Mediaboss Marketing

Its easy enough to get on Nevadas ballots if youre a Republican or a Democrat. Its both a little easier and considerably more complicated if youre not.

The easy part, if youre not a Republican or a Democrat and youre running for partisan public office most elected offices youve heard of, like governor or assemblyperson, in other words, plus a few others is you dont have to think about primaries. Those, according to statute, are reserved for what the law calls major political parties the two political parties youve heard of who have won nearly every partisan election in this state since the Silver Party stopped being a going concern during the Taft Administration. Consequently, assuming you meet the minimum requirements to file and serve for public office, you can rest easy, secure in the knowledge your name will be on your voters general election ballots in November.

The harder part, however, depends on how you want to run for partisan office without being a Republican or a Democrat.

If youre planning on running as a nonpartisan candidate as someone without any party affiliation at all for a partisan office, then the law requires you to run as an independent candidate (not to be confused with the Independent American Party). To do so, you either need to get a petition supporting your candidacy signed by 250 voters (if youre running for statewide office), 100 voters (if youre running for county or district office), or one percent of the number of registered voters in your county or district whichever is lesser. In some races in rural Nevada, you might run out of signature lines before you run out of fingers and toes.

If youre planning on running as what is colloquially referred to as a third party candidate, however a minor party candidate, in statutory terms then you better hope your party of choice has ballot access.

***

Creating a political party in Nevada is almost laughably easy. Just write a certificate of existence with the name of your party, the names of its officers, the names of the members of its executive committee, and the name of the person authorized to file the list of candidates for partisan office, then submit it to the Secretary of State.

Its not hard. Heres a free template:

Todays Date

Your Political Party

Certificate of Existence

Nevada Secretary of State

ATTN: Election Division

101 North Carson Street, Suite 3

Carson City, NV 89701

This certificate of existence, pursuant to NRS 293.171, hereby declares the existence of a new political party, named Your Political Party, to the office of the Secretary of State. The First Officer of Your Political Party is Your Name. The Second Officer of Your Political Party is Their Name. The First Officer and Second Officer constitute the Executive Committee of Your Political Party. The person authorized to file the list of candidates for partisan office for Your Political Party is the First Officer, Your Name.

For any questions regarding this submission, please contact First Officer Your Name at Your Phone Number or Your Email Address.

Sincerely,

You

Go ahead copy and paste that into the word processor or text editor of your choice, personalize it a bit, and mail it to the Secretary of State. Tell them The Nevada Independent sent you.

Legally, the only real requirement is plurality since the law says your certificate of existence must have names (plural) of officers (plural), then your new political party must have at least two members. Even that modest requirement was seldom adhered to strictly, however if the Legal Marijuana NOW Nevada Party ever had more than one member when they filed their certificate of existence in 2016, the acting chairperson, treasurer, and secretary never bothered to commit their names to electronic paper.

Getting your new political partys candidates on any of Nevadas ballots, however, is a bit more involved, which is why only two minor parties have succeeded at doing so since 2010. NRS 293.1715 doesnt grant ballot access to just any group of nobodies who send the secretary of state a letter. Instead, it provides minor parties three options to earn and maintain ballot access.

If your party is extremely lucky, at least one percent of Nevadas voters will voluntarily choose to register to vote under your party affiliation if they do, you automatically get to file your candidates for partisan public office. This is why the Independent American Party which has attracted nearly 100,000 very confused voters who think theyre not actually registered with any political party at all will remain on our ballots until either the heat death of the universe, the end of electoral politics in this state, or until someone finally makes them remove Independent from their name.

If your party is moderately lucky, at least one percent of those who vote for a Nevadan congressional candidate will also vote for one of your partys candidates somewhere on their ballot. This could be any of your partys candidates it could be your presidential candidate, it could be a candidate for Clark County District Attorney, or it could even be a Washoe County commissioner candidate. This, with a couple of exceptions well get into shortly, is how the Libertarian Party has kept its candidates on Nevadas ballots since the law was changed in 1993 to require a minor party candidate to receive only one percent of Nevadas congressional votes instead of the three percent originally required in 1987.

