Dear Commons Community,

I have just finished reading The God Equation:  The Quest for a Theory of Everything, by Michio Kaku, professor of physics here at the City University of New York. It is a good read and covers a lot of ground in reviewing the major theories that have propelled theoretical physics for centuries concluding with string theory or as the subtitle suggests, the theory of everything. I found the background material on Isaac Newton (gravity), Albert Einstein (relativity), and Planck/Bohr (the quantum) excellent and well-presented for a general audience.  Kaku saves most of his book for string theory or the theory of everything.  Some theoretical physicists agree with the importance of string theory – others not so much.  A major issue and one that Kaku points out is that there is “no solid testable evidence” for string theory and we are not likely to have one for decades.  Below is an excerpt from the introduction of The God Equation which lays out its focus and thrust.

Try it if you have any interest in this subject matter.

Tony

———————————————————————————————–

The leading (and to my mind, only) candidate is called string theory, which posits the universe was not made of point particles but of tiny vibrating strings, with each note corresponding to a subatomic particle.

If we had a microscope powerful enough, we could see that electrons, quarks, neutrinos, etc. are nothing but vibrations on minuscule loops resembling rubber bands. If we pluck the rubber band enough times and in different ways, we eventually create all the known subatomic particles in the universe. This means that all the laws of physics can be reduced to the harmonies of these strings. Chemistry is the melodies one can play on them. The universe is a symphony. And the mind of God, which Einstein eloquently wrote about, is cosmic music resonating throughout space-time.

This is not just an academic question. Each time scientists have unraveled a new force, it has changed the course of civilization and altered the destiny of humanity. For example, Newton’s discovery of the laws of motion and gravity laid the groundwork for the machine age and the Industrial Revolution. Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell’s explanation of electricity and magnetism paved the way for the illumination of our cities and gave us powerful electric motors and generators as well as instantaneous communication via TV and radio. Einstein’s E = mc2 explained the power of the stars and helped to unravel the nuclear force. When Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, and others unlocked the secrets of the quantum theory, they gave us the high-tech revolution of today, with supercomputers, lasers, the internet, and all the fabulous gadgets in our living rooms.

Ultimately, all the wonders of modern technology owe their origin to the scientists who gradually discovered the fundamental forces of the world. Now, scientists may be converging on the theory that unifies these four forces of nature—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the strong and weak nuclear forces—into a single theory. Ultimately, it may answer some of the deepest mysteries and questions in all of science, such as:

·      What happened before the Big Bang? Why did it bang in the first place? 
·      What lies on the other side of a black hole?
·      Is time travel possible? 
·      Are there wormholes to other universes? 
·      Are there higher dimensions? 
·      Is there a multiverse of parallel universes? 

This book is about the quest to find this ultimate theory and all the bizarre twists and turns of what is undoubtedly one of the strangest chapters in the history of physics. We will review all the previous revolutions, which have given us our technological marvels, starting with the Newtonian revolution, leading up to the mastery of the electromagnetic force, the development of relativity and the quantum theory, and the string theory of today. And we will explain how this theory may also unravel the deepest mysteries of space and time.
 
However, hurdles remain. For all the excitement generated by string theory, the critics have been keen to point out its defects. And after all the hype and frenzy, real progress has stalled.

The most glaring problem is that, for all the flattering press extolling the beauty and complexity of the theory, we have no solid, testable evidence. (Kaku, pp. 3-5)

Rep. @AdamKinzinger tells @TheView that by removing Rep. Liz Cheney from GOP leadership, the party has “actually given her a massive platform.”

“They actually created their worst enemy … in deplatforming her.” https://t.co/f8u2wc159S pic.twitter.com/AIgOt0DcGA

— The View (@TheView) May 14, 2021

Dear Commons Community,

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) warned how the ousting of Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) from the House GOP leadership for refusing to back ex-President Donald Trump’s election lies could end up backfiring on the party.

“I believe that by basically deplatforming Liz they’ve actually given her a massive platform,” Kinzinger told  The View (see video above.)

Kinzinger said Cheney, before being purged Wednesday from her role as House Republican Conference chair, “would tell the truth obviously” but also “took into account the needs of the whole conference.”

