Contact Me By Email


What To Do When You're Stopped By Police - The ACLU & Elon James White

What To Do When You're Stopped By Police - The ACLU & Elon James White

Know Anyone Who Thinks Racial Profiling Is Exaggerated? Watch This, And Tell Me When Your Jaw Drops.


This video clearly demonstrates how racist America is as a country and how far we have to go to become a country that is civilized and actually values equal justice. We must not rest until this goal is achieved. I do not want my great grandchildren to live in a country like we have today. I wish for them to live in a country where differences of race and culture are not ignored but valued as a part of what makes America great.

Thursday, May 28, 2026

Texas School Police Pepper-Sprayed, Tackled and Tasered Students

 

Texas School Police Pepper-Sprayed, Tackled and Tasered Students

“Since the Uvalde school shooting in 2022, Texas has deployed police officers to every public school, resulting in a significant increase in use-of-force incidents against students. These incidents, often triggered by minor misbehavior, have included physical takedowns, pepper-spraying, Tasering, and even arrests. Despite concerns about the impact on students, including potential criminalization and injuries, there is limited oversight and accountability for school police actions in Texas.

School officers across the state turned to heavy-handed tactics on children, often in response to minor misbehavior, our investigation shows.

An image of a hallway in a school. Officers are walking alongside students.

Texas is home to nearly 400 school district police departments, more than all other states combined. Officers across the state have grabbed, tackled and shocked students. Meridith Kohut for The New York Times

Since the massacre at Robb Elementary in Uvalde in 2022, school districts across Texas have spent billions of dollars to station police officers on every campus in the state. The effort, the most ambitious in the nation, was intended to protect students from similar tragedies.

But the constant presence of officers has transformed the way many public schools manage discipline, subjecting students to heavy-handed police tactics for behavior that once would have landed them only in the principal’s office, The New York Times and The San Antonio Express-News found.

Officers in Texas displayed startling belligerence at times, grabbing or tackling students a fraction of their size over misconduct that often appeared to be minor. Children in elementary school, including one as young as 6, were handcuffed. Teenagers were arrested, charged with crimes and even jailed. In the most extreme cases, they wound up in hospitals, bruised or concussed, after being body-slammed or shocked by Tasers, which are prohibited in the state’s juvenile detention facilities but allowed in its public schools.

There is no comprehensive record of use-of-force incidents across the more than 1,000 public school districts in Texas. Many districts and police agencies declined to disclose their data to our journalists; others did not respond to public records requests. More than 200 provided some information, but in most cases, it was limited.

Still, by examining even that small share of records, our reporters identified more than 2,600 use-of-force incidents that occurred from January 2022 through December 2025. About 450 of those interactions were described in detailed reports, which we reviewed. We also watched video footage from over two dozen encounters.

The records provide a first-of-its-kind look at how Texas’ initiative around school policing has played out in districts large and small, urban and rural.

Many incidents began over misbehavior such as dress-code violations, vaping or schoolyard scraps. Officers, often summoned by principals or teachers, escalated some situations by shouting obscenities or insults. They used physical takedown tactics in about 60 situations when students ignored their commands, talked back or pulled away.

In the Judson school district, which includes parts of San Antonio, an officer slammed a 15-year-old boy onto a table after he threw a cheese stick at another student, according to witnesses cited in public records. In a statement, the school district said that the student had tried to walk away from the officer, who used “necessary force to gain control of the situation.”

In the Cypress-Fairbanks district, near Houston, an officer hogtied a 10-year-old boy with a behavioral disorder who had kicked the principal, using a cord to bind his hands and feet behind his back, an internal investigation found. The officer had twice before used the same restraint technique, when the boy left campus during school, the records show. The district later banned the practice.

Tayshawn Chadwick, 17, was suspended from his school in the Aldine district for threatening to fight another student in December 2023. When he tried to retrieve his house keys from a classroom before leaving campus, a school officer pinned him against a window, according to records. Another officer pressed a Taser against his skin and shocked him repeatedly.

“It felt like a lightning bolt,” Tayshawn recalled in an interview.

Tayshawn was charged with resisting arrest and held in the county jail. The charge was dismissed after he completed an anger-management program. The school district declined to comment on the incident; records show that the officers’ supervisors deemed their actions in compliance with department policy.

Tayshawn Chadwick, looking away.

Tayshawn Chadwick was shocked with a Taser by a school officer.

In interviews, dozens of parents, teachers, principals and students said that they believed police officers were needed to keep schools safe. Many praised officers for stopping violent fights. Almost everyone cited fear of school shootings. As recently as March, a student at a high school in the San Antonio area shot a teacher and then killed himself. School officers have confiscated dozens of guns in that region alone, and some have thwarted potential attacks.

“Just look at the TV,” said LaTres Essien, who teaches third-grade math in Dallas. “There’s no school in America that should not have some kind of officer.”

