Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
The Dangerous Consequences of Declaring English the Official Language
Mar 08, 2025
The latest presidential executive order designating English as the official language of the United States while simultaneously rescinding Executive Order 13166 is a shameful and unconstitutional attack on the rights of millions of Americans.
Our modern legal system is a direct descendant of Europe’s, which in turn was influenced by the courts of ancient Rome, where Latin was the predominant language. By eliminating federal language access protections, this administration has chosen to disrupt domestic tranquility by ignoring the very principles of equality and justice upon which our nation was founded.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits discrimination based on national origin. By dismantling language access protections, the federal government is effectively discriminating against millions of limited English proficient (LEP) individuals, barring them from accessing essential services. This order does not promote unity; it further marginalizes and disenfranchises communities that have long contributed to the fabric of this nation.
The highest court in the land has already ruled against policies that suppress linguistic diversity. In Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that “the protection of the Constitution extends to all, to those who speak other languages as well as to those born with English on the tongue.” The Court affirmed that prohibiting the use of other languages is not only unconstitutional but also unjustifiable, stating: “No emergency has arisen which renders knowledge by a child of some language other than English so clearly harmful as to justify its inhibition with the consequent infringement of rights long freely enjoyed.”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
This landmark decision should serve as a stark warning to those who seek to erase linguistic diversity in America. The forced linguistic assimilation imposed by this executive order contradicts a fundamental constitutional principle: that all people—regardless of language—are entitled to the same rights and protections under the law.
The Constitution State Must Lead the Way
With federal protections stripped away, states must step in to ensure that all residents can access public services, regardless of their English proficiency. Connecticut has a moral and legal duty to pass SB 955, An Act Requiring State and Local Government and State Contractors to Ensure Individuals with Limited English Proficiency Are Able to Access Public Services.This legislation is not only necessary—it is urgent. It affirms that the state of Connecticut will not participate in this egregious violation of civil rights and will continue to uphold the values of accessibility, fairness, and inclusion.
“We the People“—these words do not belong solely to those who speak English. They belong to all Americans, no matter their language, heritage, or background. “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” Lady Liberty’s message announces the American experiment as one of inclusivity, not exclusion.
This executive order is an affront to that promise, and we must resist it with every tool at our disposal. Connecticut, and every state that values democracy, must take a stand. The future of our nation as a Just and Inclusive society depends on it.
Doris Maldonado Mendez is a Connecticut Mirror’s Community Editorial Board member.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
A gavel and book.
Getty Images, May Lim / 500px
The Trump Administration’s Current Approach Discards the Rule of Law
Mar 07, 2025
President Donald Trump signed over 70 Executive Orders during the first thirty days of his second term, the most in a President’s first 100 days in 40 years. Many of the Executive Orders were sweeping in their scope and intentionally designed to fundamentally reshape the federal government and shatter the existing world order. Critics immediately claimed that many of the Executive Orders exceeded the President’s constitutional authority or contravened existing federal law.
At the same time, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—without Congressional authorization—has swept into multiple agencies, frozen Congressionally authorized appropriations, and terminated thousands of federal employees, many of whom are protected by civil service laws and collective bargaining agreements.
As a consequence, over 100 lawsuits have been filed against the Trump administration as of March 1, 2025. New court rulings and injunctions are issued almost every day. Dozens of the President’s initiatives have been enjoined, permanently or temporarily, and more are almost certain to follow. Many federal agencies and employees are frozen in a state of confusion, chaos, or crisis. It may be months or even years before the country fully comprehends the consequences of these actions.
But one fact is immediately clear: the legal crisis created by the new administration was completely unnecessary.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Almost all of the President’s goals and objectives could be achieved by constitutional, lawful means. Examples include the following:
· Birthright Citizenship – the President cannot amend the U.S. Constitution by Executive Order. He could, however, propose a constitutional amendment and ask Congress to pass it and send the issue to the states for ratification.
· Abolishing Federal Agencies – while the President cannot unilaterally abolish departments, agencies, and bureaus established by Congress, he can submit legislation to Congress that would repeal the entity’s enabling legislation.