But now “she’s basically out there independently saying what needs to be said, finding whatever media outlet she wants to go on, and I think telling the truth.”

“I think they actually created their worst enemy in … deplatforming her,” added Kinzinger, who crossed party lines to vote for the impeachment of Trump over his incitement of the deadly U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6.

The Illinois Republican said the GOP’s return to “loser” Trump was “not providing people any kind of a path to the future.”

“And standing up and being sane in the Republican party, that’s not anything heroic,” he added. “That’s just what people expect of us and unfortunately there’s not many of us doing that at the moment.”

Mr. Kinzinger is absolutely correct

Tony

Israel Bombs Building Housing The Associated PRess

Dear Commons Community,

An Israeli airstrike yesterday destroyed a high-rise building that housed The Associated Press office in the Gaza Strip, despite repeated urgent calls from the news agency to the military to halt the impending attack. AP called the strike “shocking and horrifying.”  As reported by the AP.

“Twelve AP staffers and freelancers were working and resting in the bureau on Saturday afternoon when the Israeli military telephoned a warning, giving occupants of the building one hour to evacuate. Everyone was able to get out, grabbing a few belongings, before three heavy missiles struck the 12-story building, collapsing it into a giant cloud of dust.

Although no one was hurt, the airstrike demolished an office that was like a second home for AP journalists and marked a new chapter in the already rocky relationship between the Israeli military and the international media. Press-freedom groups condemned the attack. They accused the military, which claimed the building housed Hamas military intelligence, of trying to censor coverage of Israel’s relentless offensive against Hamas militants.

Ahead of the demolition, the AP placed urgent calls to the Israeli military, foreign minister and prime minister’s office but were either ignored or told that there was nothing to be done.

“We have had no indication Hamas was in the building or active in the building,” AP President and CEO Gary Pruitt said in a statement. “This is something we actively check to the best of our ability. We would never knowingly put our journalists at risk.”

Pruitt described the news agency as “shocked and horrified that the Israeli military would target and destroy the building housing AP’s bureau and other news organizations in Gaza.” He warned: “The world will know less about what is happening in Gaza because of what happened today.”

“This is an incredibly disturbing development. We narrowly avoided a terrible loss of life,” he said, adding that the AP was seeking information from the Israeli government and was in touch with the U.S. State Department.

The building housed a number of offices, including those of the Arab satellite channel Al-Jazeera. Dozens of residents who lived in apartments on the upper floors were displaced.

A video broadcast by Al-Jazeera showed the building’s owner, Jawwad Mahdi, pleading over the phone with an Israeli intelligence officer to wait 10 minutes to allow journalists to go inside the building to retrieve valuable equipment before it is bombed.

“All I’m asking is to let four people … to go inside and get their cameras,” he said. “We respect your wishes, we will not do it if you don’t allow it, but give us 10 minutes.” When the officer rejected the request, Mahdi said, “You have destroyed our life’s work, memories, life. I will hang up, do what you want. There is a God.”

Late Saturday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the building was used by Hamas military intelligence. “It was not an innocent building,” he said.

Israel routinely cites a Hamas presence as a reason for targeting buildings. It also accused the group of using journalists as human shields.

Lt. Col. Jonathan Conricus, a military spokesman, refused to provide evidence backing up the army’s claims, saying it would compromise intelligence efforts. “I think it’s a legitimate request to see more information, and I will try to provide it,” he said.

Conricus said the army is “committed both to journalists, their safety and to their free work.”

For AP journalists, it was a difficult moment. Most of the AP staff has been sleeping in the bureau, which includes four bedrooms in an upstairs apartment, throughout the current round of fighting, believing that the offices of an international news agency were one of the few safe places in Gaza. In a territory crippled by an Israeli-Egyptian blockade, it was equipped with a generator that offered the rare comforts of electricity, air conditioning and running water.

AP correspondent Fares Akram said he was resting in an upstairs room when he heard panicked screams from colleagues about the evacuation order. Staffers hastily gathered basic equipment, including laptops and cameras before fleeing downstairs.

“I am heartbroken,” Akram said. “You feel like you are at home. Above all, you have your memories, your friends. You spend most of your time there.”

Al-Jazeera, the news network funded by Qatar’s government, broadcast the airstrikes live as the building collapsed.

