Archives for December 2017

About a month ago, I attended ex-CIA director John Brennan’s lecture, “The Ethos of Public Service” where he, as one might expect, spoke about the importance of public service. He started with a little bit about his own background, as the son of Irish immigrants to whom the United States represented the land of opportunity. Brennan, after graduating with a bachelor’s degree from Fordham University and a master’s degree from UT-Austin, entered the CIA as a career trainee in 1980. He continued to work there for 25 years, and was eventually nominated by President Barack Obama to take over as Director of the agency in 2013 (he was considered in 2008, but withdrew his name from consideration based on his controversial support of some terrorist interrogation techniques post-9/11). He retired from the agency in 2017.

Brennan, as might be somewhat required for an official who have spent much of their lives in public service and advancing American interests through an agency with a decidedly spotty history, is a firm believer of American exceptionalism. This exceptionalism — in which America was blessed with the good fortune of being blessed with so many natural resources and navigable rivers — meant that America had an “exceptional responsibility”. He didn’t seem to imply that this responsibility was as imperialistic as it sounded, just that Americans have a duty to make this country strong and safe.

The ethos of public service, according to him, meant that public officials (elected or otherwise) have solemn obligations, must fulfill obligations of those offices, and are entrusted with the authority of our society. He then spoke a little bit about how he was neither a Democrat or Republican, and was frustrated with partisan politics from a very young age. He then told a fun story about voting for the Communist Party candidate when he was 21 years old.

He then spoke about the importance of civility and respect in political discourse — and how the recent rancor and name-calling among public officials worried him. This idea of civility is particularly interesting to me, just because it’s difficult where to begin to solve this problem, that is perpetuated by people on all sides of the political spectrum (perhaps Liz’ civility training curriculum could help!) There’s definitely an importance and power of civility in public discourse. But at the same time, I think about how there are people who have had to fight their entire lives for the government to take their concerns seriously, and even for the government to stop actively harming their livelihoods. Especially under this new administration, there are people — for example, trans folks — who watch as the government strips away old protections. I think about the “respectability politics” the idea of civil discourse plays into, where minority groups have to act certain ways for those in power to take their voices seriously. It can be an unfair burden on folks to have to act and speak civilly to the very people taking away their rights.

Brennan ended on that, although he spoke a little more in response to questions about diversity in the CIA, and a little more about his concern that the U.S. was projecting an image that they wanted to use American power for their own benefit at the expense of everyone else.

He also had some amusing moments where he called out Donald Trump for being a public official who didn’t know what he was talking about, who was a particularly salient example of the poor state of discourse in politics, but without calling him out by name. (If I actually thought direct condemnation of a highly respected official would sway anyone on Donald Trump, perhaps I would have been slightly annoyed).

Overall, I thought it was a nice, if not particularly exceptional, talk from somehow who certainly knew what he was talking about in regards to public service given his long history of it. I was always predisposed to agree with what he said about public service, given that I have always believed in the importance of working to make your communities stronger. But I expected a more specific, national security take on public service from him, as I thought his talk sounded like any other career public servant talking generically about public service (very similar to Joe Biden, who I also had the opportunity to see on campus this year). I hope, next time John Brennan comes to UT, he’ll have something slightly more interesting to say.

The United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently voted to repeal “net neutrality,” a decision that has shocked many Americans and caused concern for what internet usage will look like in the future. An overwhelming outcry against this anticipated decision was apparent in online social media campaigns, in protests across several U.S. cities, and in heavy lobbying campaigns by tech companies and Democrats. For consumers, their largest fear seems to be how this decision will affect access to internet sources such as cable and streaming sites, and if providers will rise prices on services following deregulation.

What exactly did “net neutrality” ensure?

In 2004 former Chairman of the FCC, Michael Powell, publicly announced that Internet users ought to enjoy “four fundamental freedoms”: The freedom to access any Web content of their choice, so long as it was legal; the freedom to use any online application; the freedom to use their home broadband connections on any device; and the freedom to get subscription information from their own providers. Opponents to the repeal argue that without net neutrality, Internet providers will be able to speed up, slow down, or even block service for some apps and websites. The Obama administration passed regulations that prevented broadband companies such as AT&T and Verizon from doing so, but the FCC’s recent decision repealed these regulations as well.

Is Net Neutrality a partisan issue?

