Latest news with #RedScare
France 24
an hour ago
- Politics
- France 24
US judge orders release of pro-Palestinian protest leader
Khalil, a legal permanent US resident who is married to a US citizen and has a US-born son, has been in custody since March facing potential deportation. District Judge Michael Fabiarz ordered Khalil's release on bail during a hearing on Friday, multiple US media outlets said. Since his March 8 arrest by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, Khalil has become a symbol of President Donald Trump's desire to stifle pro-Palestinian student activism against the Gaza war, in the name of curbing anti-Semitism. At the time a graduate student at Columbia University in New York, Khalil was one of the most visible leaders of nationwide campus protests against Israel's war in Gaza. Following his arrest, the US authorities transferred Khalil, who was born in Syria to Palestinian parents, nearly 2,000 kilometers (1,242 miles) from his home in New York to a detention center in Louisiana, pending deportation. His wife Noor Abdalla, a Michigan-born dentist, gave birth to their son while Khalil was in detention. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has invoked a law approved during the 1950s Red Scare that allows the United States to remove foreigners seen as adverse to US foreign policy. Fabiarz ruled last week that the government could not detain or deport Khalil based on Rubio's assertions that his presence on US soil poses a national security threat.
The Guardian
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- The Guardian
‘Artists struggled to survive': the devastating impact of blacklisting Americans
There's no shortage of comparisons with the second Trump administration to the rise of Nazism in 1930s Germany, but perhaps the more apt comparison is to the Red Scare in postwar America. Blacklisted, a new show at New York Historical, profiles the lives of the so-called Hollywood Ten, who were creatives caught up in the Communist witch-hunt – to disastrous consequences affecting their lives for decades thereafter. It brings to mind suggestive, and uncomfortable, parallels with politicized persecution in the US today. 'At this point, TV was just beginning to become influential,' said Anne Lessy, an assistant curator who coordinated the show. 'There was a lot of anxiety around these mass entertainments and how much power they had, in part because the second world war effort had been so successful in propaganda. A lot of the blacklisted artists were important in those efforts.' In addition to rising fears around the newly unleashed power of television, Lessy added that there were powerful backlashes around rising equality, promoting racism, xenophobia and antisemitism. Politicians and other opportunists were keen to take advantage of these social fissures – persecuting members of the Hollywood elite was widely viewed as a stepping stone for ambitious politicians. 'This was a way to give yourself a real bounce in terms of your political career,' Lessy said. 'A relatively junior member of congress, Richard Nixon, was on the [House Un-American Activities Committee], and then in just a few short years he's elected senator from California, and then vice-president. So it really did become a platform that many politicians saw as a way to advance their own ambitions.' Blacklisted explores this crucial history through the lives and stories of various Americans, including the Hollywood Ten – a group of screenwriters and directors who were held in contempt of congress for refusing to answer questions before HUAC. While the show was originally curated by Jewish Museum Milwaukee in 2018, when things such as book bans and 'don't say gay' bills were just beginning to pick up steam, its resonance with the US political situation has only increased in the years since. President and CEO of New York Historical, Louise Mirrer, explained that when she found out about Blacklisted, it felt like a slam dunk. 'The exhibition was brought to our attention by a member who saw it a few years ago at the Skirball [Cultural Center] in Los Angeles. Even already at that time, around the country, we were starting to see a lot of attention paid to books in school libraries, the curriculum taught in schools – it just seemed like this theme of being blacklisted really resonated and was important to bring to our audience.' One of the narratives that Blacklisted explores is that of Dalton Trumbo, an award-winning screenwriter known for films such as Roman Holiday and Spartacus. Because of his blacklisting, Trumbo actually worked on these films and others under a pseudonym, and was not able to receive any credit for his Academy award–winning work. It was only in 1960 that he was again given screen credits – for his films Exodus and Spartacus – and it was not until 2011 that he received full credit from the Writers Guild of America for his work on Roman Holiday. 