One of the exceptions happened because the Libertarian Party was extremely lucky in 2020 none of the partys candidates met this threshold in 2018, but ballot access was maintained because just over one percent of Nevadas voters were registered Libertarian on January 1, 2020. They were considerably less lucky, however, when none of the partys candidates reached the one percent threshold in 2000 and consequently lost ballot access going into 2002.

After the 2000 election, the Libertarian Party had to earn ballot access for its candidates in 2002 the same way the Green Party tried to earn ballot access for itself in 2016 they put together a statewide petition drive. Unlike a nonpartisan candidate, however, they had to collect far more than 250 signatures. A political party without existing ballot access needs at least as many signatures as one percent of the congressional voters in the last election for any of its candidates to show up on a single ballot. Because 1,355,607 Nevadans voted for (or against) a congressional representative in 2020, minor parties without ballot access need to collect at least 13,557 signatures this year and, as many signatures are duplicates or invalid, they should probably collect another 7,000 signatures or so just to be on the safe side.

The deadline for turning those signatures in, by the way, is 10 days before the third Friday of June (June 7, this year), long before most voters are even thinking about an election. If your party doesnt have enough signatures, or if too many of your signatures are thrown into the trash (sorry, Green Party), none of your candidates will make it onto a single Nevadan ballot.

This is where most candidates give up or, more accurately, decide its not worth betting their presence on Nevadas November ballots on the petitioning skills of the Green or Legal Marijuana NOW or whatever other minor party. If a candidate runs as a nonpartisan, they need no more than 250 signatures, and frequently far fewer. Run as a nonpartisan candidate in either an Esmeralda or Lincoln county commission district race and you only need about as many signatures as you have fingers. If you want to run in the same race as a Green Party candidate, you better hope someone can miracle 20,000 signatures or so for you by the beginning of June.

Losing ballot access in Nevada, in other words by failing to have enough registered voters and failing to secure enough votes in an election is catastrophic for minor parties. To overcome the loss, minor parties have to commit to spending tens of thousands of dollars (well in excess of what a minor party can usually expect to raise in a decade) on a statewide petition drive with no guarantee of success. Failing that, they disappear off of the ballot entirely, never to return.

***

The Libertarian Party of Nevada might maybe run the risk of losing ballot access this year.

To understand why, we need to take a look at how the Libertarian Party has secured ballot access for itself in the past:

During presidential years, the Libertarian Party has been incredibly fortunate. Gary Johnson ran some truly impressive campaigns, for a minor party candidate, in 2012 and 2016, and Jo Jorgensen enjoyed a bit of afterglow from those runs in 2020.

Support for the rest of the partys candidates, however, has been lackluster for over a decade.

Part of the problem is Nevadas status as a swing state because every election in Nevada feels like it could go to either major party, both of the major parties are far more likely to run candidates in every partisan race than they were in the past. In 1998, for example, there were no Democratic candidates for secretary of state or treasurer consequently, those who werent interested in voting for Republicans Dean Heller or Brian Krolicki had to either vote for a minor party candidate or vote for None of These Candidates.

Nowadays, however, there are Republicans in every partisan race in the state and Democrats in most of them (except in rural Nevada, where there arent enough voters to reach the necessary threshold to maintain ballot access even if a Libertarian won something for once). Consequently, there are fewer races, like Kim Schjangs run for state Senate against David Parks in 2016, where a Libertarian can get double-digit percentages of the vote in a race by being the only opposing candidate.

The other part of the problem is that Americans are frankly just less likely to vote for minor party candidates than they used to be. From 1980 to 2000, minor party presidential candidates earned over five percent of the popular vote three times once when John Anderson ran in 1980, followed by Ross Perots two runs in 1992 and 1996. Not a single minor party presidential candidate has repeated the feat since Gary Johnsons most successful run, in 2016, only netted him 3.28 percent. Ralph Nader, meanwhile, didnt even earn that much in 2000 he only received 2.74 percent of the popular vote.

