican politicians go after companies that take progressive stands.

This brings us back to one of the most powerful state officials opposed to progressivism, DeSantis, who pushed the Parental Rights in Education Act through the Florida legislature last year. Progressives called it a Dont Say Gay bill and were upset with Disney, the most powerful corporation in Florida, for declining to use its power in the fight against the bill. Blasted by progressive activists, socially liberal employees, and left-of-center journalists and celebrities, who objected to the corporations disinclination to influence the political process, Disney reversed course. The company declared that it would use its corporate speech to advocate for the laws repeal while giving millions of dollars to political opponents of the law.

DeSantis was apoplectic, responding as if corporate political advocacy and political giving were affronts to representative democracy. Youre a corporation based in Burbank, California, and youre gonna marshal your economic might to attack the parents of my state, DeSantis said, sounding a bit like Sanders. We view that as a provocation, and were going to fight back against that.

Thus began a campaign by DeSantis to retaliate against Disney for its political speech. That retaliation ultimately caused Disney to file a lawsuit alleging a violation of the First Amendment rights that the corporation enjoys, rights affirmed in that 2010 Citizens United decisionrights that Sanders and others tried and failed to strip from corporations. Because Sanders failed, the GOP is far more limited now in how much it can constrain what the right calls woke capital. Just like woke persons, woke corporations have free-speech rights (and the right to shift jobs away from any state where the political leadership is not to their liking).

And if the Disney lawsuit goes to the Supreme Court, many progressives will be rooting for the corporations victoryrooting, in effect, for the Citizens United precedent to standin part because the most common progressive view in 2023 is not that corporations should stay out of the American political process but that corporations are obligated to intervene on the side of progressives. As Joni Madison, then the interim president of the Human Rights Campaign, one of the largest LGBTQ-advocacy organizations in the United States, put it during the legislative fight in Florida, We need Disneys partnership in getting the bills heading to DeSantiss desk vetoed. And if that doesnt happen, to get these bills repealed. But this is not just about Bob Chapek [then the CEO of Disney] and Disney. This is about every CEO and company in America.

Edward Wasserman: My newspaper sued Florida for the same First Amendment abuses Desantis is committing now

Progressive nonprofit corporations are wildly successful at lobbying their corporate cousins on some issues. In 2016, the business community largely opposed a North Carolina bill that sought to restrict which bathrooms trangender people could use. In 2021, as Republican-controlled state legislatures sought new restrictions on voting, hundreds of companies, including Amazon, Coca-Cola, and General Motors, publicly opposed the GOP. Meanwhile, as The New York Times reported, Senior Republicans, including former President Donald J. Trump and Senator Mitch McConnell, have called for companies to stay out of politics. Of course, even when progressives applaud and conservatives denounce corporate influence on a particular issue, politicians from both ideological camps continue to eagerly seek and accept corporate contributions.

None of this is to say that the right and left have completely switched places. There are many issues on which the GOP remains more aligned with corporate interests and many elected Republicans who remain sympathetic to corporate power. But neither coalition is reliably aligned with or opposed to the power of corporations. The relationship, on both sides, tends to be issue-specific, transactional, and opportunistic, with the left more likely to be closely aligned on social issues and the right more likely to be aligned on fiscal issues.

Principled stands against all corporate influence are few.

Take corporate influence on the education system. As recently as 2016, leftist outlets like AlterNet that were sounding the alarm when the Walmart Family Foundation exerted money and influence to change the public-education system, particularly when it supported the often right-coded solution of charter schools. Today, however, Walmart and the nonprofits associated with it are using their money and influence to support the expansion of left-coded diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in Arkansas schools, according to the right-leaning Washington Free Beacon, which is raising concerns, even as most progressives dont seem to mind.

Corporations wield cultural power, too, apart from electoral contests and legislative fights. And there, too, the left and right coalitions are adopting noticeably different postures than before.

Consider the past and present of major beer brands.

In the late 1960s and 1970s, labor disputes at Coors Brewing and opposition to the conservative politics of the Coors family fueled a beer boycott that lasted into the 80s.

Womens groups are joining labor unions, Chicanos and homosexuals in an informal but increasingly powerful boycott, the Copley News Service reported in March 1978. Though the National Organization of Women is not participating in the anti-Coors campaign, local chapters of NOW are carrying Dont Drink Coors banners in their newsletters.

By the mid-80s the company worked to end the boycott by making concessions to the left. The boycott stirred up negative feelings for a long time, and the job now is to wipe them away, Peter H. Coors, then president of the Coors brewery division, told the Los Angeles Times. Who wants to drink a beer when the guy on the next bar stool might say, The people who make that beer are anti-union, or anti-this or that?

The beer industry, especially its advertising, was a common target of feminist critique that same decade. By the 90s, such critiques of sexism in beer advertising were sufficiently common and well known for The Simpsons to spoof the conflict in a 1993 episode. As recently as 2015, Anheuser-Busch was under fire from feminist critics for its Up for Whatever campaign, which included the slogan The perfect beer for removing no from your vocabulary for the night on bottle labels.