“This channel will not be silenced. Al-Jazeera will not be silenced,” Halla Mohieddeen. on-air anchorperson for Al-Jazeera English said, her voice thick with emotion. “We can guarantee you that right now.”

Early Sunday, Hamas fired a heavy barrage of rockets at the metropolis of Tel Aviv, saying it was revenge for flattening the high-rise building.

President Joe Biden spoke to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the spiraling violence.

“He raised concerns about the safety and security of journalists and reinforced the need to ensure their protection,” the White House said.

Later Saturday, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke with Pruitt, AP’s president, to express concern about the incident. The State Department said Blinken offered his support for independent journalists and noted the “indispensability” of their reporting in conflict zones. He also expressed relief that the AP team in Gaza was safe.

The Foreign Press Association, which represents some 400 journalists working for international media organizations in Israel and the Palestinian territories, expressed its “grave concern and dismay” over the attack.

“Knowingly causing the destruction of the offices of some of the world’s largest and most influential news organizations raises deeply worrying questions about Israel’s willingness to interfere with the freedom of the press,” it said. “The safety of other news bureaus in Gaza is now in question.”

Joel Simon, executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, said the attack raises concerns that Israel is targeting the media “to disrupt coverage of the human suffering in Gaza.” He demanded “detailed and documented justification” for the attack.

The International Press Institute, a global network of journalists and media executives, condemned the attack as a “gross violation of human rights and internationally agreed norms.”

The Israeli military has long had rocky relations with the foreign media, accusing international journalists of being biased against it.

The attack came a day after the Israeli military had fed vague — and in some cases erroneous — information to the media about a possible ground incursion into Gaza. It turned out that there was no ground invasion, and the statement was part of an elaborate ruse aimed at tricking Hamas militants into defensive underground positions that were then destroyed in Israeli airstrikes.

International journalists have accused the army of duping them and turning them into accessories for a military operation. The army said the error was an honest mistake.”

This is a public relations nightmare for Israel!

Tony

Say Good-Bye to the SAT and ACT in California

Dear Commons Community,

The University of California announced on Friday that it will no longer consider SAT or ACT scores as part of their admissions process.  The California system reached a legal settlement with students in a case that would eliminate the two tests even on an optional basis for admissions and scholarship decisions.  The settlement signals the end of a lengthy legal debate over whether the University of California system should use the standardized tests, which students of color and those with disabilities have said put them at a disadvantage. Opponents of the tests called the settlement “historic,” and said that it would broaden access to campuses for students across the state.  As reported by The New York Times.

“Today’s settlement ensures that the university will not revert to its planned use of the SAT and ACT — which its own regents have admitted are racist metrics,” said Amanda Savage, a lawyer representing the students. 

“Some 225,000 undergraduate students attend University of California schools, and the settlement this week makes the system the largest and best-known American institution of higher education to distance itself from the use of the two major standardized tests.

The settlement resolves a 2019 lawsuit brought by a coalition of students, advocacy groups and the Compton Unified School District, a largely Black and Hispanic district in Los Angeles County. The plaintiffs said that the college entrance tests are biased against poor and mainly Black and Hispanic students — and that by basing admissions decisions on those tests, the system illegally discriminates against applicants on the basis of their race, wealth and disability.

In January, the College Board, which produces the SAT, said that it would scrap subject tests and the optional essay section, further scrambling the admissions process.

The newly announced settlement says that no University of California schools can consider SAT or ACT scores in determining admission offers for students applying for entry between fall 2021 and spring 2025. If scores are submitted by students, they will not be viewed by those looking over admissions applications, the settlement said.

Last year, the university system voted to phase out the SAT and ACT requirements for admission, amid the ongoing criticism. Like many colleges nationwide, University of California schools had already made the SAT and ACT optional for last year’s applicants who will begin school this fall, after testing dates were disrupted by the pandemic.

Then the California system’s governing board voted unanimously to extend that optional period for another year, and said it would not consider scores for the next two years in the case of in-state applicants. In those cases, standardized tests would be used only to award scholarships, determine course placement and assess out-of-state students. The board planned to phase out consideration of the SAT or ACT for any student’s admission, in or out of state, in 2025.