Even those modest percentages are enough to secure ballot access in Nevada, however provided the rest of the partys candidates can achieve even that much. Other than its presidential tickets, however, the Libertarian Partys statewide candidates have routinely failed to even reach the necessary 1 percent threshold for over a decade. The last time a non-presidential Libertarian candidate won over 1 percent of Nevadas votes in a statewide race was in 2004, when Thomas L. Hurst ran for Senate. Tim Hagan came closest since then in 2018 during his run for Senate, but he only picked up 0.96 percent. Art Lampitt, Jr. didnt even earn 5,000 votes from his gubernatorial run in 2010 he needed at least another 2,000 votes to reach the necessary threshold.

During non-presidential years, however, there has been a comparatively surefire way for the Libertarian Party to maintain ballot access, at least when the party could be bothered to execute it run someone for a Clark County partisan race.

The reason is mathematics more than 70 percent of Nevadas voters live in Clark County mixed with a greater willingness for voters to vote for a minor party candidate as they get closer to the bottom of their ballots. When a minor party is lucky, they stumble into a two-way race in Nevadas most populous county, like the Libertarian Party did in 2014 when Jim Duensing ran for district attorney against the man who was prosecuting him for resisting arrest at a traffic stop. Even if theyre less lucky, however, like in 2010, minor party candidates for offices like county assessor, county recorder, or public administrator routinely get nearly 2 percent of the vote. That doesnt sound like much, but 2 percent of 70 percent of the states voters works out to 1.4 percent not enough to make much news, but more than enough to secure ballot access and allow your partys candidates to run for office without a petition drive in the subsequent election season.

When the Libertarian Party hasnt thrown someone at a Clark County partisan office during a non-presidential year like 2022 their luck has been pressed to the wall. In 2018, they only kept ballot access because, for the first and last time in state party history, over 1 percent of the registered voters in the state registered as Libertarians they are currently 14 voters shy of that threshold now. In 2006, it took Tom Koziol securing over 5 percent of the vote in his run for Washoe County assessor to reach the necessary 1 percent statewide threshold and he barely made it.

***

The reason I bring all of this up is two-fold.

The first reason is, just like in 2018, the Libertarian Party of Nevada chose not to run anyone for a Clark County-wide partisan office. Theyre not even running anyone for a Washoe County-wide partisan office. The closest theyre coming to running anyone that far down-ballot is a Clark County commissioner candidate (not a single one of those has ever secured ballot access for the Libertarian Party) and a Washoe County commissioner candidate (one of those somehow actually did keep the Libertarian Partys ballot access alive Ernest Walker pulled the improbable off in a two-way race for county commissioner in 1996). Instead, theyre running candidates in every statewide race, from senator and governor to controller races which, historically, the party has historically struggled to get more than a few thousand votes in.

Additionally, only one race Darby Lee Burns candidacy against Richard McArthur (R-Las Vegas) in Assembly District 4 is a two-way race. Securing ballot access from an Assembly race isnt impossible Nate Santucci received enough votes to secure ballot access in his run for Assembly District 22 in 2008 but its not exactly probable. Despite earning nearly 40 percent of the vote and running a comparatively energetic campaign, by minor party candidate standards, Dennis Hof still fell 100 votes short of the necessary threshold when he ran against James Oscarson in 2016.

If a single paper candidate a candidate who paid the filing fee and then disappeared for the rest of the year filed for Clark County clerk before the filing deadline, that candidate would be in a three-way race at the bottom of the ballot where a few extra voters will happily vote for a minor party candidate because the stakes are, in their minds, nonexistent. Instead, the partys ballot access fortunes likely rest upon two three-way statewide races the attorney general race, which is likely to be high profile this year (and, consequently, one voters are less likely to vote for minor party candidates) and the race for controller, which might maybe have a low enough profile in Nevadas voters minds for a few thousand voters to vote for a Libertarian while they vote for major party candidates farther up their ballots.

Maybe.

The second reason is admittedly personal. I used to be a member of the Libertarian Party of Nevada, and while I was one, I was usually in a position to strongly influence where we filed our candidates (unlike major parties, minor parties in Nevada actually get to pick and choose who runs under their banner and where). In 2018, however, my colleagues, who were flush with confidence following Gary Johnsons unprecedented success in 2016, talked us out of running any paper candidates for a Clark County-wide partisan office we were, you see, beyond running paper candidates and worrying about ballot access.