· Impoundment – the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 restricts the authority of the President to impound Congressional appropriations and provides a process for Congress to review Executive Branch withholdings of Congressional appropriations. The President could comply with this Act or, alternatively, ask Congress to amend the appropriation in question. The President could also ask Congress to repeal the Impoundment Control Act, as prior Presidents have done.
· Termination of Employment – the abrupt termination of thousands of federal employees violates numerous civil service laws, rules, and regulations. The principal purpose of the civil service system, starting with thePendleton Act in 1883, was to eliminate the spoils system that resulted in the termination of thousands of federal employees with every new Administration. The President is not powerless to terminate classified employees. He must, however, comply with the statutory and regulatory processes established to preserve and protect the merit system. Many of the recent terminations are also likely to breach numerous collective bargaining agreements.
· Inspectors General – The President fired 17 Inspectors General within days of his Inauguration without providing 30-days notice to Congress, as required by the Inspectors General Act of 1978. The communication must include substantive rationale, including case-specific reasons for the termination. Again, the President is not without authority to remove Inspectors General, he simply must comply with the law.
Adherence to the rule of law is essential for the long-term success of any democracy. The separation of powers and checks and balances, which pervade our system of government, must be honored and effectuated to prevent an abuse or concentration of power and protect individual rights. Pursuing his agenda in a manner that is consistent with the rule of law will, to be sure, take more time and will require the President to persuade Congress and the American people of the wisdom of his cause. But that is precisely the purpose and strength of an effective democracy.
Tragically, for our country, the President has intentionally chosen to pursue his agenda in a manner that is unconstitutional or unlawful. The risk to our democracy is compounded by Congressional complicity and inaction. Many commentators and observers have noted the future of our democracy is once again dependent on the integrity and wisdom of the judiciary.
There is, however, another path forward: the President could choose to follow the law.
R. Kelly Sheridan is a member of the board of Lawyers Defending American Democracy. He previously served as President of the Rhode Island Bar Association.Keep ReadingShow less
Charles F. Kettering Foundation
Understanding the 2024 Election: A Call to Action for Inclusive Democracy
Mar 07, 2025
As a Black American woman and an educator, I am compelled to examine the forces that led to Donald Trump’s 2024 victory and its impact on our increasingly multiracial democracy. Democracy—derived from the Greek word demokratia, meaning “rule by the people”—is now under attack. With a deep sense of historical awareness, moral clarity, and an unwavering commitment to justice, I must underscore that democracy, as we have long understood it, is not just a system of governance. Democracy is a promise: a promise that every voice matters, that justice is not reserved for the “few” or the privileged, and that freedom is not a selective right. In this moment, the promise is being rewritten and redefined in ways that exclude rather than include and that silence rather than empower.
Attacks on Diversity and Inclusion
Much of what we are witnessing now was foreshadowed in the Heritage Foundation’s 900-page policy blueprint Project 2025, which aims to radically expand Trump’s presidential powers and reorganize the whole of the federal government. Many of Trump’s recent actions are reflecting Project 2025’s proposals. On his first day in office, he signed a record number of executive orders that target marginalized communities.
Among these executive orders was the elimination of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) and DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility) programs across the federal government. Federal agencies have already begun canceling DEIA-related contracts, scrubbing resources from their websites, and halting training sessions. The irony of Trump signing this order on Martin Luther King Jr. Day was not lost on those of us committed to a multiracial democracy.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Many of these executive orders target immigrants and immigrant communities. Mass deportations and raids are targeting schools, hospitals, and places of worship. He is attempting to dismantle the nation’s asylum system and end birthright citizenship.
In the realm of reproductive rights, Trump has signed executive orders prohibiting federal funds from supporting abortion services, both domestically and abroad. US foreign aid policy prohibits funding to overseas nongovernmental organizations that perform, refer, or discuss abortions, even if using their own money.
Trump’s executive actions have also attacked LGBTQ+ rights. On his first day as president, he ordered the removal of LGBTQ+-specific pages from government websites and rescinded a Biden-era policy allowing transgender people to openly serve in the military. During his inaugural address, he declared that there are “only two genders, male and female.”
The extremity of these policies prompted Bishop Mariann Budde to take the unprecedented step of directly addressing Trump from the pulpit of the National Cathedral. As she led the inaugural prayer service, she pleaded:
Mr. President, millions have put their trust in you. In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now—gay, lesbian, and transgender children in families of all political beliefs who fear for their lives.
