BOUNTY HUNTING SEASON OPENS IN TEXAS

Senate Bill 8, a recently adopted Texas law. bans abortions starting around the sixth week of pregnancy, well before most women even realize they are expecting. While the intent of the legislation is to terminally restrict a woman's right to an abortion, it is designed to strategically sidestep "Roe v. Wade" by evading judicial review, shifting its enforcement from state authorities to the public, and deputizing ordinary citizens to do this. The law establishes a bounty system in which vigilante plaintiffs are allowed to sue anyone involved in performing abortions, and give them a financial incentive to do so. The statute offers a "cash prize" of at least $10,000 plus legal fees, with no requirement to pay the defendant's legal expenses if the suit is unsuccessful. Prospective complainants are not limited to suing the medical staff involved in the procedure, they could include family members, cab drivers and other facilitators as well. They don't even need to be Texas residents. As kids growing up during the decade immediately following World War II, being properly indoctrinated into a democratic mindset, we knew that this method of social control was generally employed by totalitarian regimes. The evidence was overwhelming that autocratic authority depended significantly on citizens enforcing state edicts by informing on each other. As the Nazis worked to consolidate their power and build a cohesive "national community," suppression of dissent played a key role. In 1933 they issued a directive that required Germans to turn in anyone who spoke against the party, its leaders, or the government. Those implicated tended to end up in special concentration camps for retraining or termination. Informants used compliance to help advance their standing in the Nazi hierarchy. Similar processes were developed during the war in Nazi occupied territories, especially when focused on the genocide of European Jews. In The Netherlands, around 1943, when the occupiers had trouble fulfilling their quota of Jewish captives, they inspired teams of "Jew hunters" who were paid Fl.7.50 per Jewish citizen turned into the German authorities. Greedy people talked and between 8,000 and 9,000 who had previously eluded capture were discovered and transported to extermination camps. (Ad van Liempt, "Kopgeld: Nederlandse Premiejagers op Zoek Naar Joden," 1943) In Poland, Jan Grabowski, in his book "Hunt for the Jews: Betrayal and Murder in German Occupied Poland," concluded that in his country "the great majority of Jews in hiding perished as a consequence of betrayal. They were denounced or simply seized, tied up and delivered by locals to the nearest station of the Polish police, or the German gendarmerie." Consequently, an estimated 200,000 Polish Jews that might have escaped otherwise ended up in termination camps. In the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin's regime relied heavily on "mutual surveillance," urging families to report on each other and report "disloyalty." Many of the more than 14 million people that ended up in the Gulag were incarcerated as a result of "accusations" from neighbors. (Orlando Figes, "The Whisperers," 2007). In East Germany, the Stasi, its official state security service, depended largely on ordinary people to report activity that deviated from the government's political ideology. In a country of 16 million, 620,000 people worked undercover to help the country keep its people in check. Multiple other countries like Cuba, China, the Phillippines, Myanmar and others used similar means of social control. Although we are often tempted to exclude ourselves from these Orwellian systems of surveillance and censorship, supported by forcibly or enticingly indoctrinated mass attitudes, we should acknowledge similar developments in our own past. During the Salem witch trials (Feb 1692 - May 1693), as hysteria spread throughout colonial Massachusetts, more than 200 people were identified and accused by community members of being witches. Thirty were found guilty, and 19 were executed by hanging. It was virtually impossible to disprove charges of witchcraft, and defendants were convicted with no evidence, predominantly on the basis of observations by neighbors. The Red Scare of 1917-1920 and the McCarthy inquisition between 1950 and 1954 saw many accused, blacklisted and losing their jobs, although most in fact did not belong to the Communist Party. The frenzy unleashed by the Bolshevik revolution towards the end of World War I, was fueled by fear. In 1918 we passed the Sedition Act, which criminalized many forms of speech. It became illegal to use disloyal language, printed or spoken, about the government. President Harry Truman picked up on this same tenet when he instituted federal loyalty programs after World War II. These regulations opened the doors to unrestricted public snitching. Senator McCarthy took advantage of this when he interrogated accused Communists, whose names were provided by misguided patriots. Many reputations, careers, and livelihoods were unnecessarily lost during that sordid time in our history. After the September 11 attacks, the statement: "If you see something, say something," was readily recognized as an essential weapon in the war on terror. In 2011 Congress past a law that grants immunity from civil liability to persons acting in good faith when reporting suspicious activity. It is great to feel you can trust that everyone will do the right thing. But however well intended, this act also opens us up to substantial abuse. In the process of seeing this through, hundreds of individuals of middle eastern descent have been rounded up on unsubstantiated charges from informers fueled by fear and ignorance. It might well be premature to associate the Texas legislation with the excesses experienced in the mid-20th century European theater. But we do have our own history to consider as well. Over time, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people and careers would have survived if snitches, cowardly greedy informants and pseudo-patriotic citizens had decided not to follow through on bounty promises and surveillance mandates. By adopting this law, Texas kicked the door to abuse again wide open. One of the significant components of a healthy democracy is the rule of law. It seeks to treat all persons fairly and equally. SB8 incorporates an extra-legal vigilante system - without recourse for the accused, and no legal consequences for the accuser. individuals who file lawsuits under this law don't even need to claim legal standing. "Texas Right To Life," the biggest anti-abortion organization in the state, already set up a whistleblower website where anyone can unanimously leave tips about suspected illegal abortions. Moreover, this degenerative autocratic pandemic is rapidly spreading. As of early September, at least 7 other GOP controlled states are considering replicating this Texas law. It is disappointing, and indeed disturbing, that, in a country long established as the preeminent defender of democracy, a legislature dominated by a single political party feels the need to adopt autocratic principles to pursue its agenda and cement its power position. Theo Wierdsma