But last year, students sued the university, with lawyers arguing in court that even voluntary submission of scores would be harmful, particularly for students with disabilities who were largely unable to take the tests with necessary accommodations during the coronavirus pandemic — and therefore were denied the opportunity to submit scores.

An Alameda County Superior Court judge granted a preliminary injunction, ruling that the university system was not permitted to factor in SAT and ACT scores in admissions decisions, even if the tests were optional.

The University of California complied with the decision, but strongly disagreed and filed an appeal, a spokeswoman said in a statement. At the same time, the university system explored the possibility of a settlement “that would provide certainty for students and their families, counselors, and high schools,” the statement said. The parties reached an agreement, which was approved on Thursday by the University of California Board of Regents, the university said.

The settlement provides that the university, if it chooses a new exam for entrance in the future, “will consider access for students with disabilities in the design and implementation of any such exam.” It also specifies that the university system will pay more than $1.2 million to the students’ lawyers.

More than half of the country’s four-year colleges and universities dismissed the ACT or SAT for fall 2021 admission, according to FairTest, a group that has pushed to end testing requirements. This means that 1,240 institutions — including top universities like Brown, Caltech, Carnegie Mellon, Columbia, the University of Virginia and Yale — are test-optional. Some of these same schools, including the University of Virginia, have expanded their test-optional admissions beyond fall 2021.

SAT and ACT scores for the University of California may now be used only for the limited purposes of fulfilling the English subject-matter requirement, course placement or advising after students are admitted — if applicants choose to submit them, the university said.

Critics of the ACT and SAT have raised concerns that the tests put less wealthy students at a disadvantage, citing decades of data indicating that they are inherently biased in favor of affluent, white and Asian-American students. They also say the tests are too easily gamed by students who can pay thousands of dollars for private coaching and test prep.

But the College Board, which produces the SAT, has insisted that students are disadvantaged by inequities in the education system, not tests, and that basing admissions decisions strictly on grades tends to boost opportunities for wealthier, more advantaged applicants.

“Real inequities exist in American education, and they are reflected in every measure of academic achievement, including the SAT,” the College Board’s executive director for communications, Zach Goldberg, said in a statement. “The SAT itself is not a racist instrument. Every question is rigorously reviewed for evidence of bias and any question that could favor one group over another is discarded.”

The Board said it favored test-optional policies, such as the one that the California system and others had previously put in place. “As we emerge from the pandemic, the SAT will remain one of the most accessible and affordable ways for students to distinguish themselves,” it said. “Preserving a student’s choice to submit scores is important.”

The University of California system received the largest number of undergraduate applications in its history for fall of 2021 — a 16.1 percent increase from the past year — the university said, including an increase in African-American and Latino applicants. California community college transfer applications also jumped by an “impressive margin,” the university said.

At the University of California, Los Angeles, freshman applications rose by 28 percent, and even more for racial minorities — by 48 percent for African-Americans, by 33 percent for Hispanic students and by 16 percent for American Indian students.

“The makeup of this year’s applicants already show that students are no longer deterred from applying based on their inability to access standardized testing,” Marci Lerner Miller, another lawyer representing the students, said in a statement addressing the settlement.

“We’re confident that this settlement will lead to students demonstrating their abilities, rather than their disabilities, in the application process,” she said.

Eliminating the SAT and ACT is indeed an “historic”  step in opening up admissions to a large percentage of minorities and people with disabilities.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Tanya Joosten and Nicole Weber have just completed a new report entitled,  Planning for a Blended Future, that reviews and provides direction for the design and implementation of what is becoming the new normal in higher education.  As described in its opening page:

“While many of us through the years have experienced and witnessed the potential of blended (or hybrid) learning in the future of post-secondary education, the promise has never been more realized than in the world’s response to a global pandemic and the urgency for academic continuity through emergency remote instruction that required online learning technologies to mix or replace students’ onsite experience with a new online experience. Educators persevered through a global pandemic, a collective trauma of our lives, learning more than ever the weaknesses of technology, the strengths of togetherness, and the need for thoughtful and inclusive strategic planning. While the challenge, disappointment, and devastation are not without note, the possibilities for the strategic transformation of the future of higher education through blended learning are abundant. By thoughtfully and strategically considering design and technologies to create meaningful connectedness across distance through active learning pedagogies, real learning can be achieved.”

