Latest news with #Columbia
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Jewish Students Punished in the Name of Jewish Safety
'I sat in that hearing, and I sobbed.' C, a Jewish senior at Columbia University's Barnard College, said she found out she had to attend a disciplinary hearing two days before her senior thesis was due. She was being called in, she was told, because she attended a demonstration earlier in the semester and because she had, a few weeks later, chained herself to a campus gate. (As she and other Jewish students have been doxed for their participation in pro-Palestine protests, I am not using her real name in this piece.) The demonstration she and several other Jewish students attended was a protest of the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a Syrian-born Palestinian green card holder, recent Columbia graduate, and her friend, by ICE. She and several other Jewish students had chained themselves to a campus gate demanding to know 'the names of the Columbia trustees who facilitated the abduction of our beloved friend by collaborating with the Trump administration.' She and her fellow Jewish students had felt that, 'as Jewish students, we were the only ones who could do this safely,' she told me, 'AND send a message: This does not keep us safe.' Weeks later, she was in a disciplinary hearing, trying to explain to a conduct officer what had happened. 'My friend was abducted. My university was complicit. This was done in the name of the religion I love and care about.' 'I didn't expect to break down that much,' she told me. Her degree conferral has been deferred until October. Hers is one of several similar cases: Jewish students disciplined by a university that has said, publicly and repeatedly, that it is attempting to demonstrate that it takes Jewish safety seriously. She was able to walk at graduation, she said, even though the administration was withholding her degree. But the victory, such as it was, was a hollow one. 'I just felt so angry at my commencement, and I feel sad because I worked so hard for four years. I wanted to feel good and proud. And I just couldn't feel anything but frustration and anger.' 'I think it's both highly problematic and unfortunate,' James Piacentini, a Jewish adjunct assistant professor in urban planning and architecture at Columbia, told me, 'that the university and school administrators have become so warped in their thinking that they're purporting to believe that undermining free expression of Jewish students is somehow combating antisemitism on campus.'Barnard is not the only college—and Columbia not the only university—to use graduation and the awarding of a degree as a way to push back against students protesting for Palestinian rights. The universities say it is a matter of enforcing rules; their critics, that they are chilling speech. The backdrop to all of this is, of course, the Trump administration, which is threatening to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars from a number of universities, including Columbia, if they do not do what the administration tells them to in order to 'fight antisemitism.' This series of demands includes turning over a university's academic independence to the federal administration (Columbia has tried to acquiesce; Harvard is tied up in court). And so, with millions intended for scientific research hanging in the balance, ostensibly for the good of Jewish students, universities entered graduation season locked in an existential battle and firmly under the national spotlight. The universities say that they are upholding their own rules and policies and keeping campus safe for all. New York University decided to withhold the diploma of a student speaker, Logan Rozos, who delivered an unapproved graduation speech on 'the atrocities currently happening in Palestine' that quickly went viral. 'He lied about the speech he was going to deliver and violated the commitment he made to comply with our rules,' an NYU spokesperson said in a statement. 'NYU is deeply sorry that the audience was subjected to these remarks and that this moment was stolen by someone who abused a privilege that was conferred upon him.' George Washington University, meanwhile, announced an investigation after commencement speaker Cecilia Culver delivered a speech, also different from the one she submitted, encouraging her peers not to donate to the university until it divests from Israel. Culver (and the dean who followed her and thanked her for sharing her perspective) were denounced by some for antisemitism; Culver has since 'been barred from all GW's campuses and sponsored events elsewhere,' per the university. Barnard, for its part, insisted in a statement that 'no students were disciplined or had their degrees deferred as a response to the content of their speech or expression.' Instead, 'disciplinary measures were taken in response to vandalism, course disruption, and other actions that violated Barnard's Student Code of Conduct and interfered with the core academic mission of the college.' Others see the response of these colleges and universities as little more than a scare tactic meant to chill free speech. 'The College is using degree deferral to scare students into silence,' Debbie Becher, an associate professor of sociology at Barnard, who is Jewish, said in an email. 