Police chiefs said physical force was necessary in police work, even at schools. “We can’t be lackadaisical and say, ‘Well, we’re in a school, and maybe we shouldn’t go hands on with this student,’ and then it rises to a level that he or she does hurt someone,” said Charles Carnes, who in December retired as chief of the Northside school district’s department in San Antonio.

Some departments disciplined officers for going too far, including in the hogtie incident and the pepper-spray and vape cases shown in the videos above. (Neither the officer involved in the lunchroom brawl case nor his department provided comment.)

But in Texas, no state agency has the power to routinely review school officers’ actions and weigh in on possible overreach.

Lawmakers here have embraced school policing without establishing safeguards required for meaningful accountability, policing experts said. A 2019 law meant to keep officers out of “routine student discipline” does not define the term or detail repercussions for violations. Police departments in Texas are not required to report incidents of force in schools unless they shoot someone.

School boards and police agencies are responsible for oversight, state officials said. But in interviews, two dozen board members from across Texas said they did not consider that part of their job. “We just approve what they need to buy,” said Michael Valdez, a board member in the Edgewood school district in San Antonio.

Several said they were unaware that their officers used force on students at all.

A review of use-of-force policies from more than 200 school district police departments found that many were largely copied from those used by municipal police agencies. Some addressed how to handle livestock and animal control calls. Most provided no specific guidance on handling students.

‘Eyes Wide Open’

Police officers have been assigned to some schools in Texas for nearly a century. In the 1930s, newspaper articles show, the Houston Police Department employed part-time “school policemen” to help direct traffic.

But it was not until the 1980s and ’90s, amid concerns about drugs and violence, that the ranks of school officers began to swell. The 1999 shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado led to a larger rise.

Elsewhere in the country, school districts typically tapped the local sheriff’s office or police department for officers. Texas was unusual in that many districts formed their own departments instead.

As police presence in schools grew, some educators became wary of harsh punishment and practices that could push students into the criminal justice system. Even in law-and-order Texas, concerns seemed to break through. In 2019, the Legislature passed a law saying that school boards should not task officers with routine student discipline.

Then came Uvalde, the deadliest school shooting in Texas history, which claimed the lives of 19 students and two teachers.

A year later, in 2023, lawmakers passed legislation to require at least one licensed police officer at each of the state’s public schools. While other states had taken steps to increase school security, few relied as heavily on the police.

Before the Texas law was adopted, some parents, teachers and advocates warned that it would lead to more arrests and incidents involving force. Alycia Castillo, the associate director of policy and advocacy for the Texas Civil Rights Project, a nonprofit based in Austin, said that several groups had already raised concerns about heavy-handed police tactics in schools. Lawmakers, she said in an interview, had their “eyes wide open.”

In the two years that followed, statewide annual spending on school security rose to more than $1.3 billion from about $900 million.

Kirby Warnke stands in uniform in front of Foy H. Moody High School.

Kirby Warnke, the chief of the Corpus Christi school district police department and president of the Texas School District Police Chiefs’ Association, said his officers got physical with students to restrain or redirect them. Meridith Kohut for The New York Times

Today, Texas is home to nearly 400 school district police departments, more than all other states combined. Most of the remaining districts have contracts with outside police agencies. The number of officers trained to work in schools — about 11,000 — exceeds the total number of police officers in at least two dozen states.

Most of what school officers do is mundane. They secure external doors, usher students through metal detectors and monitor hallways for fights. Some mentor students and offer advice.

But routine interactions have been punctuated at times by physical encounters. Officers grabbed or tackled students hundreds of times, data and records show. They used pepper spray in dozens of cases and shocked students with Tasers in at least nine incidents. On four occasions, reporters found, officers held teenagers at gunpoint.

Some large school districts reported using force more than 100 times in a school year. In an interview, Kirby Warnke, the chief of the Corpus Christi school district police department, said that his officers got physical with students “almost every day,” often to restrain or redirect them.

Students were left with bruises, scrapes or other injuries in nearly a quarter of the 450 cases reviewed by reporters. Two teenagers suffered concussions, according to medical records and an interview with one family’s lawyer.

About two dozen of the overall cases involved children in elementary school. In the Northside school district, an officer handcuffed a 6-year-old boy who kicked a school employee during a tantrum.

State law prohibits using restraints on children in fifth grade or below in all but the most dangerous situations. In a statement, the district said that the officer had perceived an “immediate risk of harm.”

The boy was still in cuffs when his father arrived a few minutes later and began filming on his cellphone.

“The police wants me to die!” the child cried.

‘The Heavy Hand’

In May 2024, Anabelle Jaramillo rang a plastic doorbell outside a classroom at Texas City High School. The $13 bell came off and Anabelle walked away with it, according to a description of surveillance footage included in a police report.

The next day, administrators accused the 17-year-old honor student of theft and assigned her three days of in-school suspension.

