Category: Foreign

We’ll continue the war until our goal is achieved, says Russia

Ukrainian forces have reportedly swept deeper into territory seized from fleeing Russian troops and joyful residents returned to former frontline villages yesterday.

But, Moscow’s shells rained down on Kharkiv yesterday, setting off fires across the region’s main city.

Ukraine’s general staff said its soldiers had recaptured more than 20 towns and villages in just the past day. Further south, they repelled attempted Russian advances in two important areas of the Donetsk region – the city of Bakhmut and Maiorsk, near the coal-producing town of Horlivka, it said in an evening update.

“People are crying, people are joyful, of course. How could they not be joyful!” said retired English teacher, Zoya, 76, in the now-quiet village of Zolochiv, north of Kharkiv and 18 km (10 miles) from the Russian frontier, weeping as she described the months she had spent sheltering in the cellar.

Nastya, 28, had fled the village in April but returned last week after news of Ukrainian advances. “I think everyone’s in a great (mood). It’s all over now. At least we hope it’s all over,” she said, queuing for groceries with two small children.

Read Also: Ukraine: The great powers scramble for Africa

However, in its first public response to the Ukrainian victories on the battlefield, Russia said it would succeed in its military objectives in the country.

Dmitry Peskov, Kremlin spokesman, said this to journalists yesterday while reaffirming confidence in the leadership of Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president.

“The military operation continues. And it will continue until the goals that were originally set are achieved,” he said.

Last Thursday, Ukrainian military forces said they retook over 3,000 sq km (1,158 sq miles) during a rapid counter-offensive in eastern Ukraine.

Peskov did not disclose if Russia’s defence ministry would retaliate to Ukraine’s counter-offensive.

According to him, there are currently no grounds for peace talks between both countries.

The invasion of Ukraine started on February 24, 2022, when Russia launched a full-scale attack from multiple directions on the country after several weeks of building up troops on the country’s border.

Putin had said his goal was to “demilitarise and de-Nazify Ukraine” and to protect people subjected to what he called eight years of bullying and genocide by Ukraine’s government.

British High Commissioner to Nigeria Catriona Laing has emphasised that King Charles III will continue to maintain and strengthen the relationship between the United Kingdom and Nigeria as her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II did.

Laing spoke yesterday during a news conference following the death of Queen Elizabeth II who passed on Sept. 8, and the ascension of the new King, Charles III.

Laing said Nigeria “is very important to the United Kingdom”, noting that King Charles as well as other members of the Royal Family share the same love and passion that the Queen had for her Commonwealth nations.

“King Charles visited Nigeria in 2018; he met a variety of people, from the youths of the country to traditional leaders.

“And he follows Nigeria closely, he reads my telegrams closely and he will continue to maintain that interest and affection for Nigeria.

“As we mourn the departure of an amazing woman, we celebrate her life and we look forward to King Charles III.

“Nigeria is very important to the UK and the biggest and the most important country in Africa, everything is here.

“Like everybody else, the Queen, the King and the Royal family witness the role Nigeria plays in the world stage with very significant figures and very important places. So Nigeria is watched particularly.

“And I think it was her visit here when she was able to travel so wide and she was inspired by the amazing spirits of the people of Nigeria. It has been very helpful to me to have such strong bonds.

“She is very passionate about the Commonwealth but I believe personally that Nigeria has a very special place in her heart of Prince Charles III,” Laing said.

She said that the High Commission would communicate to the Nigerian public in the coming days on the activities to commemorate the funeral of Her Majesty.

The coffin of the late Queen is presently resting at St. Giles Cathedral in the Scottish Capital of Edinburgh after it travelled from Balmoral Castle where she passed to the Royal family’s residence, Holyrood Palace in Edinburgh.

The body will leave Scotland to England today, where it will rest at the Westminster Abbey for people to pay their final respect to her until her funeral on Sept. 19.

The First Lady, Aisha Buhari and Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Minister of State Dr. Ramatu Aliyu yesterday commiserated with the British High Commissioner to Nigeria, Catriona Liang, over the death of the Queen of England Elizabeth II.

In a condolence letter by the first lady to the British High Commission in Abuja, she described the late monarch as an outstanding leader, mother and lover of humanity.

cio-cultural blocs among the comity of nations.

“Queen Elizabeth II had the distinction of presiding over the Independence of almost all former British colonies and witnessed the emergence of several women as Presidents and Prime Ministers in various countries,” she said.