CURBING CANCEL CULTURE

Soon the "Name Exploration Subcommittee" of Cabrillo College's Governing Board will transition into the next phase of the process adopted to consider potentially changing our community college's name and identity. This controversial issue resurfaced mid-2020, and has continued as a topic of discussion of variable intensity ever since. While both sides of the debate have presented reasonable arguments, and while I don't question the sincerity of those proposing a name change, I do believe they are wrong, and possibly even counterproductive to their own cause. The subject emerged as an outgrowth of what has been referred to as "cancel culture," which has initiated drives to remove statues and names of historical figures deemed undesirable by a subset of our population. Some of this appears defensible as erasing the glorification of confederate "traitors" during the Civil War. However, the movement has become rudderless and is in danger of spiraling out of control. In January of this year, the San Francisco Board of Education voted 6-1 to rename 44 schools to "dismantle symbols of racism and white supremacy culture." Among those were some named after Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Dianne Feinstein. What proponents of the change object to is that the college was named after Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo, the first European to explore present-day California as he navigated the coast and entered San Diego Bay in September of 1542. Before becoming a maritime explorer, Cabrillo fought as conquistador and captain of crossbowmen in the army of Herman Cortes during the Spanish-Aztec War of 1519-21. As reward for services rendered, the king of Spain introduced Cabrillo to the encomienda system, granting a long-term lease of property, which included the right to the use of indigenous slave labor. Slave labor became the basis of his wealth. Compared to today's values, Cabrillo was a cruel man who took advantage of the norms in place during the time in which he lived, and who was recognized for historical firsts almost a century before the colonization of North America began. Digging deeper into the life of this historic figure will expose the cruelty associated with the time period in which he lived. However, that misses the point. What the anti-Cabrillo advocates are engaged in is not just a form of "cancel culture," it is what some historians refer to as "presentism," an uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts. It means looking backward in time to condemn or condone historical figures for living in their own time in history, instead of adopting today's attitudes and norms. Historians strive to understand what people said and did in the context of the time they lived in, not criticize them for failing to live in our time. So, where do we draw the line? At least twelve of our presidents were slave owners at some point during their lives. These included Washington, Jefferson, Madison and others. By the time George Washington died in 1799, there were 317 enslaved people at his Mount Vernon estate. Should we tear down the Washington Monument? Rename Washington State? Remove George Washington from the dollar bill? Thirty-one counties and 241 townships carry his name... At the time, our Constitution, the law of the land, supported slavery. Until 1808 it prohibited Congress from regulating the international slave trade (Art. I, sect. 9). Until Reconstruction, the Fugitive Slave Clause (Art. IV, sect. 2) guaranteed the right of slave owners to pursue and reclaim their slaves anywhere throughout the country. Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Declaration was arguably a political statement, not a moral one. He only freed the slaves in rebellious states. We tend to interpret only what we want to believe... Harry Truman approved the use of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing 105,000 civilians and maiming 94,000 more. But we contextualize... Aristotle, one of the greatest philosophers, who made positive contributions to modern political theory, physics, economic and psychology, was openly supportive of slavery, and saw women as subject to men. Shakespeare, in "The Merchant of Venice," used highly stereotypical, pejorative depictions of Jewish people. Shylock, its main character, openly personifies anti-semitic prejudices of the time. But we continue to produce the play. And so it goes. Renaming Cabrillo College is not just a local concern, it is more consequential than that. Removing a name does not erase history, but it does remove opportunities to learn from it. Leland Stanford Jr., a "robber baron" and namesake of Stanford University, has been held responsible for ruthlessly exploiting and mistreating thousands of Chinese workers when constructing the Central Pacific railroad line. The Stanford student body, on numerous occasions, decided to use his history for teachable moments rather than opting to erase them. Cecil Rhodes, philanthropic contributor to the University of Cape Town and Oxford University, a profound racist and advocate of the "English master race," still retains his statue above a doorway on the front of Oxford's Rhodes Building, left in place because "we should learn from the past, rather than censoring history." Aside from the substantial cost and the overwhelming logistical issues involved, changing our college's name would do a disservice to thousands of alumni and stakeholders who, when referring to "Cabrillo," invoke the name of the institution. not honor a historic figure who lived five centuries ago. Don't change the name and erase what would provide important material for teachable moments. Theo Wierdsma