'So many screenwriters had to work under fictitious names or fronts,' said Lessy, 'and it was often not until the 80s or 90s that they got credit for their work.' Beyond not being able to fully enjoy the fruits of their labor, such blacklisted writers and actors experienced serious limitations to their careers and ability to support themselves. Among the historical ephemera collected in Blacklisted is the unemployment benefits application of actor Madeleine Lee, who was unable to earn a living due to the witch-hunt that buried her career. Such consequences could be lifelong. 'Blacklisted artists struggled to survive,' said Lessy, 'and the impacts often lasted for a very long time. Many blacklisted creatives were not getting an accurate pension into the 80s and 90s. Films were still crediting an alias or front.' Against this governmental persecution, Hollywood creatives deployed many forms of resilience. They relied on community ties for mutual aid, and they carried on their creative practices outside of Hollywood. For this version of the show, New York Historical has added an examination of how New York theater was a lifeline for so many who had run afoul of state-sponsored attacks. 'New York theater never adopted a formal blacklist, and so the theater world became an important refuge,' Lessy said. 'Actors Equity was one of the few entertainment unions to actually pass an anti-blacklist resolution.' One of the cases that Blacklisted examines is that of a stage production of the book The World of Sholom Aleichem. Considered a forerunner of Fiddler on the Roof, the book delves into 19th century Jewish diasporic communities throughout southern Russia. It was a turned into a very popular theater show that consisted largely of blacklisted staff, even garnering a rave from the New York Times and going on to become a prime-time TV presentation. 'They took this Russian-Jewish folk tale and turned it into a really popular show,' Lessy said. The show also looks at how figures such as playwrights Arthur Miller and Lillian Hellman were given a lifeline by New York. Miller was held in contempt of Congress in 1957 and subsequently blacklisted from Hollywood, while Hellman was blacklisted early on, in 1949. 'They had such undeniable talent and were able to continue to thrive on the New York stage,' said Lessy. Ultimately, individual citizens fighting back helped to erode the powers of the House Un-American Activities Committee. In the 1957 supreme court case Watkins v United States, labor organizer John Watkins won a ruling that HUAC's power was not unlimited. 'I really love the fact that the legal curbing was very much an ordinary person who decided to fight back,' said Lessy. Subsequent rulings further limited Congress's power to persecute individual Americans, offering some hope for curbing the Trump administration's abuses of power and avoiding yet another American witch-hunt. Blacklisted: An American Story is on view at the New York Historical until 19 October
Scoop
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- Scoop
North Island Tour Of Award-Winning Show Brings Immersive Theatre To Regional Audiences
Press Release – Red Scare Theatre Company Red Scare Theatre Company is bringing its award-winning Immersive production Before We Slip Beneath the Sea around the North Island this and directed by the company's artistic director Cassandra Tse, Before We Slip Beneath the Sea follows inhabitants of the fictional island off the north coast called Eglantyne. Here, the local community have gathered for the last time in the wake of an impending evacuation due to rising sea levels. When one community member decides to take a stand against the evacuation, the community is divided, long-buried tensions come to the fore, and everyone must decide how to cope with change, loss and forces far greater than themselves. Red Scare will be swapping out traditional theatre spaces for community halls for this Immersive show, which aims to break the usual separation between audience and actors. 'Immersive theatre is different from traditional theatre in that the audience are actually inside the storyworld, rather than sitting outside and looking in,' says Tse. 'In Before We Slip Beneath the Sea, audiences have the freedom to choose their own path to navigate the story, encountering and interacting with different characters. It's a huge challenge, but there's also so much potential for exciting storytelling.' Audience members can choose to eavesdrop on budding romances, intervene in family disputes, or even help out in the kitchen. The play was awarded Winner of Best Play by a Woman Playwright and overall Runner-Up at the 2024 Adam NZ Play Awards. The production's 2024 Wellington season was called 'a hauntingly beautiful portrayal of human relationships' (Elliott Lam, Wellyott) and 'an absorbing and salutary experience' (John Smythe, Theatreview). 