Latest news with #GeorgetownUniversity
Mint
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Mint
New Zealand is right to atone for its colonial crimes in the Pacific
In London recently, Penny Wong, Australia's foreign minister, called on Britain to face up, in the Indo-Pacific, to the uncomfortable realities of its colonial past. Ms Wong's forebears were from ethnic-Chinese communities that laboured in British Borneo's perilous mines. Colonial stories, she said, 'can sometimes feel uncomfortable—for those whose stories they are, and for those who hear them.' Some in Britain's ruling Conservative Party objected furiously to Ms Wong lecturing Britain on how to grapple with its past. Yet she raised an issue that will not go away. Britain has declared its intention to seek much deeper trade and security ties in the Indo-Pacific region. It is unlikely to succeed, Ms Wong intimated, in what she called 'the most consequential region of our time', unless Britain faces up to how an often-abusive history colours its relations there. Understanding the past, she said, 'enables us to better share the present and the future. It gives us the opportunity to find more common ground.' Patricia O'Brien, a historian of colonialism at Georgetown University and the Australian National University, emphasises the point in an excellent piece in the Diplomat, a foreign-affairs magazine: 'Reckoning with colonial pasts, in current times, makes for good diplomacy.' Britain and other former colonisers might consider this especially worthwhile if they wish to criticise the region's new imperial power, China, on firm moral ground. Britain, alas, is a past master at failing to reckon with its history. Among numerous illustrations, it has serially bungled its approach to atoning for its imperial slavery in the Caribbean, where its king remains the head of state of eight countries. Yet Britain is by no means the only power in the Indo-Pacific with a sordid past. During the Pacific war of 1937-45, imperial Japan massacred civilians, forced Chinese and Koreans into slave labour and conscripted tens of thousands of Korean and other 'comfort women' into military brothels. Japan's relations with its neighbours are still bedevilled by that history. In the South Pacific, where white-British colonies, including Australia, became colonisers themselves, colonial wrongs remain a political minefield. But recent experiences there show how it is possible for countries to pick a way through it. New Zealand, in particular, is an exemplary apologiser. An apology from a state is quite different from one offered by an individual. Meaningful political apologies are extended by the many to the individual—to victims of slavery, for instance, or to their descendants. There is, notes Hiro Saito of Singapore Management University, a performative dimension to the act. But the performance counts for nothing if the actors are not sincere. Few could fault New Zealand for apologetic sincerity. In 2002 Helen Clark, then the prime minister, issued a moving apology for her country's past mistreatment of Samoa. It included banishing its leaders and causing the death of over a fifth of the population, after New Zealand allowed a ship carrying Spanish flu to dock at the island-territory. Her apology was met with Samoan rituals of forgiveness. 'Unfinished business', as Ms Clark called it, can only be settled with the victims' agreement. Last August another New Zealand prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, volunteered an ifoga, a public display of humiliation and apology, for her country's racist 'dawn raids' in search of Pacific Islanders who had overstayed their work visas in the 1970s. Chris Finlayson, a former New Zealand attorney-general who negotiated dozens of apologies and financial settlements with iwi, Maori tribes, says: 'If the Crown simply breezes in and says we're sorry, they don't accept it.' Apologies have to be specific and attuned to the victim's sensitivities. 'It is acknowledgment that certain things happened in history…and a promise that there will be a different way [in future].' It helps perhaps that modern diplomatic apologies chime with a South Pacific tradition of atonement, of which tabua, polished sperm whales' teeth used as gifts, are emblematic. Only in January the new prime minister of Fiji offered one to Kiribati. Yet even when such props are unavailable, doing the right thing is surely advisable. Not least because when states say sorry they are thinking more about opening up the future than closing down the past. At a time of bleak geopolitical contestation, there is a virtuous logic to that which even hard-headed strategists should keep in mind.