'It accomplishes what the administration wants: a show of force with no regard for due process. There is no warrant for this. The College has the power to revoke a degree, so it could wait until due process has been followed. Instead, it chose to impose a punishment before the process.' I put to Becher that some would say that rules were indeed broken and that there should be consequences when policies are not adhered to. 'There needs to be a sound conduct process for breaking rules; this would include judgment by peers, transparency, accountability, reasonable sanctions, and protection of student rights. Barnard has none of this,' she replied. There's just centralized power and harsh punishment. Piacentini also suggested that people take more extreme action when other, arguably milder forms of protest have been taken from them. Perhaps if Jewish and non-Jewish pro-Palestinian groups weren't kicked off campus, he said, 'other forms of protest might not be necessary.' But they were, and so 'people are putting their ideas, their bodies on the line because other mechanisms have been taken away from them.' H, a Jewish recent graduate of Barnard who was also disciplined for chaining herself to the gate, said that the administration talks 'about wanting to build community.' 'I have tried to do that,' she continued. 'The university has made that difficult at every turn.' She tried to organize Shabbat gatherings for Jewish Voice for Peace, an anti-Zionist Jewish group. 'But the university suspended the club.' She felt that it was difficult to be Jewish on campus—because her administration 'has decided that we are not.'Jewish students are not the only, or even primary, individuals caught up in crackdowns against pro-Palestinian speech and criticism (including often harsh criticism) of Israel. After all, the reason C chained herself to the gate, she said, is that she thought she'd be safer than many of her peers. In our conversation, she repeatedly stressed that her Palestinian and Arab peers in particular are 'subjected to worse' than what she faces as a Jewish student. Piacentini too made clear that Jews are not the most impacted by policies that challenge pro-Palestinian speech and protest—many others are 'more at risk than we are.' There are dramatic examples of that risk: Khalil is still detained. Palestinian Columbia student Mohsen Mahdawi was also arrested and detained (though he has been released and was able to walk at graduation). H noted that her own discipline was essentially 'an art project'—she had to write an essay with visual accompaniment about how to properly register events on campus. She believes that, if she were not a white Jewish student, her punishment would have been worse. Still, as Becher put it, 'the punishment of Jewish students for these protests reveals the hypocrisy of the claim that the college or federal administration wants to protect us. The punishment of Jewish students instead betrays a disregard for their safety.' The administrations at Barnard and Columbia alike, she added, have 'ignored Jewish students, scholars, and community members who have told them repeatedly that they must adopt a definition of antisemitism as hatred against Jews for being Jews, not a definition that connects Jewish identity to Israel. The definition of hatred against Jews for being Jews would lead to policies that actually defend Jewish safety.' There are, after all, many types of Jewish students at Barnard, and Columbia, and every campus: students who relate differently to Israel and Palestine and Zionism and anti-Zionism and Jewish institutions of various stripes. (Studies suggest that the majority are neither agitating for Zionism and Israel nor for Palestine.) Piacentini said that, while he considers himself anti-Zionist, even Jewish colleagues and students who don't but are critical of Israel's war feel 'primarily threatened and targeted by people with power who claim to be trying to protect us from antisemitism.' Listening to C, I thought of how Jewish students should have the right to go to class and extracurriculars and parties and protests and feel safe. I thought about that as I listened to her tell me how she and her fellow Jewish students had been doxed and harassed and accused by a Jewish faculty member of being not dissimilar to the Judenrat, councils that acted as go-betweens for the Nazis and Jewish communities. I listened as she talked about trying to finish her senior thesis, crying in her disciplinary hearing, and attending musical theater class while worrying about her friend Mahmoud, sitting in a prison in Louisiana. Was the point of all of this to make sure that Jewish students can learn safely? So they can focus on being students? If the education of Jewish students had been disrupted on campus, who had disrupted it? C told me that she had chosen Barnard because 'I wanted to be around people who would encourage me to stand up for what I believe in.' And she loved so much of her experience. But in the end, she said, she felt her identity and beliefs—those of an anti-Zionist Jewish student—were ignored. 'If it wasn't so dangerous and sad, it would be bordering on a farce,' said Piacentini. ''The best way to protect Jewish students is to silence them, arrest them, and take away their degrees.' How can you say that out loud and not hear you're wrong?'
