Author: Ekaterina Yazykova Mellott

Since the new administration has begun its time in leadership, we have beheld the eruption of social justice issues, a resurgence of communities of hate, and further divide created amongst Americans. I, like so many others, took to the leadership to find direction, and I find it perplexing that we have arrived at a place where the majority of our communication from our President comes from Twitter, especially since eight short years ago, citizens were up in arms at the then President Elect Obama wishing to retain his BlackBerry Smartphone for use while in office. I believe we have seen a large shift in public sentiment, where the esteem of the highest position in the country can be judged in 160 characters. But are we in a moment in time where we, for the first time in history, know the fleeting thoughts of our Commander in Chief? It could be argued that while it is against the status quo, candid sentiments could be seen by citizens and that this is the most transparent it’s ever been.

We operate in a society where we thrive on facts, finding fault in facts and basing large decisions on “alternate facts.” Facts should have a standard, and while opinions can be different from one another, there has to be a baseline, a general level of “truth.” To me, the hardest thing to accept is that facts can actually have no standard and the question of “where do you get your news?” is less of an actual question and much more a statement of judgment. How much transparency is “too much” transparency? Does the left hand really not know what the right hand is doing? Is the use of Twitter, as a means to address the public, too loose? Where should the line be drawn? I find myself appreciating the fact that the status quo of a seemingly “old” way of governing is being shaken up and changed, thus making it more approachable. A new, more modernized version of presidential communication is being ushered in, but I do not think that excuses the insults, attacks on the press, and the general disregard for our international allies. To me, it is too far: it is no longer transparency, it’s showboating.

Is the cost of this level of transparency further loss of public trust? Are certain constitutional rights more important than others? Is the right to a free press less important than the right to bear arms? From where I am sitting, only time will tell.

In 2011, as part of a push by the Obama Administration to address statistics making headlines about college campus sexual assault, then- Vice President Joe Biden announced the “Dear Colleague Letter.” This letter, issued by the Office of Civil Rights, reaffirmed the responsibilities of public schools in instances of on-campus student-to-student sexual harassment and assault cases, and made suggestions as to how these institutions could improve their guidelines. The purpose was to clarify many issues within the Title IX statute regulating the role of institutions in sexual harassment and assault cases.

One of the most controversial aspects of this letter is its commitment to the use of the “preponderance of evidence” standard in educational institutions. This burden of proof is considered the lowest used in the court system today: it only requires testimonial and/or physical evidence to provide proof that a crime had a higher than 50% chance of happening. Previously, many schools had used what’s called the “clear and convincing” standard, meaning that the evidence provided needed to be more rigorous than the “preponderance” standard, but less so than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, which is typical of criminal cases. In other words, evidence needed to be highly convincing, but not necessary so high that it positively proved the event happened.

Victims’ rights advocates hailed this as a win in their fight for justice for the victims of sexual crimes. According to one advocacy worker, the preponderance of evidence standard made it easier for LGBT+ victims, who have been met with ridicule and indifference in the criminal justice system, to come forward (Waters, 2017). Others claim that the Title IX clarifications in the Dear Colleague letter help both victims and institutional administrators know what steps schools need to take in instances of sexual harassment and assault (Vaglanos, 2017).

The new leadership within the Department of Education, headed by Secretary DeVos, has decided to rescind these Obama-era Title IX guidelines. Specifically citing the burden of evidence necessary for punishment, Ms. DeVos and her office have claimed that using the preponderance of evidence standard tramples the rights of the accused, removing their right to due process (Tatum, 2017). They’ve since replaced it with their own version of a Dear Colleague letter, which argues for treating victims and defendants fairly, and insists on the use of the clear and convincing standard, in the form of a fact sheet they’ve released while they formulate new guidelines (Hefling & Emma, 2017).

