OBAMA “GUIDANCE” ON SCHOOL DISCIPLINE TO BE REVOKED

OBAMA “GUIDANCE” ON SCHOOL DISCIPLINE TO BE REVOKED

John Hinderaker, Powerline

At the New York Post, Paul Sperry reports that the Trump administration’s Departments of Education and Justice will revoke the Obama administration’s infamous “guidance” on race quotas in school discipline:

Federal Education Department officials told the Post the guidance, known as the “2014 Dear Colleague letter,” will be rescinded this year, but only after drafting another rule to replace it. The substitute guidance will make it clear that the government will no longer rely on the disputed legal theory known as “disparate impact,” which Obama investigators used to threaten school districts with discrimination charges. 

“Just withdrawing the letter without replacing it with another letter interpreting disparate impact more narrowly would do little” to convince school officials to change their discipline policies back, a senior department official said. 

Putting out a new rule requires publicly inviting people from both sides to offer input, the official added, and the process will likely delay the repeal until July. 

He and other sources say Attorney General Jeff Sessions is on board the decision to scrap the Obama rule.

This is great news. The Obama “guidance” has been a disaster, making learning almost impossible in many schools. Minority students have been especially hard hit. The demise of Obama’s racial discipline quotas can’t come too soon.

NYMAS 2017 Book Award

The New York Military Affairs Symposium

 2017 Book Award

The winner of the year's Arthur Goodzeit Book Award is:

The 1929 Sino-Soviet War: The War Nobody Knew

By

Michael M. Walker

University Press of Kansas, 2017

978-0700623754

Link to Award Page

Link to Buy Book

THE HIGHER ED CRACK UP BEGINS

THE HIGHER ED CRACK UP BEGINS [UPDATED]

Steven Hayward, Powerline

I’ve been predicting, most recently in a lecture last month at Arizona State University that I’ll post up as a podcast at some point soon, that universities would soon begin to divide into two entities—the STEM fields and related practical subjects (i.e., business and economics), and the social sciences and humanities, which would start to shrivel under the weight of the degradations the left has inflicted over the last 40 years. The number of students majoring in the humanities has declined by two-thirds since around 1980.

Here’s part of what I said at Arizona State:

I think we’re already seeing the beginnings of a de facto divorce of universities, in which the STEM fields and other “practical” disciplines essentially split off from the humanities and social sciences, not to mention the more politicized departments. 

At this rate eventually many of our leading research universities will bifurcate into marginal fever swamps of radicalism whose majors will be unfit for employment at Starbucks, and a larger campus dedicated to science and technology education.

I added, incidentally, the interesting fact that a new trend is starting to occur in economics. Not only is the discipline subdividing itself into “general economics” and an even more math-centric “quantitative econometrics,” but several economics departments are formally reclassifying themselves as STEM departments for a variety of reasons, but among them surely has to be wishing to disassociate themselves further from other social sciences.

Well, now we have some concrete evidence of this crackup starting to happen. The University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point campus announced last week that it intends to cut 13 majors from the humanities and social sciences. Inside Higher Ed reports:

Programs pegged for closure are American studies, art (excluding graphic design), English (excluding English for teacher certification), French, geography, geoscience, German, history (excluding social science for teacher certification), music literature, philosophy, political science, sociology and Spanish.

The even better news is that some tenured professors are going to be laid off. Naturally, the faculty are not happy. Who’s next?

UPDATE: A number of early commenters have offered the sensible thought that potentially worthy majors (history, English, etc) are being cut, while the fully politicized fever swamps—gender studies, etc—are apparently being left in place. To which I would say, you’d be astounded at how politicized some foreign language departments are. Many English departments are totally lost to the left; one easy screen is to see whether they have dropped Shakespeare as a requirement for an English degree. When you see that, you can cross them off your list. I’ve already written here about how most Geography departments have become leftist fever swamps that have nothing to do any more with what you’d recognize as “geography,” and I’ll bet “geoscience” is doubtful too. History is often more than half lost to the left, too, though there is more variance in History.