Certain there had been a misunderstanding, Anabelle showed up at the office of Sonia Davis, an assistant principal. She told Ms. Davis that she had accidentally dislodged the doorbell and tucked it into a nearby planter so that she would not get in trouble, she recalled in an interview.

Still, Ms. Davis summoned the Galveston County sheriff’s deputies at the school and, body camera footage shows, asked them to speak with Anabelle about theft.

Anabelle continued to plead her case. She texted her mother, and Ms. Davis extended her suspension by two days for using a cellphone in the office. Ms. Davis told Anabelle to leave. But the teenager would not budge from her seat.

One of the deputies, Karla Rodriguez, ordered Anabelle to stand.

“You’re under arrest for theft,” she said.

Deputy Rodriguez grabbed one of Anabelle’s arms. When the teenager pulled away, a second deputy, Cipriano Ruiz, took the other.

They wrestled Anabelle, 4-foot-11, onto her belly. Deputy Ruiz gripped the back of her neck and pushed her face into the carpet. Deputy Rodriguez handcuffed her.

Deputy Rodriguez tried pulling the teenager to her feet. “You’re going to jail, young lady,” she said.

“What the heck?” Anabelle exclaimed.

Anabelle, who has panic attacks, started to pant. One of the deputies instructed her to breathe.

Ms. Davis positioned a fan toward the teenager. Then, she returned to her desk, picked up her cellphone and started eating potato chips.

Anabelle gasped for air for about three minutes before going still, body camera footage shows. Ms. Davis called for the school nurse. Deputy Ruiz took her pulse. Anabelle later told reporters that she had passed out.

Other cases reviewed by reporters similarly escalated.

A staff member called for an officer when a 17-year-old in a special education class threatened a classmate and threw a “sanitizer can” at the student, the police report said; the officer dragged the boy to the ground and, after a scuffle, punched him in the face twice, video footage shows.

A teacher alerted an officer to a 15-year-old who was swearing in a hallway; the officer took the student down, records show, and dragged him into a room by his leg.

In interviews, educators said that they sometimes needed help managing unruly students. Many feel pressure to be tough on misbehavior, said Anita Wadhwa, a former teacher who now runs a nonprofit in Houston focused on alternative approaches to school discipline.

“No adult wants to look like a kid is talking back to them,” she said.

Some school district leaders said that they had sent a clear message: Officers should get involved only if a student is accused of a serious crime or if someone is at risk of physical harm.

“Our officers are not disciplinarians, period,” said Sean Maika, who was the superintendent of the North East Independent School District in San Antonio until January.

But in many places, that message seems to have gotten lost. Michelle Parsons, who teaches a training course required for school officers in Texas, said that officers frequently described being pulled into minor disciplinary matters. At a recent training attended by a reporter, officers were told to stay out of incidents that would not otherwise prompt a 911 call. Several scoffed and said their principals would be unhappy.

Anabelle Jaramillo seated in her bedroom. A collection of school ribbons and flags are displayed on the wall behind her.

Anabelle Jaramillo, an honor student, was arrested less than a month before graduation.

Mrs. Parsons said that principals and teachers often see officers as “the heavy hand.” Texas does not require them to be trained on when to call school police.

Shortly after Anabelle’s arrest, her mother, Martha Jaramillo, arrived at the school to find her on the ground, footage shows. “She was very rude to us,” Ms. Davis, the assistant principal, told Mrs. Jaramillo.

Mrs. Jaramillo told the nurse about her daughter’s health conditions, including asthma. One of the deputies called for paramedics, who took the teenager to an emergency room.

Two weeks later, Anabelle turned herself in at the county jail for the theft charge. There, she said, she had another panic attack.

Neither Ms. Davis nor Texas City school district officials agreed to be interviewed for this article. In a statement, the district said Ms. Davis had not violated its policies. The Galveston County Sheriff’s Office declined to comment. The deputies involved in the case did not respond to multiple efforts to reach them.

Kim Simon, a national expert on school policing and a former officer from Virginia who reviewed the case for The Times and The Express-News, said that Ms. Davis and the officers had escalated a minor offense unnecessarily.

“Nobody was acting in the best interest of a child,” Ms. Simon said.

Command and Control

Across the state, officers directed obscenities, insults and threats at students just before or after using physical force, records and video footage show.

“Stop crying like a little girl,” a school police officer in San Antonio ordered a seventh-grade boy who had gotten in trouble for being disruptive.

“Boy, I will hurt you,” an officer in Houston told a high school student who talked back to him.

“Get your fucking hands up before I shoot you!” an officer in Galveston shouted while pointing her gun at a 17-year-old she had cornered in a yard. The teen had run off campus after he was caught with a vape.

Most officers employed by a Texas school district previously worked for municipal police agencies, an analysis of police certification data found. More than 1,000 worked as jailers.

In those roles, officers are encouraged to have a commanding presence in order to take control of dangerous situations.