The creation of the original guidelines in 2011 was done with the intention to bring clarity to a system which, in its vagueness, had failed many students across the nation. This much both sides agree on. However removing existing guidelines and creating new, interim ones while yet another document of guidelines is being formed doesn’t speak to a desire to continue making the process just and equitable. Rather, the Department of Education is muddying the waters around Title IX guidelines for schools and their students, and leaving them in limbo for an as-of-yet undetermined amount of time. Once the new guidelines are formulated and released, which Ms. DeVos claims could take several months, institutions will need to recalibrate their own policies, further extending the time it will take for the education system to have clear rules on the consequences of something as serious as sexual violence. And all of this – the uncertainty being created around how institutions should go about investigating and prosecuting sexual harassment and assault, the dismantling of protections created to bring more victims into the light – is being done in the spirit of protecting the rights of those accused of sexual crimes. This policy strategy ultimately comes off as unwise and dismissive of serious issues plaguing our educational institutions.

References

Hefling, K., and Emma, C. (2017, September 22). Obama-era school sexual assault policy rescinded. Politico. Retrieved from http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/22/obama-era-school-sexual-assault-policy-rescinded-243016.

Tatum, S. (2017, September 22). Education Department withdraws Obama-era campus sexual assault guidance. CNN politics. Retrieved from: http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/22/politics/betsy-devos-title-ix/index.html.

Vaglanos, A. (2017, September 10). Betsy DeVos may rescind Title IX guidelines. Here’s what that could mean. Huffington Post: Women. Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/betsy-devos-may-rescind-title-ix-guidelines-heres-what-that-could-mean_us_59aff829e4b0dfaafcf443e5.

Waters, E. (2017, July 14). Betsy DeVos needs to listen to survivors. The New York Times: Opinion. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/betsy-devos-needs-to-listen-to-survivors.html.

As mid-sized farming has seen a drastic decline over the past several decades, more local mid-sized farmers have to be creative to maintain sustainability. With increasing support from local towns to create fresh farmers markets for local small town farmers, many of those who would fall in the middle ground of farming, have had nowhere to turn. It is easy for a small farmer to yield their crop and go to the local farmers market on a Saturday and sell their produce while also working other jobs to economically provide for their families. On the other end of the spectrum, we find larger farms that are producing food at an extreme level of efficiency and productivity, resulting in greater opportunities for growth and wealth. The farmer who has to work their farm in the realm of a normal 40-hour job without the opportunity to supplement it with another career is the one who finds him or herself on difficult times. Local markets are supporting the small farmer and larger grocers are supporting the mass production of produce. So where does this leave the farmer who works his or her fields every day but does not have the manufacturing aspect of many large farms? This is where the significance of value chain businesses cooperates and benefits one another.

A great example of this is the Hub City Co-op that is owned by thousands of community members who have invested in this full-service retail grocery store. Along with it being invested in by community members, 35 local vendors offer produce, flowers, beer, wine, dairy, meat, soaps, essential oils, etc. It is the only one of its kind in South Carolina. It is a community of owners who work with the non-profit Rural Development Corporation to provide the opportunity for local mid-sized farmers, such as Thicketty Mountain Farms, to join with other local farmers and businesses to meet the needs of the community while helping to sustain one another’s business ventures through collaborating together. By joining together in a value chain it makes it more affordable for businesses to survive when they join together. The co-op benefits the community by bringing various degrees of retail and grocery needs to the customer while also providing the opportunity for mid-size farmers to be successful. While smaller farms have local farmers markets and larger farms have the benefit of larger grocers, what Spartanburg has accomplished through the co-op will be foundational for future mid-size farmers and is a great example of the value chain.

In the last 20 years, the American political climate has undergone a change even Al Gore could not have predicted. 1997 had us poised at the dawn of a new millennium, full of hope and the dream of a super-technological future that would bring peace and prosperity. We were the kings of the world, as Jack Dawson in Cameron’s Titanic put it.

Compare the feeling of the 1997 climate – one of anticipation and promise – to the climate today, and Americans are no longer the Jack Dawson who stood on the bow of the ship with his arms thrown wide, but the Jack Dawson who clung to the railing on the stern as the broken aft section began to sink. “Uncertainty” and “hostility” are the terms that come to the minds of the American people when considering the current political climate, according the APA’s Stress in America: Coping with Change, 2017. Like the fated Titanic, the United States has ignored the warnings, and now our nation is divided. While each side of the ship that was the United States heaves hatred at the other, Americans are failing to realize that – unless we work together to mend what has been broken – we will all sink. Tragically, our quest for equality is the iceberg that will doom us.