Perhaps one of the most shocking factors of the FCC’s decision to repeal net neutrality is that both Democrats and Republicans expressed interest in keeping net neutrality. A recent survey from the University of Maryland revealed that large majorities of Americans opposed this decision. 89% of voters expressed concern with the repeal of net neutrality, including 3 out of 4 Republicans. So while the Obama administration pushed for regulating the broadband industry, it seems Republican voters and politicians are also proponents of keeping the net neutral. The FCC board is led by a Republican majority, and reflects similar unexpected and drastic waves of change led by the Trump Administration since recent inauguration in January.

So will there  be a new “cost” for internet services in the future?

Well, that is up to the providers and broadband companies who offer Internet packages. Some proponents of net neutrality argue that larger companies and streaming services such as Netflix, who use more bandwidth , ought to be charged more for what they use. Internet providers, on the other hand, completely contest the idea that prices will go up. They claim that there is  no financial incentive to block or slow down certain apps, websites, or services. Providers favored the decision to repeal net neutrality because they argued that speeding up some services could actually benefit consumers, and that the new rules allow the Federal Trade Commission to sue carriers that act anti-competitively.

Potential results

So while the repeal of net neutrality gives more freedom to providers to control the speed and access to certain apps and websites, consumers shouldn’t expect to pay for access to platforms such as Snapchat and Facebook. The answer to what the internet will look like without net neutrality is this: while usage and access won’t change drastically for consumers within the next few years, it largely rests in the hands of Internet providers and how they choose to act.  

TIME magazine recently named “the silence breakers” as its 2017 Person of the Year. The article featured well-known faces like Ashley Judd, Tarana Burke, Taylor Swift, and many others. Too many.

The conversation about sexual harassment started when the New York Times published a story about allegations against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein. What followed was a movement through the hash tag #MeToo as thousands of women came forward to join in unfortunate solidarity. But it didn’t stop there.

From Hollywood to Capitol Hill to ESPN, women and men continued calling out high-profile figures, such Al Franken, Kevin Spacey, Matt Lauer, and Charlie Rose for inappropriate behavior. Such a surge of voices coming forward made it clear that such a reckoning was urgent and overdue.

As 2017 comes to an end, will we let the hash tag and conversation end too? What could hold us back? Well, a few things:

First, the numbers are controversial. Gauging the extent of sexual abuse is hard to do since it is often, not always, in private domains and between two people. It becomes the age-old game of “your word against mine”.

This leads me to underscore that merely a complaint is weighty and worthy – again, speaking up is the first, hardest, and most important step. However, such as in the case of Roy Moore, one of his accusers falsified evidence. So while coming forward usually entails retelling the experience in excruciatingly raw detail, acts of altering or leaving out information dangerously taint the movement and risk delegitimizing our brave outspoken counterparts.

Third, people apparently hold conflicting opinions on what constitutes inappropriate behavior. Differences in perspective based on gender, ethnicity, and generation are not reasons to leave ethical lines blurry, which brings to mind a song produced by Pharrell in 2013 that goes like:

“Good girl,

I know you want it, I know you want it, I know you want it,

You’re a good girl,

Can’t let it get past me…

I hate these blurred lines”

But it’s just a song, right? Just an overly friendly remark, just a hand lingering too long…

Guarding against aggressive encounters will take mindful, proactive shifts in attitudes and policy. Whether it’s in the office, a campus dorm, hotel room, locker room, or the street, we must institutionalize practices for safer spaces. Do we not have drills and posted plans in case of a fire? Let’s talk strategy then:

First, keep the conversation going. Keep the hash tag trending. Have courage to speak out. If we continue to make sexual harassment a forefront discussion, it won’t be relegated to the pile of cycled-through news stories. And yes, it is important to spotlight the stomach-churning transgressions of famous figures – looking at you, Mr. President – but also too to shine a light on the everyday, not famous falls from grace. I don’t believe #MeToo is a top-down or bottom-up transformation. Itis intended to be a wide, overwhelming sea change permeating all situations and professions.

Second, know your avenues for reporting misconduct. Likewise, advocate for more hotlines, more procedures, and more committees, preferably third-party ones. Remember: harassment is illegal, and you have rights.

Third, we owe it to our emerging leaders, the youngsters, to raise them up empowered and respectful of one another. Sustaining the movement will require a lot of allies, and thus, both women and men are necessary. We need each other to acknowledge the epidemic, to support the change, and to hold each other accountable.

Let’s ensure Pharrell asks her if she “wants it”. Here’s a progressive idea: she may not.

To learn more about defining and reporting harassment, visit the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

By: Jacquelyn Clark, current Brumley Next Generation Scholar. To see what Jacquelyn and other Scholars are up to, check out this previous post.