“The notion of policing requires force,” said Aaron Kupchik, a professor of sociology and criminal justice at the University of Delaware, who writes about school policing. “It requires that you compel people to obey your authority.”

But dealing with young people, he and other law enforcement experts said, calls for a different approach. Research shows that adolescents, whose brains have not yet fully developed, often have difficulty with impulse control. Yelling at or physically dominating them, the experts added, can backfire.

A woman wearing a green shirt stands in front of a screen that reads “Phase Six — De-Escalation.” A group of police officers are seated, listening.

Michelle Parsons teaches a training course required for school officers in Texas.

In Texas, the state-mandated training for school police officers includes instruction in child psychology, conflict resolution and managing students with behavioral issues. But at only 20 hours, the program is half the minimum recommended by the National Association of School Resource Officers. Kentucky, which also mandates officers at all public schools, requires 120 hours.

When officers used force on students, department leaders almost always had the final say on whether they acted within bounds or overstepped.

Supervisors often reviewed forms describing the incidents, and they noted on some whether they approved of the officers’ actions. Reporters examined more than 100 such documents, finding that supervisors almost always determined that the force had been appropriate.

In some other cases reviewed by reporters, officers were disciplined, but received little more than verbal warnings or orders to get additional training.

In 2024, Officer Linda Holland used pepper spray to stop a group of girls from fighting and then kneed one of the girls in the face, video footage shows. She was required to complete four training courses, including one on ethics, according to an internal report. A supervisor wrote that her actions were “not a good look.”

Officer Holland hung up when a reporter called for comment. In a statement, the district described the scene as “chaotic,” adding that the officer did not intend to hurt the girl.

Some parents, records show, took concerns about officers to the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, which licenses all of the state’s police officers. But the commission says it cannot investigate excessive force complaints unless the officer was criminally charged.

In at least two cases, when parents have filed federal lawsuits against officers over use of force, the appellate court that covers Texas ruled against their claims. In 2023, the court ruled in favor of an officer who used a Taser on a 17-year-old boy with an intellectual disability when he tried to leave school. The court said that the officer’s actions were akin to corporal punishment, which is legal in Texas.

Alienated and withdrawn

Some students who were subject to physical force from police officers said that they had suffered lingering consequences.

Tayshawn Chadwick, who was stunned with a Taser, said he stopped leaving the house. Julian Montes, who was slammed into a lunch cart, is now afraid of police officers.

Anabelle Jaramillo said the doorbell incident led her to become withdrawn from even close friends.

Prosecutors dismissed the theft charge after she completed an online course about stealing. But she was mortified when a crime website posted her mug shot. She finished her classes from home and skipped her graduation ceremony.

A hand holding an orange graduation tassel with a gold 2024 charm on it.

Anabelle with her graduation tassel. She did not attend the ceremony. 

Two years later, Anabelle has finally begun to put the trauma behind her. She gave birth to a son and completed community college. She plans to attend a nearby university in the fall in hopes of becoming a veterinarian. But the police episode has made her less trusting. The adults at her high school, she said, had failed her.

“I thought they’re there to hear you out, to build you up and get you into the future,” she said. Instead, “They broke me down.”

Justin Mayo, Melissa Manno, Liz Teitz, Maggie Allwein, Elizabeth Sander and Teresa Mondría Terol contributed reporting. Susan C. Beachy, Kitty Bennett, Alain Delaquérière, Georgia Gee, Sheelagh McNeill and Kirsten Noyes contributed research. Produced by Nico Chilla, Jerry Vienna and Rumsey Taylor. This article was reported in partnership with Big Local News at Stanford University.“

Wednesday, May 27, 2026

Blistering U.N. Report: Trump Administration’s Policies Designed to Worsen Poverty & Inequality

 

France Acknowledges Need for Slavery Reparations

 

France Acknowledges Need for Slavery Reparations

French President Emmanuel Macron acknowledged the need for reparations related to France’s role in the transatlantic slave trade, emphasizing the importance of memorialization, education, and research. However, he did not specify the type of reparations or whether financial redress would be included. Civil society groups and African and Caribbean states have called for comprehensive reparatory measures to address ongoing impacts of colonial and enslavement legacies.

Macron Falls Short of Concrete Commitments



"Slave Chain with Four Yokes" from the Dexue voodoo convent in Adounko, Benin, dating from the 19th century at the Memorial ACTe, the Caribbean Centre of Expression and Memory of Slavery and the Slave Trade, in Point-a-Pitre, May 8, 2015. © 2015 Nicolas Derne/AFP via Getty Images

French President Emmanuel Macron addressed the need for reparations in connection with France’s role in the transatlantic slave trade on May 21.

Macron said that reparations for enslavement crimes should no longer be ignored. He also warned against “false promises,” emphasizing that the legacy of enslavement could never be fully repaired because it was “impossible.” Macron backed the symbolic repeal of the never-abolished “Code Noir,” which were royal decrees from the 17th and 18th century that governed enslavement in French colonies.