Dr. Aliyu also joined thousands to commiserate with the British High Commissioner in Abuja over the death of Queen Elizabeth II.

In a condolence visit to the British High Commissioner, the minister described the late monarch as a mother whose leadership and steadfastness was admired globally.

While signing the condolence register, Aliyu said: “I write to commiserate with you over the death of Queen Elizabeth II, who died peacefully at Balmoral Castle in Aberdeenshire, Scotland, aged 96-year.

“Her Majesty was not just a British Monarch, but a mother whose leadership and steadfastness was admired globally.

“Her visits to Nigeria in 1956 and 2003 respectively are clear demonstration of her motherly love to all Commonwealth Nations.

“She lived a life of “full circle” overseeing the affairs of 15 Prime Ministers in her 70 years of reign”.

Black people all over the world have struggled for centuries for a just world. Though a lot of grounds have been covered, it is not yet Uhuru, writes United States Bureau Chief OLUKOREDE YISHAU.

Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, Congressman Gregory W. Meeks, Professor Justin Hansford and Desirée Cormier Smith have something in common: Though they are Americans, they are of African descent. They all spoke some days back at a briefing in Washington DC to celebrate people of African descent.

Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield, who is the U.S. Representative to the United Nations,  was moved to tears on her first visit to Africa.

“Having grown up in the segregated South, I was moved to tears the first – the very first time I set foot in Africa: the warm welcome that I received, knowing I was in the land of my ancestors was beautiful and inspiring, and I have never forgotten that day. It made me determined to support all peoples of African descent throughout my career,” she said.

Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield added that she was beyond proud that the United States joined many others around the world in both honoring and celebrating the second International Day for People of African Descent,” she said.

She went on: “For me, honouring this day means not shrinking away from our painful past or our current responsibilities to remove the rot of systemic racism from our societies.

“Earlier this month, the United States presented its report to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in Geneva. The report highlighted our many actions across our entire government to address racial and ethnic discrimination in the United States. We engaged closely with civil society and with the committee on that report, and we’re absolutely – absolutely committed to making that progress. The appointment of Desirée Cormier is just one more example of that commitment.

But this is not only a solemn day; it is also a day of celebration. We should celebrate all people of African descent, and our many collective contributions to the world. We should celebrate the hard-won progress we’ve made over the past decades, even though we still have so much further to go. And we should celebrate the creation of the Permanent Forum for People of African Descent. This new and necessary space represents a real, tangible victory at the UN.”

Taking people of African descent off backburner

Congressman Meeks, who is the Chairman of the United States House Foreign Affairs Committee, believes that though black people have come a long way to assert their place in the world, more grounds remain uncovered.

He said the eighth International Decade for People of African Descent was a reminder that people of African descent have come far but still have a long way to go to ensure access for people of African descent to all aspects of public life.

“Over 200 million people of African descent, many of them the direct descendants of enslaved Africans, shape the region in which we live, influencing its growth, innovation, development, and unique blend of cultures. The United States is inextricably connected to many countries by a common history of colonialism, conquest, the transatlantic slave trade. But we’re also linked by an unwavering desire to enjoy freedom, equality, representation, and prosperity, not just for a few but for us all. And as chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I am deeply vested in the promise of prosperity, of innovation, and responsible growth.

“But these goals will not be met if we do not recognise that our national interests, suffering, and potential are all very closely linked. What affects our neighbors impacts us here. Our future is also tied to the fate of many historically marginalised groups. We must support and protect these communities in the region and around the world and lead a global commitment to continue to fight the global pandemic, and to ensure sustainable development, inclusive investment, lasting peace, and of course, prosperity,” Meeks said.

The House Committee chair explained that policies must be imbued with respect for the rule of law and human rights to address the violence and inequities facing African descendants, indigenous, and rural communities around the world.

Meeks said: “Over the years I’ve been a strong proponent of programmes which seek to provide access to economic, educational, and leadership opportunities for people of African descent and other historically marginalised people. My office has championed initiatives at the State Department that support the International Decade for People of African Descent, such as the U.S.-Brazil Joint Action Plan and the Colombian Action Plan on Racial and Ethnic Equality, and the creation of a unit designated to support these issues in the Western Hemisphere as well as foreign assistance in alignment with these programs at USAID.

“Just this – earlier this month I had the pleasure of seeing that commitment at work during a recent delegation visit to Colombia led by Administrator Samantha Power, who announced a $60 million initiative focused on the challenges to peaceful and inclusive development for indigenous peoples and Afro-Colombians.”

