Providence's new flag policy isn't just about flags. It's about who gets to be seen, and who is silenced.
Get Rhode Map
A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State.
Enter Email
Sign Up
One major problem with the new flag policy is inconsistency. There was no need for special approvals before. Why now?
Advertisement
Second, the policy gives too much power to a few. It lets either the mayor or the Providence City Council decide who gets to be represented. This is dangerous because it makes public visibility subject to the comfort of a few officials rather than any clear or fair process.
Third, this move discredits the real message behind raising the Palestinian flag: solidarity with people experiencing deep suffering.
feels
bad to those of us who are part of the Muslim and Arab community. It feels like we are being told our pain is too controversial to acknowledge.
Advertisement
This incident isn't isolated. It reflects a broader pattern known as the 'Palestine Exception' to free speech, where advocacy for Palestinian rights is often met with disproportionate censorship and suppression. A report by
So what should happen now? Either the city allows all communities to be represented through flag-raising, or it stops the practice altogether. There's no middle ground that's fair. The policy must apply equally and without favoritism or fear. If Providence wants to stand for diversity, it must stand for
all
of us, not just the ones who make people comfortable.
If the city is serious about equity, it needs to
show
it — not just
say
it.
Khaled Soulaiman is a first-generation Syrian Lebanese Muslim and a student at College Unbound in Providence.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The Board Of A Prestigious Program Resigns After Accusing Trump Of Political Interference
The entire board of the Fulbright program, which fosters international education through an exchange program, quit on Wednesday after accusing the Trump administration of illegal interference, according to a memo obtained by The New York Times. The program, which is administered by the U.S. State Department, awards scholarships to American researchers, professors and educators to go abroad. In the memo, the 12 board members stated that the Trump administration had illegally canceled scholarships for nearly 200 professors and researchers who were set to travel to international institutions this summer after completing a lengthy selection process. These scholars were supposed to receive acceptance letters in April, but the board discovered that they had received letters of rejection. The rejections were largely due to their area of research, including biology, architecture and agriculture, the board said. '[T]he current administration has usurped the authority of the Board and denied Fulbright awards to a substantial number of individuals who were selected for the 2025-2026 academic year,' board members wrote in the memo. They also wrote that they were concerned the Trump administration would wrongfully reject international scholars who are slated to come to the U.S. through the program. 'We believe these actions not only contradict the statute but are antithetical to the Fulbright mission and the values, including free speech and academic freedom, that Congress specified in the statute,' the memo said. The mass resignation of the Fulbright board is the latest development in the Trump administration's ongoing attacks on higher education. As part of the broader effort to stifle dissent from public institutions, the federal government has threatened to withdraw funding from colleges and universities unless they allow the federal government to regulate what is taught and who is admitted. As part of the attacks on colleges, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has hastily canceled international student visas and detained foreign college students with pro-Palestinian views. Rubio also announced last month that the government was pausing new interviews for foreign student visas so that it could 'vet' social media accounts of applicants. One of the administration's main targets is Harvard University. The feud with the university began when the prestigious institution declined to acquiesce to Trump's lengthy list of demands, which included a complete upheaval of the Ivy League school's hiring and admissions practices. Last week, Trump signed an executive order banning Harvard's international students from entering the U.S., jeopardizing the funds that the school receives from international students who usually pay full tuition and contribute millions of dollars to the local economy. One day later, a federal judge halted Trump's attempt to block international students from going to Harvard. State Department Resumes Processing Harvard Student Visas After Judge's Ruling Harvard Challenges Trump's Ban On Incoming Foreign Students In New Legal Filing Trump Gets Snippy Over 1 Embarrassing Claim About His History With Harvard
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Columbus ICE Out! demonstration brings anti-Trump protesters Downtown