This is an important addition to the literature on this topic and lays down the future for the “blended university.”

Must reading for those with any interest in the academic enterprise.

The full report is available as a free download here.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers, called for the reopening of the schools in Fall 2021.  She cited the increasing success of vaccination deployment as the main reason for her position.  She also mentioned  several issues that still have to be more fully addressed such as poor ventilation systems in older school buildings, spacing issues in over-crowed schools, and getting more students vaccinated.  She concluded her interview by voicing optimism that schools will be fully reopened in the fall.

The video above is taken from an interview she gave yesterday on CBS News. 

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced yesterday that people who are fully vaccinated against Covid-19 no longer need to wear masks or physically distance — whether indoors or outdoors in most circumstances.

“We have all longed for this moment when we can get back to some sense of normalcy,” the CDC’s director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, said during a media briefing.

“Based on the continuing downward trajectory of cases, the scientific data on the performance of our vaccines and our understanding of how the virus spreads,” Walensky said, “that moment has come for those who are fully vaccinated.

President Joe Biden called the move a “great milestone” during remarks Thursday at the White House, adding that it was “made possible by the extraordinary success we’ve had in vaccinating so many Americans, so quickly.”   As reported by NBC News.

More than 35 percent of the population has been fully vaccinated, according to the CDC.

Outside experts in infectious disease overwhelmingly hailed the move.

“Today marks a true turning point in the pandemic,” said a former acting director of the CDC, Dr. Richard Besser, president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. “If you’re fully vaccinated, you are good to go. That’s huge.”

Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, said: “It’s exactly what we ought to be doing right now. I think it follows the best science

Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease physician with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, said the move is “long overdue.”

“Our goal was to tame this virus, to defang and to remove its ability to threaten hospitals,” Adalja said. “I think we’ve accomplished that in the United States.”

The recommendations come more than a year after the CDC first recommended that Americans should wear masks to protect against spreading or catching the coronavirus. At that time, the U.S. was logging more than 1,000 Covid-19 deaths a day.

A person is considered fully vaccinated two weeks after the last dose of Covid-19 vaccine. That gives the immune system enough time to develop antibodies against the virus.

The new recommendation is proof, Walensky said, that the vaccines are working extraordinarily well. She cited several studies from the U.S. and Israel that demonstrated vaccines are more than 90 percent effective in preventing symptomatic Covid-19.

There are a few caveats, however. People who have compromised immune systems, for example, should talk to their doctors about continuing with mitigation measures. And even fully vaccinated people may still be asked to wear masks in certain places, such as in hospitals or other health care settings, as well as public transportatio

“Right now for travel, we’re asking people to wear their masks,” Walensky said. “We still have the requirement to wear masks when you travel on buses, trains and other forms of public transportation.”

Even though the vaccines work well, they are not perfect, and breakthrough infections can occur. Of the more than 117 million people in the U.S. who have been fully vaccinated, 9,245 later tested positive for Covid-19. Those illnesses have generally been mild.

Meanwhile, even those who have been vaccinated should still feel comfortable wearing masks if they choose, experts said. It is clear that masking and physical distancing this winter worked to stop the spread of respiratory diseases, such as the flu.

“We have all been getting such comfort out of wearing our masks and keeping apart,” Besser said. “And now to say, OK, it’s safe to come out? It’s going to take a little while for people to internalize that.”

Dr. Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, warned against relaxing mitigation measures too much, especially in states with lower vaccination rates.

“Transmission is still high in certain parts of the country, and this needs to be monitored,” Hotez said. “If transmission starts going up again, we may have to be prepared to modify this.”

For now, the CDC guidance applies only to those who have been fully vaccinated. Soon, that group will include children ages 12 and older, now that the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration have both signed off on Covid-19 vaccines for that age group.

The CDC is expected to update its guidance on children in school and summer camps soon.

For those who remain unvaccinated or who have only had a single dose of either the Moderna or Pfizer vaccines, Walensky advised continuing to wear masks.