Beyond these extreme policies and orders, Trump’s administration is defined by its lack of diversity and extreme wealth concentration. His proposed cabinet is 81% White, making it the least diverse since Ronald Reagan. The wealth of the administration and its associates, like Elon Musk, exceeds $450 billion. This net worth concentration aligns with oligarchy, a system where the ultra-wealthy shape policies to benefit themselves.
Echoes of History
Trump’s rhetoric and policies may appear to be outliers in the post-civil-rights period of American history, herstory, and theirstory, but they fit within a familiar pattern from previous eras. Whenever marginalized communities have fought for constitutional rights, they have been met with legal, legislative, and social backlash, alongside efforts to suppress the discussion of their struggles.
A recurring false narrative accompanies this backlash: the idea that granting rights to marginalized groups somehow diminishes the rights of others. This belief has fueled opposition movements from enslavement to Reconstruction, from women’s suffrage to the Civil Rights Movement, and now in the fight for LGBTQ+ rights.
Education has long been weaponized to maintain social hierarchies. Enslaved people were forbidden from learning to read or write because literacy was a direct threat to the institution of slavery. Today, education is still being manipulated to change the narrative around equal rights and to limit discussions on race, gender, and other identities.
Over the past decade, local and state governments have passed laws that directly influence what can and cannot be taught and discussed in our schools. Teaching about race, gender identity, and sexual orientation has been restricted in many states. In my home state of Florida, according to curricula approved in 2023, Black people gained “personal benefit” from enslavement—a blatant distortion of history.
Democracy and education have a symbiotic relationship: one cannot exist without the other. A democratic society requires informed and open-minded citizens.
Four Steps to Preserve and Strengthen Democracy
In these challenging times, we must take four critical steps to preserve and strengthen American democracy:
1. Understand the Appeal of Trump’s Candidacy
Trump’s ability to attract key voter blocs—young people, people of color, women, and union workers—defied expectations given the extreme and, in many instances, anti-democratic nature of his rhetoric and politics.
Economic struggles rather than issues like democracy or reproductive rights were prioritized by many voters, especially younger Americans. Others may have voted with religion or cultural factors in mind while not considering the greater threats to democracy for all.
2. Engage in the Democratic Process
Protecting democracy requires more than just voting in presidential elections. It demands consistent participation at state and local levels. Writing or calling representatives, attending town halls, and advocating for policy changes are crucial actions.
3. Defend the Integrity of Education
We must resist the political hijacking of education. The banning of books, the rewriting of history, and the silencing of marginalized voices all threaten the very foundation of democracy. Our engagement in local school boards and curriculum decisions is critical.
4. Fight Not Only for Your Rights, but Also for the Rights of All Americans
Justice is not selective. Our fight must be intersectional to defend the rights of immigrants, LGBTQ+ individuals, women, and all racial minorities. As Coretta Scott King said: “Freedom and justice cannot be parceled out in pieces to suit political convenience. You cannot stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others.”
Trump’s second presidency marks a pivotal moment in American democracy. The expansion of executive power, the rollback of the rights of marginalized communities, and the rise of oligarchy demand that we remain vigilant, engaged, and proactive! We must understand voter behavior, stay active in democratic processes, protect education, and advocate for the rights of all, so we can forge a future that truly reflects the ideals of equality, justice, and democracy.
Understanding the 2024 Election: A Call to Action for Inclusive Democracy was originally published by the Charles F. Kettering Foundation and is shared with permission. Johnnetta Betsch Cole is a noted anthropologist, educator, author, speaker, and consultant on diversity, equity, accessibility, and inclusion in workplaces. She is the former president of both Spelman College and Bennett College and currently is a Charles F. Kettering Foundation senior fellow.
Keep ReadingShow less
A simulation of two planets in space.
Getty Images, Jose A. Bernat Bacete
Democrats are from Mars, Republicans are from Venus
Mar 06, 2025
As I think about Tuesday’s address by President Donald Trump and the response of Senator Elissa Slotkin from Michigan—a former CIA analyst and a rising star in the Democratic Party—I am reminded of the book “Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus” by John Gray published in 1992.