Between 200 and 300 people gathered in downtown Columbus June 10 to protest the Trump administration's crackdown on immigration, show support for the city's immigrant communities, and to express solidarity with protesters in Los Angeles. Several pro-immigrant and left-leaning groups organized the "ICE Out!" protest, which took place June 10 at Columbus City Hall on West Broad Street. The Ohio Immigrant Alliance, 50501, the Party for Socialism and Liberation Columbus, the La Raza Movement and the Columbus Democratic Socialists of America organized the demonstration. Scores of protesters holding signs denouncing the Trump administration and showing support for immigrant communities were in attendance as organizers gave speeches and led pro-immigration, anti-Trump chants and slogans. Other protesters waved Palestinian flags and donned the traditional keffiyehs or held upside-down American flags, which is used as a signal of distress. Rene Levino, 69, of Pataskala, told The Dispatch that he attended the protest because as a Vietnam veteran, he felt obligated to continue to protect the country from what he called a "form of dictatorship." "I'll do whatever it takes to stand up for my country," said Levino, donning a black Vietnam veteran cap. "I just want our country back, and I want (Trump) to follow the law." James McCullough, 22, of Columbus, said that it was hypocritical that the United States relies on immigrant labor but at the same time is trying to have undocumented immigrants deported. McCullough also noted the plight that migrants from African countries face, such as Senegalese and Sudanese migrants. "(Immigration) is another race issue," said McCullough. The demonstration was entirely peaceful. After leaders led chants and gave speeches at Columbus City Hall for an hour, protesters walked onto Broad Street and marched eastbound before turning north onto High Street while still chanting. Columbus police officers, including officers from the division's dialogue team, largely stayed on the periphery of the crowd while temporarily shutting down street intersections so protesters could safely march through. The protesters marched past Columbus police headquarters as they continued back onto West Broad Street in front of Columbus City Hall. Protesters then dispersed without incident. Columbus City Council member Lourdes Barroso de Padilla said on June 9 that she would attend the protest, but The Dispatch could not immediately determine if she was in attendance. Columbus' ICE Out! protest was a sharp contrast to pictures and videos coming out of Los Angeles. Protests and outright riots have broken out in L.A. in response to ICE agents conducting immigration raids and arresting immigrants at businesses in the city. The protests there hit a boiling point on June 7, as masked protesters stormed city streets, hurling slabs of concrete, Molotov cocktails and other items at heavily armed and masked agents and law enforcement officers. Videos taken by both residents and protesters show rioters blocking highway traffic, facing off with law enforcement agencies and setting fire to Waymo self-driving cars. Law enforcement agencies deployed tear gas to disperse protesters and one officer was captured on video shooting an Australian reporter with a rubber bullet. A New York Post photographer was shot in the head with a rubber bullet by another officer on June 9. In an effort to quell the protests, President Donald Trump deployed a total of 4,000 National Guard troops and a Marine unit consisting of 700 soldiers from Camp Pendleton. Trump's actions drew rebuke from California's leaders, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has filed an emergency lawsuit against the Trump administration, accusing Trump and other officials from his administration of violating the Constitution and "trampling over" Newsom's authority. 'Donald Trump is creating fear and terror by failing to adhere to the U.S. Constitution and overstepping his authority. This is a manufactured crisis to allow him to take over a state militia, damaging the very foundation of our republic,' Newsom said in a prepared statement. Trump recently stated that he wants an additional 20,000 National Guard troops deployed to LA. The deployment of National Guard troops and the Marine battalion is expected to cost around $134 million, according to reporting from USA TODAY. The addition of 20,000 National Guard troops would cost around $3.6 billion. Several "No Kings" protests are scheduled in central Ohio in defiance of the large military parade Trump is holding in Washington, D.C. to commemorate the Army's 250th birthday on June 14, which is also President Trump's birthday. On June 10, Trump said he expected protesters to try and ruin the parade and warned that they would be met with "very big force." Central Ohio protests scheduled include: An Indivisible Central Ohio No Kings protest from 8:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. during the Stonewall Columbus Pride March A No Kings Hilliard protest at Warehouse 839 from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. A No Kings Clintonville protest at the intersection of North Broadway and Indianola Avenue from 12 p.m. to 2 p.m. A No Kings: National Day of Action protest at Westerville City Hall from 3 to 4 p.m. A No Kings Grove City protest from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. A No Kings Pickerington protest at the intersection of State Route 256 and Refugee Road from 12 p.m. to 2 p.m. A No Kings Delaware protest at Delaware City Hall from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. A No Kings London protest at the Madison County Courthouse from 12 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Reporter Shahid Meighan can be reached at smeighan@ at ShahidMeighan on X, and at on Bluesky. This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: Columbus protest opposes Trump, support LA demonstrations
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Are Liberals to Blame for the New McCarthyism?