'In an Immersive show, the actors have to be able to switch back and forth between scripted scenes and improvisation with ease, allowing audiences to engage with the characters while never losing track of the story. It's a really difficult ask, so I'm lucky that I'm working with such a talented group of actors,' says Tse. The cast consists of a mix of returnees from Red Scare Theatre shows like Charlie Potter (Gutenberg! The Musical), Ralph Johnson (Four Nights in the Green Barrow Pub) and performers collaborating with Red Scare for the first time (Hannah McKenzie Doornebosch, Craig Geenty, Megan Connolly, Helen Jones and Billie Deganutti). 'This show lets each audience member really take control of their own relationship to the play – whether they want to join the characters in conversation, hang back and eavesdrop, or simply float around the hall absorbing the atmosphere,' Tse says. 'My hope is that whether or not audience members love or hate participatory theatre, they come away from this show feeling like they're a part of the Eglantyne community.' Before We Slip Beneath the Sea will be travelling to Auckland, Hamilton, Rotorua, Napier, Palmerston North and Carterton. Tickets and performance dates for the show are available through Eventfinda.
Scoop
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- Scoop
North Island Tour Of Award-Winning Show Brings Immersive Theatre To Regional Audiences
Red Scare Theatre Company is bringing its award-winning Immersive production Before We Slip Beneath the Sea around the North Island this July. Written and directed by the company's artistic director Cassandra Tse, Before We Slip Beneath the Sea follows inhabitants of the fictional island off the north coast called Eglantyne. Here, the local community have gathered for the last time in the wake of an impending evacuation due to rising sea levels. When one community member decides to take a stand against the evacuation, the community is divided, long-buried tensions come to the fore, and everyone must decide how to cope with change, loss and forces far greater than themselves. Red Scare will be swapping out traditional theatre spaces for community halls for this Immersive show, which aims to break the usual separation between audience and actors. 'Immersive theatre is different from traditional theatre in that the audience are actually inside the storyworld, rather than sitting outside and looking in,' says Tse. 'In Before We Slip Beneath the Sea, audiences have the freedom to choose their own path to navigate the story, encountering and interacting with different characters. It's a huge challenge, but there's also so much potential for exciting storytelling.' Audience members can choose to eavesdrop on budding romances, intervene in family disputes, or even help out in the kitchen. The play was awarded Winner of Best Play by a Woman Playwright and overall Runner-Up at the 2024 Adam NZ Play Awards. The production's 2024 Wellington season was called 'a hauntingly beautiful portrayal of human relationships' (Elliott Lam, Wellyott) and 'an absorbing and salutary experience' (John Smythe, Theatreview). 'In an Immersive show, the actors have to be able to switch back and forth between scripted scenes and improvisation with ease, allowing audiences to engage with the characters while never losing track of the story. It's a really difficult ask, so I'm lucky that I'm working with such a talented group of actors,' says Tse. The cast consists of a mix of returnees from Red Scare Theatre shows like Charlie Potter (Gutenberg! The Musical), Ralph Johnson (Four Nights in the Green Barrow Pub) and performers collaborating with Red Scare for the first time (Hannah McKenzie Doornebosch, Craig Geenty, Megan Connolly, Helen Jones and Billie Deganutti). 'This show lets each audience member really take control of their own relationship to the play – whether they want to join the characters in conversation, hang back and eavesdrop, or simply float around the hall absorbing the atmosphere,' Tse says. 'My hope is that whether or not audience members love or hate participatory theatre, they come away from this show feeling like they're a part of the Eglantyne community.' Before We Slip Beneath the Sea will be travelling to Auckland, Hamilton, Rotorua, Napier, Palmerston North and Carterton. Tickets and performance dates for the show are available through Eventfinda.