Kurt Vonnegut’s short story from 1962, Harrison Bergeron, is proving prophetic, and one is left wondering how long it will be until the United States elects its first Handicapper General to shepherd us to the fiction that is equality. Every morning brings news of another event that rips open old wounds and causes tempers to flare; and it is these heavy tidings that have made our nation’s future murky and uncertain while our present is strained and hostile. Though Americans are more connected than ever due to the technology at our fingertips, an ugly divide threatens to ruin us, and, ignoring the warnings of icebergs ahead, we continue to strive for an equality that can never be.

People are not equal, and they never will be; however, instead of celebrating those differences and capitalizing on them to create strength through diversity, Americans have instead used our differences to draw lines of intolerance in the sand. The only equality that exists is that both sides are equally guilty: we have all made mistakes, harbored hatred in our hearts, stereotyped, overreacted, and refused to listen. Sure, we are equal, but only equal in guilt.

Climate change is the prime example where science can be used to settle disputes among parties for the common good. Persistent doubt about climate change has made solving the issue ineffective. Rather than argue about what we can’t agree on, what does science tell us that we can all agree on? Fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal) will deplete, likely, sometime in the next two centuries. What do republicans and democrats agree on? Entrepreneurship and job growth. So, the key to common ground in this area is renewable energy.

Currently, many conservatives negatively associate restriction and regulation with climate change; two things we know republicans will never agree with because it “kills jobs”. We want to reorient the approach to climate change by advancing energy: finding new sources, making renewable energy more accessible, developing more efficient energy storage capability and sustainable building materials, etc.

Renewable energy needs to be put on the table as the future of jobs and innovation. Currently, the solar power industry provides more jobs than coal in the U.S. If the U.S. ignores developing industry in the green energy sector in favor of fossil fuels, countries like China are going to take advantage of the market because they understand renewable energy is the future and are investing accordingly. Movement away from fossil fuels is a step towards innovation and growth, and solving climate change is implicit to renewable energy. But, instead of telling people what they are doing wrong to ruin the environment, we are telling them how we can all come together to make the environment better, the economy strong, and stake our claim as a global competitor and innovator.

Climate change advocates have not done a great job making the idea of climate change easily accessible to those who are skeptical. Climate change seems to be talked about as one big, singular issue, when it involves solving a series of problems across many industries and communities. Needed are policy initiatives to encourage industry to invest in renewable energy and pertinent research as well as government funding for R&D into materials research, battery technology, alternative energy sources, etc. To do this will not be easy. We propose establishing public-private partnerships to compensate for limited federal funding and incentivize the private sector. The private sector has operational efficiency and government research agencies have the resources to accomplish tasks where science, technology, and engineering overlap.

Even though our goal in the short term will change the conversation away from climate change, the long term result will be the same: create a more sustainable society and better standard of living to protect the health of the environment and the people who live in it.

Welcome to the first edition of Clemson University’s TIGERs GPS – Government and Public Service Blog. We are excited to begin this blogging journey with you as we continue to learn from each other and share stories, best practices and other ponderings in this forum. This blog also presents an opportunity to build on skill sets that are in high demand in today’s workforce. Consistently, international and national level firm surveys reveal that of the ten skills employers want the most, written and verbal communication and analyzing and synthesizing information are at the top. Moreover, many firms see the ability to be creative and innovative as critical in the 21^st century. We hope this blog will serve as an opportunity to learn from each other about a diverse range of policy, public administration and non-profit issues, along with helping us all to be more effective ad creative communicators. It is with this in mind that I break the Champagne Bottle over the hull and christen the Blog – Cheers to TIGERs GPS. ~ Lori A. Dickes, Phd

The Soviet Union sent the first man into space, as well as the first woman and the first dog. An American was the first human to step on the lunar surface. China has built the world’s largest radio telescope. Arguably, the three countries, with Russia as an unchallenged successor of the Soviet Union, have the courtside seats to space exploration and utilization.