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. The Trump administration is carrying out a brazen crackdown on academic freedom: deporting students for writing op-eds, withholding funds from colleges that defy his control, and justifying it all as a response to anti-Semitism. Who is to blame for this? According to one popular theory on the left, the answer is liberals who have consistently supported free speech and opposed Donald Trump. The logic of this diagnosis has a certain superficial appeal. Many of President Trump's authoritarian moves have been justified in terms of arguments that originated on the center-left. Liberals condemned the far left for fostering an intolerant atmosphere in academia. They criticized the message and methods of some pro-Palestinian demonstrators. Trump has seized on these complaints as a pretext to extort universities and target student demonstrators for deportation. According to many left-wing critics, this sequence of events shows that, as David Klion writes in The Nation, 'erstwhile free speech champions' have 'helped lay the groundwork for Trump's second term.' An April article in Liberal Currents directs contempt toward 'the infamous Harper's letter,' an open letter defending free speech from threats on the left and the right, and blames mainstream Democrats for having 'laid the groundwork for where we are now.' These are just two examples of a very well-developed genre. [Caitlin Flanagan: America's fire sale: get some free speech while you can] The implication of these arguments is that Trump would not have won, or would now be having a harder time carrying out his neo-McCarthyite campaign of repression, if liberals had only refrained from denouncing left-wing cancel culture and the excesses of the post–October 7 protests. But to the extent that these events are connected, the responsibility runs the other way. It was the left's tactics and rhetoric that helped enable Trump's return to power as well as his abuse of it. The liberal critics of those tactics deserve credit for anticipating the backlash and trying to stop it. A similar dynamic is playing out now, as liberals warn about the danger of violent infiltrators disrupting immigration protests while some leftists demand unconditional solidarity with the movement. The debate, as ever, is whether the left is discredited by its own excesses or by criticism of those excesses. The bitter divide between liberals and leftists over Trump's neo-McCarthyism has deep historical roots. The two camps fought over the same set of ideas, making many of the same arguments, in response to the original McCarthyism of the 1950s. The lessons of that period, properly understood, offer helpful guidance for defeating the Trumpian iteration. What made liberals vulnerable to McCarthyism was the fact that some communists really did insinuate themselves into the government during the New Deal. Communists accounted for a tiny share of the population, but they had a visible presence among intellectuals, artists, and political activists. The American Communist Party enthusiastically cooperated with Moscow. It managed to plant Soviet spies in the State Department, the Manhattan Project, and other important government institutions. The 1950 perjury trial of Alger Hiss, a high-ranking diplomat who spied on Roosevelt's administration for the Soviet Union, was a national spectacle vividly illustrating the Soviet spy network's reach. (Many American leftists maintained Hiss's innocence for decades, until the opening of the Soviet archives conclusively proved his guilt.) In the face of this espionage threat, most liberals severed all ties with American communists. The AFL-CIO expelled communists from its ranks. 'I have never seen any reason to admire men who, under the pretense of liberalism, continued to justify and whitewash the realities of Soviet Communism,' the prominent intellectual Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote at the time. The synthesis these liberal anti-communists arrived at was to oppose McCarthyism and communism simultaneously. They would defend the free-speech rights of accused communists (though not their right to hold sensitive government jobs) while denouncing communist ideas. But they found themselves squeezed in a vise. The right was trying to use communist espionage to discredit the entire New Deal. Many leftists, meanwhile, bitterly castigated their former allies for their betrayal, and adopted a posture of anti-anti-communism—not endorsing communism per se, but instead directing all their criticism at the excesses of anti-communism, so as to avoid a rupture on the left. Still, as difficult as their position might have seemed, liberals managed to beat back McCarthyism and retain public confidence in their ability to handle the Cold War. Many on the American left never surrendered their resentment of the center-left's anti-communist posture. In their eyes, liberals empowered McCarthy by validating the notion that communists were an enemy in the first place. And now they see the same thing happening again. By denouncing the illiberal left, they argue, the center-left has opened the door to right-wing repression. [Clay Risen: When America persecutes its teachers] To be fair, some free-speech advocates who criticized the left for shutting down debate have revealed themselves to be hypocritical when it comes to anti-Israel speech. An especially ugly episode transpired in late 2023, when the presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT refused to crack down broadly on anti-Zionist speech on campus, only for members of Congress in both parties to smear them as anti-Semitic. But the complaints on the left are not limited to liberals who betray their commitment to free-speech norms. Their critique is aimed at liberals who uphold those values. And that is because they oppose liberal values themselves. When the Harvard psychologist and Harper's-letter signatory Steven Pinker wrote a long New York Times essay assailing the Trump administration's campaign against academic freedom, online leftists castigated him for having supposedly cleared the way for Trump by critiquing groupthink in the academy. 