The ACLU, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, was founded to ensure the promise of the Bill of Rights and to expand its reach to people historically denied its protections. For nearly 100 years, the ACLU has been our nation's guardian of liberty, working in courts, legislatures, and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and the laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country. The ACLU is now a nationwide organization with a 50-state network of staffed affiliate offices filing cases in both state and federal courts. We appear before the Supreme Court more than any other organization except the Department of Justice.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
What would it mean if President-elect Trump dismantled the Department of Education?
Nov 29, 2024
In her role as former chief executive of World Wrestling Entertainment, Linda McMahon oversaw an enterprise that popularized the “takedown” for millions of wrestling fans. But as President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of education, the Trump loyalist may be tasked with taking down the very department Trump has asked her to lead.
If Trump does dismantle the Department of Education as he has promised to do, he will have succeeded at something that President Ronald Reagan vowed to do in 1980. Just like Trump, Reagan campaigned on abolishing the department, which at the time was only a year old. Since then, the Republican Party platform has repeatedly called for eliminating the Education Department, which oversees a range of programs and initiatives. These include special funding for schools in low-income communities – known as Title I – and safeguarding the rights of students with disabilities.
As an education policy researcher who has studied the federal role in addressing student-equity issues, I see the path to shuttering the department as filled with political and practical obstacles. Republicans may therefore opt to instead pursue a series of proposals they see as more feasible and impactful, while still furthering their bigger-picture education agenda.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
To better understand how the proposal to eliminate the Education Department would fit within the larger educational agenda of the incoming administration, I believe it’s helpful to revisit the history of the Education Department and the role it has played over the past five decades.
Department of Education history and roles
By the time Congress established the department in 1979, the federal government was already an established player in educational policy and funding.
For instance, the Higher Education Act of 1965 began the federal student loan program. In 1972, Congress created the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant, the predecessor program to today’s Pell Grants. The G.I. Bill of 1944, which, among other things, funded higher education for World War II veterans, preceded them both.
At the K-12 level, federal involvement in vocational education began with the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917. Federal attention to math, science and foreign language education began in 1958 with the National Defense Education Act.
Two laws passed during the Lyndon Johnson administration then gave the federal government its modern foothold in education: the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The 1964 law provided antidiscrimination protections enforced by the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights. The 1965 law, which is currently reauthorized as the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, includes Title I, which sends extra funding to schools with high populations of low-income students.
In 1975, Congress added the law currently known as the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, or IDEA. The law helps schools provide special education services for students with disabilities. IDEA also sets forth rules designed to ensure that all students with disabilities receive a free and appropriate public education.
Department had early Republican support
When Congress created the Education Department, it divided the former Department of Health, Education, and Welfare into two agencies. One was the Education Department. The other was Health and Human Services, also known as HHS. Although President Jimmy Carter championed the move, it was bipartisan. The Senate bill to create the new department had 14 Republican co-sponsors.
Within a year, however, support for and opposition to the Education Department had become strongly partisan. Reagan campaigned on eliminating what he referred to as “President Carter’s new bureaucratic boondoggle.”
Those bureaucracies, however, existed before Carter and the new department. The only major addition was the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, which served primarily as the research arm of the Education Department. That office has since been replaced by the Institute of Education Sciences.
Congressional support needed
To dissolve the Education Department, both houses of Congress would have to agree, which is unlikely. In 2023, an amendment was proposed in the House to shut down the department. It failed by a vote of 161-265, with 60 Republicans joining all Democrats in opposing the measure.
Even assuming that sufficient pressure were exerted on Republicans in 2025 to garner almost complete Republican House support, the bill would likely need 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster – meaning that at least seven Democrats would have to support termination.
But what would such termination entail? The department’s functions and programs would need to be assigned to new institutional homes, since terminating a program’s department doesn’t terminate the program. That said, this shuffling process would likely be complicated and chaotic, harming important programs for K-12 and university students.
While details about what reorganization would look like remain to be seen, one option was proposed by Trump during his first term: merging the Education Department with the Labor Department.
Another approach is set forth in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a detailed policy blueprint that, among other things, specifies landing places for the Education Department’s major functions and programs. A CNN review found that over 100 people involved with Project 2025 worked in the first Trump administration.