Before OSIRIS-REx completes its mission to Bennu or an Earthian sets foot on real Mars, not in Mars-simulated dome in Hawaii, there is something much closer to home and seemingly within an easy reach: the Earth’s devoted Moon. And specifically, it is the Moon’s Helium-3-rich top layer that Russia, the U.S., and China would love to mine and process cheaply as the new-generation energy source. Some believe that the recent SPACE Act of 2015 serving to “facilitate commercial exploration for and commercial recovery of space resources by United States citizens” (Sec. 51302, para. (a)(1) had precisely the Moon’s helium on the agenda. Roscosmos may be postponing its Moon missions, but it has never taken its eyes off the Moon’s helium and the faster the country can get to utilize it, the faster it can claim a major stake in all of the Moon’s resources. True, according to the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, Russia would not be able to claim sovereignty, but it could successfully skirt the issue through something like the U.S.’ SPACE Act with private and state corporations engaging in “commercial recovery of space resources.”

And when American, Russian, and Chinese entities are collecting the Moon’s abundant Helium-3, do Haiti or Moldova get a piece of the Moon’s pie? Barring the often-cited parallels with regulations of international waters here on Earth, does the Moon belong to everyone or only to those who can get there? What if we divided the Moon’s surface among all countries in proportion to their population size and encouraged space leasing by foreign companies on a given country’s territory. The U.S. would still get a sizable chunk of the Moon, much smaller than China’s but more than double that of Russia’s. And if American companies wished to collect the Moon’s helium on say Haiti’s portion of the Moon, they’d pay a usage fee to the Haiti’s people, hopefully represented by the country’s government.

With territorial claims in Antarctica yet to be settled and Russia’s relentless quest to legally claim the North Pole as its own, we may need to start the conversation about dividing the Moon fairly before the much coveted Helium-3 is appropriated by the savviest explorers. And contrary to the Cadillac’s famed commercial, Americans may not be the only ones going back up there (even if they left the keys in the car https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=xNzXze5Yza8 ).

Public sector administrative organizations are responsible and responsive to disparately motivated client factions, all of which have differing agendas, power bases, and constituencies, that want to at least influence—if not control—policy choices. The factious nature of public sector clients is consequential to whether public sector administrative organizations choose to innovate or incrementally change. The simple, yet foremost, question, “Who are your clients?”, becomes an interminable investigation of the irresolvable with implications for the public administrator—most of which are bad. While resolution of this question is elusive, strategies for policy choices dependent on a resolution, as well as avoidance of bad outcomes, are not: rather than risk provoking the wrong faction, public administrators typically choose less disruptive incremental change even if innovation promises true transformative policy outcomes.

A case in point: the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA had the potential to transform insurance; instead, its champions chose to modify rather than transform our system of health insurance, doing nothing to control the excessive administrative costs of insurance companies. Rather, the ACA was designed to transfer risk from private individuals to the government without transforming (instead, only modifying) the Darwinian basis of our healthcare delivery system. Government innovation is generally unattainable, as the ACA highlights, because “the clients” are diverse and competitive. A bureaucracy has to harness the political power of diverse power centers in order to push through true innovation—that is a tall order. Factions that face disruption from innovation will undermine and weaken innovation, doing so is in their interests. Those who benefit will argue for innovation. We end up with a compromise better known as change not innovation.

Perhaps one agency still can innovate with little to no inhibition: the Defense Advanced Research Agency (DARPA). Most of our government sponsored innovation comes from defense. The key to which is the technical nature of most government innovation. When faced with existential threats, such as the Cold War, our government does have the capacity to allow the few nimble agencies in the government to engage in transformational projects such as the U-2 spy plane or the SR-71 spy plane. The recent exception to the technical versus policy imbalance in innovation is the implementation of a counterinsurgency program in Iraq during 2007 that was known as “The Surge.” Here, policy planners did transform combat operations. Policy planners implemented a strategy designed to achieve social stability rather than kill terrorists.

Most government innovation is nothing more than policies that promote status quo with minor to modest modifications—what we call change.  The political landscape is still recognizable. Change, in the end, is political compromise.