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Business
- Miami Herald
What evidence shows about the economic impact of DEI
Few issues in the United States today are as controversial as diversity, equity and inclusion -- commonly referred to as DEI. Although the term didn't come into common usage until the 21st century, DEI is best understood as the latest stage in a long American project. Its egalitarian principles are seen in America's founding documents, and its roots lie in landmark 20th-century efforts such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act and affirmative action policies, as well as movements for racial justice, gender equity, disability rights, veterans and immigrants. These movements sought to expand who gets to participate in economic, educational and civic life. DEI programs, in many ways, are their legacy. Critics argue that DEI is antidemocratic, that it fosters ideological conformity and that it leads to discriminatory initiatives, which they say disadvantage white people and undermine meritocracy. Those who defend DEI argue just the opposite: that it encourages critical thinking and promotes democracy -- and that attacks on DEI amount to a retreat from long-standing civil rights law. Yet, missing from much of the debate is a crucial question: What are the tangible costs and benefits of DEI? Who benefits, who doesn't, and what are the broader effects on society and the economy? As a sociologist, I believe any productive conversation about DEI should be rooted in evidence, not ideology. So let's look at the research. Who gains from DEI? In the corporate world, DEI initiatives are intended to promote diversity, and research consistently shows that diversity is good for business. Companies with more diverse teams tend to perform better across several key metrics, including revenue, profitability and worker satisfaction. Businesses with diverse workforces also have an edge in innovation, recruitment and competitiveness, research shows. The general trend holds for many types of diversity, including age, race and ethnicity and gender. A focus on diversity can also offer profit opportunities for businesses seeking new markets. Two-thirds of American consumers consider diversity when making their shopping choices, a 2021 survey found. So-called "inclusive consumers" tend to be female, younger and more ethnically and racially diverse. Ignoring their values can be costly: When Target backed away from its DEI efforts, the resulting backlash contributed to a sales decline. But DEI goes beyond corporate policy. At its core, it's about expanding access to opportunities for groups historically excluded from full participation in American life. From this broader perspective, many 20th-century reforms can be seen as part of the DEI arc. Consider higher education. Many elite U.S. universities refused to admit women until well into the 1960s and 1970s. Columbia, the last Ivy League university to go co-ed, started admitting women to its undergraduate programs in 1982. Since the advent of affirmative action, women haven't just closed the gender gap in higher education -- they outpace men in college completion across all racial groups. DEI policies have particularly benefited women, especially white women, by expanding workforce access. Similarly, the push to desegregate American universities was followed by an explosion in the number of Black college students -- a number that has increased by 125% since the 1970s, twice the national rate. With college gates open to more people than ever, overall enrollment at U.S. colleges has quadrupled since 1965. While there are many reasons for this, expanding opportunity no doubt plays a role. And a better-educated population has had significant implications for productivity and economic growth. The 1965 Immigration Act also exemplifies DEI's impact. It abolished racial and national quotas, enabling the immigration of more diverse populations, including from Asia, Africa, southern and eastern Europe and Latin America. Many of these immigrants were highly educated, and their presence has boosted U.S. productivity and innovation. Ultimately, the U.S. economy is more profitable and productive as a result of immigrants. What does DEI cost? While DEI generates returns for many businesses and institutions, it does come with costs. In 2020, corporate America spent an estimated $7.5 billion on DEI programs. And in 2023, the federal government spent more than $100 million on DEI, including $38.7 million by the Department of Health and Human Services and another $86.5 million by the Department of Defense. The government will no doubt be spending less on DEI in 2025. One of President Donald Trump's first acts in his second term was to sign an executive order banning DEI practices in federal agencies -- one of several anti-DEI executive orders currently facing legal challengers. More than 30 states have also introduced or enacted bills to limit or entirely restrict DEI in recent years. Central to many of these policies is the belief that diversity lowers standards, replacing meritocracy with mediocrity. But a large body of research disputes this claim. For example, a 2023 McKinsey & Co. report found that companies with higher levels of gender and ethnic diversity will likely financially outperform those with the least diversity by at least 39%. Similarly, concerns that DEI in science and technology education leads to lowering standards aren't backed up by scholarship. Instead, scholars are increasingly pointing out that disparities in performance are linked to built-in biases in courses themselves. That said, legal concerns about DEI are rising. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Department of Justice have recently warned employers that some DEI programs may violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Anecdotal evidence suggests that reverse discrimination claims, particularly from white men, are increasing, and legal experts expect the Supreme Court to lower the burden of proof needed by complainants for such cases. The issue remains legally unsettled. But, while the cases work their way through the courts, women and people of color will continue to shoulder much of the unpaid volunteer work that powers corporate DEI initiatives. This pattern raises important equity concerns within DEI itself. What lies ahead for DEI? People's fears of DEI are partly rooted in demographic anxiety. Since the U.S. Census Bureau projected in 2008 that non-Hispanic white people would become a minority in the U.S by the year 2042, nationwide news coverage has amplified White people's fears of displacement. Research indicates many White men experience this change as a crisis of identity and masculinity, particularly amid economic shifts such as the decline of blue-collar work. This perception aligns with research showing that white Americans are more likely to believe DEI policies disadvantage White men than White women. At the same time, in spite of DEI initiatives, women and people of color are most likely to be underemployed and living in poverty regardless of how much education they attain. The gender wage gap remains stark: In 2023, women working full time earned a median weekly salary of $1,005 compared with $1,202 for men -- just 83.6% of what men earned. Over a 40-year career, that adds up to hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost earnings. For Black and Latina women, the disparities are even worse, with one source estimating lifetime losses at $976,800 and $1.2 million, respectively. Racism, too, carries an economic toll. A 2020 analysis from Citi found that systemic racism has cost the U.S. economy $16 trillion since 2000. The same analysis found that addressing these disparities could have boosted Black people's wages by $2.7 trillion, added up to $113 billion in lifetime earnings through higher college enrollment, and generated $13 trillion in business revenue, creating 6.1 million jobs annually. In a moment of backlash and uncertainty, I believe DEI remains a vital if imperfect tool in the American experiment of inclusion. Rather than abandon it, the challenge now, from my perspective, is how to refine it: grounding efforts not in slogans or fear, but in fairness and evidence. Rodney Coates is a professor of Critical Race and Ethnic Studies at Miami University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary are solely those of the author. Copyright 2025 UPI News Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
South Carolina Lottery Mega Millions, Pick 3 results for May 30, 2025
The South Carolina Education Lottery offers several draw games for those aiming to win big. Here's a look at May 30, 2025, results for each game: 02-28-37-38-58, Mega Ball: 13 Check Mega Millions payouts and previous drawings here. Midday: 8-5-4, FB: 3 Evening: 9-6-3, FB: 0 Check Pick 3 Plus FIREBALL payouts and previous drawings here. Midday: 1-7-8-7, FB: 3 Evening: 8-6-0-1, FB: 0 Check Pick 4 Plus FIREBALL payouts and previous drawings here. Midday: 10 Evening: 05 Check Cash Pop payouts and previous drawings here. 03-04-07-30-34 Check Palmetto Cash 5 payouts and previous drawings here. Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results The South Carolina Education Lottery provides multiple ways to claim prizes, depending on the amount won: For prizes up to $500, you can redeem your winnings directly at any authorized South Carolina Education Lottery retailer. Simply present your signed winning ticket at the retailer for an immediate payout. Winnings $501 to $100,000, may be redeemed by mailing your signed winning ticket along with a completed claim form and a copy of a government-issued photo ID to the South Carolina Education Lottery Claims Center. For security, keep copies of your documents and use registered mail to ensure the safe arrival of your ticket. SC Education Lottery P.O. Box 11039 Columbia, SC 29211-1039 For large winnings above $100,000, claims must be made in person at the South Carolina Education Lottery Headquarters in Columbia. To claim, bring your signed winning ticket, a completed claim form, a government-issued photo ID, and your Social Security card for identity verification. Winners of large prizes may also set up an Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) for convenient direct deposit of winnings. Columbia Claims Center 1303 Assembly Street Columbia, SC 29201 Claim Deadline: All prizes must be claimed within 180 days of the draw date for draw games. For more details and to access the claim form, visit the South Carolina Lottery claim page. Powerball: 10:59 p.m. ET on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday. Mega Millions: 11 p.m. ET on Tuesday and Friday. Pick 3: Daily at 12:59 p.m. (Midday) and 6:59 p.m. (Evening). Pick 4: Daily at 12:59 p.m. (Midday) and 6:59 p.m. (Evening). Cash Pop: Daily at 12:59 p.m. (Midday) and 6:59 p.m. (Evening). Palmetto Cash 5: 6:59 p.m. ET daily. This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a South Carolina editor. You can send feedback using this form. This article originally appeared on Greenville News: South Carolina Lottery Mega Millions, Pick 3 results for May 30, 2025
Time of India
4 hours ago
- General
- Time of India
Can you forget a language you grew up with?