Recalling a February trip to Africa, Meeks said his delegation to several countries on the continent of Africa, including Sierra Leone and Liberia, was after creating an indelible bond between the members of the African diaspora and the United States and the continent.

“Again, in my capacity as chairman, I will continue to make full use of the committee’s oversight responsibilities to ensure that the State Department and USAID are committed to expanding diversity and hiring efforts, as well as increasing efforts to address the global rise in racial discrimination and gender-based violence. I remain steadfast in my belief that by building and strengthening regional and global partnerships and investing in global black – the global black diaspora, we can ensure that we support the pillars of the decade for people of African descent.

“We can only do it if we all bond together and it’s not on the backburner, it’s not just a day, it’s not just a month or a week, it’s not even just a year – it is something that we continue to focus on collectively. Because we know if we don’t, the future for everyone will be in doubt,” he said.

He added that this was the time for the United States of America to show its leadership in making sure that justice, equality, equity, and inclusion was everywhere for individuals of African descent.

“So those policy decisions and those thoughts – and that’s why diversity in every area is tremendously important, because those individuals who come from that will initiate, talk, and advocate from those positions. Those voices, when they’re not there, are missing. And my hope would be, by those voices being there because of that diversity, it will create an opportunity for even those who have colonized or enslaved to understand what took place, and then how we work collectively to move forward to correct the wrongs of the past and make that there’s prosperity, equality in the present and in the future,” Meeks said.

He also observed that when he was elected to be the chair of the committee, one of the first things that he committed to was to take Africa off the backburner and put it on the front burner.

“But it had been – and in my conversations with her something that was always behind the scenes, not something that was full forced ahead, forcing every member of the committee, not just those that were singularly focused on the continent – make it full hearings. Let’s have this dialogue and conversation about the continent. Let’s talk about what’s going on, and let’s leave nothing off the table. Let’s talk about human rights. Let’s talk about democracy and free and fair elections. Let’s meet and have conversations with the heads of state. Let’s not pretend that they don’t exist. Let’s talk about, though, also the economics that are taking place in the continent. Let’s talk about not just the bad things. Let’s talk about the positive things – because there’s many positive things going on – and show the example of the positives even when we’re trying to promote someplace else where there may not be the democracy that we want to say, this is where you should be aiming to go, and you get the assistance from us.

“And so if in fact you had acquired, if in fact it’s not on the front burner, then people think that democracy is not important or what they really think, when I talk to some of the heads of states, that we don’t care. That we’re not there. And they see other people showing up – other people showing up, but we’re not there at all. That is what has to change. That is what I believe that is my – part of my responsibility, to be quite honest with you – to do as chair of this committee and to have the United States Congress moving forward in that direction,” he said.

Biden’s quest for racial equity and justice

Smith said the Biden administration was committed to ensuring racial equity and justice.

Smith, who was  in June appointed by  U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken as the State Department’s first-ever special representative for racial equity and justice, added that she was focused on advancing racial and ethnic equity and justice globally through foreign affairs.

“It is my job to ensure that U.S. foreign policy, programs, and processes advance the human rights of people belonging to marginalised racial and ethnic groups, including indigenous peoples, and that we are working to combat systemic racism, discrimination, violence, and xenophobia around the world.”

Smith, who grew up in Inglewood, California, where his grandfather, Larry Aubry, was a renowned black activist, said anti-black racism and the devaluation of black lives had plagued the world for centuries.

” From the transatlantic slave trade to the devastating colonisation on the African continent, to hate crimes and predatory community violence, to blatant and institutionalised racism that codified income inequality, health disparities, and poverty into law, this distinct type of racism is one that people of African descent around the world know all too well.”

On systemic racism, she said: “Systemic racism makes societies less stable, less peaceful, and less prosperous. So beyond it being the morally right thing to do, addressing racial inequities is in our national security interest.”

She enumerated examples of what the State Department was doing around the world to advance racial equity and justice.

“In Brazil, the United States is supporting local partners to document and report on human rights violations and abuses against Afro-descendants and to promote religious tolerance and reduce violence and discrimination against practitioners of African-based religions.

“In Colombia, U.S. implementing partners work at the national and local levels to support more effective and inclusive political, truth-telling, and accountability processes to prioritise the needs of Afro-Colombian, indigenous, and campesino populations.