While it may be years until the legacy of the Trump presidency is clearly defined, the administration’s immigration policies will certainly play a significant role in determining how history will ultimately view the 45^th President of the United States.  As a candidate, Donald Trump traded nuance for hardline stances on the construction of a border wall, increased deportations, and extreme vetting of refugees.  Once inaugurated, he placed immigration at the forefront of his policy agenda with several high profile executive order signing events in the opening days of his presidency.  Regardless of the eventual success or failure of the implementation of the Trump immigration policy plan, his often boisterous rhetoric on immigration will leave an indelible mark on his page of history.

While much of the attention will be paid to the most controversial and highest profile provisions of the Trump immigration platform, the creation of a powerful political weapon has gone largely unnoticed in the deluge of Executive Orders that characterized the Trump Administration’s opening days.  Although primarily a policy statement regarding immigration enforcement and sanctions against sanctuary jurisdictions, a small section in Executive Order 13768 created a new federal program that focuses solely on crimes committed by aliens who are also subject to removal from the United States.  Named in the E.O. as the Office for Victims of Crimes Committed by Removable Aliens, and later rebranded by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement as Victim of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE), the program operates with two mandates.  VOICE provides victim services in those instances in which a crime is committed by a removable alien and creates quarterly reports on the effects of crimes committed by removable aliens.

The political usefulness of the VOICE program begins with the suggestion that such an office is even necessary.  VOICE is a redundancy of not only the Office of Victims of Crime, which has existed under the Department of Justice since 1988, but also established crime victim programs in all 50 states, all of which provide the same types of victim services regardless of the immigration status of the offender.  Creating a new program specific to removable alien offenders serves to draw increased attention to criminal aliens in a political environment in which even anecdotal evidence is sufficient imagery to support calls for increased immigration enforcement in furtherance of the overall Trump immigration policy agenda.

The VOICE victim advocacy mission includes providing the immigration status of specific individuals, information which was previously protected from disclosure as personally identifiable information under federal privacy laws.  E.O. 13768 dispenses with those protections by commanding agencies to exclude all non-citizens from privacy policies.  The directive does not limit the removal of those protections to the provision of victim services, but is rather a blanket statement of policy.  Wholesale removal of Privacy Act protections provides pathways to publically disclosing personal identity information of all aliens, whether or not they are subject to removal.  Until legally challenged, this provision of E.O. 13768 grants the administration complete discretion to utilize personally identifiable information to meet both operational and political goals.

Perhaps the most politically important aspect of the VOICE program, however, has little to do with providing services to crime victims.  Quarterly reporting of immigrant crime statistics will create a body of data critical to garnering support for increased immigration enforcement.  Over time, data trends can be utilized to highlight successes in reducing crimes committed by removable aliens.  Conversely, the data can be used to bolster arguments for increased immigration enforcement, much in the same way law enforcement agencies utilize crime data for operational planning, budgeting, and lobbying for resources.  These reporting requirements represent a second redundancy within the VOICE program, as the Federal Bureau of Investigation has compiled and published national crime statistics since the 1930s.  Utilizing a government agency to gather and disseminate data lends an inherent sense of legitimacy to the reporting, adding political potency to the information when it is inevitably used to further a policy agenda or campaign for public office.

The pursuit of efficiency in government would suggest that the goals of the VOICE program could be easily accomplished through the established infrastructure of existing government programs.  That logic, however, requires suspending the reality that public administration and public policy are inseparably intertwined with politics.  VOICE is an excellent example of leveraging public resources for political gains, with any public service impact a secondary consequence.  The creation of the VOICE program was not simply politics over efficiency in government, however, as the Trump administration has also identified reducing government overreach and inefficiency as priorities.  Here we see competing political goals within the administration and the ensuing public policy a product of that conflict.  The politics of public policy often requires the interruption of one initiative in favor of another, even within the same policy platform.

On August 1st, 1981 Music Television (MTV) launched; the first song, The Buggles, “Video Killed the Radio Star”.  The first song was suiting, as the iconic image of the astronaut placing the MTV flag on the moon quickly became synonymous with the changing age of the music medium.  Quickly people flocked to MTV to see new music and find the current trends.  The way in which the news media has changed follows directly in this same path.  Much in the same way the Obama administration made government more accessible to the public, the internet has made media more accessible and interactive.  It has also led to the legacy media having to struggle to stay relevant and in play.  Impacts on public policy remain; the way they touch public policy has changed.  The media’s role in public policy is both central and pivotal; the media acts as the information outlet to the public, while acting as a check for the government.