Hallelujah!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Stephen Adair, a sociology professor at Central Connecticut State University,  and Colena Sesanker, a philosophy professor at Gateway Community College in New Haven, Connecticut, had a guest essay in yesterday’s New York Times making the case for tuition-free two-year and four-year college degrees.  Citing issues of equity and the ever-widening income gap between those with and without college degrees, Adair and Sesanker call for embracing the College for All Act of 2021, introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Pramila Jayapal, that would address the crisis in full.  In addition to making community college tuition-free for all, it would make two- and four-year public colleges and minority-serving institutions free for poor and middle-class students and increase funding for programs that target students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

This is an idea whose time has come.  The college education of today is as necessary as a high school education was a century ago and should be made free.  The entire essay is below.

Tony

————————————————————–

New York Times

Should Two- and Four-Year Degrees Be Free?

Stephen Adair and Colena Sesanker

May 13, 2021

The last 40 years have seen an ever-widening income gap between those with college degrees and those without. Over that interval, incomes have soared for those with advanced degrees and declined for those with high-school diplomas or less. As a result, the route to economic security for young people depends increasingly on access to higher education. Yet it keeps getting more expensive.

Since the Great Recession, the public portion of the operating costs for state universities and colleges in Connecticut, where we teach, has declined 20 percent; since the 1980s, it has declined by nearly half. In the 1960s, tuition for a Connecticut state university was $100 a year, which could be earned by working fewer than 100 hours at minimum wage. Today, a student needs to work nearly 1,000 hours at the state minimum of $12 an hour to pay the $11,462 required for tuition at the least expensive state university in Connecticut.

Our state is hardly unique in abdicating its responsibilities to the next generation. By 2018, only four states had returned to prerecession funding levels at public two- and four-year institutions. In Arizona the decline has been especially acute: 2018 per-student higher-education funding was down 55.7 percent from 2008, and average student tuition costs at four-year institutions increased by 91 percent. In Louisiana, these figures were 40.6 and 105.4 percent, respectively.

The Biden administration has proposed reforms to ease the student-debt crisis. But a real solution must upend a system of cascading inequities. Restoring the dream of higher education as an equalizer requires a holistic solution that attacks all the sources of the problem: a lack of investment in common goods, growing tuition and student debt and exploitative labor practices that undermine the quality of education.

The rise in tuition costs, combined with the growing economic value of a college degree, fuels the crisis of student debt, which today totals $1.7 trillion. To pay for a year of school, three-quarters of American families pay at least 24 percent of their average family income, even after grants are distributed.

As students pay more, they often receive less. Nationwide, nearly 75 percent of all faculty positions are off the tenure track, often without benefits or long-term job prospects. Ironically, hundreds of thousands of some of the most educated people in the country now shuttle to and from campus, juggling gigs to try to eke out a living while unable to give students the attention they deserve.

While President Biden’s American Families Plan includes a provision for free community college, this is an incomplete solution.

The College for All Act of 2021, introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Pramila Jayapal, would address the crisis in full. In addition to making community college tuition-free for all, it would make two- and four-year public colleges and minority-serving institutions free for poor and middle-class students and increase funding for programs that target students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Nationally, in 2016, the net average price of college attendance (the total cost minus all grants awarded) for students coming from the lowest family income quartile amounted to 94 percent of total family income. Unsurprisingly, poorer students are less present at higher levels of education nationwide. In Connecticut, students of color are overrepresented at the introductory levels and increasingly underrepresented at higher levels.

We stand to exacerbate racial and class divides if we create a dead end for poorer students by cutting off funding at the associate level, stunting their progress or requiring them to take on debt to continue. By including both two- and four-year institutions and by expanding Pell grants so they can be used to cover living and nontuition expenses, the College for All Act would help bridge the significant earning gap between those with some college education and those with bachelor’s degrees.

The measure would also address the labor precarity corroding learning conditions: It would require that at least 75 percent of courses be taught by tenured or tenure-track faculty members and help transition short-term and part-time faculty members to those positions.

To fund these reforms, the bill proposes a tax on trades of stocks, bonds and derivatives, to raise more than $600 billion over the next decade.

The College for All Act complements recent efforts in states like California, Connecticut, Georgia and New York to boost two- and four-year institutions. While these efforts are distinct, they all seek to facilitate the movement between two-year colleges and public universities and improve equity.

