Hackers Hit Dozens of Countries Exploiting Stolen N.S.A. Tool - NYTimes.com
Sat, 13 May 2017 14:04
SAN FRANCISCO '-- Hackers exploiting malicious software stolen from the National Security Agency executed damaging cyberattacks on Friday that hit dozens of countries worldwide, forcing Britain's public health system to send patients away, freezing computers at Russia's Interior Ministry and wreaking havoc on tens of thousands of computers elsewhere.
The attacks amounted to an audacious global blackmail attempt spread by the internet and underscored the vulnerabilities of the digital age.
Transmitted via email, the malicious software locked British hospitals out of their computer systems and demanded ransom before users could be let back in '-- with a threat that data would be destroyed if the demands were not met.
By late Friday the attacks had spread to more than 74 countries, according to security firms tracking the spread. Kaspersky Lab, a Russian cybersecurity firm, said Russia was the worst-hit, followed by Ukraine, India and Taiwan. Reports of attacks also came from Latin America and Africa.
The attacks appeared to be the largest ransomware assault on record, but the scope of the damage was hard to measure. It was not clear if victims were paying the ransom, which began at about $300 to unlock individual computers, or even if those who did pay would regain access to their data.
Security experts described the attacks as the digital equivalent of a perfect storm. They began with a simple phishing email, similar to the one Russian hackers used in the attacks on the Democratic National Committee and other targets last year. They then quickly spread through victims' systems using a hacking method that the N.S.A. is believed to have developed as part of its arsenal of cyberweapons. And finally they encrypted the computer systems of the victims, locking them out of critical data, including patient records in Britain.
The connection to the N.S.A. was particularly chilling. Starting last summer, a group calling itself the ''Shadow Brokers'' began to post software tools that came from the United States government's stockpile of hacking weapons.
The attacks on Friday appeared to be the first time a cyberweapon developed by the N.S.A., funded by American taxpayers and stolen by an adversary had been unleashed by cybercriminals against patients, hospitals, businesses, governments and ordinary citizens.
Something similar occurred with remnants of the ''Stuxnet'' worm that the United States and Israel used against Iran's nuclear program nearly seven years ago. Elements of those tools frequently appear in other, less ambitious attacks.
The United States has never confirmed that the tools posted by the Shadow Brokers belonged to the N.S.A. or other intelligence agencies, but former intelligence officials have said that the tools appeared to come from the N.S.A.'s ''Tailored Access Operations'' unit, which infiltrates foreign computer networks. (The unit has since been renamed.)
The attacks on Friday are likely to raise significant questions about whether the growing number of countries developing and stockpiling cyberweapons can avoid having those same tools purloined and turned against their own citizens.
They also showed how easily a cyberweapon can wreak havoc, even without shutting off a country's power grid or its cellphone network.
Graphic | Animated Map of How Tens of Thousands of Computers Were Infected With Ransomware A new strain of ransomware spread rapidly around the world on Friday.
In Britain, hospitals were locked out of their systems and doctors could not call up patient files. Emergency rooms were forced to divert people seeking urgent care.
In Russia, the country's powerful Interior Ministry, after denying reports that its computers had been targeted, confirmed in a statement that ''around 1,000 computers were infected,'' which it described as less than 1 percent of its total. The ministry, which oversees Russia's police forces, said technicians had contained the attack.
Some intelligence officials were dubious about that announcement because they suspect Russian involvement in the theft of the N.S.A. tools.
But James Lewis, a cybersecurity expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said he suspected that criminals operating from Eastern Europe acting on their own were responsible. ''This doesn't look like state activity, given the targets that were hit,'' he said.
Those targets included corporate computer systems in many other countries '-- including FedEx in the United States, one of the world's leading international shippers, as well as Spain's Telef"nica and Russia's MegaFon telecom giant.
It could take months to find who was behind the attacks '-- a mystery that may go unsolved. But they alarmed cybersecurity experts everywhere, reflecting the enormous vulnerabilities to internet invasions faced by disjointed networks of computer systems.
There is no automatic way to ''patch'' their weaknesses around the world.
''When people ask what keeps you up at night, it's this,'' said Chris Camacho, the chief strategy officer at Flashpoint, a New York security firm tracking the attacks. Mr. Camacho said he was particularly disturbed at how the attacks spread like wildfire through corporate, hospital and government networks.
Another security expert, Rohyt Belani, the chief executive of PhishMe, an email security company, said the wormlike capability of the malware was a significant shift from previous ransom attacks. ''This is almost like the atom bomb of ransomware,'' Mr. Belani said, warning that the attack ''may be a sign of things to come.''
The hackers' weapon of choice on Friday was Wanna Decryptor, a new variant of the WannaCry ransomware, which encrypts victims' data, locks them out of their systems and demands ransoms.
Researchers said the impact and speed of Friday's attacks had not been seen in nearly a decade, when the Conficker computer worm infected millions of government, business and personal computers in more than 190 countries, threatening to overpower the computer networks that controlled health care, air traffic and banking systems over the course of several weeks.
One reason the ransomware on Friday was able to spread so quickly was that the stolen N.S.A. hacking tool, known as ''Eternal Blue,'' affected a vulnerability in Microsoft Windows servers.
Hours after the Shadow Brokers released the tool last month, Microsoft assured users that it had already included a patch for the underlying vulnerability in a software update in March.
The home page of the East and North Hertfordshire N.H.S. Trust website on Friday.
East And North Hertfordshire NHS / Press Association, via Associated Press
But Microsoft, which regularly credits researchers who discover holes in its products, curiously would not say who had tipped the company off to the issue. Many suspected that the United States government itself had told Microsoft, after the N.S.A. realized that its hacking method exploiting the vulnerability had been stolen.
Privacy activists said if that were the case, the government would be to blame for the fact that so many companies were left vulnerable to Friday's attacks. It takes time for companies to roll out systemwide patches, and by notifying Microsoft of the hole only after the N.S.A.'s hacking tool was stolen, activists say the government would have left many hospitals, businesses and governments susceptible.
''It would be deeply troubling if the N.S.A. knew about this vulnerability but failed to disclose it to Microsoft until after it was stolen,'' Patrick Toomey, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, said on Friday. ''These attacks underscore the fact that vulnerabilities will be exploited not just by our security agencies, but by hackers and criminals around the world.''
During the Obama administration, the White House created a process to review software vulnerabilities discovered by intelligence agencies, and to determine which should be ''stockpiled'' for future offensive or defensive cyberoperations and which should be reported to the companies so that they could be fixed.
Last year the administration said that only a small fraction were retained by the government. But this vulnerability appeared to be one of them, and it was patched only recently, suggesting that the N.S.A. may have concluded the tool had been stolen and therefore warned Microsoft.
But that was clearly too little, and far too late.
On Friday, hackers took advantage of the fact that vulnerable targets '-- particularly hospitals '-- had yet to patch their systems, either because they had ignored advisories from Microsoft or because they were using outdated software that Microsoft no longer supports or updates.
The malware was circulated by email. Targets were sent an encrypted, compressed file that, once loaded, allowed the ransomware to infiltrate its targets. The fact that the files were encrypted ensured that the ransomware would not be detected by security systems until employees opened them, inadvertently allowing the ransomware to replicate across their employers' networks.
Employees at Britain's National Health Service had been warned about the ransomware threat earlier on Friday. But it was too late. As the disruptions rippled through at least 36 hospitals, doctors' offices and ambulance companies across Britain, the health service declared the attack a ''major incident,'' warning that local health services could be overwhelmed.
Britain's health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, was briefed by cybersecurity experts, while Prime Minister Theresa May's office said on television that ''we're not aware of any evidence that patient data has been compromised.''
As the day wore on, dozens of companies across Europe, Asia and the United States discovered that they had been hit with the ransomware when they saw criminals' messages on their computer screens demanding $300 to unlock their data. But the criminals designed their ransomware to increase the ransom amount on a set schedule and threatened to erase the hostage data after a predetermined cutoff time, raising the urgency of the attack and increasing the likelihood that victims would pay.
Without the ability to decrypt their data on their own, security experts said that victims who had not backed up their data were faced with a choice: Either live without their data or pay. It was not clear how many victims ultimately paid.
Security experts advised companies to immediately update their systems with the Microsoft patch.
Until organizations use the Microsoft patch, Mr. Camacho said, they could continue to be hit '-- not just by ransomware, but by all kinds of malicious tools that can manipulate, steal or delete their data.
''There is going to be a lot more of these attacks,'' he said. ''We'll see copycats, and not just for ransomware, but other attacks.''
Nicole Perlroth reported from San Francisco and David E. Sanger from Washington. Reporting was contributed by Dan Bilefsky, Sewell Chan and Yonette Joseph from London, Ivan Nechepurenko from Moscow, Raphael Minder from Ftima, Portugal, and Rick Gladstone from New York.
Presidential Executive Order on Strengthening the Cybersecurity of Federal Networks and Critical Infrastructure | whitehouse.gov
Thu, 11 May 2017 22:30
- - - - - - -
STRENGTHENING THE CYBERSECURITY OF FEDERAL NETWORKS AND CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to protect American innovation and values, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Cybersecurity of Federal Networks.
(a) Policy. The executive branch operates its information technology (IT) on behalf of the American people. Its IT and data should be secured responsibly using all United States Government capabilities. The President will hold heads of executive departments and agencies (agency heads) accountable for managing cybersecurity risk to their enterprises. In addition, because risk management decisions made by agency heads can affect the risk to the executive branch as a whole, and to national security, it is also the policy of the United States to manage cybersecurity risk as an executive branch enterprise.
(i) Cybersecurity risk management comprises the full range of activities undertaken to protect IT and data from unauthorized access and other cyber threats, to maintain awareness of cyber threats, to detect anomalies and incidents adversely affecting IT and data, and to mitigate the impact of, respond to, and recover from incidents. Information sharing facilitates and supports all of these activities.
(ii) The executive branch has for too long accepted antiquated and difficult''to-defend IT.
(iii) Effective risk management involves more than just protecting IT and data currently in place. It also requires planning so that maintenance, improvements, and modernization occur in a coordinated way and with appropriate regularity.
(iv) Known but unmitigated vulnerabilities are among the highest cybersecurity risks faced by executive departments and agencies (agencies). Known vulnerabilities include using operating systems or hardware beyond the vendor's support lifecycle, declining to implement a vendor's security patch, or failing to execute security-specific configuration guidance.
(v) Effective risk management requires agency heads to lead integrated teams of senior executives with expertise in IT, security, budgeting, acquisition, law, privacy, and human resources.
(c) Risk Management.
(i) Agency heads will be held accountable by the President for implementing risk management measures commensurate with the risk and magnitude of the harm that would result from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction of IT and data. They will also be held accountable by the President for ensuring that cybersecurity risk management processes are aligned with strategic, operational, and budgetary planning processes, in accordance with chapter 35, subchapter II of title 44, United States Code.
(ii) Effective immediately, each agency head shall use The Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (the Framework) developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or any successor document, to manage the agency's cybersecurity risk. Each agency head shall provide a risk management report to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) within 90 days of the date of this order. The risk management report shall:
(A) document the risk mitigation and acceptance choices made by each agency head as of the date of this order, including:
(1) the strategic, operational, and budgetary considerations that informed those choices; and
(2) any accepted risk, including from unmitigated vulnerabilities; and
(B) describe the agency's action plan to implement the Framework.
(iii) The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of OMB, consistent with chapter 35, subchapter II of title 44, United States Code, shall jointly assess each agency's risk management report to determine whether the risk mitigation and acceptance choices set forth in the reports are appropriate and sufficient to manage the cybersecurity risk to the executive branch enterprise in the aggregate (the determination).