The legacy media is under fire.  The advent of the internet has created a more interactive medium that has brought forward many different views from around the world.  Walter Lippman wrote of an island where in which Englishmen, Frenchmen, and Germans lived together in 1914.  The island was secluded from the world, only receiving news every six weeks.  At this time World War I was beginning, the inhabitants of the island were unaware of this.  “For six strange weeks they had acted as if they were friends, when in fact they were enemies”. This comment shows that how concealed communities were at that time.  The paradigm has changed drastically since then, of which, McLuhan has named the “Global Village”. With this, McLuhan is referencing the change from the seclusion of the past to the international inclusiveness of the current culture. The access to television allowed for people to see far expanses of the world, while the internet has enhanced this with the ability to interact with other cultures.

The vastness of the internet and the expansion of television channels has led to negative externalities, known as “The Expansion of Choice” (EOC).  The EOC refers to the copious amounts of media that the public has access to.  In years past media outlets were limited; however, today consumers have multiple outlets to receive media.  This gives them more entertainment choices, rather than being exposed to the news.  This has led to nightly sitcom’s, comedy talk shows, and even sporting events becoming platforms for political rhetoric.  As this paradigm shift evolved, the concern of political socialization comes into play.

Prior to the 1970’s, it was thought that most youth received their political information via school and from parents.  As research was conducted, it was found that most young people started to receive their political information through some form of mass media. Throughout all forms of media, consumers are exposed to different cultural ideologies.  Forms of mass media have not only formed people’s cultural orientations, they have also restructured them.  This can be described as “resocialization”.  This can be seen in the evolution of sitcoms and other such shows.  This can be shown by the downfall of the Klu Klux Klan (KKK). Prior to television being readily available, families gathered around the radio. A popular show was Superman, the platform which Stetson Kennedy saw to bring down the KKK. Rather than approach the problem head on, he infiltrated a local chapter. He then leaked the names of leaders to the radio show. The show then used the names as despicable villains for Superman to thwart. This quickly changed the view of the KKK, preventing them from functioning.

With the ability to access different media outlets, consumers have the choice of which opinions they want to be exposed to.  This has developed partisan selective exposure (PSE); where in which an individual’s political beliefs dictate their media choices.  A consumer can now avoid opinions that they disagree with and seek self-satisfaction by following only the media of which they agree with.  This has shaped public policy by creating a polarization of the political parties.  Those that choose to allow PSE to be placed on them, limit themselves from opposing views.  This has created the “gridlock” affect in government and social realms.  This limits understanding and bipartisanship.  In years past the legacy media was the only route in which news could be seen or heard.  Consumers are now exposed to fragmented news or news that is tailored to their views.  This creates a further divide amongst the citizens and the political parties.

The media has shaped public policy by using the act of gatekeeping.  This is the determination of which stories will be published or aired.  In doing this the media can control what stories are heard, putting more impacting stories on the frontline.  This harnesses public opinion, moving the public to back certain policies and oppose others. The media also uses the “watchdog” concept to shape public policy.  Investigative journalism has been a cornerstone of the media.  Not only does it draw in consumers, it acts as a watch for political elites. Journalist are the first to expose a problem and make it widely known.  McChesney notions that this paradigm has begun to shift from being a strictly media controlled field to the use of citizen journalism.  This approach uses citizens to collect information and compile it for the professional journalists to publish or broadcast the story.  Through this the media can shape the formation and implementation of policies.

The media shapes public policy in many ways.  While the approach has changed, the affect it has on the government has not.  The reach of the media has increased, the way news is delivered has been altered, and citizen socialization has become dynamic.  Even through all this, the media still has a powerful impact on politicians and public policy.  The media has created an approach that has allowed citizens to be more involved, whether using social media or the use of citizen journalists.  With all this considered, public policy will continue to be affected by the media, regardless of the medium.