In retrospect, we were most certainly not.

After 2018, I started to wonder if I was sinking my energies into something which did some long-term good, or if I was just wasting my time. Two years later, I developed severe ideological differences with some of the new activists and leaders who joined after the pandemic and grew increasingly dissatisfied with the systemic dysfunction of the national party. Finally, tired of spending time on a project I no longer believed in anymore, I left the Libertarian Party.

Even so, even with all of the differences Ive developed with the party through the years, I spent over a decade organizing and running for office with the party to, if not succeed on my or our own merits, to at least ensure somebody could succeed under that banner under their own merits at some later point down the road. I may not agree with what the party stands for today, I certainly have no intention of voting for their candidates, and I certainly wont encourage anyone else to but, for purely personal and sentimental reasons, I would still miss seeing Libertarian Party candidates on my ballot.

It would mean all of my efforts for the party all of them were ultimately for nothing.

Which perhaps they were.

Perhaps, given the direction the party is taking these days, its for the best if they were.

Whether its really for the best or not, though, Nevadans are seeing fewer and fewer choices on our ballots, and thats not something I can cheer for. If past experience the experience of the Green Party, the Natural Law Party, the Tea Party, or the other minor parties who no longer place candidates on our ballots anymore is any guide, if the Libertarian Party doesnt earn ballot access this year, we may never get their choice back.

Correction: (5/27/22 at 7:03 p.m. ): The original version of this column said that the last time a non-presidential Libertarian candidate won more than 1 percent of Nevadas votes in a statewide race was in 2004, when Thomas L. Hurst ran for Senate and that Tim Hagan (it was actually Jared Lord) had come closest since then.

David Colborne ran for office twice and served on the executive committees for his state and county Libertarian Party chapters. He is now an IT manager, a registered nonpartisan voter, the father of two sons, and a weekly opinion columnist for The Nevada Independent. You can follow him on Twitter @DavidColborne or email him at [emailprotected].

Read more:
Nevadans may have one fewer political party on ballots in 2024 - The Nevada Independent

One idea that seems to have become widespread online is the political compass, a graph dividing political ideologies into four groups: Authoritarian Left (left-wing economically, but socially conservative and/or favoring a strong state), Libertarian-Left (also economically leftish, but more pro-civil liberties), Authoritarian Right (economically and socially conservative, generally favoring activist government in order to ensure law and order), and Libertarian Right (economically conservative, socially tolerant).

It seems to me that the political compass is easy to adapt to arguments about urbanism. For example, one axis of conflict is "status quo vs. YIMBY"- people who favor lots of new housing (colloquially referred to as "YIMBYs") vs. people who favor the zoning status quo. Another axis of conflict is "Sprawl vs. Smart Growth"people who view additional suburbanization as essentially harmless vs. people who view it as environmentally or socially harmful.

So for example, a libertarian purist would be at the "YIMBY/Sprawl" extreme, because a pure libertarian would believe that a) government has no business limiting the housing supply but b) also has no business limiting sprawl. For example, market urbanistScott Beyer is somewhere in this quadrant; he values the benefits of urban life and supports new infill housing, but views suburban development as a legitimate consumer choice that should not be overly restricted.

On the other hand, Todd Litman (who has written extensively on the Planetizen blog) is perhaps in the YIMBY/Smart Growth column; he has written extensively about the benefits of more walkable development, but has also discussed the importance of new housing supply in holding down housing costs. I am instinctively sympathetic towards this group, although in regions with housing shortages, I am more willing than I used to be to support additional suburban housing.

The "Status Quo*/Smart Growth" grouping seems to be very popular among older urbanists. The core idea animating this group is that even though sprawl is environmentally harmful, new infill development should still be carefully regulated. The major constituency for this group is older urban homeowners, who benefit from rising home prices, and who see no obvious benefit from new housing in their neighborhoods. Members of this group seem to be motivated by a variety of concerns, such as fear of gentrification, fear of low-quality architecture, and dislike of tall buildings. Others simply are unwilling to believe that the law of supply and demand applies to market-rate housing. More moderate members of this grouping claim to favor new housing is long as it is "affordable" (i.e. subsidized so it can cater to low- and moderate- income urbanites).