Mint
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Mint
Donald Trump is battling America's elite universities—and winning
Editor's note: On April 14th the Trump administration froze $2.2bn of federal funds for Harvard University after the Ivy League college became the first institution to reject policy changes it had demanded. This was not a hidden plot, but an open plan. In the eyes of the right, America's elite universities are guilty of a litany of sins: they propagate illiberal, left-wing ideas; they exclude or censor those who question woke views; they discriminate against the majority in the name of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI); they allow antisemitism to fester. Before Donald Trump's second term as president began, conservative activists had laid out in considerable detail the retribution they were preparing to exact for these misdeeds. The retribution is now under way. Mr Trump's administration has withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants from prestigious schools, mostly in the Ivy League, and threatened to yank billions more. It has rescinded visas for students who participated in pro-Palestinian protests last year, in some cases by having plainclothes officers grab them on the street and push them into unmarked cars. It has capped overhead costs for scientific research in ways that have already led to thousands of lost jobs. Other levers, over access to federal student loans, for instance, have not even been pulled yet. Every university president in America dreads the arrival of 'the letter' from the administration. The first was sent to Columbia University on March 13th, shortly after $400m of grants were withheld. To win the money back, the letter demanded that Columbia expel certain students who participated in protests, reform its admissions policies and place its Middle Eastern studies department into 'academic receivership'. The university capitulated to all the demands. Its president, herself a stand-in, resigned a week later. 'The Columbia opening salvo was incredible to me,' says Chris Rufo, a prominent culture warrior. 'It's almost unbelievable how weak, feckless, and pathetic these folks have been.' More shakedowns have followed. On March 19th Christopher Eisgruber, the president of Princeton University, wrote in the Atlantic that the Trump administration's actions presented 'the greatest threat to the American universities since the Red Scare of the 1950s'. That may be an understatement: Joseph McCarthy, who hounded suspected communists, was a mere senator, without the weight of the federal government behind him. In late March the federal government informed Princeton that it was suspending research grants worth $210m, ostensibly because of antisemitism. On April 3rd a letter from the government arrived at Harvard threatening $9bn-worth of grants unless the university scrapped its DEI programmes and reformed 'departments that fuel antisemitic harassment'. This week $1bn in funding for Cornell and $790m for Northwestern was frozen. Disdain for elite universities is not new to the American right. Ronald Reagan won the governorship of California in 1966 by pledging 'to clean up the mess at Berkeley' and clear out the 'beatniks, radicals and filthy speech advocates' who had 'brought such shame' to the flagship state university. But the long-running antagonism has gradually intensified as education has become more of a dividing line in American politics, with university graduates tending ever more strongly to vote Democratic. In the 1970s there were fewer than two academics who described themselves as liberal for every conservative. Four decades later the ratio was six to one. Humanities faculties, in particular, have championed ideas unpopular with ordinary voters: that American society is structurally racist, for example, or that everyone has a 'gender identity' unrelated to their sex. Trust in universities has dropped precipitously over the past decade. In 2015 nearly 60% of respondents told Gallup, a pollster, that they had a great deal of confidence in higher education. That has since fallen to 36%, almost the same proportion as say they have 'very little' or 'no confidence'. Republicans are especially critical; only 20% of them express faith in universities, compared with 56% of Democrats. 'The isolation of the academy writ large, from the whole of society, is at the root of a lot of these problems,' says Greg Weiner, the president of Assumption University. Loud and lengthy protests against Israel's war in Gaza over the past 18 months have further cemented the idea that campuses are out of kilter with mainstream opinion—and given the right an opportunity to attack universities for not doing enough to make Jewish students and faculty feel safe. The administration has been using supposed antisemitism as grounds to demand reforms. 