France was a top influential transatlantic slave-trading European nation.

Macron’s remarks, made during a 25th anniversary commemoration of France’s law recognizing enslavement and the transatlantic slave trade as crimes against humanity, constituted a notable rhetorical shift by the French government. But Macron stopped short of specifying the kind of reparations that he envisions and whether financial redress will be part of it.

Macron focused on initiatives related to memorialization, education, and research, while also supporting an international scientific research project launched by Ghana on the legacies of enslavement. These measures, while important, are not a substitute for a comprehensive reparatory framework with full reparations, including measures that address contemporary systemic inequalities and racism rooted in enslavement legacies.

Civil society groups, descendants of enslaved people, as well as African and Caribbean states—including France’s overseas departments—have repeatedly called on France and other former European colonial powers for reparatory measures that address the daily lives of communities, which continue to feel the impacts of colonial and enslavement legacies. International pressure for reparations is also growing. In March, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution introduced by Ghana, which affirmed the transatlantic slave trade as a “crime against humanity” and recognized reparations as a pathway to justice. France, together with other European Union member states, abstained from voting, a move that drew criticism, particularly from representatives of France’s overseas territories.

With reparations now placed on the political agenda, the French government should develop a national framework grounded in international human rights law and standards designed to provide full reparations for past and present harm linked to France’s colonial and enslavement legacies.“

‘Argentina needs to end its fantasy of being a European country’: Lucrecia Martel on the story of a killing Tiago Rogero Lucrecia Martel standing in a doorway wearing dark clothes and sunglasses and holding a walking stick

 

‘Argentina needs to end its fantasy of being a European country’: Lucrecia Martel on the story of a killing

Lucrecia Martel standing in a doorway wearing dark clothes and sunglasses and holding a walking stick
Lucrecia Martel at the Latin American film festival in Toulouse, France, on 29 March 2026.Photograph: Valentine Chapuis/AFP/Getty Images

“In one scene from Landmarks, the new documentary by the Argentinian film-maker Lucrecia Martel, a tour guide shows children a painting on the ceiling of a Catholic church depicting how “Indigenous attempted to break into the city”. “See how these angels fought to keep the Indigenous out, and they sent these beams to scare them away,” says the guide.

The following scene shows Indigenous people from the region – including a child baptised in that very church – watching footage of the tour on a mobile phone. One of them said: “Listening to him [the guide], you realise how convinced he is that even God wants to erase us for good.”

Landmarks is Martel’s first documentary and dives into one case – the killing of an Indigenous leader in a land dispute in 2009 – to address a broader and historical problem.

“The Argentine population is very alienated when it comes to Indigenous issues,” says Martel, 59. “Every effort has been made in this country not to recognise the rights of Indigenous communities.”

Lucrecia Martel talking to crew in a green landscape
Martel on the set of Landmarks. Photograph: Rei Pictures – Louverture Films

Acclaimed for fiction films such as Zama (2017) and The Headless Woman(2008), Martel has spent about 15 years working on Landmarks, which won best film at last year’s BFI London film festival. The film’s central focus is Javier Chocobar, an activist and leader of the Diaguita people from the Chuschagasta community in the province of Tucumán, who was 68 when he was shot dead inside his territory on 12 October 2009.

The moment of the killing was filmed by one of the accused, the mining businessman Darío Luis Amín, who claimed ownership of the land and arrived at the community accompanied by two former police officers, Luis Humberto Gómez and Eduardo José del Milagro Valdivieso Sassi. The footage shows the beginning of an argument between them and members of the Indigenous community, and the moment Gómez opens fire on one of them. Afterwards, Amín stops focusing on the confrontation, and another eight gunshots can be heard. The three accused men were armed, while none of the Indigenous people were. Chocobar died, and other members of the community were shot but survived.

It was while researching for Zama – a period film about an 18th-century Spanish colony perched on the coast of Paraguay – that Martel came across the video on YouTube. She began investigating the longstanding land dispute involving the Chuschagasta community and non-Indigenous families claiming ownership of the land, and the idea of making a documentary about it emerged naturally, she says. “I first wanted to help the community by building an archive, and later I started thinking about making a film.”

The trial took almost nine years to begin, and when it did, Martel and her team were there. “It was one of the most extraordinary spectacles I’ve ever witnessed,” says the film-maker of the 14 days of hearings she attended. She says that “racism against Indigenous peoples” became evident during the trial, “above all through paternalism, infantilisation and the idea that the assets of Indigenous communities are something the state should decide how to administer”.

The documentary shows moments in which not only the centuries-long presence of the Chuschagasta community was questioned, but even the very existence of Indigenous Argentinians – an experience Martel says is not confined to the Diaguita. “At school, we receive no information on Indigenous communities or their rights,” says the film-maker, who was born in Salta, neighbouring Tucumán in the north.