The Project 2025 blueprint calls for the lion’s share of programs, including Title I and IDEA, to be moved to HHS – which already administers Head Start. Most vocational education programs would be moved to the Labor Department. The Office for Civil Rights would be moved to the Justice Department. And the Pell Grant program and the student loan program would be moved to the Treasury Department.
Part of a larger education agenda
In the scenario where existing Education Department programs are transferred to other agencies, those programs could continue without being closed or drastically cut. But Trump and Project 2025 have articulated a set of plans that do make radical changes. Trump has said he supports a federal voucher – or a “universal school choice” – plan, likely funded through federal tax credits. This idea is set forth in the proposed Educational Choice for Children Act, which is backed by Project 2025. Perhaps tellingly, Trump’s announcement of the McMahon nomination highlighted school-choice goals; it did not mention abolishing the department.
Project 2025 also lays out other changes and program cuts, including ending the Head Start early childhood education program and phasing out Title I over 10 years, and converting most IDEA funds into a voucher or “savings account” for eligible parents.
Beyond these initiatives, Trump’s campaign shared his plan to target a variety of culture-war issues. This includes cutting federal funding for any school or program that involves “critical race theory, gender ideology, or other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content onto our children.”
What we can expect
My expectation is that the Trump administration’s most likely and immediate changes will be in the form of executive orders that alter how laws will be implemented. For example, Trump may use an executive order to remove protections for transgender students.
Subsequently, I also expect some congressional budgetary changes to education programs. Based on past votes, I expect overwhelming but not universal Republican congressional support for Trump’s educational agenda. Using the budget reconciliation process, which circumvents the filibuster, a majority vote can make changes to revenue or spending. Accordingly, Congress may agree to program cuts and perhaps even to move some programmatic funding into education vouchers for individual parents.
As for closing the Education Department, which probably would not qualify for the reconciliation process, Secretary-designate McMahon may find that takedown to be a politically difficult one to achieve.
Welner is a professor of education policy and law and director of the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado Boulder.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
When strangers become friends
Nov 28, 2024
When I bumped into my neighbor recently in the hallway of our apartment building, she innocently asked, “How are you?” Such a simple question, the conversational equivalent of “Hello.”
I could have simply said, “Good,” and walked back into my apartment. But this response didn’t capture my feelings, and she sensed it immediately. I am worried about our world — American democracy, intense political polarization, distrust of the government and the war in Israel.
What ensued from my hesitation was conversation, initially protective and cautious because, essentially, we are strangers. We live just down the hall, and yet, we don’t know much about one another beyond which sports teams we root for.
Truthfully, this hallway dialogue was a bit bumpy, as we expressed our views about what’s going on in the world. We do not see the world in the same way, for our backgrounds, politics, generations, religions and even our sports teams could not be more different.
When the conversation started to feel like a Thanksgiving dinner as the focus veered away from poultry and pumpkin pie to politics and policies, I thought it might be best if we wrap up and just walk away.
But something extraordinary happened. Rather than walk away, we kept talking. Instead of waiting anxiously to get our point in, we listened. The questions we asked indicated our investment in the encounter.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Too often conversation feels like debate, and, even worse, a winner-takes-all gladiator sport. In “Talking to Strangers,” Danielle S. Allen writes: “Distrust can be overcome only when citizens manage to find methods of generating mutual benefit despite differences of position, experience, and perspective. The discovery of such methods is the central project of democracy.”
The organization I work for, Civic Spirit, prepares the next generation to participate in and lead our democracy, and listening represents a vital civic skill. We provide training for teachers and students in structured dialogue, intentional listening and guided conversations, so the students learn how to talk with one another and to transform hesitation into understanding, difference into connection, and strangers into friends. Just like what happened in the hallway outside my apartment.
When I got home a little later than expected, my wife asked, “Where were you?”
With renewed hope that real dialogue can bridge deep divides, I responded, “I was talking to a friend.” My Thanksgiving prayer this year is that our neighbors become friends and partners in strengthening the bonds of civic life.
Savenor is a rabbi and executive director of Civic Spirit, a nonpartisan organization that provides training and resources to faith-based schools across the United States
Keep ReadingShow less
This Thanksgiving, it's not only OK but necessary to talk politics
Nov 28, 2024
This Thanksgiving, do not follow the old maxim that we should never discuss politics at the dinner table.
Many people's emotions are running high right now. Elections often bring out a wide range of feelings, whether pride and optimism for those who are pleased with the results or disappointment and frustration from those who aren’t. After a long and grueling election season, we need to connect with and not avoid one another.