(iv) The Director of OMB, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, with appropriate support from the Secretary of Commerce and the Administrator of General Services, and within 60 days of receipt of the agency risk management reports outlined in subsection (c)(ii) of this section, shall submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, the following:
(A) the determination; and
(B) a plan to:
(1) adequately protect the executive branch enterprise, should the determination identify insufficiencies;
(2) address immediate unmet budgetary needs necessary to manage risk to the executive branch enterprise;
(3) establish a regular process for reassessing and, if appropriate, reissuing the determination, and addressing future, recurring unmet budgetary needs necessary to manage risk to the executive branch enterprise;
(4) clarify, reconcile, and reissue, as necessary and to the extent permitted by law, all policies, standards, and guidelines issued by any agency in furtherance of chapter 35, subchapter II of title 44, United States Code, and, as necessary and to the extent permitted by law, issue policies, standards, and guidelines in furtherance of this order; and
(5) align these policies, standards, and guidelines with the Framework.
(v) The agency risk management reports described in subsection (c)(ii) of this section and the determination and plan described in subsections (c)(iii) and (iv) of this section may be classified in full or in part, as appropriate.
(vi) Effective immediately, it is the policy of the executive branch to build and maintain a modern, secure, and more resilient executive branch IT architecture.
(A) Agency heads shall show preference in their procurement for shared IT services, to the extent permitted by law, including email, cloud, and cybersecurity services.
(B) The Director of the American Technology Council shall coordinate a report to the President from the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of OMB, and the Administrator of General Services, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, as appropriate, regarding modernization of Federal IT. The report shall:
(1) be completed within 90 days of the date of this order; and
(2) describe the legal, policy, and budgetary considerations relevant to -- as well as the technical feasibility and cost effectiveness, including timelines and milestones, of -- transitioning all agencies, or a subset of agencies, to:
(aa) one or more consolidated network architectures; and
(bb) shared IT services, including email, cloud, and cybersecurity services.
(C) The report described in subsection (c)(vi)(B) of this section shall assess the effects of transitioning all agencies, or a subset of agencies, to shared IT services with respect to cybersecurity, including by making recommendations to ensure consistency with section 227 of the Homeland Security Act (6 U.S.C. 148) and compliance with policies and practices issued in accordance with section 3553 of title 44, United States Code. All agency heads shall supply such information concerning their current IT architectures and plans as is necessary to complete this report on time.
(vii) For any National Security System, as defined in section 3552(b)(6) of title 44, United States Code, the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence, rather than the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of OMB, shall implement this order to the maximum extent feasible and appropriate. The Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence shall provide a report to the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism describing their implementation of subsection (c) of this section within 150 days of the date of this order. The report described in this subsection shall include a justification for any deviation from the requirements of subsection (c), and may be classified in full or in part, as appropriate.
Sec. 2. Cybersecurity of Critical Infrastructure.
(a) Policy. It is the policy of the executive branch to use its authorities and capabilities to support the cybersecurity risk management efforts of the owners and operators of the Nation's critical infrastructure (as defined in section 5195c(e) of title 42, United States Code) (critical infrastructure entities), as appropriate.
(b) Support to Critical Infrastructure at Greatest Risk. The Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the heads of appropriate sector-specific agencies, as defined in Presidential Policy Directive 21 of February 12, 2013 (Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience) (sector-specific agencies), and all other appropriate agency heads, as identified by the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall:
(i) identify authorities and capabilities that agencies could employ to support the cybersecurity efforts of critical infrastructure entities identified pursuant to section 9 of Executive Order 13636 of February 12, 2013 (Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity), to be at greatest risk of attacks that could reasonably result in catastrophic regional or national effects on public health or safety, economic security, or national security (section 9 entities);
(ii) engage section 9 entities and solicit input as appropriate to evaluate whether and how the authorities and capabilities identified pursuant to subsection (b)(i) of this section might be employed to support cybersecurity risk management efforts and any obstacles to doing so;
(iii) provide a report to the President, which may be classified in full or in part, as appropriate, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, within 180 days of the date of this order, that includes the following:
(A) the authorities and capabilities identified pursuant to subsection (b)(i) of this section;
(B) the results of the engagement and determination required pursuant to subsection (b)(ii) of this section; and
(C) findings and recommendations for better supporting the cybersecurity risk management efforts of section 9 entities; and
(iv) provide an updated report to the President on an annual basis thereafter.
(c) Supporting Transparency in the Marketplace. The Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of Commerce, shall provide a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, that examines the sufficiency of existing Federal policies and practices to promote appropriate market transparency of cybersecurity risk management practices by critical infrastructure entities, with a focus on publicly traded critical infrastructure entities, within 90 days of the date of this order.
(d) Resilience Against Botnets and Other Automated, Distributed Threats. The Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall jointly lead an open and transparent process to identify and promote action by appropriate stakeholders to improve the resilience of the internet and communications ecosystem and to encourage collaboration with the goal of dramatically reducing threats perpetrated by automated and distributed attacks (e.g., botnets). The Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult with the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the heads of sector-specific agencies, the Chairs of the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission, other interested agency heads, and appropriate stakeholders in carrying out this subsection. Within 240 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall make publicly available a preliminary report on this effort. Within 1 year of the date of this order, the Secretaries shall submit a final version of this report to the President.
(e) Assessment of Electricity Disruption Incident Response Capabilities. The Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, with State, local, tribal, and territorial governments, and with others as appropriate, shall jointly assess:
(i) the potential scope and duration of a prolonged power outage associated with a significant cyber incident, as defined in Presidential Policy Directive 41 of July 26, 2016 (United States Cyber Incident Coordination), against the United States electric subsector;
(ii) the readiness of the United States to manage the consequences of such an incident; and
(iii) any gaps or shortcomings in assets or capabilities required to mitigate the consequences of such an incident.
The assessment shall be provided to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, within 90 days of the date of this order, and may be classified in full or in part, as appropriate.
(f) Department of Defense Warfighting Capabilities and Industrial Base. Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, shall provide a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, on cybersecurity risks facing the defense industrial base, including its supply chain, and United States military platforms, systems, networks, and capabilities, and recommendations for mitigating these risks. The report may be classified in full or in part, as appropriate.
Sec. 3. Cybersecurity for the Nation.
(a) Policy. To ensure that the internet remains valuable for future generations, it is the policy of the executive branch to promote an open, interoperable, reliable, and secure internet that fosters efficiency, innovation, communication, and economic prosperity, while respecting privacy and guarding against disruption, fraud, and theft. Further, the United States seeks to support the growth and sustainment of a workforce that is skilled in cybersecurity and related fields as the foundation for achieving our objectives in cyberspace.
(b) Deterrence and Protection. Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the United States Trade Representative, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, shall jointly submit a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, on the Nation's strategic options for deterring adversaries and better protecting the American people from cyber threats.
(c) International Cooperation. As a highly connected nation, the United States is especially dependent on a globally secure and resilient internet and must work with allies and other partners toward maintaining the policy set forth in this section. Within 45 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Attorney General and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit reports to the President on their international cybersecurity priorities, including those concerning investigation, attribution, cyber threat information sharing, response, capacity building, and cooperation. Within 90 days of the submission of the reports, and in coordination with the agency heads listed in this subsection, and any other agency heads as appropriate, the Secretary of State shall provide a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, documenting an engagement strategy for international cooperation in cybersecurity.
(d) Workforce Development. In order to ensure that the United States maintains a long-term cybersecurity advantage:
(i) The Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Education, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, and other agencies identified jointly by the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall:
(A) jointly assess the scope and sufficiency of efforts to educate and train the American cybersecurity workforce of the future, including cybersecurity-related education curricula, training, and apprenticeship programs, from primary through higher education; and
(B) within 120 days of the date of this order, provide a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, with findings and recommendations regarding how to support the growth and sustainment of the Nation's cybersecurity workforce in both the public and private sectors.
(ii) The Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the heads of other agencies identified by the Director of National Intelligence, shall:
(A) review the workforce development efforts of potential foreign cyber peers in order to help identify foreign workforce development practices likely to affect long-term United States cybersecurity competitiveness; and
(B) within 60 days of the date of this order, provide a report to the President through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism on the findings of the review carried out pursuant to subsection (d)(ii)(A) of this section.
(iii) The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence, shall:
(A) assess the scope and sufficiency of United States efforts to ensure that the United States maintains or increases its advantage in national-security-related cyber capabilities; and
(B) within 150 days of the date of this order, provide a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, with findings and recommendations on the assessment carried out pursuant to subsection (d)(iii)(A) of this section.
(iv) The reports described in this subsection may be classified in full or in part, as appropriate.
Sec. 4. Definitions. For the purposes of this order:
(a) The term "appropriate stakeholders" means any non-executive-branch person or entity that elects to participate in an open and transparent process established by the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Homeland Security under section 2(d) of this order.
(b) The term "information technology" (IT) has the meaning given to that term in section 11101(6) of title 40, United States Code, and further includes hardware and software systems of agencies that monitor and control physical equipment and processes.
(c) The term "IT architecture" refers to the integration and implementation of IT within an agency.
(d) The term "network architecture" refers to the elements of IT architecture that enable or facilitate communications between two or more IT assets.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) All actions taken pursuant to this order shall be consistent with requirements and authorities to protect intelligence and law enforcement sources and methods. Nothing in this order shall be construed to supersede measures established under authority of law to protect the security and integrity of specific activities and associations that are in direct support of intelligence or law enforcement operations.
(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 11, 2017.
Cybersecurity Framework | NIST
Sun, 14 May 2017 12:18
Recognizing that the national and economic security of the United States depends on the reliable functioning of critical infrastructure
Latest UpdatesCybersecurity Framework Workshop on May 16-17, 2017 at NIST in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Space is limited; early registration is encouraged.; Registration
Submitted comments on proposed Cybersecurity Framework updates that were due April 10, 2017.Federal Register notice; Frequently Asked Questions
Video and downloadable presentations are now available: Cybersecurity Framework overview and proposed updates.The Baldrige Performance Excellence Program hosted a cybersecurity workshop to explain and use the Cybersecurity Excellence Builder on April 2, 2017 at the annual Quest for Excellence conference in Baltimore, Maryland.Cybersecurity professionals talk about what the Cybersecurity Framework means to their organizations. The Framework, which was created through collaboration between industry and government, consists of standards, guidelines, and practices to promote the protection of critical infrastructure. The prioritized, flexible, repeatable, and cost-effective approach of the Framework helps owners and operators of critical infrastructure to manage cybersecurity-related risk.
Above, you can also view a brief animated video, which features additional cybersecurity professionals talking about what the framework means to their organizations. These experts from Intel, Microsoft, Telos, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Restaurant Association worked with NIST, other agencies and industry and academia to develop the framework. Like the framework itself, the video is not only for those in the trenches of cybersecurity, but also those in the C-suite, who make funding and business decisions that affect cybersecurity.
SJW BLM LGBBTQQIAAP
ELIZA - Wikipedia - SELFIES MIRRORING YOURSELF
Sat, 13 May 2017 03:04
ELIZA is an early natural language processingcomputer program created from 1964 to 1966 at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory by Joseph Weizenbaum. Created to demonstrate the superficiality of communication between man and machine, Eliza simulated conversation by using a 'pattern matching' and substitution methodology that gave users an illusion of understanding on the part of the program, but had no built in framework for contextualizing events. Directives on how to interact were provided by 'scripts', written originally in MAD-Slip, which allowed ELIZA to process user inputs and engage in discourse following the rules and directions of the script. The most famous script, DOCTOR, simulated a Rogerian psychotherapist and used rules, dictated in the script, to respond with non-directional questions to user inputs. As such, ELIZA was one of the first chatterbots, but was also regarded as one of the first programs capable of passing the Turing Test.
ELIZA's creator, Weizenbaum regarded the program as a method to show the superficiality of communication between man and machine, but was surprised by the number of individuals who attributed human-like feelings to the computer program, including Weizenbaum's secretary. Many academics believed that the program would be able to positively influence the lives of many people, particularly those suffering from psychological issues and that it could aid doctors working on such patients' treatment. While ELIZA was capable of engaging in discourse, ELIZA could not converse with true understanding. However, many early users were convinced of ELIZA's intelligence and understanding, despite Weizenbaum's insistence to the contrary.