A sequel should be written today: “Democrats Are from Mars, Republicans Are from Venus”…..or vice versa since the planet they each are from doesn’t matter.
The book became a cultural phenomenon in the 1990s, offering insights into relationships and communication between men and women. The differences in communication styles, emotional needs, and general views of life remind me so much of the differences between Democrats and Republicans.
Tuesday night's address by President Trump and the response of Democrats is a perfect example. As Republicans enthusiastically applauded every word the President said, Democrats were furious in their outrage. The differing perspectives of the state of affairs in the U.S. and the world might as well come from two people—or in this case, political parties—that are from two different planets.
While Trump and Republicans praised Elon Musk’s effort with DOGE to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse within the government, democrats were outraged.
Rep. Gerry Connolly (Va.), the top Democrat on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, decided to boycott Trump’s speech “in solidarity” with federal government employees who have been terminated as part of the Trump administration’s push to downsize the government and cut waste. Connolly also added that his protest is a way to offer backing for those both domestic and overseas who are set to be impacted by Trump’s agenda.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
And, of course, Democrats maligned the impact tariffs will have on inflation and their impact on everyday working Americans, while President Trump said that “tariffs are not just about protecting American jobs, they're about protecting the soul of our country."
And, on the issue of war and peace, the two parties might as well come from two different planets. Mr. Trump said, during his address, that he is "working tirelessly to end the savage conflict in Ukraine." Senator Slotkin replied by saying, "President Trump loves to say peace through strength. That's actually a line he stole from Ronald Reagan. But let me tell you, after the spectacle that just took place in the Oval Office last week, Reagan must be rolling in his grave," implying that Reagan would be more supportive of an adversary to Russia than Mr. Trump has been to Ukraine.
The examples of how there are two opposing perceptions of the state of our union go on and on.
Democrat members of Congress and Republican Members are seemingly from two different planets when one listens to their respective responses to the State of the Union address.
As I think about “Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus” as a metaphor for two groups with fundamentally different perspectives that are trying to coexist, one can certainly see similarities in the dynamic between Democrats and Republicans. Both groups often operate with distinct "languages," priorities, and worldviews, which can make communication and collaboration feel like interplanetary diplomacy.
As just one example, just as the book suggests men and women have different emotional needs, Democrats and Republicans often prioritize different issues—like social programs versus tax cuts. Taking a lesson from the book, which emphasizes understanding and compromise, successful bipartisan problem solving will require bridging those divides with empathy and mutual respect.
It’s a perfect example of the difference between Democrats and Republicans can be seen in reflecting on the White House meeting last week between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Democrats were largely critical of Trump's behavior during the meeting, describing it as disrespectful and counterproductive, and accused Trump and Vice President JD Vance of undermining U.S. support for Ukraine and playing into Russian interests.
On the other hand, Republicans generally expressed frustration with Zelenskyy, accusing him of being ungrateful and difficult to work with, some suggesting, as did Senator Lindsey Graham, that Zelenskyy needed to change his approach or step aside.
It's a perfect example that Democrats Are from Mars, Republicans Are from Venus.
If we are ever going to move forward as a nation and solve the serious problems facing our nation, perhaps we should take a lesson from “Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus”. The book categorizes ways people express and experience love into five "languages," providing insights into relationships and how to bridge communication gaps. Substitute the word “see the world” for “love” and it might serve as a useful lesson for us all.
Another book from the early 1990s, "You Just Don't Understand" by Deborah Tannen, focuses on similar gender-based differences that, once again, might serve us all in thinking about the difference between Democrats and Republicans, and help us address common misunderstandings. The book emphasizes the need to dive deeper into linguistic patterns and perceptions of what is coming between two different tribes occupying the same nation.
Perhaps, we can all have fun with this by re-watching the movie “When Harry Met Sally,” as it captures the differences and tensions between the sexes with a bit of humor. We certainly need to break down the barriers and humor might just do the trick.
Imagine a bipartisan roast where politicians poke fun at their own party’s quirks—like Democrats joking about their love for the rule of law and Republicans about their love for tax cuts. It could be a refreshing way to ease tensions and foster some goodwill.
Laughter might not solve everything, but it sure makes the journey a bit lighter. If laughter doesn’t work, how about a national therapy session?
If not, we’ll just head for different planets and all our problems will be solved.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More