Leaving the “studies” departments untouched may be a reflection of the current political power of the left, but I think eliminating the traditional departments first is a brilliant move. It will further isolate the crazy “studies” departments, and may galvanize the faculty members who know, but lack the courage to say, that these “studies” programs are mediocre fever swamps. If more and more tenured faculty in traditional departments face the axe, they just might start to find some courage to say aloud what everyone knows—that the academic emperor of oppression studies isn’t wearing any intellectual clothes.

Take heart: the fun is just beginning.

Contributive response:

For years, I was author of a report on new college graduates called, “Recruiting Trends,“ and frequently I would catch hxxx from the liberal arts faculty when their areas of study were rated significantly lower than engineering, sciences, business, and economics, because prospective employers were not hiring the “soft subjects” nearly as briskly as they were the harder subjects.

Here is the report I wrote annually for 27 year:

Recruiting Trends, 1997-98 [electronic resource] : A National Study of Job Market Trends for New College Graduates.

Scheetz, L. Patrick. [S.l.] : Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse, 1998.

L. Patrick Scheetz, Ph.D.

Whooooa...

Tillerson’s insubordination meant he had to go

Tillerson’s insubordination meant he had to go
Marc A. Thiessen, The Washington Post

There are many reasons Rex Tillerson’s tenure as secretary of state was a failure, from his notorious isolation from his subordinates to his failure to help quickly staff the political appointment positions at State with competent Republicans. But it was his insubordination to the president that assured that he wouldn’t be long in his position. With a summit with North Korea in the works, President Trump’s decision to oust Tillerson and replace him with CIA Director Mike Pompeo could not have come at a better moment.

Tillerson was completely out of step with Trump’s hard-line stance on North Korea, which ultimately brought Kim Jong Un to the bargaining table. Instead, Tillerson’s North Korea strategy seemed to be to beg Pyongyang for talks. Speaking at the Atlantic Council in December, Tillerson delivered this embarrassing plea: “Let’s just meet. And we can talk about the weather if you want. . . . But can we at least sit down and see each other face to face?” He might as well have added: “Pretty please, with sugar on top?”

Trump’s critics were constantly griping that the president was undermining Tillerson’s diplomatic efforts with North Korea, when in fact the opposite was true. Trump’s strategy has been to achieve a peaceful solution by getting Kim to understand that the United States is ready to use force to stop him from deploying a nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile capable of destroying an American city. This is the message Trump was trying to send during his address to the South Korean legislature, when he told Kim in no uncertain terms: “The weapons you are acquiring are not making you safer. They are putting your regime in grave danger. Every step you take down this dark path increases the peril you face.”

By projecting weakness to Pyongyang, Tillerson was undercutting Trump’s message of strength — and thus making war more likely. The fact that Tillerson could not seem to grasp this or get on the same page as his commander in chief made his continued leadership of the State Department untenable.

Pompeo, by contrast, is in lockstep with Trump in sending Kim a clear message that, should diplomacy fail, the United States will not hesitate to act. “The president is intent on delivering this solution through diplomatic means,” Pompeo told me during a recent conversation at the American Enterprise Institute. “We are equally, at the same time, ensuring that . . . if we conclude that it is not possible, that we present the president with a range of options that can achieve what is his stated intention.”

The failure to deliver those options is yet another reason Tillerson’s tenure at State had to end. Tillerson was working with Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to slow-walk the delivery of military options to the president, apparently out of fear that the president might actually act on them. According to the New York Times, after a conference call about North Korea organized by national security adviser H.R. McMaster, Tillerson stayed on the line with Mattis and, unaware the other participants were still listening, complained about a series of meetings the National Security Council had set up to consider military options — “signs, Mr. Tillerson said, that [the NSC] was becoming overly aggressive.”

No one elected Tillerson to make these decisions. They elected Trump. With Tillerson gone and Pompeo at State, McMaster will now have an ally at State who shares his belief that for Trump’s warnings to North Korea to be credible, he must have well-developed and credible military options on the table.

As Trump put it, Tillerson had to go because “we were not thinking the same. With Mike Pompeo, we have a similar thought process.” Having a trusted adviser at State will be critical to the success of the biggest diplomatic gamble of Trump’s presidency: his upcoming talks with Kim.