“In Mauritania, Mali, and Niger, the United States supports improved social integration and economic empowerment for former hereditary slaves, and strengthens the local – the legal and political systems that identify and protect those vulnerable to slavery, exploitation, and re-enslavement.

“In the Middle East and North Africa, U.S. programmes support the development of laws and good governance processes that are inclusive of the needs of historically marginalised communities.

“These programmes consider the specific vulnerabilities of communities whose race and socioeconomic class compound to contribute to political, economic, and social marginalisation,” she said.

She encouraged all nations to come together to acknowledge and commemorate the indispensable contributions of Africans and people of African descent around the world. “Despite the injustices inflicted upon us, people of African descent have always had a global impact on human civilisation. The influence of black people can be found in art, science, agriculture, medicine, politics, music, fashion, media, food, sports, and almost every other facet of society around the world,” Smith said.

With determination, she said a better world for people of African descent, and a better world for everyone was possible.

Acknowledging their roots

Howard Law Professor Hansford he decided early in life to fight for black liberation.

He said Marcus Garvey’s words “A people without knowledge of their history, their origin, and their culture is like a tree without roots”  helped him decide to dedicate as much energy to the fight for black liberation.

“Today I have been honoured to have been granted the intriguing assignment to help launch the new and historic United Nations Permanent Forum for People of African Descent.  I see this work first and foremost as the realisation of a dream that has been held by black people around the world for many generations, a dream that was reinvigorated in the activism that sprouted up in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd in 2020.

As my colleagues on the permanent forum noted in our statement which we released earlier this morning in honor of the second annual Day for People of African Descent, this permanent forum will be a mechanism committed to following Garvey’s path, which he blazed over 100 years ago in the campaign for Pan-Africanism and human rights for people of African descent around the world.  Garvey’s path is not the only one that we follow today as we launch our work to support human rights in the African diaspora,” he said.

Speaking about African American legacy, Hansford said: “The legacy of African Americans involved in global affairs that have emerged from Howard is also illustrious.  It includes Ralph Bunch, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize and an integral part of the creation of the United Nations itself; ambassadors such as Clyde Ferguson, ambassador to Uganda; Horace Dawson, ambassador to Botswana; and legal activists such as Pauline Murray and Lisa Crooms-Robinson.  I am also the founder and executive director of Howard’s Thurgood Marshall Civil Rights Center, our flagship institutional home for human rights and civil rights research and activism.

The involvement of our center is key because I intend to include the center’s approach to fighting for civil rights and human rights in my work at the permanent forum.  At the center, we’re known for bringing an approach that includes a commitment to scholarship that is going to fight the battle of ideas in the ivory tower; a commitment to movement lawyering, which includes legal activism, lawsuits, and policy advocacy for civil rights; and also a commitment to supporting grassroots movements and community organisers so that we can continue to build community in our diaspora.

“Again, there are many – there are many scholars that have collaborated with Howard University over the years, scholars in the field of human rights, scholars like Gerald Horne, scholars like Derrick Bell, some of the scholars I admire the most.  There are lawyers like Gay McDougall and Randall Robinson, who have been pragmatic advocates for human rights on a global scale.  And of course there are activists like Kwame Ture, who have come out of Howard University, who have continued to engage in global advocacy for people of African descent.”

He said the forum has nine mandates to fulfill.

“Number one:  To contribute to the process of ensuring that people of African descent have access to their full civil rights and human rights wherever they are located all over the – all over the world;

“Number two:  To provide advice to members of the UN community, including special rapporteurs, members of the General Assembly, members of the Human Rights Council, and others who need consultation or seek consultation when it comes to rights involving people of African descent;

“Number three:  To help to collaborate to create a new declaration of rights for people of African descent;

“Number four:  To explore best practices, challenges, and opportunities when it comes to advocacy for people of African descent;

“Number five:  To monitor and review the evolution and progression of the Decade for People of African Descent;

“Number six:  To prepare and disseminate information to the general public about human rights as they involve people of African descent;

“Number seven:  To continue to coordinate with other agencies in the UN, working together to support human rights;

“Number eight:  To gather more data on the diaspora; and

“Number nine:  To offer recommendations and respond to requests that will be delivered by the General Assembly or the Human Rights Council involving issues pertaining to people of African descent.”