Joseph Weizenbaum's ELIZA, running the DOCTOR script, was created to provide a 'parody' of ''the responses of a non-directional psychotherapist in an initial psychiatric interview''[not in citation given ] and to ''demonstrate that the communication between man and machine was superficial''. While ELIZA is most well known for acting in the manner of a psychotherapist, this mannerism is due to the data and instructions supplied by the DOCTOR script. ELIZA itself examined the text for keywords, applied values to said keywords, and transformed the input into an output; the script that ELIZA ran determined the keywords, set the values of keywords, and set the rules of transformation for the output. Weizenbaum chose to make the DOCTOR script in the context of psychotherapy to ''sidestep the problem of giving the program a data base of real-world knowledge,'' as in a Rogerian therapeutic situation, the program had only to reflect back the patient's statements. The algorithms of DOCTOR allowed for a deceptively intelligent response, that deceived many individuals when first using the program.
Weizenbaum named his program ELIZA after Eliza Doolittle, a working-class character in George Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion. According to Weizenbaum, ELIZA's ability to be ''incrementally improved'' by various users made it similar to Eliza Doolittle, since Eliza Doolittle was taught to speak with an upper-classaccent in Shaw's play. However, unlike in Shaw's play, ELIZA is incapable of learning new patterns of speech or new words through interaction alone. Edits must be made directly to ELIZA's active script in order to change the manner by which the program operates.
Weizenbaum first implemented ELIZA in his own SLIP list-processing language, where, depending upon the initial entries by the user, the illusion of human intelligence could appear, or be dispelled through several interchanges. Some of ELIZA's responses were so convincing that Weizenbaum and several others have anecdotes of users becoming emotionally attached to the program, occasionally forgetting that they were conversing with a computer. Weizenbaum's own secretary reportedly asked Weizenbaum to leave the room so that she and ELIZA could have a real conversation. Weizenbaum was surprised by this, later writing, ''I had not realized'... that extremely short exposures to a relatively simple computer program could induce powerful delusional thinking in quite normal people.''
In 1966, interactive computing (via a teletype) was new. It was 15 years before the personal computer became familiar to the general public, and three decades before most people encountered attempts at natural language processing in Internet services like Ask.com or PC help systems such as Microsoft Office Clippy. Although those programs included years of research and work, ELIZA remains a milestone simply because it was the first time a programmer had attempted such a human-machine interaction with the goal of creating the illusion (however brief) of human-human interaction.[citation needed ]
At the ICCC 1972 ELIZA met another early artificial intelligence program named PARRY and had the first computer only conversation. While ELIZA was built to be a "Doctor" PARRY was intended to simulate a patient with schizophrenia.
Weizenbaum originally wrote ELIZA in MAD-Slip for the IBM 7094, as a program to make natural language conversation possible with a computer. To accomplish this, Weizenbaum identified five ''fundamental technical problems'' for ELIZA to overcome: the identification of critical words, the discovery of a minimal context, the choice of appropriate transformations, the generation of responses appropriate to the transformation or in the absence of critical words and the provision of an ending capacity for ELIZA scripts. Weizenbaum solved these problems in her ELIZA program and made ELIZA such that it had no built in contextual framework or universe of discourse. However, this required ELIZA to have a script of instructions on how to respond to inputs from users.
ELIZA starts its process of responding to an input by a user by first examining the text input for a 'keyword'. A 'keyword' is a word designated as important by the acting ELIZA script, which assigns to each keyword a precedence number, or a RANK, designed by the programmer. If such words are found, they are put into a 'keystack', with the keyword of the highest RANK at the top. The input sentence is then manipulated and transformed as the rule associated with the keyword of the highest RANK directs. For example, when the DOCTOR script encounters words such as ''alike'' or ''same'', it would output a message pertaining to similarity, in this case ''In what way?'', as these words had high precedence number. This also demonstrates how certain words, as dictated by the script, can be manipulated regardless of contextual considerations, such as switching first-person pronouns and second-person pronouns and vice versa, as these too had high precedence numbers. Such words with high precedence numbers are deemed superior to conversational patterns, and are treated independently of contextual patterns.
Following the first examination, the next step of the process is to apply an appropriate transformation rule, which includes two parts, the ''decomposition rule'' and the ''reassembly rule''. First, the input is reviewed for syntactical patterns in order to establish the minimal context necessary to respond. Using the keywords and other nearby words from the input, different disassembly rules are tested until an appropriate pattern is found. Using the script's rules, the sentence is then 'dismantled' and arranged into sections of the component parts as the ''decomposition rule for the highest ranking keyword'' dictates. The example that Weizenbaum gives is the input ''I are very helpful'' (remembering that ''I'' is ''You'' transformed), which is broken into (1) empty (2) I (3) are (4) very helpful. The decomposition rule has broken the phrase into four small segments, that contain both the keywords and the information in the sentence.
The decomposition rule then designates a particular reassembly rule, or set of reassembly rules, to follow when reconstructing the sentence. The reassembly rule then takes the fragments of the input that the decomposition rule had created, rearranges them, and adds in programmed words to create a response. Using Weizenbaum's example previously stated, such a reassembly rule would take the fragments and apply them to the phrase ''What makes you think I am (4)'' which would result in ''What makes you think I am very helpful''. This example is rather simple, since depending upon the disassembly rule, the output could be significantly more complex and use more of the input from the user. However, from this reassembly, ELIZA then sends the constructed sentence to the user in the form of text on the screen.
These steps represent the bulk of the procedures which ELIZA follows in order to create a response from a typical input, though there are several specialized situations that ELIZA/DOCTOR can respond to. One Weizenbaum specifically wrote about was when there is not a keyword. One solution was to have ELIZA respond with a remark that lacked content, such as ''I see'' or ''Please go on.''. The second method was to use a ''MEMORY'' structure, which recorded prior recent inputs, and would use these inputs to create a response referencing a part of the earlier conversation when encountered with no keywords. This was possible due to Slip's ability to tag words for other usage, which simultaneously allowed ELIZA to examine, store and repurpose words for usage in outputs.
While these functions were all framed in ELIZA's programming, the exact manner by which the program dismantled, examined, and reassembled inputs is determined by the operating script. However, the script is not static, and can be edited, or a new one created, as is necessary for the operation in the context needed (thus how ELIZA can ''learn'' new information). This also allows the program to be applied in multiple situations, including the well-known DOCTOR script, which simulates a Rogerian psychotherapist, but also a script called ''STUDENT'', which is capable of taking in logical analysis parameters and using it to give the answers to problems of related logic.
Significant implementations Edit Weizenbaum's original MAD-SLIP implementation was re-written in Lisp by Bernie Cosell. A BASIC version appeared in Creative Computing in 1977 (although it was written in 1973 by Jeff Shrager). This version, which was ported to many of the earliest personal computers, appears to have been subsequently translated into many other versions in many other languages.
Another version of Eliza popular among software engineers is the version that comes with the default release of GNU Emacs, and which can be accessed by typing M-x doctor from most modern emacs implementations.
Lay responses to ELIZA were disturbing to Weizenbaum and motivated him to write his book Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation, in which he explains the limits of computers, as he wants to make clear in people's minds his opinion that the anthropomorphic views of computers are just a reduction of the human being and any life form for that matter. In the independent documentary film Plug & Pray (2010) Weizenbaum said that only people who misunderstood ELIZA called it a sensation.
The Israeli poet David Avidan, who was fascinated with future technologies and their relation to art, desired to explore the use of computers for writing literature. He conducted several conversations with an APL implementation of ELIZA and published them '' in English, and in his own translation to Hebrew '' under the title My Electronic Psychiatrist '' Eight Authentic Talks with a Computer. In the foreword he presented it as a form of constrained writing.
There are many programs based on ELIZA in different programming languages. In 1980 a company called "Don't Ask Software" created a version called "Abuse" for the Apple II, Atari, and Commodore 64 computers, which verbally abused the user based on the user's input. Other versions adapted ELIZA around a religious theme, such as ones featuring Jesus (both serious and comedic) and another Apple II variant called I Am Buddha. The 1980 game The Prisoner incorporated ELIZA-style interaction within its gameplay. George Lucas and Walter Murch incorporated an Eliza-like dialogue interface in their screenplay for the feature film THX-1138 in 1969. Inhabitants of the underground future world of THX would retreat to "confession booths" when stressed, and initiate a one-sided Eliza-formula conversation with a Jesus-faced computer who claimed to be "Omm". In 1988 the British artist and friend of Weizenbaum Brian Reffin Smith created and showed at the exhibition 'Salamandre', in the Mus(C)e du Berry, Bourges, France, two art-oriented ELIZA-style programs written in BASIC, one called 'Critic' and the other 'Artist', running on two separate Amiga 1000 computers. The visitor was supposed to help them converse by typing in to 'Artist' what 'Critic' said, and vice versa. The secret was that the two programs were identical. GNU Emacs formerly had a psychoanalyze-pinheadcommand that simulates a session between ELIZA and Zippy the Pinhead. The Zippyisms were removed due to copyright issues, but the DOCTOR program remains.
ELIZA has been referenced in popular culture and continues to be a source of inspiration for programmers and developers focused on Artificial Intelligence. It was also featured in a 2012 exhibit at Harvard University titled "Go Ask A.L.I.C.E", as part of a celebration of mathematician Alan Turing's 100th birthday. The exhibit explores Turing's lifelong fascination with the interaction between man and computer, pointing to ELIZA as one of the earliest realizations of Turing's ideas.
Partial list of implementations Edit ^ ab "Alan Turing at 100". Harvard Gazette. Retrieved 2016-02-22 . ^ abcdef Weizenbaum, Joseph (1976). Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. pp. 2,3,6,182,189. ISBN 0-7167-0464-1. ^ ab Norvig, Peter (1992). Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming. New York: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. pp. 151''154. ISBN 1-55860-191-0. ^ Colby, Kenneth Mark; Watt, James B.; Gilbert, John P. (1966). "A Computer Method of Psychotherapy". The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 142 (2): 148''52. doi:10.1097/00005053-196602000-00005. PMID 5936301. ^ ab Shah, Huma; Warwick, Kevin; Vallverdº, Jordi; Wu, Defeng (2016). "Can machines talk? Comparison of Eliza with modern dialogue systems". Computers in Human Behavior. 58: 278''95. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.004. ^ abcdefghij Weizenbaum, Joseph (1966). "ELIZA'--a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine". Communications of the ACM. 9: 36''45. doi:10.1145/365153.365168. ^ Epstein, J; Klinkenberg, W.D (2001). "From Eliza to Internet: A brief history of computerized assessment". Computers in Human Behavior. 17 (3): 295''314. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(01)00004-8. ^ ab Wortzel, Adrianne (2007). "ELIZA REDUX: A Mutable Iteration". Leonardo. 40: 31''6. doi:10.1162/leon.2007.40.1.31. JSTOR 20206337. ^ ab Wardip-Fruin, Noah (1976). Expressive Processing: Digital Fictions, Computer Games, and Software Studies. Cambridge: The MIT Press. p. 33. ISBN 9780262013437 '' via eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). ^ Markoff, John (2008-03-13), "Joseph Weizenbaum, Famed Programmer, Is Dead at 85", The New York Times, retrieved 2009-01-07 ^ Weizenbaum, Joseph (1976). Computer power and human reason: from judgment to calculation. W. H. Freeman. p. 7. ^ Megan, Garber (Jun 9, 2014). "When PARRY Met ELIZA: A Ridiculous Chatbot Conversation From 1972". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 2017-01-18. Retrieved 19 January 2017 . ^ Weizenbaum, J. (1977). "A response to Donald Michie". International Journal of Man-Machine Studies. 9 (4): 503''5. doi:10.1016/S0020-7373(77)80016-3. ^ Coders at Work: Bernie Cosell ^ The Genealogy of Eliza ^ Big Computer Games: Eliza - Your own psychotherapist at www.atariarchives.org ^ Plug & Pray, documentary film featuring Joseph Weizenbaum and Ray Kurzweil ^ Avidan, David (2010), Collected Poems, 3, Jerusalem: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, OCLC 804664009 ^ Davidson, Steve (January 1983), "Abuse", Electronic Games, 1 (11) ^ "lol:> psychoanalyze-pinhead". ^ Trans-Tex Software ^ ELIS McCorduck, Pamela (2004), Machines Who Think (2nd ed.), Natick, MA: A. K. Peters, Ltd., ISBN 1-56881-205-1 Weizenbaum, Joseph (1976), Computer power and human reason: from judgment to calculation, W. H. Freeman and Company, ISBN 0-7167-0463-3 Whitby, Blay (1996), "The Turing Test: AI's Biggest Blind Alley?", in Millican, Peter; Clark, Andy, Machines and Thought: The Legacy of Alan Turing, 1, Oxford University Press, pp. 53''62, ISBN 0-19-823876-2 This article is based on material taken from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing prior to 1 November 2008 and incorporated under the "relicensing" terms of the GFDL, version 1.3 or later. Norvig, Peter. Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming. (San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1992), 151-154, 159, 163-169, 175, 181. ISBN 1-55860-191-0.Wardip-Fruin, Noah. Expressing Processing: Digital Fictions, Computer Games, and Software Studies. (Cumberland: MIT Press, 2014), 24-36. ISBN 9780262517539.