I never thought multilinguality—this gift, this badge I wore so casually—could turn into something like guilt. Or grief. Or both. I've always floated between English, Hindi, and Marathi. Like air, water, and soil—each one elemental in its own right. I didn't think about it much. These were just languages I knew. That I spoke. That I lived in. Until one day, I started tripping on words I've always known, like stumbling on a flat street you've walked a hundred times. You don't see it coming. And suddenly, you're not walking—you're falling. It's a strange ache, forgetting familiar things. Searching for the right word and finding only static. My mouth moving slower than my thoughts. My thoughts moving slower than memory. It's frustrating. Disheartening. Upsetting in ways I didn't know language could be. Sometimes I envy the monolinguals. I really do. You only need to be excellent at one language. One way to speak. One set of books. One cultural context. One kind of milk packet. Even your coffee bag comes with instructions tailored to you. No switching. No code-mixing. No fumbling. No forgetting. Sometimes I think: maybe it's better to have a language as a barrier than a language that becomes a stutter. Back at Columbia Business School, it was all English all the time. I didn't have a choice, really. Most of my Indian friends weren't from Maharashtra or North India—they didn't speak Marathi or Hindi. They spoke Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada—beautiful languages that felt like distant cousins. And so I stuck to English. Clung to it, even. Like it was the only thing holding me up. There was this one pharmacy store on 125th Street, run by a Telugu family—stocked with snacks, paracetamol, canned beans, cleaning spray, and nostalgia. My friend's relatives owned it. We went there often. Telugu songs playing in the background like a soundtrack I never asked for but eventually grew to love. I picked up words. Phrases. Rhythms. I tried. I gave myself credit for that. But a few lyrical lines aren't fluency. They're just echoes. And speaking of echoes: yes, Columbia. But not the university. Let's be clear. I was at Columbia Business School—the other Columbia. A 15-minute walk from the famed Morningside Heights campus. Which, in the elite ecosystem of Ivy Leagues, might as well be a lifetime away. We weren't the 'real' Columbia, not in the eyes of the undergrads with their tote bags and blue hoodies. But that's the thing, right? This obsession with being the 'real one.' The original. The authentic. It happens everywhere. Even sweet shops in India slap on 'The Real XYZ' because the copycats moved in next door. It's all so performative. This scramble for verification. And yet, none of it matters. Not really. Life doesn't issue blue ticks after you die. Back to English. My English has always been good—until I got bored of it. Or maybe burnt out by it. Or maybe I just woke up one day and realised I didn't want to be speaking like everyone else. Tom, Dick, and Harry have colonised English anyway. Learning Punjabi and German changed everything. Punjabi, especially. It's not just a language anymore. It's how I argue. How I cook. How I love. At home, it's been over a year now—Punjabi is my primary language. And cooking? Don't even get me started. Everyone thought I hated cooking. I didn't. I just never had the right space. Never had the emotional safety to enjoy it. These days I find myself making midnight salads with Mumbai-style twists. I blend spice the way I blend syllables now: with flair. With feeling. And Hindi? It's my go-to when everything else falters. English? Honestly, I could leave it behind. Dump it like an old winter coat that doesn't fit anymore. I don't need to sound like Shashi Tharoor or Sudha Murthy. I just want to sound like myself. And that self is changing. Morphing. Choosing. Now, as I pursue my PhD at the University of Zürich, German is the language of nuance, of lecture notes, of inside jokes I don't always understand. My classmates laugh on WhatsApp, and I smile along, pretending. But Google Translate isn't a real friend. It's a crutch. And you can't dance with a crutch. So yeah—my Hindi is rusty. My English stumbles. My Marathi hides behind curtains. My Punjabi is vibrant. My German is clumsy. My mouth is always catching up to my brain, and my brain is always adjusting. But here's the thing: I would rather explain what chaunk is in Punjabi than try to impress anyone in English. I would rather read Hermann Hesse in his mother tongue than sit through another email chain about 'synergies.' So yes, I'm choosing. Choosing imperfection. Choosing warmth. Choosing complexity. Choosing regional over universal. Spices over syntax. Depth over fluency. And I think that's the most fluent I've ever felt. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Wes Moore, Tim Walz urge for a fiercer Democratic party at famed Jim Clyburn Fish Fry