Martel believes Argentine racism against Indigenous peoples – who make up about 3% of the population according to the 2022 census – is tied to how the country sees and projects itself: a “white” nation shaped by European immigration, while ignoring other ethnic groups. “We are always behaving as if we don’t belong to Latin America … Argentina needs to put an end to this fantasy of being a nonexistent European country,” she says.

Martel is white and sees no problem in making a film centred on Indigenous issues. She acknowledges that “cinema’s first 120 years” were largely restricted to a small number of white men from “upper middle-class backgrounds”, and celebrates the fact that people from other “cultural backgrounds” are now making the industry more “diverse and therefore richer”, but says that the “discourse around cultural appropriation also created another problem”, especially among young aspiring film-makers.

“You see men terrified of making films about women, women uncertain about what subjects they are allowed to address, everyone trying to work out what it’s legitimate for them to speak about. I understand that concern [about cultural appropriation], and we should have it, but we cannot stop talking about the issues of our time simply because the protagonists have not lived the same lives we have,” she says.

Now that the film’s promotional cycle is coming to an end, Martel will hand over the rights to the Chuschagasta community, who were also the first to see the completed documentary. At the end of the trial, the three accused men were convicted. They appealed and were allowed to remain free pending the appeal. In 2021, Amín died of Covid. At the end of last year, the supreme court again ordered the imprisonment of the two former police officers.

Meanwhile the Chuschagasta community is still fighting for official state recognition of its land. Although the case is central to the narrative, Martel says Landmarks is not a film about one specific community, but about “a historical conflict and the usurpation of Indigenous lands in Argentina”.

“I made this film because I wanted to contribute to the history of our country, and to the health of Argentine society, which has carried this problem for far too long: through indifference, denial and constant doubt regarding the existence or legitimacy of Indigenous claims.”

Clarence Thomas Against Progressivism—and Progressives

 

Clarence Thomas Against Progressivism—

and Progressives


“During his confirmation hearings, in 1991, Justice Clarence Thomas employed an arresting image to assure senators that he would be an impartial jurist. Taking the bench means “having to strip down, like a runner, to eliminate agendas, to eliminate ideologies,” Thomas said. “It is an amazing process, because that is precisely what you start doing. You start putting the speeches away, you start putting the policy statements away.” Earlier this month, the seventy-seven-year-old Thomas became the second-longest-serving Justice in history, surpassing John Paul Stevens, who retired after thirty-four years, in 2010. If Thomas remains on the bench until May 20, 2028—and he shows no signs of leaving—he will outlast the record set by William O. Douglas, who stepped down from the Court after thirty-six years, in 1975. But Thomas long ago left his runner analogy in the dust—and he has not exactly put away the speeches. A few weeks before eclipsing Stevens’s record, he delivered a revealing—and, to many who heard it, unsettling and ahistorical—lecture on what should have been an uncontroversial topic: the two-hundred-and-fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

Speaking at the University of Texas at Austin, at the invitation of its new School of Civic Leadership, part of a wave of conservative-inflected entities being created at public universities in Republican states, Thomas sounded themes that have been woven through his jurisprudence: that God bestowed the “certain unalienable rights” of the Declaration, and that government serves merely to implement them. Dissenting in the 2015 case Obergefell v. Hodges, which found a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, Thomas complained that the majority “rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government.” In his Texas speech, Thomas expanded on that idea. “None of our rights come from the government,” he said. “It is the Declaration that announces the ends of government. The Constitution achieves this purpose by protecting our natural rights and our liberties from concentrated power and excessive democracy.”

Some of Thomas’s critique appeared to be aimed at weak-willed conservatives, including his fellow-Justices, for being, as Thomas perceives it, too spineless to stand up for the ideals enshrined in the Declaration. “They get so swept up in the euphoria of acclamation and acceptance that they put aside their convictions. They water down their message, negotiate against themselves, vote against their principles, and hide in the tall grass,” Thomas said. “They recast themselves as institutionalists, pragmatists, or thoughtful moderates, all as a way of justifying their failures to themselves, their consciences, and their country.” He continued, “It did not take me long, in Washington, to stop wondering why the Supreme Court took sixty years to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 decision that endorsed government-enforced racial segregation and validated the Jim Crow South that I grew up in.” The Justices must have known that “Plessy was a hideous wrong,” he said, but “they may have been afraid of losing their social standing. They may have been afraid of bad press.” To hear the bitterness in these words is to wonder, Will the end of this Supreme Court term reveal another instance of conservatives falling short of where Thomas believes they should go?

Thomas, in a shout-out that he surely knew would irritate his liberal critics, welcomed two of those in attendance at the lecture, “our dear friends Harlan and Kathy Crow.” (In 2023, ProPublica reported that Thomas had failed to disclose lavish vacations funded by Harlan Crow, and the sale of his mother’s home to Crow.) But the Justice reserved his most incendiary remarks for progressives and Progressivism, the early twentieth-century reform movement that sought to harness government to counter corporate power. In Thomas’s telling, “Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence and hence our form of government. It holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God but from government.” Progressivism, he said, “was the first mainstream American political movement—with the possible exception of the pro-slavery reactionaries on the eve of the Civil War—to openly oppose the principles of the Declaration.”