Police give officers caps to attract transgender officers | Daily Mail Online
Thu, 11 May 2017 20:42
A British police force is replacing its traditional helmets with US-style baseball caps, which it says are cheaper, more comfortable and not 'gender-based'.
Northamptonshire Police says it is ditching the world-famous custodian helmet in a bid to encourage more transgender officers to join the force.
The so-called 'bump caps' will be issued to both men and women officers, completely replacing the old headgear by next month.
Officers in Northamptonshire will be issued with gender-neutral caps instead of helmets
The move, which will also affect PCSOs, is a bid to attract more transgender police officers
A spokesman for the force said: 'Not only will the new bump caps offer a better level of protection, the new headgear means that no longer will male and female officers be issued different headgear with varying safety ratings simply on the basis of gender.
'Engagement has also shown that having to choose gender-based headgear is a barrier to the non-binary transgender community joining the police service.
'By introducing this new hat we provide a single protective hat to all police officers, Special Constables and PCSOs for general duties.'
The force also gave the reason for the change as the new hats being lighter and more comfortable, as well as 'significantly cheaper'.
The statement added: 'Research showed the most popular headgear among male officers was the flat cap, but it offers no protection while the traditional custodian helmet is impractical for most duties and is only fully protective when the chin strap is used.
'This is also the case for the traditional bowler hat for female officers.'
The caps will replace the 'gender-based' helmets and bowler hats currently worn by officers
The caps will be used on the beat, with existing headgear remaining for ceremonial purposes
It comes after forces in Cheshire and Lancashire also adopted the 'unisex' hats.
Earlier this year, Dyfed Powys Police also announced it was scrapping different helmets, hats, ties and cravats in favour of matching 'gender neutral' outfits.
The Welsh force set up a 'Gender Identity Working Group' to make it more transgender friendly - with recommendations including making custody cells and toilets 'gender neutral' and ditching terms such as policeman and policewoman.
Police call handlers in the area will also be given language training so they do not offend people on the phone.
The custodian helmet was first used by the Metropolitan Police in 1863 and was based on the spiked helmet worn by the Prussian army.
The custodian helmet has been warn by police officers around the UK since the 19th century
DePaul forbids 'Gay Lives Matter' posters as students protest gay reporter's talk on radical Islam - The College Fix
Fri, 12 May 2017 01:54
DePaul forbids 'Gay Lives Matter' posters as students protest gay reporter's talk on radical Islam
DePaul University has prohibited the campus group Turning Point USA from displaying posters with the slogan ''Gay Lives Matter'' to advertise a presentation Wednesday by a gay reporter on radical Islam's discrimination against the LGBTQ community.
The decision to reject the posters was made as some students at the school protest the event, titled ''Dictatorships and Radical Islam: The Enemies of Gay Rights'' and to be given by journalist and foreign correspondent James Kirchick.
Kirchick has worked for numerous publications, foreign and domestic, and is considered a leading voice on American gay politics and international gay rights.
But DePaul Students for Justice in Palestine has indicated on Facebook that its members intend to protest the event. Students leading the charge against his talk appear to have left out any mention of the fact that Kirchick is gay as they sound the alarm on social media.
''Here's the call for protests of my talk tonight at @DePaulU ''Dictatorships and Radical Islam: Enemies of LGBTQ Rights.'' Notice missing word?'' Kirckich tweeted out early Wednesday.
He cites a Facebook post from a DePaul student affiliated with SJP who wrote that ''Turning point DePaul (check out that horror below, is bringing James Kirchick, a white, Zionist, neoliberal journalist, to speak on sh*t he knows nothing about.''
''We will be turning up to counter,'' the student continued, ''not in our f***ing name will you pretend to define our safety, and where danger comes from. Not in our f***ing name will you continue to demonize Islam and Muslims and ignore the radical Christian right.''
The talk is slated for 5:30 p.m. May 10.
As for the ''Gay Lives Matter'' posters, Amy Mynaugh, director of the Office of Student Involvement at the Catholic university, denied them on the grounds that ''using the same look/brand as BLM [Black Lives Matter] pits two marginalized groups against each other,'' according to an email she sent to Turning Point USA that was obtained by The College Fix.
''It doesn't appear that Turning Point has any connection to the Black Lives Matter movement and this seems to simply be co-opting another movement's approach,'' she added.
Turning Point USA's DePaul chapter had intended to use the posters to advertise the speech, a spokesman for the group told The College Fix. DePaul TPUSA president Jason Plotzke said via email that the poster effectively advertises the event and highlights its purpose.
''Frankly it makes no sense to have it not approved,'' Plotzke said. ''The statement is very simple and you could not market such an event any better and eye catching. When people see that statement, they will either agree or disagree, but the point is getting people to see the message, and we firmly believe that it would have been effective.''
Plotzke also disagrees with Mynaugh's reasoning for denying the poster.
''We do not see how the branding of Black Lives Matter is exclusive from all other lives and we cannot make a similar statement in a different movement,'' he said. ''Sure, it is related and based off the BLM slogan, but with no intent to undermine the movement. We are not even using the poster to push an entire movement, but rather a specific event. We, as students in an academic setting, should be allowed to market our events as we see fit.''
Matt Lamb, director of campus integrity at TPUSA, also expressed his dissatisfaction with DePaul's decision.
''This is a disappointing decision by the university to prohibit our poster,'' Lamb told The College Fix via email. ''The event by our DePaul chapter is calling attention to the harms that big government, authoritarian regimes pose to LGBT citizen's most basic human rights.''
Last fall, the university also refused to allow the DePaul College Republicans from posting ''Unborn Lives Matter'' posters as well. Lamb said he was aware the ''Gay Lives Matter'' posters might also be rejected by campus leaders, but that ''the school questioned why we were using the phrase when our event is clearly about the abuse towards LGBT people.''
Meanwhile, Students for Justice in Palestine distributed posters earlier this week, claiming that they ''say NO to Turning Point's nationalist agenda'' and that ''queer liberation is always anti-racist and anti-imperialist.''
DePaul university declined The Fix's request for comment about the posters or protest.
MORE: Students protest gay conservative speaker as he defends free speech at Portland State
MORE: Catholic university bans 'Unborn Lives Matter' posters
Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter
About the Author
Kate Hardiman is a student at the University of Notre Dame majoring in the Program of Liberal Studies and minoring in the Philosophy, Political Science, and Economics (PPE) Program. She serves as campus editor of the Irish Rover and is a fellow of both the Constitutional Studies Department and Center for Ethics and Culture. She interned at The Hill in Washington D.C. for the summer of 2015 and has had articles published there, as well as on Minding the Campus.
People are marrying themselves, it's called 'sologamy' | THV11.com
Sat, 13 May 2017 23:55
BROOKLYN (CBS) - If the secret to a happy marriage is finding the right person, we can all stop looking. At least, according to "sologamists." They're part of a growing relationship trend, in which people are tying the knot to themselves.
Erika Anderson is one of them.
''I would describe it as women saying yes to themselves,'' Anderson said. ''It means that we are enough, even if we are not partnered with someone else."
In many ways, the 37-year-old bride looked like any other on her wedding day. She wore a white dress and had a bouquet. Anderson looked stunning with the Brooklyn bridge and New York City skyline behind her.
Except when she walked down the aisle, no one was waiting for her. That's just the way she wanted it.
PREVIOUS: Local Couple gets engaged and married on same day
Anderson said she grew tired of people asking why she was still single. So, in front of family and friends she married herself.
Self-marriage'--or sologamy'--is growing. Partly because it's popping up in pop culture, like when an episode of 'Sex and the City' floated the idea.
Now, the movement has gone global and companies are trying to capitalize.
''Marry Yourself'' in Canada offers consulting and wedding photography. There's also IMarriedMe.com, launched by San Francisco man Jeffrey Levin. His site offers sologamy ceremony kits, which includes a wedding band, daily affirmation cards and vows.
"I think it's increased over the years, and it's something that's becoming more understood and more accepted,'' Levin said.
PREVIOUS: Getting married? 5 things to consider when combining your finances
Anderson married herself to celebrate independence and believes others should, too.
"You're worth it!" Anderson exclaimed.
Anderson just celebrated her one-year anniversary with a solo trip to Mexico. She said even though she's married to herself, she's dating and open to marrying another person.
After all, in the eyes of the law, self-marriage is not a legally binding union.
(C) 2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Bias Incident Reporting | The University of Arizona Dean of Students Office
Sun, 14 May 2017 14:37
Our CommitmentThe University of Arizona is committed to maintaining a safe and inclusive environment for all members of our community. We recognize that bias incidents which occur within our community impact how we learn, live, work, and play on campus. Because we are a community, each of us has responsibility for fostering a safe and inclusive environment, and we must take an active role in reporting incidents.
Bias IncidentPer the Clery Act, ''bias'' is a preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a group of persons based on their race, gender, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, national origin, or gender identity. http://www.cleryact.info/
Hate IncidentNot all expressions of hate or group bias rise to the level of a hate crime as defined in state and federal statute. Derogatory words or epithets directed against a member of a protected class, as listed above, if not accompanied by a threat of harm with the ability to carry it out, are considered protected speech and not a hate crime.
Hate CrimeThe Clery Act defines a hate crime as the commission of a criminal offense which was motivated by the offender's bias. If the facts of the case indicate that the offender was motivated to commit the offense because of his/her bias against the victim's perceived race; gender; gender identity; religion; sexual orientation; ethnicity; national origin or disability, the crime is classified as a hate crime. http://www.cleryact.info/
Response to Bias Incident ReportThe Dean of Students Office (DOS) receives reports of bias incidents, assesses the incidents and coordinates the response to the incidents for the University community. The response may include supporting those impacted, initiating training and education within specific communities, proceeding with a Student Code of Conduct investigation, and other appropriate actions.
Reporting to the Dean of Students Office may result in the following actions:
The convening of the DOS Leadership Team and/or Behavioral Intervention TeamInvestigation into the incidentAppropriate and strategized responseOutreach and support to impacted individuals/communitiesIf the report is not anonymous '' outreach and support to the reporterFormal recording of the incident for data reporting and analysisThe DOS reviews incident summaries to assess patterns of behavior (i.e., location, identity groups), and other trends to better understand the University's climate and identify opportunities for proactive anti-bias education. A summary of bias incidents is included in the Dean of Students Office annual report.
Reporting OptionsAnyone who directly witnesses a bias or hate incident, believes they are a victim of bias or hate activity, or becomes aware of an incident of bias or hate are encouraged to report the incident to the Dean of Students Office and/or UAPD. Reports may be made anonymously.
Dean of Students Office Bias Incident Report Form
Dean of Students Office
Monday '' Thursday; 8:00 am '' 6:00 pm
Friday; 8:00 am - 5:00 pm
After Hours Dean On Call
Dean of Students Office
Robert L. Nugent Building, Room 100
Monday '' Thursday; 8:00 am '' 6:00 pm
Friday; 8:00 am - 5:00 pm
Emergency: Call 911!
