Intolerance poisons US social relations
Women's footballing legend Mia Hamm spoke inspiringly about teamwork.
Under Donald Trump, social freedoms are being eroded.
Intolerance reminiscent of apartheid-era South Africa sometimes bubbles to the surface in the US.
It was a supremely proud moment for my family when our youngest daughter, Malaika, graduated with a degree in economics at the University of North Carolina in the US two weeks ago.
Having travelled from Johannesburg to the US, my wife and I were justifiably impressed when we saw, a day or two before the actual graduation, workers putting the final touches to the decorations at the stadium where the final ceremony was to take place.
The mood in Chapel Hill, the seat of this institution, which happens to be the oldest public university in the US, was jovial.
The graduation ceremonies happened, one after the other, on different parts of the campus.
Then came the big day, the most colourful ceremony of all – Commencement. We don't have something like this in South Africa. It is at Commencement that newly minted graduates from different schools or disciplines gather to listen to congratulatory speeches from university leadership and an invited keynote speaker.
WATCH: 'That man said, kill the white farmers, and then he danced': Trump calls for Malema's arrest
In this case, the keynote speaker was Mia Hamm, widely considered the greatest women's soccer player of all time. A graduate of North Carolina herself, Hamm spoke touchingly to the 6 800 graduates about how working as a team – wherever she played – had always been her motto.
It was a tear-jerking presentation that I believe touched the hearts of many.
But trouble was just around the corner. After her rousing speech, there was sudden movement in the middle of the pitch where the graduates were sitting on chairs.
We suddenly saw what the commotion was about: a group of students had unfurled a huge pro-Palestine flag. In moments that were reminiscent of SA, they started chanting.
Just as swiftly, a contingent of police pounced on them. The students were physically wrestled and arrested.
A section of the stadium exploded into loud boos. Yet another section started chanting: 'USA! USA! USA!'
The appearance of the police and the brief but loud exchange between the two sides did leave a sour taste in the mouth. It was the proverbial fly in the ointment.
To one who was sometimes at the receiving end of attacks by the police in apartheid SA, the manner in which the police handled the matter was a sad walk down memory lane.
Institutions of higher learning are supposed to be arenas where freedom of expression and association are held dear.
It is my considered opinion that intolerance and anti-intellectualism have been allowed to fester in Donald Trump's US. In fact, Trump is the epitome of intolerance.
Eager to please him, his acolytes are always ready to visit violence against those considered to be at odds with his agenda. I am writing this piece this week inspired by the ridiculous meeting that Trump had with President Cyril Ramaphosa, in which the former sought to bully the South African into submission.
The tactics used this week are classic Trump – all bluster and intimidation.
Having travelled the length and breadth of that country over the years and having lived there for a year during Barack Obama's era, I have attended social gatherings where robust debates and exchanges between the Republicans, the Democrats and even communists happened.
But with Trump's ascendancy, we saw that spirit of openness being gradually eroded. It was, after all, under Trump that we saw the storming of the Capitol in Washington DC in January 2021, a sad harbinger for his ruthless clampdown on those who see things differently from the way he does.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
36 minutes ago
- Forbes
Travel Ban Reinstated By Trump With Mostly Muslim Countries
President Donald J. Trump, citing national security concerns, has reinstated and expanded the controversial nationality-based travel ban first introduced during his initial term. The new ban, formalized in a Presidential Proclamation that came into effect on Monday, June 9, 2025, suspends the entry of nationals from 19 countries, primarily targeting Muslim-majority and African nations. The proclamation fully suspends immigrant and nonimmigrant visa issuance to nationals of 12 countries: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. It imposes partial restrictions on B-1/B-2 tourist visas and F, M, and J student and exchange visas for nationals of Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. Exceptions apply to green card holders, dual nationals, certain special immigrant visa holders, athletes in international competitions, and immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. The administration relies on a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorizes the president to suspend the entry of any class of noncitizens deemed 'detrimental to the interests of the United States.' That authority was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), which ruled 5-4 that President Trump's third version of the travel ban was constitutional, emphasizing executive deference on immigration and national security. But critics argue that this expanded ban perpetuates discriminatory intent, noting the disproportionate impact on Muslim and African nations and the invocation of Trump's 2024 campaign pledge to 'restore the travel ban and keep radical Islamic terrorists out.' Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration law at Cornell Law School, predicts court challenges but warns that they may fail under the current precedent. 'Even if this expansion is legal, it is not good policy,' he said. 