Across all those years, a premise of the feminist critiques was: Beer advertising matters in that it shapes American culture. And those critiques got results. In 2016, The New York Times reported that beer companies were moving away from misogynistic advertising messages. It was fine to show a frat party making fun of girls five or eight years ago, a brand consultant told the Times. But its ineffective and potentially damaging to do today. In March of this year, at Forbes, Jeanette Hurt wrote that Miller Lite had launched a new campaign to collect sexist advertisements and turn it into compost to grow hops for women brewers.

In April, Bud Light partnered with the transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney in a social-media promotion. Some conservative commentators and celebrities began calling for a boycott, The New York Times reported soon after. The conservative boycotters believed that beer ads matter in that they shape American cultureand they, too, got results. The Times wrote, After Bud Lights sales slumped and the brand found itself thrust into the nations culture wars, Anheuser-Busch, the beers brewer, announced last week that two of its executives were taking a leave of absence. The company also said on Thursday that it would focus its marketing campaigns on sports and music.

I have tended to believe that beer advertisements pander to existing attitudes in society rather than shaping future attitudes, so I dont know if this change in Bud Lights marketing strategy really matters. But some on the right consider it a major victory. Im not sure if most people fully appreciate the significance of this Bud Light stuff, the socially conservative, anti-transgender-rights commentator Matt Walsh declared. We made an iconic American brand toxic, virtually overnight, because it endorsed gender ideology. This is a pivotal moment. A map to follow going forward.

What are the next 10 years likely to bring in the lefts and rights relationship with corporations? Id wager that corporations will continue to side with progressives and against democratic majorities on some social issues, even as they continue making campaign contributions to many Republicans.

As Josh Barro once explained at Business Insider, Free markets are not small-d democratic. Some consumers matter more than others. That is to say, many corporations want to attract consumers who are young and affluent, two demographics that are trending progressive on most social issues. And thats why woke capitalism is likely to persist even if its not an effective strategy for getting Democratic lawmakers to stay away from tax increases and new regulations, Barro wrote. As long as companies core customer demographics remain opposed to cultural conservatives on these issues, companies will end up in opposition to cultural conservatismnot as a lobbying strategy, but as a customer retention strategy.

In turn, I suspect that the more those corporations articulate values that Republicans dislike, the more Republican politicians will try to use the power of the state to constrain corporations, even as they themselves keep raising as much as they can from corporate donors. Finally, corporations will sometimes be targeted by both the right and the left, as when conservatives and progressives scrutinize content-moderation policies at big social-media companies.

As the left and right coalitions change their positioning relative to Big Business, it will be temptingperhaps even fruitfulto point out instances of hypocrisy. But those instances should also serve as an opportunity for people on all sides of American politics to better understand why well-meaning fellow citizens have always been on all sides of the questions of if, when, and how corporations should influence Americas political and cultural disagreements. When corporations wield power, they do so undemocratically. They might be acting to advance the interests, values, or opinions of shareholders, their board of directors, their CEO, their employees, or some complicated combination thereof. Regardless, the general public doesnt get a say. And corporations often succeed in influencing government in a way that serves their special interests rather than the general interest. Such rent seeking can fuel unjust inequality. And no matter what stances a corporation takes, there is never a moment when any citizen can go to the ballot box and replace it.

There are good reasons, in other words, to have checks on corporate power. But one can go too far in that direction. Corporations are fundamentally illegitimate, the leftist intellectual Noam Chomsky declared in an interview that appears in the 1998 book Common Good. Just as other oppressive institutionsslavery, say, or royaltyhave been changed or eliminated, so corporate power can be changed or eliminated, Chomsky continued, championing the power of the state. What are the limits? There arent any. Everything is ultimately under public control. The Italian fascists had a similar formulation: everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. But it is actually better for a society if power is not concentrated wholly in the state. A healthy society has many power centers, including undemocratic ones like churches, media outlets, universities, fraternal organizations, and, yes, corporations.

None of those alternative repositories of power are fully unaccountable.

For-profit corporations are all accountable to consumers and all corporations are subject to lawsbut also benefit from the limits on state power set forth in the Constitution. The Obama administration could not force Hobby Lobby to fund contraceptives for its employees because of the companys religious-freedom rights. The Trump administration could not force Nike to nix relations with athletes who kneeled during the national anthem because of that companys free-association rights. Such limits on the state enable America to have a thriving civil society and a private sector that generates wealth and innovative goods that Americans enjoy as much as Disney World and use as often as Google Search. The result isnt perfect but is better than systems where businesses are powerless to dissent, whether fascism or communism or an alternate America where Senator Sanders and Governor DeSantis could suppress corporate speech. If you dont like the status quo, you can boycott a corporation or start your own.

Read the rest here:
The Lefts Love-Hate Relationship With Corporate Speech - The Atlantic