Boston Globe
21 hours ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court keeps ruling in Trump's favor, but doesn't say why
What the order did not include was any explanation of why the court had ruled as it did. It was an exercise of power, not reason. The silence was even more striking in the face of a 19-page dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. 'The majority is either willfully blind to the implications of its ruling or naive,' Sotomayor wrote, 'but either way the threat to our Constitution's separation of powers is grave.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The question of whether the nation's highest court owes the public an explanation for its actions has grown along with the rise of the 'emergency docket,' which uses truncated procedures to produce terse provisional orders meant to remain in effect only while the courts consider the lawfulness of the challenged actions. In practice, the orders often effectively resolve the case. Advertisement The court has allowed the administration to fire tens of thousands of government workers, discharge transgender troops, end protections for hundreds of thousands of migrants from war-torn countries, and fundamentally shift power from Congress to the president — often with scant or no explanation of how it arrived at those results. Advertisement In the past 10 weeks alone, the court has granted emergency relief to the Trump administration without explanation seven times, according to a tally by Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University and the author of a book about the court's emergency work called 'The Shadow Docket.' (In that time, the court issued roughly the same number of emergency orders in which the majority gave at least a bit of explanation.) Monday's ruling, Vladeck wrote this week in his newsletter, was the latest 'completely unexplained' ruling 'that is going to have massive real-world effects long before the justices ever confront whether what the government is doing is actually lawful.' All of this is in stark contrast with cases on the court's merits docket, which unfold over about a year and include two rounds of briefs, oral arguments, painstaking deliberations, and the exchange of draft opinions. The end result is often a comprehensive set of opinions that can be as long as a short novel. The court usually rules on emergency applications in a matter of weeks. Critics call the emergency docket 'the shadow docket,' and its use was on the rise even before it was turbocharged with the arrival of Trump's second administration. Justice Elena Kagan used that term in 2021 in criticizing the court's work. The majority had just issued a midnight ruling that left in place a Texas law effectively overturning Roe v. Wade in the state — as the court would do nationwide the next year. In dissent, Kagan wrote that 'the majority's decision is emblematic of too much of this court's shadow-docket decision making — which every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent and impossible to defend.' Advertisement A month later, Justice Samuel Alito returned fire in a speech at Notre Dame defending the court's approach to emergency applications. 'The catchy and sinister term 'shadow docket' has been used to portray the court as having been captured by a dangerous cabal that resorts to sneaky and improper methods to get its ways,' he said. 'This portrayal feeds unprecedented efforts to intimidate the court and to damage it as an independent institution.' He compared the court's procedures to the ones used by emergency medical technicians called to the scene of an accident. 'You can't expect the EMTs and the emergency rooms to do the same thing that a team of physicians and nurses will do when they are handling a matter when time is not of the essence in the same way,' he said. On the question of scant or absent reasoning, Alito argued that sometimes it is better to say less. 'Journalists may think that we can just dash off an opinion the way they dash off articles,' he said, but 'when we issue an opinion, we are aware that every word that we write can have consequences, sometimes enormous consequences, so we have to be careful about every single thing that we say.' That argument has some weight, said Daniel Epps, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. 'Whether the court should explain its emergency orders presents a difficult trade-off,' he said. 'On the one hand, whenever the court writes any kind of majority opinion, even one only a few sentences long, it creates precedent that courts and lawyers feel bound to follow.' That must be done with care and consideration, he said. On the other hand, he said, 'unexplained orders expose the court to suspicion and criticism.' Advertisement 'In a highly polarized climate where the court is often accused of acting politically,' he said, 'the justices should feel a heightened obligation to explain their decisions to the public.' Epps said he favored providing some explanation, pointing to an order in May that allowed Trump to fire two leaders of independent agencies. The two-page majority opinion was, he said, long enough to provide some explanation but 'tentative enough to leave some wiggle room.' As it happened, the meaning of that opinion has been contested, and it is the subject of a new application pending before the court. Orders without any reasoning at all can create confusion in the lower courts. In June, for instance, the court allowed the Trump administration to deport migrants to countries other than their own without giving them a chance to show that they would face the risk of torture. The order gave no reasons, and the dissent said it did not apply to men held at an American military base in Djibouti. The court's silence led to a new application days later seeking clarification. The court then issued an order this month with more than two pages of reasons, enough to allow the administration to send the men to South Sudan. This article originally appeared in
New York Post
a day ago
- Politics
- New York Post
Georgetown professor removed as department chair after publicly hoping for symbolic Iranian strike on US