Donald Trump's presidential win is sparking a surge of family and friendship breakups. To get a pulse on what people are thinking and feeling,BuzzFeed asked readers if they had cut anyone out of their life over Trump's win, and they received several illuminating responses.
"I have no contact with anyone in my 'family,' even the ones that I kept in my life at a distance after 2016," one person wrote. "They voted for someone who doesn't care if my career helping children is defunded, that my LGBT+ child may lose their right to marry, that my child with a disability may lose their IEP funding, that my immigrant husband may lose his visa."
While I respect people's decision to distance themselves from those they believe are an affront to their viewpoints and values, I choose to lean in.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
It is a knee-jerk reaction for someone to withdraw to avoid conflict. By not addressing issues head-on, friction can sometimes build up and eventually explode into a more considerable disagreement.
I do not engage in an attempt to convince someone to convert to my side of the fence, figuratively speaking. I engage because I want to better understand the person in front of me as a human being and not by the labels that subvert them and oversimplify complex issues affecting all of us.
In times of high conflict, it's common for people to split into two opposing groups and view each other negatively. This can lead to generalizations and name-calling, which often dehumanizes the other side and can escalate tensions. A more productive approach is to seek a deeper understanding of the complex factors that contribute to different perspectives. By doing so, we can help reduce polarization and foster more constructive dialogue.
The public is also highly critical of partisan polarization's impact on politics. According to a study by the Pew Research Center, more than eight in 10 Americans (86 percent) say the following is a good description of politics: “Republicans and Democrats are more focused on fighting each other than on solving problems.” Asked to describe in their own words the biggest problem with the political system, 22 percent of Americans volunteer partisan polarization or lack of partisan cooperation.
Elected officials spend so much time arguing their viewpoints that they must often remember to listen. And listening is the foundation of collaboration.
Complicating The Narrative
As a solutions journalism practitioner, I leverageComplicating the Narratives, a strategy that helps journalists find new ways to report on controversial issues and polarizing politics. It draws on the experience of experts in conflict mediation. When reporters use these strategies, they listen better, ask more revealing questions, effectively introduce opposing viewpoints and embrace nuance in their reports. They learn to tell more accurate, richer and fuller stories.
I recently had a conversation about the presidential election with my lifelong friend, Fernando Barboto. Fernando and I are the children of South American immigrants. We were born in Paterson, New Jersey (an inner city just outside New York City), and are married with children. He's a Republican, and I am an independent voter. He voted for Trump, and I voted for Vice President Kamala Harris.
Paterson, a diverse suburban area in Passaic County, supported Hillary Clinton with 74 percent of the vote in 2016 but chose Trump in this year's election. This region in the northern part of the state has typically leaned Democratic. However, Trump garnered approximately 95,000 votes, while Harris received around 89,000.
I applied the CTN technique of looping, in which one summarizes what's been heard from the person they are talking to. It helps in two ways. First, it lets you check to see if you are, in fact, hearing correctly. The other thing looping does is show the person that you are listening. They know they are being heard because one repeats back what they said. It also invites them to go deeper and tell you more.
Fernando and I conversed and sometimes debated to understand better what drove our decision to vote for Trump and Harris. We discovered that we had more in common than what the extreme narratives in legacy media's news coverage of the economy and immigration misled us to believe.
The Economy
“The most potent driver in the election was economic discontent, expressed in President-elect Donald Trump’s gains with most demographics," said Clarissa Martínez de Castro, vice president of the Latino Vote Initiative at UnidosUS. "If there is a mandate, it’s on that: raise wages and bring down food, housing and health care costs."
The American Electorate Poll's found that the cost of living/inflation (52 percent) and jobs and the economy (36 percent) were the primary motivators for Hispanic voters. Those were also high on Fernando's and my lists.
"[If] you want to see what the state of the economy is? Just go to the grocery store," said Fernando. He shared disappointment with President Joe Biden's administration for not doing more to help ease the financial strain. Exit polls indicate that inflation significantly influenced Trump's electoral success. According to an ABC Newsexit poll, over two-thirds of voters perceived the economy as being in poor condition. Additionally, a CBS Newsexit pollrevealed that three-quarters of voters viewed inflation as a hardship.