In “The Inequality Machine,” Paul Tough demonstrates how the financing structure of higher education fails to level the playing field. Rather, it amplifies the inherited advantages and disadvantages that were exacerbated during the Covid-19 pandemic. He documents what we have too often witnessed: Bright, able and gritty students simply cannot overcome the financial and other obstacles that prevent them from completing their degrees.

To the extent that higher education reinforces existing inequities, it contributes to the affliction it is supposed to ease. Solving this problem will expand opportunities for individuals, grow the middle class, improve the skills of America’s work force and strengthen democracy. But this won’t happen on its own; it needs a push. So let’s push.

Merrick Garland’s Testimony starts at about the 25-minute mark.

Dear Commons Community,

Attorney General Merrick Garland told Congress yesterday that violence incited by white supremacists poses “the most dangerous threat to our democracy.”  That assertion reflects near-universal consensus among national security experts, including those who worked for the Trump administration.

Garland’s warning came during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol (see video above), which was conducted by supporters of then-President Donald Trump and incited by white supremacist groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. Five people died as a result of the attack.

“In my career as a judge and in law enforcement, I have not seen a more dangerous threat to democracy than the invasion of the Capitol,” Garland said, calling the attack an “attempt to interfere with a fundamental element of our democracy, the peaceful transfer of power.” The attorney general went on to say that “there has to be a hierarchy of things that we prioritize. This would be the one we’d prioritize.”

In 1995, Garland investigated the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City by white supremacists, an attack that killed 168 people, including 19 children. The bombing came at a time when militants were galvanized by violent encounters with federal authorities in Waco, Texas, and Ruby Ridge, Idaho.

The threat of domestic terrorism receded in the public imagination after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, which were carried out by Islamic fundamentalists from Saudi Arabia and other nations. But as that threat has receded in recent years, militant white nationalism has returned as a top concern.

“The horror of domestic violent extremism is still with us,” Garland said in his opening remarks, discussing his work on the Oklahoma City bombing and the Unabomber case. He noted that encrypted internet messaging and the increased availability and sophistication of “lethal weaponry” make the threat of domestic terror greater than it has ever been.

Some of the Trump administration’s own top advisers came to the same conclusions. Last fall, the FBI warned about extremists planning violent actions to coincide with November’s presidential election. Officials at the Department of Homeland Security tried to get Trump to pay attention to white nationalist groups, some of which expressed open affinity for him and his political movement.

Trump infamously told one such group, the Proud Boys, to “stand back and stand by” during a presidential debate when a moderator confronted him on the topic. But instead of taking meaningful steps to address the white supremacist threat, Trump urged officials in his administration to focus on antifa, a loosely organized network of leftist radicals that is not widely considered a threat to national security.

Republicans continue to insist that antifa and Black Lives Matter are as great a threat to national security as white supremacy, though research has shown that most of last summer’s Black Lives Matter-inspired protests were peaceful. While some violence and looting did occur, intense media coverage — in particular by conservative outlets like Fox News — may have provided a distorted image of those protests.

That strategy was evident on Wednesday, with Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., wondering if what he called last summer’s “rioting and pilfering” should have been subject to federal prosecution. Garland noted that violence and destruction of property were, in fact, crimes — but not necessarily ones deserving scrutiny from the Department of Justice.

Testifying alongside Garland was Alejandro Mayorkas, who heads the Department of Homeland Security. Republicans questioned him intensely about the situation on the border with Mexico, in what appeared to be another attempt to turn the hearing away from Jan. 6.

“The foreign threats persist,” Mayorkas said at one point. “It’s not as though they have disappeared. But the threat landscape is always evolving.” Much like Garland, he plainly sees that evolution favoring the continued emergence of homegrown terrorists with white nationalist ties.

Garland and Mayorkis tell it like it is!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

House Republicans voted yesterday to remove Rep. Liz Cheney from the No. 3 position in caucus leadership after she vocally rebuked Donald Trump and refused to accept his “Big Lie” about the 2020 election..

“We must be true to our principles and to the Constitution,” Cheney, R-Wyo., told fellow House Republicans before the closed-door vote, according to a source in the room. “We cannot let the former president drag us backward and make us complicit in his efforts to unravel our democracy. Down that path lies our destruction, and potentially the destruction of our country.”