Democratic governors Tim Walz and Wes Moore are fired up - but not solely to eat South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn's so-called "world famous" breaded fish. They're fired up to refocus their party, and on Friday evening, both pitched their theory of how to build up coalitions and win back the Americans they've lost: emphasize the political gravity of the moment forcefully and frequently, and don't wait until the midterms to talk to as many constituencies as possible. "Each and every one of us, we're not going to have someone come save us. But who wants that? We can save ourselves. We can get out there. We can make a difference," said Minnesota Gov. Walz during brief remarks on stage to a few hundred Democrats in Columbia, South Carolina. "We need to change the attitude, compete in every district, compete for every school board seat, and come out to this damn fish fry with the attitude: 'we're going to fill up on some fish, and then we are going to beat the hell out of these dictators.'" Moore, the first Black governor of Maryland, in his remarks stressed that the "baton is in our hands." "We are not going to drop it. We are going to run through the tape, and we are going to win because we understand what's at stake," said Moore He continued the refrain, as a rallying cry of sorts: "Send a message the entire country is going to hear. This is our time. This is our moment. We will not shirk, we will not flinch, we will not blink. We will win, just as those who came before us did." Yet, neither of them said that they should be the leader of the party in 2028. Both governors have denied any plans of seeking the presidential nomination, which the pair reiterated during a gaggle with reporters before their on-stage remarks Friday. During that gaggle, Clyburn said he saw both Walz and Moore as "great leaders" but said they have to decide their own plans. Walz has said he has no plans for a White House run and is still mulling whether he will run for gubernatorial reelection. When pressed at an appearance at Harvard's Institute of Politics, Walz said he wasn't sure if the party's eventual candidate is clear just yet. "I think it's a super talented bench," Walz said. "Do I think the person's out there? No, I'm not sure they're out there yet." MORE: Dems call GOP's 'big, beautiful' bill 'ugly' for hurting low-income, helping rich Moore has rejected the notion more fiercely, telling ABC's "The View" plainly, "I am not running." He doubled down in the reporter gaggle Friday, "Anyone who is talking about 2028 is not taking 2025 very seriously," Moore told reporters. "The fight is 2025. Right now." Moore also gave a keynote address at the state's key fundraiser, the Blue Palmetto Dinner, just before his Fish Fry appearance, where, according to a circulated copy ahead of his remarks, he said the party must be delivering "an alternative" to Trump at this moment. "I want to be clear: We can – and we must – condemn Donald Trump's reckless actions. But we would also be foolish not to learn from his impatience. Now is the time for us to be impatient too. Let's not just talk about an alternative. Let's not just study an alternative. Let's deliver an alternative," Moore's prepared remarks said. Even still, it's no secret that Clyburn's fish fry has often been fertile waters for would-be Democratic rising stars and Pennsylvania Ave. hopefuls to mix and mingle among powerful party operatives, donors, and key South Carolina early state voters in one night. And while not as much of a crazed scene as the 2019 event, where a menagerie of Dem candidates vied for stage-time as the partiers shimmied shoulder to shoulder, Friday night's event was still high-energy. MORE: Who's running for president in 2028 and who's not? Walz will be speaking to Palmetto State Democrats once again Saturday morning. But that doesn't end the Minnesota governor's campaign travel. After his address on Saturday, he's quickly off to California to speak at its Democratic Party's event. The famous fish fete tees off a weekend of fundraising and party business as the South Carolina Democratic Party convenes for their state convention. Friday night's event also comes as South Carolina's future placement within the party's early voting calendar is in flux. Last cycle, due to changes made by the Democratic National Committee, South Carolina replaced historically first Iowa as the initial contest. However, Democrats must set a new calendar for 2028. Which order the state comes in is less important to Clyburn, he said. "I never ask for anything more than to keep us in the pre-primary window," said Clyburn. "Whether that be one, two, three, or four, I don't care." Wes Moore, Tim Walz urge for a fiercer Democratic party at famed Jim Clyburn Fish Fry originally appeared on