At AEI, Pompeo told me that the CIA assesses that Kim is a rational actor — which means that, given accurate information about the president’s intentions, Kim should make a rational decision that will not lead to the destruction of his regime. “We’re taking the real-world actions that we think will make [it] unmistakable to Kim Jong Un that we are intent on denuclearization,” Pompeo said. “We’re counting on the fact that he’ll see it. We’re confident that he will.” With Pompeo in office, Trump now has a much better chance of getting that message across to the North Korean dictator.

DOJ SUES CALIFORNIA.... YAHOO!

DOJ SUES CALIFORNIA OVER SANCTUARY STATE MEASURES
Paul Mirengoff, Powerline


The Justice Department has filed suit against the state of California over its policies that protect illegal immigrants from U.S. immigration authorities. The lawsuit challenges the legality of three separate California laws.

First, the California Values Act (SB 54) strictly limits state and local agencies from sharing information with federal officers about criminals or suspects unless they have been convicted of serious crimes. Second, the Immigrant Worker Protection Act (AB 450) prohibits local business from allowing federal officers to gain access to employee records without a court order or subpoena. Third, the state budget bill (AB 103) prohibits new contracts for immigration detention in the state and gives the state attorney general the power to monitor all state immigration detention centers.

The U.S. alleges that all three laws violate the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. SB 54 and AB 450 do so by, among other things, “constituting an obstacle to the United States’ enforcement of the immigration laws and discriminating against federal immigration enforcement.” In addition, SB 54 violates 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a), which bars federal, state, and local entities from prohibiting or restricting “any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, [federal immigration authorities] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”

AB 103 violates the Supremacy Clause by, among other things, constituting an obstacle to federal enforcement of the immigration laws and by discriminating against the United States. California does not require any local detention facility to comply with section 12532’s heightened inspection regime when it houses detainees for other federal or California entities. AB 103’s requirements apply only when local detention facilities house federal civil immigration detainees.

Under the Supremacy Clause, states cannot interfere with the federal government’s exercise of its constitutional powers. Nor can states assume functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government.

The Obama administration successfully relied on the Supremacy Clause to negate most of an Arizona law aimed at discouraging and deterring the unlawful entry, presence, and economic activity of illegal immigrants. In that case, the Supreme Court stated that “[t]he Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens,” and “[t]he Supremacy Clause gives Congress the power to preempt state law.”

In the California case, the Justice Department relies on this power. It states: “the United States has broad authority to establish immigration laws, the execution of which the states cannot obstruct or discriminate against.” It argues:

The provisions of state law at issue have the purpose and effect of making it more difficult for federal immigration officers to carry out their responsibilities in California. The Supremacy Clause does not allow California to obstruct the United States’ ability to enforce laws that Congress has enacted or to take actions entrusted to it by the Constitution.

In a speech today hosted by the California Peace Officers’ Association, Attorney General Sessions denounced the barriers California has erected to federal enforcement of the immigration laws:

In recent years, California has enacted a number of laws designed to intentionally obstruct the work of our sworn immigration enforcement officers—to intentionally use every power it has to undermine duly-established immigration law in America.

California won’t let employers voluntarily allow ICE agents on their property. And California requires employers to give notice to employees before ICE inspects their workplace.

When this law was before the California General Assembly, a Judiciary Committee report explicitly stated that its goal was to frustrate “an expected increase in federal immigration enforcement actions.”

ICE agents are federal law enforcement officers carrying out federal law. California cannot forbid them or obstruct them in doing their jobs.

Just imagine if a state passed a law forbidding employers from cooperating with OSHA in ensuring workplace safety. Or the EPA, looking for a polluter. That would obviously be absurd. But it would be no different in principle from this new law enacted by California.

And just think about the situation it puts California employers in. They want to help law enforcement. They want to do their civic duty. We ought to encourage that.

But your state attorney general has repeatedly said his office will prosecute these business owners. Let me quote: “ignorance of the law is no excuse if you violate it” and “you are subjecting yourself to up to $10,000 [in fines] for violations.”