The "Status Quo/Sprawl" grouping tends not to have as much support among planning commentators as the other three groupings, but is arguably popular among suburban homeowners and the politicians who represent them. People in this grouping are perfectly happy with suburbia the way it is, and fear that new housing might bring a variety of unwelcome change. They tend to favor new housing, as long as it is low-density sprawl. President Trumps claims that he was protecting suburbia from civil rights laws was an attempt to cater to this group; similarly, sprawl advocate Joel Kotkin has criticized attempts to add density to existing neighborhoods.

I also note that the two "status quo" groups share a variety of concerns: both urban and suburban opponents of new housing fear that new housing might bring increased traffic, limit automobile parking, or otherwise stress infrastructure.

It also seems to me that the two "status quo" groups tend to be more politically extreme than the two YIMBY groupings: in my experience, YIMBYs tend to be center-left, while right-wingers and socialists tend to be more skeptical of new housing. In New York, the most "YIMBY" candidate was moderate Democrat Kathryn Garcia, while both the leading Republican and the more left-wing candidates tended to favor more obstacles to non-subsidized housing. However, I do not know if New York City is typical of the nation in this regard, so perhaps I am overgeneralizing here.

*More colloquially, NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard). However, this term is a bit underinclusive, since some people seem to be against new housing in anyone's back yard.

Visit link:
The Political Compass of Housing and Urbanism - Planetizen

In these confusing and confronting times might there be some ancient wisdom that we could turn to that will help guide us through. Amanda Ruggeri argues that 'whether it's war or a pandemic, our health or finances, no matter how challenging our lives might feel, the Stoics tell us, we still can thrive'.She explains the history of the Stoics and reminds us that 'for Stoics, it isn't the thing itself that causes turmoil. It's how you think about it. And few things cause more distress than fighting against circumstances outside of our control, or getting attached to an outcome that isn't in our power'. The Stoics teach us to recognize what you can (and can't) control, choose how to respond, see every challenge as a learning opportunity and to remember that change and loss is constant. She explains what that means in our times and why we need to remember that this too shall pass.

Then, (at 14 mins) Amanda gets on her soapbox to rant about one person making a difference.

Also, (at 15 mins) what are the limits of libertarianism? Joel Kotkin explains that 'in recent years, libertarians increasingly seem less concerned with how their policies might actually impact people. Convinced that markets are virtually always the best way to approach any issue, they have allied with many of the same forces monopoly capital, anti-suburban zealots and thetech-oligarchy which are systematically undermining the popular rationale for market capitalism'. He goes through some core libertarian beliefs and how they've changed and says that 'in many ways, libertarians, like all of us, are victims of history' and that to become relevant again, libertarians need to go beyond their dogmatic attachments, focus on bolstering the vitality competitive free markets'. That 'libertarian ideas still have great relevance, but only so much as they reflect markets that are open to competition and capable of improving everyday lives'.

Then, (at 28 mins) have Russia and Ukraine always been so intertwined? Professor Sheila Fitzpatrick explains the history of their shared history and says that ' Ukrainians tell a story of the origins of the Ukrainian nation going back to 11th century Kyiv, surviving centuries of oppression by Russia and Poland, and, finally, emerging out of the wreckage of the Soviet Union as a sovereign Ukrainian state in 1991. For the Russians, the various western and southern provinces now called Ukraine were populated by Slavic border people (Ukrainians) who were essentially Russian. They considered this land as a part of the Russian Empire for centuries'. She says that 'it is not clear if the younger post-Soviet generation in particular, young men liable for military conscription see Ukraine and its current Western orientation in the same way as their elders' and that 'it remains to be seen how the Russian Army and Russians back home will feel about the killing of Ukrainians: Slavic kith and kin'.

Finally, (at 40 mins) are all natural disasters caused by climate change? Fred Pearce argues that 'there is a growing debate among environmental scientists about whether it is counterproductive to always focus on climate change as a cause of such disasters. Some say it sidelines local ways of reducing vulnerability to extreme weather and that it can end up absolving policymakers of their own failures to climate-proof their citizens'. He goes through some recent disasters such as the floods in Germany, the food crisis in Madagascar and the dry state of Lake Chad in West Africa, all of which were blamed on climate change but in reality was a mix of poor irrigation practices or government polices. He believes that 'no doubt climate changes intensifies the situation, however other drivers are key' and we ignore them at our peril.