Thomas singled out Woodrow Wilson—a political scientist, a Progressive, and a Southern Democrat, who, as President, from 1913 to 1921, segregated the civil service and helped create the modern bureaucratic state, including the Federal Reserve and the Federal Trade Commission. “To Wilson, the unalienable rights of the individual were, quote, a lot of nonsense,” Thomas said. “Wilson redefined liberty not as a natural right attendant and antecedent to the government but as, quote, the right of those who are governed to adjust government to their own needs and interests.” Wilson, Thomas said, “described America still stuck with its original system of government as, quote, slow to see the superiority of the European system,” and saw the public as “selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn, and foolish.”

Thomas went on to link Progressivism to the worst crimes of the twentieth century. “The European system that Wilson and the Progressives scolded Americans for not adopting, which he called nearly perfect, led to the governments that caused the most awful century that the world has ever seen. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Mao all were intertwined with the rise of Progressivism, and all were opposed to the natural rights on which our Declaration are based,” Thomas said. “Many Progressives expressed admiration for each of them shortly before their governments killed tens of millions of people.” He warned that the danger of Progressivism persists to this day: “Since Wilson’s Presidency, Progressivism has made many inroads into our system of government and our way of life. It has coexisted uneasily with the principles of the Declaration. Because it is opposed to those principles, it is not possible for the two to coexist forever.”

Thomas’s account of Progressivism as a malign force threatening individual liberty echoes an argument developed by scholars at the conservative Claremont Institute. When I asked Charles Kesler, a senior fellow at the institute and the editor of the Claremont Review of Books, about the significance of Thomas’s address, he invoked Abraham Lincoln’s in 1858, on the existential stakes for a nation riven by slavery. “This is really Thomas’s, in a strange way, his ‘house divided’ speech,” Kesler told me. “He doesn’t expect the Union to fall, but he doesn’t expect it to remain half slave and half free permanently. It will become all one or all the other.” Ronald Pestritto, also a senior fellow at Claremont and the graduate dean at Hillsdale College, wrote in praise of Thomas’s speech: “The Left doesn’t want us to notice that they predicate their core governing vision on a rejection of America’s founding principles, and so they are bound to protest Thomas’s account. Yet his account is dead-on accurate, and for proof one need only look to the original Progressives, who were open in their disdain of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. In this, they were far more honest than their present-day cousins.”

Numerous scholars of the Progressive Era with whom I spoke said Thomas had offered up a distorted version of the movement. Nancy Unger, a past president of the Society for Historians of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era and a professor emerita at Santa Clara University, said, “Progressives were not perfect, and I don’t pretend that they were, but this is such a misrepresentation of who they were. The driving force for most Progressives was not that they were anti-American, not that they were anti-Declaration of Independence and Constitution, but that they were saying, ‘Look, this is a different nation than when we started, we’re an industrial, urban nation, and a lot of things that didn’t require government before do so now.’ So to turn that into some kind of vilification, I just think, is unconscionable.” Christopher Nichols, a historian of the Progressive Era at the Ohio State University, said of Thomas’s account, “It’s a deeply problematic reduction of Progressivism to its most negative elements,” including racism and support for eugenics. Thomas’s speech, Nichols continued, “absolutely mistakes and conflates figures like Stalin and Hitler and Mussolini as Progressives, none of whom would have defined themselves as such, or were defined in their eras as such.”

As Matt Ford noted in The New Republic, Wilson offers a convenient target, given an ugly record of racism that led Princeton, in 2020, to remove his name from the public-policy school, as an “inappropriate namesake.” But Thomas’s focus on Wilson misrepresents his role in the Progressive movement. “Presenting Wilson as the inventor of progressivism is historically illiterate, akin to saying that Joseph Stalin invented communism or that Ronald Reagan invented conservatism,” Ford wrote. (Thomas never mentioned Wilson’s Progressive predecessor, Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican.) In addition, as John Milton Cooper, Jr., the author of a 2009 biography of Wilson, pointed out, Thomas overstated Wilson’s rejection of natural rights. “Think of this deeply, thoughtfully, intellectually religious man not believing in natural rights—come on, you can’t believe that,” Cooper told me. Wilson’s father was a Presbyterian minister, and Wilson read the Bible daily.

Thomas’s indictment of Wilson rests on a tendentious interpretation of his writings and speeches. Wilson did use the word “nonsense” in relation to unalienable rights, but nowhere near as dismissively as Thomas claims. “No doubt a great deal of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere vague sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle,” Wilson wrote. But his point was not to diminish individual rights; it was to elevate their importance. “The individual,” he continues, “is indisputably the original, the first fact of liberty. Nations are made up of individuals, and the dealings of government with individuals are the ultimate and perfect test of its constitutional character. A man is not free through representative assemblies, he is free in his own action, in his own dealings with the persons and powers about him, or he is not free at all.”