A professor at Georgetown University has been removed as chair of his department and is on leave after he publicly hoped Iran would launch a 'symbolic strike' on a U.S. military base, the university's president said. 'I'm not an expert, but I assume Iran could still get a bomb easily. I hope Iran does some symbolic strike on a base, then everyone stops. I'm surprised this is what these FDD/Hasbara people have been auto-erotically asphyxiating themselves for all these years,' Dr. Jonathan Brown, the Alwaleed bin Talal chair of Islamic Civilization in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, posted on X in June after the U.S. struck Iran's nuclear enrichment sites. He added, 'Ironically, the main takeaways (in my non-expert opinion, and I'm happy to be corrected) from all this have nothing to do with a US attack: 1) Iran can take a licking; 2) if Israel attacks Iranian cities, it gets f—ed up pretty bad. I mean I've been shocked at the damage Iranian missiles caused; 3) despite his best efforts, Reza Pahlavi HVAC repair services still only third best in Nova.' Dr. Jonathan Brown, a professor at Georgetown University, has been removed as chair of his department for posting a tweet acknowledging that he hoped Iran would launch a 'symbolic strike' on a U.S. military base. Georgetown University Georgetown University Interim President Robert M. Groves testified to the House Education and Workforce Committee that Brown had been removed as chair of the department and placed on leave following the tweet. He said the university was currently reviewing Brown's case. 'Within minutes of our learning of that tweet, the Dean contacted Professor Brown, we issued a statement condemning the tweet. Professor Brown is no longer chair of his department, he's on leave, and we're beginning the process of reviewing the case,' Groves testified. The hearing, titled 'Antisemitism in Higher Education: Examining the Role of Faculty, Funding, and Ideology,' saw testimony from Georgetown President Groves, CUNY Chancellor Dr. Félix V. Matos Rodríguez, Berkeley Chancellor Dr. Rich Lyons and others. The hearing comes as colleges across the country have been plagued with antisemitism in the wake of Hamas' Oct. 7 attacks. Brown's comments elicited fierce pushback online, with many outraged over his perceived call for violence against U.S. forces. 'I went to graduate school with Jonathan Brown,' Jewish People Policy Institute fellow Dr. Sara Yael Hirschhorn posted on X. Georgetown University Interim President Robert M. Groves said Brown has been removed from being chair of the Alwaleed bin Talal Islamic Civilization in the School of Foreign Service while also being placed on leave. Nate Hovee – 'I'm appalled to see him calling for Iran to attack U.S. troops and his awe at attacks on Israeli civilians. @Georgetown- enough!' Brown previously told Fox News Digital that he had been calling for 'de-escalation' with Iran, and that his post had been misinterpreted. He said he was hoping for an Iranian response akin to their attack after the U.S. took out Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, in which the Islamic Republic launched ballistic missiles at a U.S. base in Iraq but caused no casualties. 'I was calling for de-escalation as I am very opposed to American involvement in foreign wars,' he said. When asked for comment, Georgetown University referred Fox News Digital to President Grove's testimony. Fox News Digital's Andrew Mark Miller contributed to this report.
Middle East Eye
a day ago
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
Georgetown University professor placed on leave over misrepresented X post
A programme director and tenured professor at Georgetown University has been placed on administrative leave after he was attacked by pro-Israel groups over a post on X where he called for an end to hostilities between Iran and the US. Georgetown University interim president Robert Groves told lawmakers on Tuesday during a House committee hearing on campus antisemitism, more than three weeks after the X incident, that Brown was no longer chair of his department and that they were "beginning a process of reviewing the case". On 22 June, just a day before Iran fired missiles at al-Udeid air base in Qatar in retaliation for President Donald Trump's unprecedented strikes on its three nuclear facilities, Jonathan AC Brown, the Alwaleed bin Talal chair of Islamic Civilisation in the School of Foreign Service, predicted that such a move could wrap up the conflict. "I'm not an expert, but I assume Iran could still get a bomb easily. I hope Iran does some symbolic strike on a base, then everyone stops," Brown wrote on X. A day later, on 23 June, Iran struck the base, and Trump thanked the Islamic Republic for giving him an early warning about the choreographed response. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Hours later, Trump announced he had brokered a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Iran, ending what he coined "the 12-day war". Within the next few days, Brown faced a series of attacks from pro-Israel groups and activists, and some on the American right who saw his post as a call for harm against US troops. Brown later clarified that he was not calling for an attack on the US base and wrote: "I deleted my previous tweet because a lot of people were interpreting it as a call for violence. That's not what I intended. "I have two immediate family members in the US military who've served abroad and wouldn't want any harm to befall American soldiers," he added. 'The idea that the university would pursue punitive action... is troubling and, frankly, unbecoming of Georgetown' - Cair On Tuesday, Grove told lawmakers during the House committee hearing that Brown was being disciplined and investigated. "Within minutes of our learning of that tweet, the dean contacted professor Brown. The tweet was removed," Groves said. "We issued a statement condemning the tweet. Professor Brown is no longer chair of his department. He's on leave, and we're beginning a process of reviewing the case." Republican Congresswoman Virginia Foxx responded: "He's made similarly appalling statements for years, but he has been kept around. So now you're investigating and disciplining him?" "Yes," Groves said. Brown has been a longtime vocal critic of Israel's war on Gaza, where more than 58,000 Palestinians have been killed, the majority of whom are women and children. 