'Lot of good push back here from Pinker but at the same time his critiques of higher ed helped open the door for the attacks on the university he now dreads, and especially those directed at where he works,' wrote Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins, a social-studies professor at Wesleyan. Pinker has never endorsed Trump or Trumpism. But the mere fact of his having opposed left-wing illiberalism supposedly makes him complicit in the right-wing version. Likewise, many leftists consider it self-evident that criticizing campus protesters' use of violent pro-Hamas messages, such as 'Globalize the Intifada,' was akin to fascism. Liberals of course had good reason to worry about violent, apocalyptic rhetoric, and the ideas inspiring it, which more recently has contributed to a spate of terror attacks on domestic Jewish targets. But to some leftist critics, raising those concerns was functionally a vote for Trump. 'Even those [Democrats] issuing mild statements of concern can't help but front-load their polite chiding of the White House with pointless, preening condemnations of the target of Trump's arrests and harassment regime,' Adam Johnson and Sarah Lazare write in the left-wing In These Times. Jeet Heer, writing in The Nation, likewise argues, 'Biden's slander of pro-Palestinian activists helped splinter the Democratic coalition during the 2024 election' and, yes, 'laid the groundwork for the current crackdown on dissent.' The left is not alone in seeking to erase the liberal middle ground between the political extremes. The dynamic is identical to that of the 1950s, when the right tried to paint all opponents of McCarthyism as communists (just as the left wished to paint all anti-communists as McCarthyists). Trump's allies are attacking pro-free-speech liberals for having supposedly enabled radicalism. When Harvard faculty signed a letter denouncing Trump's threats against academic freedom, conservatives sneered that professors had only themselves to blame. 'Many of these signatories have been entirely silent for years as departments purged their ranks of conservatives to create one of the most perfectly sealed-off echo chambers in all of higher education,' wrote the pro-Trump law professor Jonathan Turley. Both the far right and far left have a good reason to erase the liberal center: If the only alternative to their position is an equally extreme alternative, then their argument doesn't look so out-there. The liberal answer is to resist this pressure from both sides. A decade ago, illiberal discourse norms around race and gender began to dominate progressive spaces, leaving a pockmarked landscape of cancellations and social-media-driven panics. Even as many skeptics on the left insisted that no such phenomenon was occurring—or that it was merely the harmless antics of college students—those norms quickly spread into progressive politics and the Democratic Party. The 2020 Democratic presidential campaign took place in an atmosphere in which staffers, progressive organizations, journalists, and even the candidates themselves feared that speaking out against unpopular or impractical ideas would cause them to be labeled racist or sexist. That was the identity-obsessed climate in which Joe Biden first promised to nominate a female vice president, and then committed to specifically choosing a Black one. This set of overlapping criteria narrowed the field of candidates who had the traditional qualification of holding statewide office to a single choice whose own campaign had collapsed under the weight of a string of promises to left-wing groups who were out of touch with the constituencies they claimed to represent, as well as her limited political instincts. Kamala Harris herself was cornered into endorsing taxpayer-financed gender-reassignment surgery for prisoners and detained migrants, a promise that Trump blared on endless loop in 2024. Her own ad firm found that Trump's ad moved 2.7 percent of voters who watched it toward Trump, more than enough to swing the outcome by itself. Trump's election had many causes. One of them was very clearly a backlash against social-justice fads, and the Democratic ecosystem's failure, under fear of cancellation, to resist those fads. If either party to this internal debate should be apologizing, it's not the liberals who presciently warned that the left risked going off the rails and enabling Trump to win. [Thomas Chatterton Williams: What the left keeps getting wrong] The political gravity of the campus debate after October 7 tilts in the same direction. Some progressives decided that the plight of Palestinians was so urgent and singular as to blot out every other political cause. The effect was to elevate the salience of an issue that split the Democratic coalition: Both the most pro-Israel constituents and the most anti-Israel constituents in the Democratic coalition moved heavily toward Trump's camp. Many pro-Palestine activists openly argued that the stakes were high enough to justify risking Trump's election. That is precisely the direction in which their actions pushed. Trump's election, and his subsequent campaign to crush demonstrations, is precisely the scenario that liberal critics warned would occur. That this outcome is being used to discredit those same liberals is perverse, yet oddly familiar. Article originally published at The Atlantic