Far from scorning the Declaration, Wilson praised it as a “great document,” undergirded by the “assertion that men have always the right to determine for themselves” whether their government is being run in a way “likely to effect their safety and happiness.” He cautioned against an emphasis on its soaring preamble—“the rhetorical introduction,” he said in a 1911 speech, “is the least part of it”— but only because he wanted to insist that modern-day Americans focus on the grievances of their own era. “How are we going to realize the conceptions of the author of the Declaration of Independence in our own day?” he asked.

Wilson pointed to nineteenth-century German architects of government reform, whose expertise in bureaucratic management he admired. But he advised that their system could not easily be transplanted to the United States. “We should not like to have had Prussia’s history for the sake of having Prussia’s administrative skill; and Prussia’s particular system of administration would quite suffocate us,” he wrote in an 1887 essay, “The Study of Administration.” “It is better to be untrained and free than servile and systematic.” Wilson did speak condescendingly of the public, but his larger point was that the people needed to be educated and convinced of the imperative for reform. “Wherever regard for public opinion is a first principle of government, practical reform must be slow and all reform must be full of compromises,” he wrote. “For wherever public opinion exists it must rule.”

Did Thomas take Wilson out of context? When I ticked through the various quotes with Kesler, he acknowledged that, at times, Thomas had perhaps offered a “loose formulation,” as in his assertion that Wilson viewed inalienable rights as “nonsense.” As to Thomas’s most striking accusation, linking Progressives to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, Kesler said, “This is also a bit of a loose formulation,” adding that Thomas had “hooked together two things, which are not as intimately related as maybe he’s asserting here. . . . On the connection between the American progressive movement, even in its Wilsonian form, and fascism and communism, there’s no vital connection, I would say.”

Thomas’s speech was, Kesler noted, an “unusual Supreme Court Justice’s speech.” But it’s appropriate and common for Justices to make speeches, and the public benefits from hearing their views—even if some out-of-court comments have strayed too far into partisanship or vitriol. During the 2016 campaign, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called Donald Trump a “faker” and said she couldn’t imagine “what the country would be” with him as President; Ginsburg quickly apologized for her “ill-advised” comments. Last month, Justice Sonia Sotomayor took an undisguised swipe at Justice Brett Kavanaugh, although not by name, for his breezy dismissal of the burden imposed by what he called “typically brief” questioning of citizens and people in the country legally by immigration officers. “This is from a man whose parents were professionals,” she said, and who “probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour.” Sotomayor also apologized for her “hurtful comments.”

Stephen Gillers, a legal-ethics expert and an emeritus professor of law at New York University, told me that, in his view, Thomas’s speech did not cross any ethical lines. “He could be wrong historically, and it doesn’t create a problem for him as a Justice under the new Supreme Court code,” Gillers said. (In 2023, the Court adopted its first code of conduct, which permits Justices to give speeches on the legal system, among other topics.) Others were more critical. “I thought this was the most inappropriate thing I’ve ever seen a Supreme Court Justice say,” Michael Klarman, a constitutional historian at Harvard Law School, told me. “Justices are not supposed to be or appear to be anything but impartial. And I can’t think of another example in American history where a Justice went and condemned the political views of tens of millions of Americans.” Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of Berkeley Law, described the speech as “jarring.” Thomas, he said, has “taken what should be a unifying event for the country”—the two-hundred-and-fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration—“and tried to claim it for one side.”

Thomas has spent thirty-four years firmly anchored on the Court’s right flank. When the Court eliminated the constitutional right to abortion, in 2022, Thomas complained that it had not gone far enough, and should jettison other decisions that relied on similar reasoning—rulings that guaranteed access to contraception, struck down sodomy laws, and enshrined a right to same-sex marriage. In the Court’s ruling on the Voting Rights Act last month, Thomas not only concurred in the majority’s dismantling of a key section of the law that prohibits practices that have the effect of denying racial minorities the right to vote, he restated his iconoclastic view that the provision does not apply to districting. Last week, when the Court allowed continued access by mail to the abortion medication mifepristone, Thomas, who was one of only two dissenters (the other was Justice Samuel Alito), went so far as to assert that companies manufacturing the drug were engaged in a “criminal enterprise,” in violation of the Comstock Act, an 1873 law that prohibits mailing any “article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion.” (The law was not at issue before the Justices.) More than any other Justice, Thomas is willing to overturn precedents when they collide with his originalist approach. But there is a difference between his expression of unflinching conservatism, on the bench and off, and his willingness, even his zeal, to condemn an entire political movement, one with more than historical interest. The first is jurisprudence, however extreme. The other veers into a political realm where judges, as Thomas once told us, have no business.” ♦