Until the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to school closures and conversations about how diversity is addressed in schools, education rarely made it to the top of voter’s stated priorities. Speaking at a briefing organised by the Foreign Press Centers on U.S. midterm elections, Jeffrey R. Henig, a Professor of Political Science and Education at Teachers College and Professor of Political Science at Columbia University, explains how education has transcended just being seen as something that touches almost every household in the United States. United States Bureau Chief OLUKOREDE YISHAU captures the essence of his briefing. Excerpts:

Education in America
Compared to most other countries, it’s a highly decentralised system, and it makes things wildly confusing at times even for those who have lived here our whole lives.
Then I’m going to say something about some important changes that have unfolded over the last three, four decades. Because while the U.S. remains a highly decentralised education system, the trend has been towards greater centralisation, meaning more role for the U.S. states and the national government as opposed to local school districts.
And then third, finally, I’m going to bring things around to recent – the very recent developments and draw a distinction between centralisation, which has been a long-term trend, and what I call nationalisation, which is the infiltration into local politics of national actors and national discourse. And that’s leading to the overlap that we’re seeing that’s relatively unusual now between school issues and national issues, like the upcoming congressional midterm elections.
So just some basic facts to get us started: The education system in the U.S. traditionally has been largely governed at the local level. There is something like 13,500 school districts in the U.S. They vary tremendously. Some are very large, like New York City, which has roughly 1,500 schools and about a million students, but some districts are very small. One in five districts in the U.S. have 600 or fewer students in total. Some school districts only have one school or two schools. So a tremendous difference in terms of the size and capacity and visibility of these districts.
Most school districts in the U.S. are governed by local elected school boards elected at the local level. Although since 1991, there have been a number of large cities that have moved towards what we refer to here as mayoral control where the mayor appoints the school board, and in some instances the school superintendent or chancellor, as the executive leader is called in some places. Highly visible places like New York City and Boston and Washington, D.C. have mayoral control rather than an elected school board.

Elections and turnout
Elections at the local level where the action historically have been generally low-key affairs, very low turnout, often the elections are held at a different time from the general elections in November, which plays a role in that low turnout. In most places, those elections are formally nonpartisan, which means there are not party labels on the ballot. And for those set of reasons, quite often education politics has been buffered from what I referred to as general-purpose politics, the politics around mayors and governors and presidents and Congress, and less partisan and often somewhat parochial in terms of local interest as opposed to state and national interest.
Now, as I said, some of this has been changing over the last three, four decades. There’s not a sharp distinction between when these phases occur, but some people would date it to 1983 with the publication of A Nation at Risk, which was a major report that criticised the American education system and, to some degree, punctured what had been Americans’ self-confidence, overconfidence that they – that the U.S. system is the best in the world.
We tend to think everything here is the best in the world, but A Nation at Risk opened up a range of criticisms and led in various ways – and I can go into this more if there are questions about it – to a more assertive role first on the part of state governments, which began to articulate standards by which they would evaluate local district performance. And then with No Child Left Behind in 2001 signed by Republican President George Bush, a much stronger insertion of the federal government into the mechanics of education. Not directly; there’s powerful reasons why the federal government, national government does not dictate curriculum for the most part, tries to stay away from some of the inside story about what happens in schools. But with A Nation at Risk, using federal grant money as a way to encourage, almost force states to more aggressively test children, publish the results of those tests and intervene in schools if they’re failing to meet certain performance standards.
Now, again, I don’t want to go into all of this now unless there’s some interest, but one way to think about this shift towards centralisation is to recognise that there’s four dimensions really in turn that influenced how education is addressed in the U.S. One of those has to do with law and legally, constitutionally, in the U.S., the power over schools is vested in the states, not in the national government. It’s not articulated at all as the power of the national government in the U.S. Constitution, and thereby the legal interpretation is that it’s reserved to the states. And not at the local government because in the U.S. local governments are regarded as creatures of the state, creations of the state. So any power they have comes from the state.

COVID-19 as game-changer

The issues that have been popping up over the last few years have been those related to COVID and issues relating to school closings, to mask mandates, to vaccination mandates for teachers and students, which have energized some parents at the local level, some of whom have supported those policies and some of whom have adamantly opposed those. Also been very evident in issues relating to race and the teaching of race, particularly – many of you may have encountered it in terms of a focus on critical race theory, which essentially is the argument that racial inequality in the U.S. is deeply baked into history and institutions and isn’t just resident in hearts and minds of individuals, and to understand racial inequality you need to grapple with those things, countered on the right by the view that that’s making schools take a political position. It’s having teachers impose their ideology on students. It’s having attention to the history of racial inequality making white students feel guilty or that they’re somehow responsible for these historical injustices.
So those are two very emotionally sensitive issues, the kinds of things that can mobilize parents who don’t normally get involved. The third one that’s involved in this recent issue is issues around gender and gender identity and what schools should and shouldn’t teach about that and about sex.