Non-Emergency: Call (520) 621-8273
The LiveSafe app is an effective tool for reporting bias incidents even if you are not aware of the identity of the person(s) involved. LiveSafe enables direct and discreet two-way communication with University of Arizona Police Department officials (i.e., dispatchers) using text, photos, video, and audio. LiveSafe provides an option for anonymous reporting of a variety of issues, including harassment, suspicious activity, theft, accidents, and other issues on campus. The app also lets you virtually walk your friends and family home with SafeWalk.
University Pays Students To 'Report Bias Incidents' Of Peers | The Daily Caller
Sun, 14 May 2017 14:37
Are you a student looking for some extra cash to get you through the month? Well, at the University of Arizona, you can earn extra money for just spying on your peers and nagging them about their social responsibilities by being a ''social justice advocate.''
Never forgetting its own commitment to social justice, the university is paying well above the minimum wage for this task, offering $10 an hour.
As the university explains on its website, a social justice advocate (SJA) ''will be responsible for instituting monthly programmatic efforts within the residence halls that focus specifically on social justice issues.'' This translates into putting up a bulletin board in the campus hallways or being ready to lead ''social justice modules once a month'' for anyone with time on their hands.
Sounding a bit like a block leader in Soviet Russia, SJAs will ''openly lead conversations, discuss differences, and confront diversely insensitive behavior.'' When students are not complying with social justice standards, SJAs are encouraged to tattle on their peers, reveal the deviant actions to higher authorities and ''report any bias incidents or claims to appropriate Residence Life staff.''
Non-compliant students might achieve some degree of re-education through ''real talks'' that SJAs are expected to have with their fellow dorm students.
The university stresses that one should not take the duties of an SJA lightly. ''The position also aims to increase understanding of one's own self through critical reflection of power and privilege, identity and intersectionality, systems of socialization, cultural competency, and allyship as they pertain to the acknowledgement, understanding, and acceptance of differences,'' the online job description explains.
The position, first pointed out by Campus Reform, could well be the beginning of a student's self-actualization as the objective of the job is to ''increase a student staff member's ability to openly lead conversations, discuss differences, and confront diversely insensitive behavior.''
At $10 an hour and working about 15 hours a week, students can expect to bring in about $600 a month '-- all for enriching the lives of other students as they build ''inclusive communities through positive interactions.''
By hectoring their classmates on ideological purity, ''The Social Justice Advocates Position is one that is grounded in the multicultural competency framework and allows student staff to gain the awareness, knowledge, and skills necessary to work effectively with students and residents across cultures and identities,'' the university promises, cautioning that a successful applicant should also have an understanding of ''everyday life.''
The SJA initiative is another example of how the Social Justice Resource Centre at the university is ''fostering social justice through respect, equity and compassion.'' The center is already running a program entitled ''Advocates Coming Together'' for students who are keen to introduce social justice and change into other people's lives and want to ''educate'' others about the desired objective of inclusivity.
Follow David on Twitter
Woman records confrontation with SE Portland store selling Confederate flag | KATU
Sun, 14 May 2017 14:52
Photo courtesy Heather Franklin
Protesters are planning to picket a Southeast Portland grocery on Thursday after a woman recorded a confrontation with employees over Confederate flag imagery for sale at the store.
"I think it's our duty to stand up when things are wrong, regardless if they're going to respond the way I want them to. I'm not going to not say something," said Heather Franklin, whose video has gone viral on Facebook.
The video, posted Wednesday morning, shows Franklin asking an employee at Everyday Deals Extreme Liquidators about a Confederate flag rug on a rack at the store.
''So you don't care about having hate flags on your wall?'' she asks a store employee.
He responds by saying, ''How is that a hate flag?''
In the video, Franklin was cursed at, and a different man is seen flipping off the camera.
"People complain about all kinds of things. You can complain about the music in the store or the lights in the store, you wouldn't expect people to attack you. But complaining about a symbol of hate in a store, the response is anger toward that person for even bringing it up," said Franklin.
Another video shows both men following Franklin outside the store to her car.
"It was very frightening. They were being very aggressive. Once I started my camera, they backed off a little bit, but I really believe that they would have assaulted me and the children if I hadn't brought out my camera and started screaming for people in the parking lot to intervene," Franklin said.
Now, store management is stepping in to condemn those employees' actions.
"They took it upon themselves. I think that was wrong. That's what management gets paid for is to take care of problems," said store manager Jack Fabel.
"These are two good employees who've been with the company a long time. And obviously they handled the situation very poorly this morning, and I'd like to talk to the woman myself. I've tried to reach out to her and let her know that I'd love to let her know that it wasn't handled correctly and I'm sorry that she had to experience that here," says Andrew Toolson, the store president.
"I would just like to say that we are definitely not a racist organization and have nothing to do with that and it was an oversight even to have those rugs up here," he said.
The group Direct Action Alliance has planned to protest the store Thursday afternoon and store management has said that they will support the rights of peaceful demonstrators.
Several people have taken to Yelp and Facebook to give the store negative reviews, citing the video interaction.
The Troubling Trendiness Of Poverty Appropriation '' The Establishment
Mon, 08 May 2017 10:36
It's become trendy for those with money to appropriate the poverty lifestyle''--'and it troubles me for one simple reason. Choice.
I grew up in the far-flung wiles of Blythe, California. Never heard of it? You're not alone.
Blythe has a population of just over 19,000, and at the time I lived there in the late '80s and '90s, it was one of Riverside County's poorest towns. The primary crop was cotton, the average income was $16,000 per year (for families with more than three members), and the composition was 83% non-white''--'of those documented. The main profession was migrant work: day labor, cotton picking, crop dusting.
My family lived in Palo Verde Mobile Home Park, on the east side of town. The Colorado River and the border of Arizona were a stone's throw away. Our corrugated home was surrounded by irrigation canals, where my uncles often fished and caught dinner, and where one uncle, years later, was found bloated and floating, death unknown.
It wasn't what anyone would call a glamorous experience.
This background, this essential part of who I am, makes it particularly difficult to stomach the latest trend in ''simple'' living''--'people moving into tiny homes and trailers. How many folks, I wonder, who have engaged in the Tiny House Movement have ever actually lived in a tiny, mobile place? Because what those who can afford homes call ''living light,'' poor folks call ''gratitude for what we've got.''
And it's not just the Tiny House Movement that incites my discontent. From dumpster diving to trailer-themed bars to haute cuisine in the form of poor-household staples, it's become trendy for those with money to appropriate the poverty lifestyle''--'and it troubles me for one simple reason. Choice.
The Tiny House Movement began in the '90s, but has only been rising in popularity since the recession. And to be fair, it's rooted in a very real problem: more and more people being displaced as a result of soaring housing costs, especially in tech-boom areas like the Bay Area.
''When you have lost decades of earning capacity you really need to rethink things,'' writes Andrew Martin for the alternative media, community, and production outlet Collective Evolution. Since the global financial crisis, he points out, the average price of a standard home or apartment has become close to or pushed through the million-dollar mark in many OECD cities such as Sydney, Melbourne, Toronto, Vancouver, Auckland, London, and New York. ''Even in the far-flung outlying suburbs of large cities, properties can easily be priced from $500,000 upwards,'' he writes. ''Even if you are fortunate enough to have a well-paying job or business, mortgages can take anywhere between 20 to 40 years to repay.''
Tiny homes, which are typically sized at less than 500 square feet and cost an average of ''only'' $20,000 to $40,000, no doubt serve some people who truly need to spend less money on housing in a difficult economic environment. It's also commendable that the movement helps trim down on excess and reduce the environmental footprint.
And yet, I can't help but feel complicatedly about the waxing-ons of pastoral nostalgia; about the bright, glossy photos of tiny houses that promise a ''simpler life.'' In the same article, Martin writes:
''Living light gives people space to define their worlds and gain more control over how they live life, ultimately leading to greater happiness and satisfaction.''
This idea of ''returning'' to a ''simple life'' is one I struggle with. After all, there aren't any glossy photos of the Palo Verde Mobile Home Park where I grew up, enticing people to live more simply and own less furniture as a means to becoming happier.
This idea of 'returning' to a 'simple life' is one I struggle with.
It's likely, from where I sit, that this back-to-nature and boxed-up simplicity is not being marketed to people like me, who come from simplicity and heightened knowledge of poverty, but to people who have not wanted for creature comforts. For them to try on, glamorize, identify with.
Such appropriation isn't limited to the Tiny House trend, or even to the idea of simplicity. In major cities, people who come from high-income backgrounds flock to bars and restaurants that both appropriate, and mock, low-income communities. Perhaps the most egregious example is San Francisco's Butter Bar, a trendy outpost that prides itself on being a true-blue, trailer park-themed bar, serving up the best in ''trashy'' cuisine and cocktails. With tater tots, microwaved food, and deep-fried Twinkies on the menu, the bar also serves cocktails that contain cheap ingredients, such as Welch's grape soda. The bar has an actual trailer inside, and serves cans in paper bags, so that bar flies can have a paid-for experience of being what the owners of this bar think of when they think of trailer trash.
Butter Bar in San Francisco (Credit: Facebook)It's but one example of an entire hipster movement''--'can it be called a movement when it's a subculture rooted not in political consciousness, but in capitalism?''--'that has brought with it an ethos of poor-culture appropriation and the ''re-invention'' of things that have largely been tools of survival for poor, disabled, working class, and/or communities of color for decades.
Another example: when I lived in Utah, it was common for people (and specifically, white people from wealthy Mormon families) to want to take me along dumpster diving, or on Food Not Bombs drop-offs at the local anarchist house. At the time, I felt complicatedly about it''--'I still do''--'mostly because I am a person who understands the complications of family relationships, and that coming from families that don't accept you (the reality for many queer folks in religious states) means that you may not have access to the resources you need to survive. But what became apparent to me in witnessing these dumpster excursions and FNB drop-offs is that the food was not going to any folks of color, despite the fact that I knew native folks in the community (who were queer and single parents to young children) who could barely scrape by on food stamps. The drop-offs were happening at a white anarchist collective filled with people who were choosing not to participate in the system of capitalism.
And I couldn't help but think: that must be nice. To have that choice.
A friend told me of a similar phenomenon in her city. ''They go on welfare, so they don't have to participate in capitalism,'' she said. ''Yet they participate in a culture that denounces people of color who go on welfare.'' She's right''--'the same people of color who may go on welfare out of necessity, out of the systemic oppression that makes it difficult for them to have the same access to upward mobility, are considered socially uncouth and lazy, while white anarchists (in this context) are praised for their radically subversive actions.
Also, food. Can we talk about food? I was raised poor as hell, mostly subsisting on frozen food and whatever was canned in the pantry. For years, I've hated rice, because its cheapness and starchiness made it such a staple in our meals. Rice for breakfast with milk. Rice with margarine. Rice with frozen vegetables and canned beans. As an adult, it's hard for me to eat rice unless I can pretend real hard that it's not rice. But I still have a bag of it in my cupboard, just in case.
That must be nice. To have that choice.
For other poor folks, it wasn't necessarily rice''--'it was bones. Dried beans with a ham hock. Stewed greens. Meat and pickle plates. And now, these kinds of inexpensive, filling food items most commonly found in poverty-stricken households have become de rigeur at some of the hippest restaurants in the country: you can find meat and pickle plates being schlepped off in fancy restaurants as charcuterie, or bone marrow appetizers for $12 per plate at many of the new eateries popping up in affluent cities (or newly affluent, like Oakland).
In writing this, and making note of these circumstances, I'm not trying to penalize or call out radical communities of people who are looking for alternative means to capitalism''--'capitalism is oppressive as hell, and I am all about alternative means.
But I do think it's time to start having conversations about how alternative means aren't a choice for those who come from poverty. We must acknowledge what it means to make space for people who actually need free food or things out of dumpsters, who participate in capitalism because they've got a kid at home and they are the only provider. Additionally, we need to shed light on the fact that many people who grew up wanting for more space and access to foods that weren't available to them don't understand the glossy pamphlets offering a simpler life.