Read the rest here:
Stoics and storms - Counterpoint - ABC News

When Im asked to explain Web 3.0 I always try to start by explaining that the world is far more diverse than just coins and financial assets.

This is similar to my old saw about history being more detailed than just who won what war and why. Culture is not just coinage.

The entirety of the human experience, which arguably will be predominantly expressed via the web if anywhere in technology, is vast and rich beyond monetary action. Only about half of transactions even involve money at all.

Yet, for many people their only topic of interest or focus on technology is how to capitalize as quickly as possible on anything new. Beware their depictions of the Web solely as finance instead of encompassing our most rich and interesting possibilities.

Geolocation data, as just one facet, has long been recognized as a source of power and authority. Think of it in holistic terms of the English and Dutch cracking the secretive Portuguese spice trade routes and upending global power, instead of just focusing on the spices being traded.

Knowledge is a form of power, which have been expressed as political systems far more vast than markets alone could ever encompass.

Here is an example to illustrate how oversimplification of humanity down to financial terms becomes an ethical quagmire, highlighting some very important mistakes of the past.

Ukraine cancelled a Crypto airdrop.

a lot of people were abusing the possibility of an airdrop by sending minuscule donations just to benefit themselves. This is a common tactic among crypto investors, known as airdrop farming.

Farming is in fact the opposite of what is described here. Growing food at low margin so that others may gain has somehow been framed backwards: extraction of value from someone elses plan to help others.

In other words airdrop farming is far more like airdrop banking as it has nothing in common with farms but a lot in common with banks. It begs a question why there there was any direct return and benefit of donations, given what has been said in past about that loop.

Appropriation of the term farming in this context thus reads to me as propaganda; we may as well be in a discussion of Molotovs WWII bombs as a delivery of bread baskets.

Likewise in the same story Krakens CEO displayed complete ignorance by saying his company would be on the side of Russia in this war and could not help Ukraine because in his mind political Bitcoin only has libertarian values.

Exchanges including Coinbase, Binance, KuCoin, and Kraken all refused Fedorovs February public request that they freeze all Russian accounts, not just those that were legally required by recently-imposed sanctions. The companies said such an action would hurt peaceful Russian citizens and go against Bitcoins libertarian values, as Kraken CEO Jesse Powell put it.

Calling Bitcoin libertarian is like calling diamonds bloody.

In fact, Bitcoin is notoriously slow-moving (terrible for payments) and notoriously volatile (terrible for currency) just like blood diamonds being extracted from dirt at artificially low cost to artificially inflate their value to a very small group desperate for power.

Mining doesnt have to be an exercise in oppressive asset hoarding with a total disdain for the value of human life, but Kraken clearly displays here they operate intentionally to repeat the worst thinking in history.

So what values are we talking about really? Proportionality (tailoring response to the level of the attack, avoiding collateral impact) is not a libertarian concept, obviously, because its a form of regulation (let alone morality).

Note instead there is complete lack of care for victims of aggression on the principle of protecting peaceful among aggressors, with absolutely no effort to prove such a principle.

Its sloppy and exactly backwards for a Bitcoin CEO to claim he cares about impacting others. The inherent negative-externality of Bitcoin means it carries a high cost someone else has to pay, proving that if Kraken cared about peaceful Russian civilians it would shutdown all Bitcoin since it harms them all while benefiting few if any.

Systemically redistributing transaction costs from selfish individuals to society instead, while claiming to be worried about societal impact of an individual action is dangerously reminiscent of nobles and clergy of pre-revolutionary France who ignorantly stumbled into their own demise.

The Web already is so much more than a narrow line of thought from the ugly past of feudal thinking, and 3.0 should be more broadly representative of the human condition instead of boxed in like this by selfish speculators trying to get rich quick through exploitation and manipulation of artificially constrained assets.