'Troubling and unbecoming' Within hours of the hearing, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (Cair) issued a statement containing a copy of its letter to Groves urging that Brown be reinstated. The organisation said it has deep concerns about "misleading and bad-faith mischaracterizations of [Brown's] social media activity", as well as the university's decision to announce the disciplinary action at a public hearing "arranged by openly anti-Palestinian and Islamophobic members". What really happened at college campuses according to Jewish students Read More » Cair said that Brown "is known not only for his scholarly contributions to Islamic Studies, but also for his work advancing racial justice, interfaith understanding, and academic freedom". "The idea that the university would pursue punitive action against such a faculty member based on a politically motivated smear campaign related to his private speech, instead of any actual misconduct, is troubling and, frankly, unbecoming of Georgetown." The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), one of the foremost pro-Israel advocacy groups in the US, lauded the university for its decision. Middle East Eye reached out to Brown for comment, but did not receive a response by the time of publication. Since Trump entered office, his administration has cracked down on Ivy League schools where mass protests have called for an end to Israel's war on Gaza, as well as an end to US involvement in perpetuating the Israeli occupation of Palestine. The president has withheld critical public research funding from institutions such as Harvard University and Columbia University. Not the first incident Georgetown University has been under scrutiny for several months, ever since another one of its professors faced the full might of Trump's war on pro-Palestine voices, aided by lists provided by pro-Israel groups like Canary Mission, Betar and the Middle East Forum. On 17 March, masked federal agents from the Department of Homeland Security arrested Badar Khan Suri in Rosslyn, Virginia, just as he returned home from breaking his Ramadan fast. His arrest came amid a wave of attacks on the academic freedom of pro-Palestinian voices in the US. Georgetown scholar Badar Khan Suri to be released from detention in Texas Read More » Suri is an Indian citizen and a post-doctoral scholar at Georgetown. Like Brown, he also worked at the Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. The agents told him that his student visa had been revoked and that he faced imminent deportation. Suri's wife, Mapheze Saleh, a Palestinian with American citizenship, watched as the masked agents took him and his passport and drove off. "Suri has close connections to a known or suspected terrorist, who is a senior advisor to Hamas. The Secretary of State issued a determination on March 15, 2025 that Suri's activities and presence in the United States rendered him deportable," a statement sent to MEE at the time said. Suri's wife, Saleh, is the daughter of Ahmed Yousef, a former senior political adviser to Ismail Haniyeh, the then-leader of Hamas. Yousef left that post many years earlier. After being held in what he described as squalid conditions inside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention centre 1,500 miles away from his family for two months, a federal judge ordered his release on bail in May.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Georgetown professor removed as department chair after publicly hoping for symbolic Iranian strike on US
A professor at Georgetown University has been removed as chair of his department and is on leave after he publicly hoped Iran would launch a "symbolic strike" on a U.S. military base, the university's president said. "I'm not an expert, but I assume Iran could still get a bomb easily. I hope Iran does some symbolic strike on a base, then everyone stops. I'm surprised this is what these FDD/Hasbara people have been auto-erotically asphyxiating themselves for all these years," Dr. Jonathan Brown, the Alwaleed bin Talal chair of Islamic Civilization in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, posted on X in June after the U.S. struck Iran's nuclear enrichment sites. He added, "Ironically, the main takeaways (in my non-expert opinion, and I'm happy to be corrected) from all this have nothing to do with a US attack: 1) Iran can take a licking; 2) if Israel attacks Iranian cities, it gets f---ed up pretty bad. I mean I've been shocked at the damage Iranian missiles caused; 3) despite his best efforts, Reza Pahlavi HVAC repair services still only third best in Nova." Israeli Columbia Professor Leaves School Over Failure To Address Anti-israel Protests Georgetown University Interim President Robert M. Groves testified to the House Education and Workforce Committee that Brown had been removed as chair of the department and placed on leave following the tweet. He said the university was currently reviewing Brown's case. "Within minutes of our learning of that tweet, the Dean contacted Professor Brown, we issued a statement condemning the tweet. Professor Brown is no longer chair of his department, he's on leave, and we're beginning the process of reviewing the case," Groves testified. Read On The Fox News App The hearing, titled "Antisemitism in Higher Education: Examining the Role of Faculty, Funding, and Ideology," saw testimony from Georgetown President Groves, CUNY Chancellor Dr. Félix V. Matos Rodríguez, Berkeley Chancellor Dr. Rich Lyons and others. The hearing comes as colleges across the country have been plagued with antisemitism in the wake of Hamas' Oct. 7 attacks. Elite University Professor Sparks Social Media Backlash After Revealing What Iran Should Do Next: 'This Demon' Brown's comments elicited fierce pushback online, with many outraged over his perceived call for violence against U.S. forces. "I went to graduate school with Jonathan Brown," Jewish People Policy Institute fellow Dr. Sara Yael Hirschhorn posted on X. "I'm appalled to see him calling for Iran to attack U.S. troops and his awe at attacks on Israeli civilians. @Georgetown- enough!" Brown previously told Fox News Digital that he had been calling for "de-escalation" with Iran, and that his post had been misinterpreted. He said he was hoping for an Iranian response akin to their attack after the U.S. took out Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, in which the Islamic Republic launched ballistic missiles at a U.S. base in Iraq but caused no casualties. "I was calling for de-escalation as I am very opposed to American involvement in foreign wars," he said. When asked for comment, Georgetown University referred Fox News Digital to President Grove's article source: Georgetown professor removed as department chair after publicly hoping for symbolic Iranian strike on US Solve the daily Crossword