So what you see now – and I refer to this as nationalisation – is the national debates on these issues are zeroing in on local arenas as ways to set up a difference and clarify the difference between Republicans and Democrats. And both the Republicans and Democrats are tactically and strategically trying to use these education issues as ways to mobilize their base in some instance, both to make sure that they get the turnout they want but also to attract – and importantly to attract these potential swing voters, many of whom are located in suburbs; particularly, suburban voters who were turned off by many aspects of the Trump administration are seen to be in play. They swung things, arguably, towards Joe Biden in the last election. Republicans – some national Republicans think these voters can be pulled back into the Republican fold around these culture war clash issues at the local level.

So I think that’s the story. I’ll wrap up it up by just saying that what’s happened is these national issues and national actors are actively involved in cultivating local constituencies, actively involved in providing talking points and strategic advice to local people involved in education issue, partly because they care about education and education reform but largely because they see this as a way to mobilize their own voters and attract swing voters in this upcoming election, with the result that education, which historically has not been a big issue in national elections, may – may, and I’ll be happy to take questions on why I’m going to emphasize the “may” – may be a bigger factor in November than it has been recently.

Students loans forgiveness
I’m sure many of you know, the Biden administration has proposed eliminating a portion of student debt and changing some of the rules in terms of how those debts are repaid and reducing the burden on those who are carrying student debt, and that’s a controversial issue. It is a controversial issue, and right now because this is so recent, it’s a very controversial issue and part of the national debate.

How much of a role it’s going to play in November I think is very unclear. Right now it fits into the talking points on both the Democratic side and the Republican side. On the Democratic side, it fits into the talking points to say that government can actually make people’s lives better and it can help them pursue higher education in an affordable way. On the Republican side, it’s fitting into the talking points of government over-promising, spending money that’s going to cost the taxpayer in the long run, and shifting the burden of providing services onto – the argument is onto taxpayers who have not themselves partaken in the benefits of public resources and thus does unfairly burden them.
Issues come and go pretty quickly in the U.S. context, and this is likely to lose a little bit of steam. It’s going to be challenged in the courts. It’s not clear how quickly this is actually going to roll out. By the time we come around to November, my guess is that there’ll be other issues that are going to be more prominent on the agenda.

Politicisation of education issue
Let me first acknowledge that this is something that people argue about. Historically, the U.S. likes to – and with some justification, has seen education as somewhat nonpartisan, outside party debate. And so when people say politicisation, what they usually mean now is the increasing partisanship of the discussion.

I’m not a subscriber to the notion that education can be outside of politics. I mean, it’s too important. It’s a major resource. Public education is the way that society sort of gets directly into families and households at important times and can address various kinds of inequities. And there are important differences of view about what government should and shouldn’t be doing, and those are political in nature.
So politicisation – if by that one means sort of active political debate, people taking sides, articulating alternative views and battling it out in elections. I think that’s – that can be healthy. Okay? Politicisation, when it becomes dominantly partisan, where actors who are anchored into their ideological positions are not engaging in real dialogue, are just beating one another on the heads with large sticks, that is harmful to education, at least in the near term, because it’s undermining some of the traditional support that public education has precisely because people felt it wasn’t partisan.

Banning books in schools and gender issue as winning strategies for a political party

I think the Republican political party and strategists think it’s going to be a winning strategy, and a lot of them took very seriously the victory of Glenn Youngkin in Virginia for governor because Virginia is a state that does go Republican sometimes, Democrat sometimes. And Youngkin did make a major – put a major emphasis on eliminating critical race theory, giving parents a greater voice, and so the Republicans started to, very strategically, think that this is an issue that they can replay in other places.
But as you said, there’s – this issue has evolved a little bit over time. And as people are seeing what seemed initially like a critique of left-wing ideology – as they’re seeing it turn into book banning, including banning of classic books, putting handcuffs on librarians, restricting access to books – I think we’re beginning to see a backlash against that initial framing. And I think some Democratic strategists now think they can win that war if they pose these efforts on the part of Republicans as examples of ideological conservative efforts to steer schools away from traditional notions of educating a broad and diverse and critically sophisticated citizenry.