'Families will be separated, and we are not necessarily safer.' The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called the order 'ideologically motivated,' 'unnecessary,' and 'overbroad,' criticizing its chilling effect on lawful travel, academic exchange, and humanitarian reunification. Legal scholars have started to question the constitutionality of this policy. More specifically, they contend that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits governments from denying equal legal protection, while the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids favouring or disfavoring any religion. Critics argue that Trump's policy, which targets specific nations commonly associated with certain religions, risks violating both clauses by enabling discrimination based on nationality and faith. Additionally, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 abolished national origin quotas to prevent such bias. By reinstating restrictions linked to religious or national identity, opponents claim the policy mirrors discriminatory practices that the law aimed to eliminate. Jeremy Robbins, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council, noted: 'Blanket nationality bans have never demonstrated any meaningful national security value. This ban hurts our economy and punishes immigrants who qualify to come legally.' According to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) 'In total, just under 162,000 immigrant visas and temporary work, study, and travel visas were issued in fiscal year 2023 to nationals of the affected countries in the now banned visa categories, according to the Migration Policy Institute.' Nationals from the banned countries represent more than 475 million people globally. Beyond family separations, the ban may deter students, scientists, and health professionals at a time when the U.S. is experiencing labor shortages in STEM and healthcare. Universities like Harvard have expressed alarm at the targeting of international students, as the administration simultaneously suspended new visas for foreign scholars at select institutions, further stoking fears of ideological purges in academia. The 2025 travel ban echoes policies from Trump's first term and extends their scope. The first 'Muslim ban' of 2017 was repeatedly struck down until a more narrowly tailored version survived judicial review. Today's ban, while more procedurally refined, raises the same fundamental concern: are Americans safer by denying entry based on birthplace? Lyndon B. Johnson's signing of the 1965 INA famously stated that 'the harsh injustice of the national origins quota system' would never return. Critics now argue that President Trump has revived that very shadow, using presidential proclamations instead of legislative quotas. 'This is not national security—it's national scapegoating,' said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. 'It undermines constitutional values and stigmatizes entire populations for political gain.' The legality of the 2025 travel ban reinstated as it is may pass muster under Trump v. Hawaii, but its morality, logic, and long-term consequences remain in question. As lawsuits mount and civil rights groups prepare their defences, the nation must decide: do we protect ourselves by shutting doors or by standing firm in our values of openness, equality, and due process?
The Verge
37 minutes ago
- The Verge
YouTube has loosened its content moderation policies
YouTube has relaxed its moderation policies and is now instructing reviewers not to remove content that might violate its rules if they're in the 'public interest,' according to a report from The New York Times. The platform reportedly adjusted its policies internally in December, offering examples that included medical misinformation and hate speech. In training material viewed by the Times, YouTube says reviewers should now leave up videos in the public interest — which includes discussions of elections, ideologies, movements, race, gender, sexuality, abortion, immigration, censorship — if no more than half of their content breaks its rules, up from one quarter. The platform said in the material that the move expands on a change made before the 2024 US election, which allows content from political candidates to stay up even if they violate its community guidelines. Additionally, the platform told moderators that they should remove content if 'freedom of expression value may outweigh harm risk,' and take borderline videos to a manager instead of removing them, the Times reports. 'Recognizing that the definition of 'public interest' is always evolving, we update our guidance for these exceptions to reflect the new types of discussion we see on the platform today,' YouTube spokesperson Nicole Bell said in a statement to the Times. 'Our goal remains the same: to protect free expression on YouTube while mitigating egregious harm.' YouTube didn't immediately respond to The Verge 's request for comment. YouTube tightened its policies against misinformation during Donald Trump's first term as US president and the covid pandemic, as it began removing videos containing false information about covid vaccines and US elections. The platform stepped back from removing election fraud lies in 2023, but this recent change goes a step further and reflects a broader trend of online platforms taking a more lax approach to moderation followingTrump's reelection. Earlier this year, Meta similarly changed its policies surrounding hate speech and ended third-party fact-checking in favor of X-style community notes. The changes follow years of attacks on tech companies from Trump, and Google in particular is in a vulnerable legal situation, facing two Department of Justice antitrust lawsuits that could see its Chrome browser and other services broken off. Trump has previously taken credit for Meta's moderation changes. As noted by the Times, YouTube showed reviewers real examples of how it has implemented the new policy. One video contained coverage of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s covid vaccine policy changes — under the title 'RFK Jr. Delivers SLEDGEHAMMER Blows to Gene-Altering JABS' — and was allowed to violate policies surrounding medical misinformation because public interest 'outweighs the harm risk,' according to the Times. (The video has since been taken off the platform, but the Times says the reasoning behind this is 'unclear.') Another example was a 43-minute video about Trump's cabinet appointees that violated YouTube's harassment rules with a slur targeting a transgender person, but was left up because it had only a single violation, the Times reports. YouTube also reportedly told reviewers to leave up a video from South Korea that mentioned putting former president Yoon Suk Yeol in a guillotine, saying that the 'wish for execution by guillotine is not feasible.'
Wall Street Journal
42 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Trump Gives U.S. Negotiators Room to Lift Export Controls on China
Ahead of U.S.-China talks in London, President Trump authorized Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's team to negotiate away recent restrictions on the sale of a wide variety of technology and other products to China, according to people familiar with the matter. It's a novel strategy, underscoring the impact of China's rare-earth controls on U.S. industries. 'Historically, export controls have never been used as leverage for trade negotiations,' said Kevin Wolf, a partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld who specializes in international trade. 'There is no precedent for this.'