After the vote, Cheney said that if Trump tries to run again, “I will do everything I can to ensure that the former president never again gets anywhere near the Oval Office.”  As reported by NBC News.

The conference, led by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., held a speedy voice vote to oust her, lawmakers said after it occurred. Republicans had planned to vote via secret ballot, but opting instead for a voice vote means it will be impossible to know how many in her caucus supported her removal and how many would have kept her in leadership.

“There were no speeches really. It was just Kevin standing up and then the vote happened,” said Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., a Cheney ally who called it a “sad day.”

“Truth cannot coexist with lies,” he told reporters.

Cheney, who voted to impeach Trump for his role in the Jan. 6 riot, responded to the former president’s most recent claim last week that the 2020 election was “fraudulent,” calling his words “THE BIG LIE.” And she remained defiant on Tuesday evening, describing his claims as a threat to democracy.

With Cheney’s ouster, party leaders have coalesced around elevating Rep. Elise Stefanik, a staunch Trump ally who represents an upstate New York district. A vote on her to take the spot is expected on Friday.

Stefanik, of New York, met with with the House Freedom Caucus on Wednesday evening. As she departed, she said, “We’re going to be unified as Republicans moving forward.”

The clash between Cheney and Trump has caused consternation among some House Republican lawmakers who are weary of having the leadership fight overshadow their criticism of President Joe Biden, or answering for the ex-president’s ongoing false claims about the election.

“Having heard from so many of you in recent days, it’s clear that we need to make a change. As such, you should anticipate a vote on recalling the Conference Chair this Wednesday,” McCarthy wrote in a letter on Monday, after days of mobilizing to oust Cheney.

Republicans have sought to cast her ouster as a move to unify the party ahead of next year’s midterm elections, in which they’re hopeful they can gain seats and capture control of the House.

McCarthy’s letter contains some contradictions that reflect the party’s struggles to navigate Trump.

He implicitly criticized Cheney for “relitigating the past” despite the fact that she was responding to Trump’s ongoing statements about the past. He called on Republicans to focus their criticism on Democrats’ agenda, which Trump has said little about. He labeled the GOP a “big tent party” of “free thought and debate” while arguing for the ouster of a conference chair who broke with Trump.

After the vote, Trump released a statement taunting Cheney, calling her “a bitter, horrible human being.”

“I watched her yesterday and realized how bad she is for the Republican Party. She has no personality or anything good having to do with politics or our Country,” he said.

GOP strategists are torn about the political impact of Cheney’s removal, with some arguing it would further alienate Trump-skeptical voters, particularly in the suburbs.

“The suburban voters who’ve switched voting from Republican to Democrat are the new swing voters in American politics,” said Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster. “It remains to be seen whether they are permanently in the Democratic camp or come back to the Republicans. But the suburban voters who are most at risk of becoming permanent Democrats are the college-educated suburban women. And removing someone like Liz Cheney pushes them further away from the GOP.”

But Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the party is worse off if it rejects the former president.

“We need everybody in the party but we’re not going to erase Donald Trump. And she’s been advocating that we can’t go forward with him. And I’m saying you can’t go forward without him,” he told reporters Monday. “I like Liz Cheney, but the damage done from trying to drive Donald Trump out of the party is greater than keeping him in the party.”

Cheney, who represents Wyoming and is the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, has no plans to resign from Congress and intends to run for re-election, according to a source familiar with her thinking, despite having numerous opponents already challenging her in a party primary.

Some Democrats said the move against Cheney means Republicans are giving up on democracy and becoming a cult of Trump.

“It’s appalling that the Republican Party seems to be solely captured by this big lie. They so want to please Donald Trump that they go along,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters Tuesday. “In the House, Ms. Cheney — Liz Cheney spoke truth to power, and now they’re firing her.”

After a White House meeting Wednesday with Biden, Schumer and other congressional leaders, McCarthy downplayed the attempts within his party to de-legitimize the 2020 contest.

“I don’t think anybody is questioning the legitimacy of the presidential election. I think that is all over with,” the House Republican leader said. “We’re sitting here with the president today.”

The Republicans led by McCarthy has become the party of hypocrisy.

Tony