Because, let me tell you, there is nothing simple about being poor.
The Millennial Housing Trend Is a Repeat of the Middle Ages - The Atlantic
Tue, 09 May 2017 14:57
For most of human history, people were hunter-gatherers. They lived in large camps, depending on one another for food, childcare, and everything else'--all without walls, doors, or picket fences. In comparison, the number of people living in most households in today's developed countries is quite small. According to the Census Bureau, fewer than three people lived in the average American household in 2010. The members of most American households can be counted on one hand, or even, increasingly, one finger: Single-person households only made up about 13 percent of all American households in 1960. Now, that figure is about 28 percent.
Belonging to a relatively small household has become the norm even though it can make daily life more difficult in many ways. Privacy may be nice, but cooking and doing chores become much less time-consuming when shared with an additional person, or even several people. Water, electric, and internet bills also become more bearable when divided among multiple residents. There are social downsides to living alone, too. Many elderly people, young professionals, stay-at-home parents, and single people routinely spend long stretches of time at home alone, no matter how lonely they may feel; more distressingly, many single parents face the catch-22 of working and paying for childcare. Living in smaller numbers can be a drain on money, time, and feelings of community, and the rise of the two-parent dual-earning household only compounds the problems of being time-poor.
It wasn't always like this. Living arrangements have been changing for thousands of years, and the concept of the nuclear family originated relatively recently. Even as the economy has moved away from the sort of agricultural labor that would encourage large households, people still have just as much of a need for the support of friends, family, and neighbors. Perhaps that is why so many people today'--from young coders to lonely septuagenarians to families'--are experimenting with communal living, a way of life that, whether they know it or not, echoes how things worked for most of human history. This sort of experimentation is all too appropriate at a time when, for the typical American child, having two married parents is on the decline, and there is no longer a single dominant family structure as there was a half-century ago.
Tens of thousands of years ago, all living was communal. Being a hunter-gatherer meant being free of many of the distinctions that govern life today. ''There's no division between your social life and your private life,'' says Mark Dyble, a postdoctoral researcher at University College London who studies modern-day hunter-gatherers in the Philippines. ''Your whole life is open to other people. There's no way to be isolated.'' The hunter-gatherer camps Dyble studied, whose members change week by week, consist of anywhere from five to 18 deeply interdependent ''households,'' each usually made up of parents, their children, and perhaps another relative or two. These households are involved in virtually every aspect of each others' lives.
''Home was the place that sheltered you at the moment, not the one special place associated with childhood or family of origin.''While relatives often stick together, these families are anything but self-sufficient. ''A chimp mother is capable of feeding herself and her offspring. That's not the case with humans,'' Dyble says, pointing out that human children take a long time to mature and take care of themselves. ''By our biology, we are obliged to have support from others. You couldn't survive as a single-family household among hunter-gatherers.''
The Middle Ages, when homes were essentially gathering places for small groups of revolving residents, represent a conceptual midpoint between hunter-gatherers' living arrangements and those common today. As the historian John Gillis described in his 1997 book A World of Their Own Making: Myth, Ritual, and the Quest for Family Values, people in medieval Europe lived with a mix of friends and extended family. At that time, single-family households were uncommon in most of the world, and Western Europe became, around the 12th century, one of the first places where households were organized around monogamous couples and their children. But these households still didn't look much like today's nuclear families. In addition to parents and their children, medieval households frequently included various townspeople, poor married couples, other people's children, widows, orphans, unrelated elderly people, servants, boarders, long-term visitors, friends, and assorted relatives.
On top of that, people moved constantly among houses. ''Home was the place that sheltered you at the moment, not the one special place associated with childhood or family of origin,'' Gillis writes. Single people sometimes ran households, and marriage was not as narrowly defined as it is today. Most kids spent time living away from their families, especially as teenagers. Living with strangers was common, and locals would often treat houses like public property. ''People entered without knocking, even without acknowledgement,'' writes Gillis. ''It was often difficult to tell which family belonged where '... In big as well as little houses, the constant traffic of people precluded the cozy home life we imagine to have existed in the past.''
By the 1500s, the idea of a household as a father, a mother, and their biological children caught on among Europe's new urban middle class, at least as something to strive for. This ''godly household'' owes a lot to the Protestant Reformation, in which religious leaders started rejecting the Catholic Church as the center of life and replaced it with a domestic divine: the father as a stand-in for God, the mother for a priest, and the children for congregants. It's around this time that nativity scenes became popular, emphasizing Jesus's role as a member of a nuclear family rather than as a lone preacher.
For all its popularity as a comforting idea, the godly household was hardly common 500 years ago. It was completely unrealistic for most people to find the time, money, and resources to run a household on their own. Even those who did usually had big households full of unrelated people; they relied on the larger community far too much to survive as a single-family unit.
It wasn't until the 1800s that people began drawing a sharp distinction between family and friends when it came to who they lived with. So, during the latter half of the 19th century, the godly family started to take shape in reality. Industrialization made extended communities less vital for earning a living. When societies were mostly agricultural, production was centered near the home, and families needed all the labor they could get to run the farm during busy seasons. But as industrialization took hold, people started leaving home to go to work, commuting to factories and, later, offices. Something communal was lost, and by the early 20th century, industrial efficiency permitted a lifestyle of domestic privacy: Households shrank down to nuclear families, much more closed-off from relatives and neighbors than ever before.
* * *
Homeownership is still viewed as a central component of living out the American dream, but the ways that many present-day Americans are pushing back on modern living arrangements closely resemble what came centuries, even millennia, before in other parts of the world. Family members, relatives, neighbors, and strangers are coming together to live in groups that work for them'--a bit like medieval Europe. ''Today, all across the nation, Americans are living the new happily ever after,'' writes the social psychologist Bella DePaulo in her 2015 book How We Live Now: Redefining Home and Family in the 21st Century. ''The 'new' part is that people with whom they are sharing homes and lives are not just spouses or romantic partners.''
Instead of limiting their households to children, parents, and grandparents, plenty of people are going a step further, making homes with friends and even strangers. Cohousing, in which a large community lives together and shares household duties, is gaining popularity. In cohousing, individuals or families generally have their own houses, bedrooms, or apartments but share things like kitchens and community spaces. They'll commonly trade off on responsibilities like cooking and chores. Milagro Housing, for instance, is a cohousing community located in Arizona's Sonoran Desert. There, families, couples, and single people live in 28 homes in a tight-knit community that shares a kitchen, laundry room, library, meeting room, playroom, and storage rooms.
And Milagro Housing isn't all that unusual; the Fellowship for Intentional Community, an organization that champions communities "where people live together on the basis of explicit common values," lists 1,539 cohousing communities around the country, some already formed and others in the process of forming. That's likely a low estimate, since plenty of shared-living communities aren't reported to any national databases. While some residents hire developers to build cohousing villages from scratch, most have turned already-existing houses and apartments into shared communities.
Cohousing has shown itself to be a useful living arrangement for groups of people with all sorts of priorities. In Silicon Valley's hacker houses, dozens of computer programmers, most of them very young, bunk together while they work at start-ups or on their own projects. The website CoAbode links single mothers who want to live and raise children together. In Los Angeles, about a dozen young adults live together in one large house called Synchronicity LA. There, they make art together, hold salons, divide up chores, and trade off cooking communal meals four days a week. ''It really feels like living in a big family,'' Grant Hoffner, a longtime Synchronicity resident, told me.
Cohousing models can get pretty creative. In Hope Meadows, a neighborhood near Chicago that DePaulo describes in her book, retired people live together with at-risk foster kids. There, retired folks, many of whom used to describe their lives as boring and lonely, raise the kids together. And in Deventer, a town in the eastern region of the Netherlands, that model is flipped: Some college students there live in nursing homes alongside elderly people, who they socialize with and assist with various chores.
The modern cohousing movement began in Denmark in the 1970s, and there are now more than 700 ''living communities'' in Denmark alone, according to DePaulo. In each, dozens or even hundreds of Danish families live in homes built around shared spaces and common houses. ''The residents wanted to see each other over the course of their everyday lives, and be there for each other in ways large and small,'' writes DePaulo. The idea spread to several other countries, and Sweden even has a number of state-owned cohousing buildings, each populated by hundreds of residents. And that's just this particular brand of shared living; 120,000 Israelis live in communal villages called kibbutzim, which originated about 100 years ago.
Developers are starting to see how appealing cohousing is to some people. Commonspace, for instance, is a company that designs and runs apartments consisting of about 20 small units around a common area occupied mostly by young and single people, sort of like a dorm for adults. The first distinctive cohousing setup in the U.S. was built by developers 25 years ago, but the concept hasn't gained much traction, as there are now only 160 American cohousing communitiesbuilt from scratch. Perhaps that will change as developers court young people who envision a lifestyle different than the one they've inherited from the 20th century.
Among other things, many residents are drawn to the company that cohousing offers, which DePaulo says is the main reason people choose to live like this. Cohousing can feel a bit like summer camp, with people always around to talk to and spend time with. But it also provides deep support systems. ''If someone is hospitalized, cohousing friends are there to visit,'' writes DePaulo. ''When a cohouser is ailing at home, neighbors show up with chicken soup and the latest news from the community.''
It takes a village to raise a child, as the saying goes, and most modern-day parents could use the help.One anthropologist DePaulo interviewed decided to live with more people after being unhappy on her own, even though her boyfriend lived nearby and she had some friends in her building. ''I would come home and cry,'' Leanna Wolfe, the anthropologist, told DePaulo. ''I was just so lonely.'' She wasn't the only one: Americans have fewer close friends than they used to. Since 1985, the number of Americans who have no friends to confide in has tripled, reported a 2006American Sociological Reviewstudy.
In addition to the sense of community it builds, there's an obvious upside to shared living: saving time and money. In a typical American house or apartment, individuals or small families are in charge of each meal themselves. But cohousing communities can divide up cooking schedules. Many residents only cook once a week and come home to cooked meals everyday.
One of cohousing's biggest draws is that it eases the burdens of child-rearing. It takes a village to raise a child, as the saying goes, and most modern-day parents could use the help. Among the Efe, a group of hunter-gatherers in the Congo, some infants more than three weeks old spend 80 percent of their time with someone other than their mothers. By comparison, the majority of American communities are designed to keep people apart. ''I like to think of dwellings as people: If a group of people wanted to get to know each other, they would not line up facing each other in two straight, rigid rows, too far apart to really see anyone else clearly,'' writes DePaulo. ''That's how houses are arranged on many conventional streets.'' Under other housing models, a village really could raise a child.
DePaulo argues that it would be particularly helpful to integrate cohousing into public-housing policy. ''People who work on housing for the poor have to deal with people's whole lives,'' she argues in her book. ''They can't just give them a place to live and forget about them.'' Keeping rent affordable is the foremost concern for people in charge of managing public housing, but cohousing can fill in other difficulties of living without much money: Splitting cooking, childcare, and household expenses can save lots of time and money. For these reasons and others, Danish and Swedish governments have long supported cohousing. American governments (especially local ones) could do the same, perhaps by converting abandoned hotels into mixed-income cohousing, building affordable shared-living buildings, or even just by connecting interested locals and helping them refashion their neighborhoods into something that better fosters community.
Humans have never lived the same way for long, and many people are finding today's urban and suburban neighborhoods, which are based on an idealized version of home that is by now hundreds of years old, to be lacking. Humans may never return to the days of having strangers and distant relatives dropping in to live for extended periods of time, but it's clear that a group of people are tapping into the past that John Gillis wrote about: ''Until well into the nineteenth century, heaven was represented not as a community of families but as one large community of friends.''
10 Right Wing Companies That Every Progressive Should Boycott
Mon, 08 May 2017 19:29
Now that we are between elections we will have to wait a while to make our voices heard through the ballot box. But in the meantime there is actually a lot that we can still do to fight right wing extremism in our every day lives. One of the best ways to do that is by going after major right wing donors and their businesses and hitting them where it hurts'....in their wallets.