However, when it comes to attributing responsibility to the Biden-Harris administration, opinions among economists vary. While some economists acknowledge that the administration bears some responsibility, the majority, according to a USA TODAY report involving seven economists, emphasize that the global pandemic was the primary driver of the nation's inflation crisis rather than the current administration's actions. I agree. The Biden administration did not induce the country's economic hardship; it inherited it.
Various indicators can assess an economy's health, with gross domestic product being the most widely utilized. GDP reflects the total production, expenditure and income generated within an economy over a specific timeframe. Recent reports from Newsweek indicate that the U.S. is performing better than its G7 counterparts. While all G7 nations have faced challenges with high inflation in the post-pandemic period, the U.S. has still achieved economic growth, primarily attributed to improvements in the labor market.
"The enormous labor market churn of COVID in 2020-21 had the unintended benefit of moving millions of lower-income workers to better jobs, more income security, and/or running their own businesses," Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told Axios.
Despite the overall positive trend, there is a noticeable disparity in how the nation's economy impacts Americans from various economic backgrounds. "Although the household incomes managed to keep pace, albeit with some lags, the situation remains precarious for many who are living paycheck to paycheck, often requiring a second job and/or relying on credit with record-high finance charges," John Min, chief economist at Monex USA, told Newsweek.
Ahead of Election Day, a Redfield & Wilton Strategies polling revealed that 69 percent of those planning to vote for Trump believed the economy was on the road to ruin, while only 22 percent of Harris backers thought the same. Fernando agreed with me that gas prices have improved, but his decision to vote Republican was primarily due to lackluster advancements in other pocketbook issues. "It's been tough on all of us," he said.
Immigration
Another significant policy issue influencing Latino men's support for Trump was immigration, particularly as it was closely linked to economic concerns during this election cycle. While about four in 10 voters under 45 across racial and ethnic groups identified the economy as the top issue facing the country, older white and Latino voters were likely also to cite immigration, with about one-quarter of each saying that was thetop issue. Fernando and I are both 53 years old.
Historically, immigrants have often been blamed for economic downturns in the United States, and the Republican Party effectively utilized this narrative by attributing challenges such as job accessibility, low wages, and affordable housing to immigrants. Brookings reported that 74 percent of Americans encountered misinformation suggesting that "immigrants are taking jobs and causing an increase in unemployment for people born in the U.S."
Fernando and I agreed that immigration can enhance economic growth. His concern is about criminal activity and terrorism threats emanating from the southern border. "You hear all these news reports about gang members coming over the border illegally, and [sanctuary] cities aren't doing anything about it," Fernando said. A poll by the Center for American Political Studies at Harvard University found that 57 percent of respondents were most concerned about an increase in “violence” and “crime” due to the impact of mass immigration.
I disagreed with him. The perception that immigration contributes to rising crime rates is a longstanding belief held by many, persisting for over a century. This view continues to be entrenched despite increasing evidence suggesting otherwise, partly due to politicians like Trump who amplify this narrative. The Conversation's analysis indicates that numerous studies have consistently found no causal relationship between immigration and increased crime rates.
Still, I conceded that statistics are a poor solace for victims' families like — like the family of Jocelyn Nungaray, who was strangled by two undocumented immigrants who entered the country illegally,accordingto US Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The Path Forward
Fernando and I also discussed the U.S. involvement in the Ukraine-Russian war and the war in Gaza. We also discussed the character of the candidates and Trump's criminal conviction. The conversation followed a similar pattern of respectful tension facilitated by my applying the four pillars of Complicating the Narrative:
- Listening differently through the technique of Looping.
- Going beneath the problem by asking questions that probe and uncover motivations rather than positions.
- Embracing the complexity of ideas and perspectives and providing necessary context.
- Checking bias blind spots in ourselves by introducing qualitative and quantitative data
According to Reuters' 2019 Digital News Report, 41 percent of Americans sometimes or often avoid the news. The primary reasons for this avoidance are negativity and feelings of powerlessness and helplessness. However, news outlets have the potential to play a crucial role in helping audiences navigate divisions and learn about solutions to the challenges facing their communities.
As director of solutions journalism and diversity, equity, and inclusion with The Fulcrum, I strive to tell fair and accurate stories. I help writers and journalists find new ways to report on controversial issues and polarizing topics by drawing on the CTN approach. Using these strategies, we listen better, ask more revealing questions, effectively introduce opposing viewpoints and embrace nuance in reporting.