'In some cases, these are not just unconstitutional demands, but there is also no statutory authority for them,' says Jameel Jaffer, a professor of law and journalism at Columbia University. Mr Jaffer points out that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which the administration has invoked on behalf of Jewish students and faculty, does allow for sanctions—but only after a formal investigation. Even then, 'The remedial measures have to be limited to the programme found to be in violation.' The withdrawal of grants could also be challenged. Universities might argue that the conditions the administration is imposing for their restoration amount to unconstitutional coercion. In 1967 in Keyishian v Board of Regents, the Supreme Court found that academic freedom is 'a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom'. The deportation of foreign students involved in protests is of dubious legality, too. In Bridges v Wixon in 1945 the Supreme Court affirmed, 'Freedom of speech and of the press is accorded aliens residing in this country.' The Trump administration has explicitly rejected this idea. In its deportation proceedings against Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian graduate student at Columbia involved in protests against the war in Gaza, the administration is citing a seldom-used law allowing the secretary of state to cancel visas for migrants whose continued presence could yield 'potentially serious adverse foreign-policy consequences'. The Supreme Court has never opined on this law, but in 1996 in Massieu v Reno, a federal district judge struck it down as unconstitutional. As it happened, the judge in question was Maryanne Trump Barry, the late sister of Mr Trump. It seems unlikely that even the Supreme Court, with its conservative supermajority, would endorse all the Trump administration's attacks on universities, if asked. Yet most of the victims seem more inclined to capitulate than litigate. That may be because universities are worried that even if they prevail in one instance, the administration will simply find other ways to punish and coerce them. Moreover, judicial relief comes only slowly; there would be lots of financial difficulties during the delay. Talented faculty might decamp to other institutions with fewer government headaches. By the same token, although many of the universities affected are enormously wealthy (see chart), the federal government can impose costs in so many ways that most see no hope of simply enduring the financial pressure. Instead, universities, whether recipients of letters or not, are disavowing the policies the right so dislikes, academic freedom notwithstanding. The University of Michigan has shuttered its DEI office, on which it had lavished $250m over the past decade. The University of California, which pioneered the requirement that prospective hires provide 'diversity statements' (in effect, professions of support for DEI), recently dropped them. 'This is the Vichy moment. It's a classic collaborationist dilemma,' says Michael Roth, the president of Wesleyan University, an as-yet-untargeted institution. 'You can have preserved your school but you live in a sea of authoritarianism.' Bringing universities to heel from 'a position of savage strength', as Mr Rufo puts it, may yield only superficial results. Because Mr Trump's approach is so hostile and extreme, it may actually discourage universities from honestly assessing how they went wrong and correcting course. 'None of this will make any difference in the long run unless it is accompanied by a full accounting of what has happened for the last two decades in higher education in America,' says Anthony Kronman, a former dean of Yale Law School. There is also little logic in the government's decision to switch off funding for science in order to punish ideas that emanated from humanities departments. Another recent decision, to cap the share of research grants that can be spent on overheads, will diminish the amount of scientific research conducted at all American universities, not just the elite ones. So will the gutting of the National Institutes of Health, which dispense huge amounts of funding for medical research. The administration's general antipathy towards immigrants will presumably also take a toll. 'Our universities are the best in the world. We drain the world of human capital. It's the goose that lays the golden egg,' says Nicholas Christakis, a professor at Yale. Mr Rufo is undaunted. He hints that the campaign against woke academics is only in its infancy. Certainly, more universities will come under attack and more means of coercion will be tested. There is talk in conservative circles of demanding the sacking of particular professors. Mr Rufo gives short shrift to talk about the sanctity of academic freedom. 'Freedom is the wrong lens to analyse the problem,' he says. 'The Columbia post-colonial studies faculty are not engaged in academic research. They're engaged in political activism. They're engaged in ideological mania. And in order to have academic freedom, you have to accept academic responsibility.' But even accepting the remedies Mr Trump is dispensing does not seem to have been enough in Columbia's case, at least. Although it has complied with the administration's demands, it still has not received the $400m that had been frozen. Correction (April 11th 2025): A previous version of this piece said that Eugene McCarthy was the senator who pursued suspected communists in the 1950s. In fact it was Joseph McCarthy. Sorry.