You can actually use your hard earned dollars to send a message that reflects OUR values and priorities. I've listed a few of the right wing companies that have historically been either major donors to extreme Conservative causes and candidates or that run their operations directly against core Progressive values. Now this is certainly not an exhaustive list, sadly there are many more, but this list of very common brands is certainly a good place to start. And of course another great thing you can do is to patronize Liberal businesses. But here's some that you should definitely avoid'....
This one is likely no surprise to you because their anti-gay stance has been in the news quite a bit over the past couple years. But not only are they completely against gay marriage, they also are huge donors to extreme right wing candidates and causes.
2. Hobby Lobby
Hobby Lobby is another business that has gotten a lot of media attention because of their extreme Conservative views. Hobby Lobby is not only against a woman's right to choose, but they are also against birth control. After Obamacare was implemented they vehemently fought against the employer mandate for birth control to be included in their insurance policy. They actually took their fight all the way to the Supreme Court'....and won.
You know, the really ironic part of this story is that Hobby Lobby and Conservatives claim that they were fighting this mandate because they are so against abortion. But without affordable access to contraception, there will surely be more abortions. I'm not sure that they thought this one all the way through'.....
3. Carl's Jr.
Carl's Jr. has been notorious for objectifying women in most of their highly sexual and controversial ads. But they also have been huge supporters of extreme anti-abortion causes. And if that's not enough reason to avoid this fast food restaurant, they are also totally against gay rights. As a matter of fact, gay rights groups actually started calling the food ''Bigot burgers'' after the company's founder, Carl Karcher, came out in support for a 1978 proposition which would have allowed school boards to fire any teacher for being gay or for advocating homosexuality. In addition Carl's Jr. is also a big time donor for Conservative Super PACs and the Republican Party.
Over the past several years Walmart has consistently gotten into trouble for controversial practices. It is widely known that they pay their employees extremely low wages and are totally against any sort of raising of the national minimum wage. They are also famous for being anti-women. Many of their female employees have continually spoken out about wide-spread discrimination. In 2011 several female employees actually filed a class action law suit against Walmart and took it all the way to the Supreme Court.
5. Marriott Hotels
Marriott, along with their subsidiary Ritz-Carlton, has been a major donor to Conservative Super PACs and extreme right wing candidates. Their chairman, J.W. Marriott Jr., contributed more than a Million dollars to Mitt Romney's Super PAC, Restore Our Future.
6. Waffle House
Waffle House is another restaurant run by extreme Conservatives who are major donors to right wing causes and candidates. As a matter of fact, 100% of all of their donations went directly to Conservatives. Waffle House's CEO, Jim Rogers Jr., has been a big supporter of Republican causes for a very long time. In 2006 he joined the finance team for Mitt Romney's Super PAC, Common Wealth PAC.
7. Angel Soft, Brawny, and Dixie
Angel Soft toilet paper, Brawny paper towels, and Dixie cups are all subsidiaries of Koch Industries, headed by the Koch brothers. And they donate Millions of dollars every year to groups like The National Rifle Association, The National Right To Life Committee, and Grover Norquist.
Exxon Mobil has a very long history of fighting against the LGBT community. As the Huffington Postreported in 2013, Exxon ''has been fighting for years against non-discrimination protection and equal benefits coverage for their employees.'' Moreover, as IdentitiesMic reports '' ''before Exxon acquired Mobil in 1999, Mobile had 'policies to protect discrimination against gay men and lesbians, and even offered benefits to same-sex couples,' but Exxon took that all away, according to LGBT news site the Dallas Voice.''
9. Cracker Barrel
Cracker Barrel is yet another company who has had a long history of racist and anti-gay practices. They have been known to fire employees who did not appropriately display heterosexual behaviors. In 2004, the U.S. Justice Department declared that the restaurant had discriminated against both employees and diners based on the color of their skin or sexual orientation.
10. Urban Outfitters
Urban Outfitters has a very well known reputation for being both anti-women and anti-gay. In 2008, the company's president and founder, Richard Haney, decided to back one of the Presidential nominees. And of all of the choices out there he felt he most aligned with the homophobic Rick Santorum. And in addition this company is also a major donor for extreme Conservative causes and candidates.
"All White People are Racist... Being a Racist is Not An Option, it is a Condition" | Frontpage Mag
Tue, 09 May 2017 05:16
Anti-racism became racism a while back. But most lefties aren't as open in discussing the implications of that.
The outgoing chair of the University of Wisconsin-Madison student government ripped her college upon departure, saying it ''lacks the capacity, courage, and integrity to protect communities of color.''
"Racism is a system designed to disadvantage people of color and create inequalities in each pocket os society. All white people are racist. Not only by upholding a system of disadvantage but being born into a conditioned environment where you are many steps ahead. Being a racist is not an option, it is a condition."
Let's, as the social justice left likes to say, unpack that knapsack.
We think of racism as a hatred or bigotry that you feel toward people because they are different. However the left's contention is that racism, like class, is a function of society. You are "born" into a class or into a race. And if your race is white, you're a racist. Just as if you're born rich, you're a capitalist oppressor.
If you understand that, you understand why the left is so violently racist. Their talk of "white supremacy" is the new capitalism. White people have to be destroyed for a progressive utopia (or abandon their whiteness the way wealthy people had to redistribute their wealth) the way that capitalists had to be destroyed to smash capitalism.
Being racist is a "condition". It's what happens when you're white. It's not an option. It's a skin color.
This is the intersectional left's own total racism in a nutshell. It's the most pernicious racist ideology in this country in over a century. And it's backed by the full weight of academia, the media and the entertainment industry.
It is one of the left's assaults on America that we are fighting.
Why Liberals Aren't as Tolerant as They Think - POLITICO Magazine
Tue, 09 May 2017 15:48
In March, students at Middlebury College disrupted a lecture by the conservative political scientist Charles Murray because they disagreed with some of his writings. Last month, the University of California, Berkeley, canceled a lecture by the conservative commentator Ann Coulter due to concerns for her safety'--just two months after uninviting the conservative writer Milo Yiannopoulos due to violent protests. Media outlets on the right have played up the incidents as evidence of rising close-mindedness on the left.
For years, it's conservatives who have been branded as intolerant, often for good reason. But conservatives will tell you that liberals demonstrate their own intolerance, using the strictures of political correctness as a weapon of oppression. That became a familiar theme during the 2016 campaign. After the election, Sean McElwee, a policy analyst at the progressive group Demos Action, reported that Donald Trump had received his strongest support among Americans who felt that whites and Christians faced ''a great deal'' of discrimination. Spencer Greenberg, a mathematician who runs a website for improving decision-making, found that the biggest predictor of voting for Trump after party affiliation was the rejection of political correctness'--Trump's voters felt silenced.
Story Continued Below
So who's right? Are conservatives more prejudiced than liberals, or vice versa? Research over the years has shown that in industrialized nations, social conservatives and religious fundamentalists possess psychological traits, such as the valuing of conformity and the desire for certainty, that tend to predispose people toward prejudice. Meanwhile, liberals and the nonreligious tend to be more open to new experiences, a trait associated with lower prejudice. So one might expect that, whatever each group's own ideology, conservatives and Christians should be inherently more discriminatory on the whole.
But more recent psychological research, some of it presented in January at the annual meeting of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP), shows that it's not so simple. These findings confirm that conservatives, liberals, the religious and the nonreligious are each prejudiced against those with opposing views. But surprisingly, each group is about equally prejudiced. While liberals might like to think of themselves as more open-minded, they are no more tolerant of people unlike them than their conservative counterparts are.
Political understanding might finally stand a chance if we could first put aside the argument over who has that bigger problem. The truth is that we all do.
When Mark Brandt, an American-trained psychologist now at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, first entered graduate school, he wondered why members of groups that espouse tolerance are so often intolerant. ''I realized that there was a potential contradiction in the literature,'' he told me. ''On the one hand, liberals have a variety of personality traits and moral values that should protect them from expressing prejudice. On the other hand, people tend to express prejudice against people who do not share their values.'' So, if you value open-mindedness, as liberals claim to do, and you see another group as prejudiced, might their perceived prejudice actually increase your prejudice against them?
Brandt approached this question with Geoffrey Wetherell and Christine Reyna in a 2013 paper published in Social Psychological and Personality Science. They asked a variety of Americans about their political ideologies; how much they valued traditionalism, egalitarianism and self-reliance; and their feelings toward eight groups of people, four of them liberal (feminists, atheists, leftist protesters and pro-choice people) and four of them conservative (supporters of the traditional family, religious fundamentalists, Tea Party protesters and pro-life people). Participants reported how much each group violated their ''core values and beliefs,'' and they assessed how much they supported discrimination toward that group, by rating their agreement with statements such as ''Feminists should not be allowed to make a speech in this city'' and ''Prolife people deserve any harassment they receive.''
As predicted, conservatives were more discriminatory than liberals toward liberal groups, and liberals were more discriminatory than conservatives toward conservative groups. Conservatives' discrimination was driven by their higher traditionalism and by liberal groups' apparent violation of their values. Liberals' discrimination was driven by their lower traditionalism and by conservative groups' apparent violation of their values. Complicating matters, conservatives highly valued self-reliance, which weakened their discrimination toward liberal groups, perhaps because self-reliance is associated with the freedom to believe or do what one wants. And liberals highly valued universalism, which weakened their discrimination toward conservative groups, likely because universalism espouses acceptance of all.
But these differences didn't affect the larger picture: Liberals were as discriminatory toward conservative groups as conservatives were toward liberal groups. And Brandt's findings have been echoed elsewhere: Independently and concurrently, the labs of John Chambers at St. Louis University and Jarret Crawford at The College of New Jersey have also found approximately equal prejudice among conservatives and liberals.
Newer research has rounded out the picture of two warring tribes with little tolerance toward one another. Not only are conservatives unfairly maligned as more prejudiced than liberals, but religious fundamentalists are to some degree unfairly maligned as more prejudiced than atheists, according to a paper Brandt and Daryl Van Tongeren published in January in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. To be sure, they found that people high in religious fundamentalism were more cold and dehumanizing toward people low in perceived fundamentalism (atheists, gay men and lesbians, liberals and feminists) than people low in fundamentalism were toward those high in perceived fundamentalism (Catholics, the Tea Party, conservatives and Christians). But this prejudice gap existed only if the strength of the perceiver's religious belief was also very high. Otherwise, each end of the fundamentalist spectrum looked equally askance at each other. And while liberals and the nonreligious sometimes defend themselves as being intolerant of intolerance, they can't claim this line as their own. In the study, bias on both ends was largely driven by seeing the opposing groups as limiting one's personal freedom.
Other researchers have come forward with similar findings. Filip Uzarevic, from the Catholic University of Louvain, in Beligium, has reported preliminary data showing that Christians were more biased against Chinese, Muslims and Buddhists than were atheists and agnostics, but they were less biased than atheists and agnostics against Catholics, anti-gay activists and religious fundamentalists (with atheists expressing colder feelings than agnostics). So, again, the religious and nonreligious have their own particular targets of prejudice. Perhaps more surprising, atheists and agnostics were less open to alternative opinions than Christians, and they reported more existential certainty. Uzarevic suggested to me after the SPSP conference that these results might be specific to the study's location, Western Europe, which is highly secularized and where the nonreligious, unlike Christians, ''do not have so many opportunities and motivations to integrate ideas challenging their own.''
If liberalism and secularism don't mute prejudice, you can guess what Brandt found about intelligence. In a study published last year in Social Psychological and Personality Science, he confirmed earlier findings linking low intelligence to prejudice, but showed it was only against particular groups. Low cognitive ability (as measured by a vocabulary test) correlated with bias against Hispanics, Asian Americans, atheists, gay men and lesbians, blacks, Muslims, illegal immigrants, liberals, whites, people on welfare and feminists. High cognitive ability correlated with bias against Christian fundamentalists, big business, Christians (in general), the Tea Party, the military, conservatives, Catholics, working-class people, rich people and middle-class people. But raw brainpower itself doesn't seem to be the deciding factor in who we hate: When Brandt controlled for participants' demographics and traditionalism (smart people were more supportive of ''newer lifestyles'' and less supportive of ''traditional family ties''), intelligence didn't correlate with overall levels of prejudice.