California has also claimed the authority to inspect facilities where ICE holds people in custody. Already this year, California has specifically and in a discriminatory manner targeted six facilities and demanded documents and other material from the Department of Homeland Security.

California won’t let law enforcement officers like you transfer prisoners into ICE custody or even communicate with ICE that you’re about to release someone they’re looking for. Remember that California found these people dangerous enough to detain them in the first place, but then insists on releasing them back into the community instead of allowing federal officers to remove them.

And rather than allow ICE officers to do their jobs at the jailhouse, they force these officers to conduct far more dangerous arrests elsewhere—where violent criminals may reside and where children can be caught in the crossfire.

That’s not just unconstitutional, it’s a plain violation of federal statute and common sense.

Of the lawsuit, Sessions said:

Contrary to what you might hear from the lawless open borders radicals, we are not asking California, Oakland, or anyone else to enforce immigration laws. . . .

We are simply asking California and other sanctuary jurisdictions to stop actively obstructing federal law enforcement.

Stop treating immigration agents differently from everybody else for the purpose of eviscerating border controls and advancing an open borders philosophy shared by only the most radical extremists. Stop protecting lawbreakers and giving all officers more dangerous work to do so that a few politicians can score political points on the backs of officer safety.

California may not be the judicial friendliest jurisdiction in which to bring an anti-sanctuary cities lawsuit. However, the DOJ has picked an egregious set of laws to challenge, and this may stand it in good stead when, as seems extremely likely, the U.S. Supreme Court becomes involved.

California Dreaming...

U.S. News Crowns California Worst State for ‘Quality of Life’

Chris W. Street, Breitbart California

The U.S. News & World Report has named California the worst state for “quality of life,” largely due to the high cost of living.

U.S. News ranks the 50 U.S. states each year on eight major social and economic categories to determine an overall competitive ranking. California received an overall score of 32 in 2018, based on sub-category rankings for a Health Care (11); Education (26); Economy (4); Opportunity (46); Infrastructure (38); Crime and Corrections (28); Fiscal Stability (43); and Quality of Life (50).

U.S. News found California’s high cost of living to be its biggest detriment, despite its having the largest economy in the nation. San Jose and San Francisco both ranked in the 20 top places to live in U.S., but two communities were also in the most expensive for housing.

California’s 2016 median household income of $67,739 was ranked ninth nationally. The 18 percent higher income average compared to the national average of $57,617 might seem attractive, but California also had four of North America’s top 10 high cost of living cities.

California’s income reporting is being pushed up by the state’s large concentrations of Hollywood media celebrities, Silicon Valley technologists, and Orange County real estate developers, who consistently make huge amounts of money.

But the state’s largest industries are more middle-class including professional and business services; educational and health services; financial activities; leisure and hospitality; retail trade; manufacturing; construction; information processing; and farming.

U.S. News found that California’s infrastructure and housing availability have not kept up with an immigrant population surge over the last two decades.  Three in 10 Californians were born outside the U.S. — the highest in the nation — with about half of the immigrants moving up from Latin America and about 39 percent coming from Asia.

Breitbart News reported in December that Southern California’s resident population experienced a “net domestic outmigration” of 64,953 for the last 12-month period. About 85 percent of California’s outmigration was concentrated in the middle 20 percent income bracket and the next lower quintile bracket.

U.S. News found, on the plus side, that California continues to have many of the nation’s top universities, including Stanford; California Institute of Technology; University of California campuses at Berkeley and Los Angeles; and the University of Southern California.

The state also has unmatched natural beauty, including 840 miles of coastline, and scenic wonders such Yosemite National Park, Lake Tahoe, and the Wine Country.

U.S. News highlighted that although California politically leans Democrat, with millennials and Latinos as the largest number of newly registered voters, religion is important to Californians, with about a third of adult residents attending weekly services.

U.S News found that California business leaders are subject to very high costs to comply with a “capricious” state and local government regulatory system. The financial burden is seen as an increasing job killer for “smaller firms that are the least able to bear the costs.”