Fernando and I are concerned about and hopeful for many of the same things. We just have different ideas about how to solve and realize them. In our hour-long conversation, we successfully communicated through our differences.
Engaging in passionate discussions about political views and being open to discomfort can contribute to a society capable of addressing various issues. At a fundamental level, this involves fostering respectful discourse, even in informal settings like family meals. Encouraging political conversations can start within families and extend to broader societal interactions.
Balta is director of solutions journalism and DEI initiatives for The Fulcrum and a board member of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund, the parent organization of The Fulcrum. He is publisher of the Latino News Network and a trainer with the Solutions Journalism Network.
Keep ReadingShow less
Forget the survival guides: Politics is rarely an issue at Thanksgiving
Nov 27, 2024
Thanksgiving is often portrayed as a minefield of political debates, with an annual surge of guides offering tips to "survive" political conversations at the dinner table. But how useful are these guides?
Research actually shows that most Americans neither want nor need the abundance of advice. While the vast majority of Americans celebrate Thanksgiving, relatively few want to talk about politics over the holiday. A 2022 Axios/Ipsos poll found that 77 percent of Americans believe Thanksgiving is not the right time for political discussions. Somewhat similarly, a 2023 Quinnipiac poll found only 29 percent of Americans say they are looking forward to discussing politics at Thanksgiving, less than half the number who say they are hoping to avoid discussing it.
One may think that in this era of “toxic polarization,” the roughly one-fourth of Americans who are open to talking about politics would often negatively impact the Thanksgiving experience. Yet this is not really the case.
According to a2023 YouGov survey, only 16 percent of U.S. adults who celebrate Thanksgiving have ever had arguments about politics at Thanksgiving dinner. Only half of those have ever had Thanksgiving ruined by a political argument, a single-digit fraction of the population.
The length of cross-partisan Thanksgivings is also affected, but only slightly. A meta-analysis of Thanksgiving dinner lengths found that politically diverse gatherings lasted just 6 percent less time than politically uniform ones. That is a fairly marginal impact, reducing a four-hour Thanksgiving by about 15 minutes.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
In contrast to these usually rare and minor impacts, one can find dozens of Thanksgiving or holiday political “survival” guides online. This year, these already include aguide published by NPR and a livestreamed video guide released by Braver Angels Central Texas and the Institute for Liberal Values. In addition to perpetuating a misleading narrative that political disagreements destructive to Thanksgiving are widespread, the quality and detail of advice in these guides can vary widely.
Why are there so many guides in the first place, when a large majority of Thanksgivings happen without politics really getting in the way? One clue comes from misperceptions of the people in the other political party. Americans see those in the other party as more eager to talk about politics and more politically extreme than they really are. A survey led by University of Rochester political science professor Jamie Druckman found that registered members of a political party overestimate the share of members of the other party who discuss politics frequently by more than two times, while underestimating the share who like to discuss it rarely by about five times. In addition, More in Common’s Perception Gap research found Americans think 55 percent of those in the other party had extreme views, compared with the 30 percent who actually did.
It is also possible that the journalists who write about these topics are in social contexts where politics is more salient and contentious. Additionally, those who have political issues with their family and friends may be more drawn to organizations like Braver Angels, even though they represent a surprisingly small minority of Americans; a 2022 New York Times/Siena College poll found fewer than one-fifth of Americans said politics had hurt their friendships or family relationships. (Note: James has held various volunteer leadership roles in Braver Angels.)
Guidance for how to have political conversations is still useful, but it does not need to be so focused on Thanksgiving. In such a large country, much guidance should follow a “stop, drop and roll” model of giving at most three pieces of memorable advice. Most adults lack the time, interest or energy to integrate more into their busy lives. Americans should be reminded of these year-round, not just at one time of year.
James is partial to a call to be SVL (pronounced like “civil”) to share Stories, relate to the conversation partner’s Values and Listen, based on advice from Stanford sociologist Robb Willer. Another memorable approach is Urban Rural Action’s ABCs of Constructive Dialogue (essentially, Asking the conversation partner’s perspective, Breaking down one’s own view to make it understandable and Checking our understanding of their perspective).
Thanksgiving should be a time of unity and reflection. Most Americans do not need to worry if they will “survive” Thanksgiving. Americans can instead thrive, enjoying themselves in the company of friends and family.
Coan is the co-founder and executive director of More Like US. Huss is co-founder of Project PosiNews.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More