So what's at the root of our equal-opportunity prejudice? Conservatives are prejudiced against feminists and other left-aligned groups and liberals are prejudiced against fundamentalists and other right-aligned groups, but is it really for political reasons? Or is there something about specific social groups beyond their assumed political ideologies that leads liberals and conservatives to dislike them? Feminists and fundamentalists differ on many dimensions beyond pure politics: geography, demographics, social status, taste in music.
In a paper forthcoming in Psychological Science, Brandt sought to answer those questions by building prediction models to estimate not only whether someone's political views would increase positive or negative feelings about a target group, but also precisely how much, and which aspects of the group affected those feelings the most.
First, Brandt used surveys of Americans to assess the perceived traits of 42 social groups, including Democrats, Catholics, gays and lesbians and hipsters. How conservative, conventional and high-status were typical members of these groups? And how much choice did they have over their group membership? (Some things are seen as more genetic than others'--Lady Gaga's anthem ''Born This Way'' was adopted by homosexuals, not hipsters.) Then he looked at data from a national election survey that asked people their political orientation and how warm or cold their feelings were toward those 42 groups.
Conservative political views were correlated with coldness toward liberals, gays and lesbians, transgender people, feminists, atheists, people on welfare, illegal immigrants, blacks, scientists, Hispanics, labor unions, Buddhists, Muslims, hippies, hipsters, Democrats, goths, immigrants, lower-class people and nerds. Liberal political views, on the other hand, were correlated with coldness toward conservatives, Christian fundamentalists, rich people, the Tea Party, big business, Christians, Mormons, the military, Catholics, the police, men, whites, Republicans, religious people, Christians and upper-class people.
Brandt found that knowing only a target group's perceived political orientation (are goths seen as liberal or conservative?), you can predict fairly accurately whether liberals or conservatives will express more prejudice toward them, and how much. Social status (is the group respected by society?) and choice of group membership (were they born that way?) mattered little. It appears that conflicting political values really are what drive liberal and conservative prejudice toward these groups. Feminists and fundamentalists differ in many ways, but, as far as political prejudice is concerned, only one way really matters.
In another recent paper, in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Crawford, Brandt and colleagues also found that people were especially biased against those who held opposing social, versus economic, political ideologies'--perhaps because cultural issues seem more visceral than those that involve spreadsheets.
None of this, of course, explains why liberals' open-mindedness doesn't better protect them against prejudice. One theory is that the effects of liberals' unique traits and worldviews on prejudice are swamped by a simple fact of humanity: We like people similar to us. There's a long line of research showing that we prefer members of our own group, even if the group is defined merely by randomly assigned shirt color, as one 2011 study found. Social identity is strong'--stronger than any inclination to seek or suppress novelty. As Brandt told me, ''The openness-related traits of liberals are not some sort of prejudice antidote.''
Brandt further speculates that one's tendency to be open- or closed-minded affects one's treatment of various groups mostly by acting as a group definition in itself'--are you an Open or a Closed? Supporting this idea, he and collaborators reported in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2015 that, although openness to new experiences correlated with lower prejudice against a wide collection of 16 social groups, it actually increased prejudice against the most closed-minded groups in the bunch. Open-minded people felt colder than closed-minded people toward ''conventional'' groups such as evangelical Christians, Republicans and supporters of the traditional family. And, unsurprisingly, closed-minded people were more biased than open-minded people against ''unconventional'' groups such as atheists, Democrats, poor people, and gays and lesbians. Research consistently shows that liberals are more open than conservatives, but in many cases what matters is: Open to what?
Knowing all this, can we change tolerance levels? You might think that the mind-expanding enterprise of education would reduce prejudice. But according to another presentation at the SPSP meeting, it does not. It does, however, teach people to cover it up. Maxine Najle, a researcher at the University of Kentucky, asked people if they would consider voting for a presidential candidate who was atheist, black, Catholic, gay, Muslim or a woman. When asked directly, participants with an education beyond high school reported a greater willingness to vote for these groups than did less-educated participants. But when asked in a more indirect way, with more anonymity, the two groups showed equal prejudice. ''So higher education seems to instill an understanding of the appropriate levels of intolerance to express,'' Najle told me, ''not necessarily higher tolerance.''
Education's suppression of expressed prejudice suggests a culture of political correctness in which people don't feel comfortable sharing their true feelings for fear of reprisal'--just the kind of intolerance conservatives complain about. And yet, as a society, we've agreed that certain kinds of speech, such as threats and hate speech, are to be scorned. There's an argument to be made that conservative intolerance does more harm than liberal intolerance, as it targets more vulnerable people. Consider the earlier list of groups maligned by liberals and conservatives. Rich people, Christians, men, whites and the police would generally seem to have more power today than immigrants, gays, blacks, poor people and goths. According to Brandt, ''We've understandably received a variety of pushback when we suggest that prejudice towards Christians and conservatives is prejudice.'' To many it's just standing up to bullies.
Conservatives, however, don't view it that way. ''Nowadays, as the right sees it, the left has won the culture war and controls the media, the universities, Hollywood and the education of everyone's children,'' says Jonathan Haidt, a psychologist at New York University who studies politics and morality. ''Many of them think that they are the victims, they are fighting back against powerful and oppressive forces, and their animosities are related to that worldview.''
Robbie Sutton, a psychologist at the University of Kent in England, presented preliminary findings at SPSP that touch on the issue of which intolerance is more justifiable. He found that people who endorsed denialist conspiracy theories about climate change (e.g., '''Climate change' is a myth promoted by the government as an excuse to raise taxes and curb people's freedom'') were more likely than those who endorsed warmist conspiracy theories (e.g., ''Politicians and industry lobbyists are pressuring scientists to downplay the dangers of climate change'') to want to censor, surveil and punish climate scientists, whereas warmists were more likely than denialists to want to punish and surveil climate change skeptics. But are these sentiments equally harmful? Many people would say that's a subjective question, but it's hard to ignore the evidence, for instance, that Exxon has hidden its knowledge of climate change for years, and the fact that that the current Republican administration has placed new restrictions on Environmental Protection Agency scientists. Who is more vulnerable, and backed by scientific evidence: Exxon or environmental researchers?
Regardless of who has the more toxic intolerance, the fact remains that people have trouble getting along. What to do? ''One of the most consistent ways to increase tolerance is contact with the other side and sharing the experience of working toward a goal,'' Brandt says. He suggests starting with the person next door. ''Everyone benefits from safe neighborhoods, a stimulating cultural environment and reliable snow removal,'' he says. ''If liberal and conservative neighbors can find ways to work together on the local level to improve their neighborhoods and communities, it might help to increase tolerance in other domains.'' (If you can find a neighbor of the opposite party, that is.)
Progressives might see the conservatives trailing history as being on its wrong side, but conservatives might feel the same way about the progressives way ahead of the train. Getting everyone onboard simultaneously could well be impossible, but if we share a common vision, even partially, maybe we can at least stay on the tracks.
Duke Divinity Professor Paul Griffiths quits after disciplinary actions over comments about diversity | News & Observer
Tue, 09 May 2017 18:10
A divinity professor at Duke University has apparently resigned following disciplinary actions against him, after he questioned the value of diversity training at the school.
Paul Griffiths, a professor of Catholic theology at the school, could not be reached for comment Tuesday about the flap. A colleague at the school says Griffiths, 61, has resigned, effective next year.
A string of emails, first published by The American Conservative website, revealed a chain of events that began with a February invitation to all divinity school faculty to participate in two full days of racial equity training in March.
''Those who have participated in the training have described it as transformative, powerful, and life-changing,'' wrote Anathea Portier-Young, an associate professor of Old Testament. ''We recognize that it is a significant commitment of time; we also believe it will have great dividends for our community.''
Griffiths responded the same day to Portier-Young, Feb. 6, copying all faculty on the email and calling the training a waste of time.
''I exhort you not to attend this training,'' he wrote, according to the published exchange. ''Don't lay waste your time by doing so. It'll be, I predict with confidence, intellectually flaccid: there'll be bromides, clich(C)s, and amen-corner rah-rahs in plenty. When (if) it gets beyond that, its illiberal roots and totalitarian tendencies will show. Events of this sort are definitively anti-intellectual.''
That's when the trouble escalated.
Within hours the school's dean, Elaine Heath, emailed the faculty and without mentioning Griffiths specifically, wrote: ''It is inappropriate and unprofessional to use mass emails to make disparaging statements ''including arguments ad hominem '' in order to humiliate or undermine individual colleagues or groups of colleagues with whom we disagree. The use of mass emails to express racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry is offensive and unacceptable, especially in a Christian institution.''
Heath asked to meet with Griffiths, according to the emails, but the professor and administrator couldn't agree on the conditions for the meeting, and it never happened.
Griffiths later emailed his colleagues with the subject line: ''intellectual freedom and institutional discipline'' at the school. He said he was now the target of two separate disciplinary proceedings, including a harassment complaint by Portier-Young, which was being handled by Duke's Office for Institutional Equity. The dean, he said, had banned him from faculty meetings and promised that he would not receive future funds for research and travel.
A copy of the dean's March 10 letter was posted on the American Conservative site. Heath cited Griffiths' refusal to meet and his ''inappropriate behavior in faculty meetings over the past two years.'' Heath did not elaborate on what she meant by inappropriate behavior.
Griffiths called the actions shameful ''reprisals,'' designed not to engage him on his views ''but rather to discipline me for having expressed them.''
''Duke Divinity is now a place in which too many thoughts can't be spoken and too many disagreements remain veiled because of fear,'' he wrote to the faculty. ''I commend a renunciation of fear-based discipline to those who deploy and advocate it, and its replacement with confidence in speech.''
Heath and Portier-Young could not be immediately reached for comment.
The divinity school at Duke University.
SHER STONEMAN N&O file photo
Audrey Ward, a Duke spokeswoman, said the divinity school was not able to comment about a personnel matter but issued a statement.
''Duke Divinity School is committed to scholarly excellence and academic freedom, which includes a commitment to diversity and inclusion,'' the statement said. ''We seek to foster an environment where diversity of opinions is respected and members of the community feel free to engage in a robust exchange of ideas on a range of issues and topics. We believe that all faculty have a right to speak out as members of a civil academic community, and if all voices are to be heard, diverse perspectives must be valued and protected. As part of an ongoing effort to foster and support such a community, we will continue to offer voluntary opportunities for faculty, staff and students to participate in diversity training.''
Thomas Pfau, a professor of English and German who also teaches in the divinity school, came to Griffiths' defense. He emailed his colleagues, saying Griffiths was questioning the fact that faculty were being asked to give up their time for training.
''Having reviewed Paul Griffiths' note several times, I find nothing in it that could even remotely be said to 'express racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry,''' he wrote. ''To suggest anything of the sort strikes me as either gravely imperceptive or as intellectually dishonest.''
Reached Tuesday, Pfau said he was concerned that Griffiths' points were being misconstrued. ''I also felt that differences of opinion, however stark, ought to be respected and engaged, rather than being used for the purpose of public moral recrimination,'' he said in an email.
Born in England, Griffiths was educated at Oxford University and the University of Wisconsin, and has written, co-authored or edited 17 books. A biography on the Duke website lists his specialties as: post-1950 Catholic philosophical theology; the philosophical and political questions arising from religious diversity; fourth- and fifth-century African Christian thought; and Gupta-period Indian Buddhist thought. He has taught at Duke since 2008.
Pfau said as far as he knew, Griffiths decided to resign on his own, without any pressure from Duke.
''I profoundly regret his decision and, indeed, have conveyed to him that I regard it as a mistake,'' Pfau said. ''He is one of the preeminent theologians working in the United States today and a vital resource for students and colleagues engaged in rigorous theological reflection here at Duke.''