See more here:
Feudalistic Threats to Web 3.0 - Security Boulevard

A few times during his hourlong speaking engagement at UC Hastings School of Law on March 1, students briefly stopped shouting down Ilya Shapiro and goaded him to speak. Each time, the prominent constitutional law scholar and mouthpiece for the libertarian think tank Cato Institute managed only a few words before students banged on tables and chanted Black lawyers matter to drown him out again, according to a video recording shared by the law schools Black Law Students Association.

Shapiro was on the San Francisco campus that day to discuss the Supreme Court vacancy as part of an event organized by the schools Federalist Society, a conservative libertarian group. But Shapiro had shared his thoughts on the matter more than a month earlier. In a since-deleted series of tweets, he said President Bidens pledge to nominate a Black woman would result in a lesser black woman serving on the nations highest court.

Shapiros casually racist tweet quickly got him suspended from a new administrator job at Georgetown University Law Center, but didnt scotch his appearance at UC Hastings, which triggered the student protest.

On March 2, UC Hastings Chancellor David Faigman and his fellow deans sent a letter to students scolding them silencing a speaker is fundamentally contrary to the values of this school, the letter reads and hinting at possible disciplinary action. The letter also argues that legal professionals must be able to engage with the full range of ideas, legal arguments, or policies that exist in the world as they find it.

More from Justin Phillips

UC Hastings spokesperson Elizabeth Moore told me the school would not provide further comment.

The way the schools leadership chided students made me think about how Black people are expected to be docile in the face of insensitivity. In this vein, Shapiro is a lot like the Republican mob attacking federal appeals Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson during her confirmation hearings. Both use the topics du jour of white nationalism Shapiro implying that Black folks are intellectually inferior; Republicans grasping at culture war talking points that have nothing to do with Jacksons record.

Not challenging rhetoric that is ignorant or actively intolerant only serves to legitimize inequality. The responses from UC Hastings students and Judge Jackson reveal the necessity of speaking up.

A few weeks after the Shapiro event, the Black Law Students Association, with support from allies and some of the schools faculty, sent UC Hastings leadership a letter and list of demands regarding how the school can address its racial equity issues.

Included in it was data from a 2021 UC Hastings Campus Climate Advisory Committee assessment, which was shared with The Chronicle and found that 40% of respondents of color, including multiracial people, experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct at the school within the previous two years. Only 8% of white respondents reported the same experiences.

Among the students demands was for the school to ensure that no disciplinary actions will be taken against students who exercised their free speech rights during the Shapiro protest.

Dominique Armstrong, a co-president of the Black Law Students Association, told me that as much as the protest was about Shapiro, it was also about Black students not feeling welcome on campus.

One of the schools big things is telling us to be advocates, Armstrong said. But if you cant advocate for yourself, how can you advocate for your clients?

Shapiro described the protesters as an unruly woke mob taking part in a national cancellation campaign. But what I saw were passionate students taking a stand for change they felt is long overdue. I saw the faces of individuals who could one day follow Judge Jacksons path, on which theyre forced to both confront Americas shortcomings and help the country overcome them.

Thats grueling, thankless work, as Armstrong already knows. Its exhausting for Black students like myself to constantly have to explain how something is racist.

Which is why, for me, it has been equally spectacular to watch Jackson push back against often-hysterical Republicans during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

Republican senators have floated absurd QAnon-inspired conspiracy theories in their desperate attempts to make Jackson seem like a judge who is sympathetic to people convicted of possessing images of child sexual abuse and who uses critical race theory to shape her decision-making.

Jackson has been calm and measured in her responses, often pointing out that her record is a balanced one that cant be seen as supporting one viewpoint or another.

Underneath the GOP theatrics is their palpable fear of Black people like Jackson attaining positions of power.

Jacksons loudest moment, in my mind, came toward the end of Wednesdays marathon session when Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., asked her to address young people who may want to follow her path. Jackson capped off an emotional reply with this line: I would tell them to persevere.

In other words, silence simply isnt an option.

San Francisco Chronicle columnist Justin Phillips appears Sundays. Email: jphillips@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @JustMrPhillips

Excerpt from:
When Black people refuse to quietly endure intolerance, amazing things can happen - San Francisco Chronicle