The Forum is deeply saddened to learn that Mario Cuomo, former governor of New York and a great friend of the Forum, passed away yesterday at his home in Manhattan. Cuomo enjoyed a decorated career in New York politics, serving as a three-term governor from 1983 to 1994. He remained a major figure in the Democratic party, a leader for Italian-Americans nationwide, and a champion of progressive politics thereafter. He will be remembered as a model public servant and a New York icon. He was 82.
Cuomo was an extraordinarily popular political figure throughout his three gubernatorial terms, boldly endorsing a platform of “progressive pragmatism” during the Reagan era. He promoted sweeping social reforms while simultaneously balancing the state budget. His “Rebuild NY” campaign sought statewide improvements in transportation and infrastructure. The first African-American, Hispanic, and female judges of the New York Court of Appeals were appointed while he was in office.
Cuomo was also a friend of the Forum, first gracing us for a Conversation in 2009. One of his last public appearances was at the 2013 Forum Film Festival’s screening of The Godfather; he lifted his 40-year boycott of the film and discussed Italian stereotypes in the media and popular culture. We are deeply grateful for his contributions to the Forum and we mourn the loss of a great New Yorker.
President Obama announced this week that Ron Klain, the former chief of staff to vice presidents Al Gore and Joe Biden, will be appointed as the administration’s “Ebola czar.” Klain was a guest at the 2008 Forum Film Festival, where he spoke about his role in the 2000 Presidential election after a screening of Recount. (Kevin Spacey portrayed Klain in the film.)
Following the election, he served as the general counsel to the Gore–Lieberman Recount Committee, and was named a “Lawyer of the Year” by the National Law Journal for his efforts. Now Klain assumes the managerial role of ensuring that all the agencies involved in the federal response to the recent Ebola outbreak are acting in concert. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest has described the position as an “important, high-level implementation role,” not unlike his recent work overseeing the appropriation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
The opening night of the 2014 Forum Film Festival, which featured an advanced screening of Camp X-Ray with actress Kristen Stewart and director Peter Sattler, has been featured in both the Huffington Post and the Washington Square News. Camp X-Ray follows the moral dilemmas of Amy Cole (Stewart), who is assigned to Guantanamo Bay—where “prisoners” are subject to the Geneva Convention but “detainees” are not—after enlisting in the military.
In the interview, Hirsan Ali discusses the growth of extremist violence following 9/11, arguing that critics of Israel will be forced to reconsider the danger as radical Islam spreads to Continental Europe. “It is so clear what is going to happen,” she notes. “All these countries that are now condemning Israel will find themselves in exactly the same position as Israel.” She further discussed the dangers of European-born citizens going to fight in Syria and returning back to their home countries, trained to kill by terrorist groups. Dismissing this as a small problem is major misstep, she argues: “This is not naivete anymore. This is called wishful thinking. They say that Islam is a religion of peace and compassion, but that is what we want, that is what it should be, it’s not what it is. There’s a difference. We’re just not being realistic.”
Hirsin Ali will be joined by Forum Director Thane Rosenbaum and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Bret Stephens to discuss the film at the 92nd Street Y on October 22, 2014. For tickets and more information, please click here.
“Soccer” as we Americans refer to it, is simply another sport within our society that has its share of leagues, clubs, and fanatics. In Brazil, however, it is their society—it embodies all that is Brazil. Brazilians live to play and watch soccer, it is in their blood. The 2014 FIFA World Cup is being held in Brazil for the first time since 1950. Yet, surprisingly, a poll taken in Brazil to determine whether Brazilians actually wanted to host the World Cup showed that 52% of the population was against it. It seems that there is more to the country than scoring goals. Many Brazilians framed the World Cup within the context of human rights and handed out yellow cards to a government that cared more about enabling the world’s obsession with soccer than with taking care of its own people. Brazil, already crime filled country, in hosting the World Cup opened up 12 of its cities to millions of soccer enthusiasts, some of whom would undoubtedly contribute to their worsening crime problem, which includes child prostitution and drugs. Young children selling their bodies in order to survive another day is not the kind of economic benefit the Brazilians were counting on as hosts of the World Cup. Moreover, the allocation of monetary resources has also become a controversial topic. Many are asking why Brazil even submitted a bid to host the World Cup given the 11 billion dollars it would require to repair/build 12 soccer stadiums that will each host only 4 matches. Many of these stadiums will become abandoned following the conclusion of the World Cup. Such monies would be far better spent in other areas such as education, particularly in a country where many children don’t even have access to schools and where gang warfare competes with child prostitutution as extracurricular activities.. Additionally teachers and workers have been demanding higher wages at the very time as the government has sunk the public largesse into the World Cup. Brazil hosted the World Cup hoping to improve its infrastructure, healthcare, and education—yet it doesn’t not appear that such goals will be met as time runs down and the last balls sail wide on this World Cup.
After losing the Republican primary election for the Seventh District of Virginia, Eric Cantor (R–VA) will be stepping down from his role as House Majority Leader. Cantor, a rising star in the Republican Party, announced Wednesday that his resignation would be effective July 31, in a primary election loss he called a “personal setback.” David Brat, his opponent, is an economics professor whose victory many are attributing to the increased sway of the Tea Party.
Cantor was twice a guest of the Forum, having visited us in 2010 and, more recently, in September 2013. In a discussion at the 92nd Street Y with Forum Director Thane Rosenbaum, he spoke about the then-hot-button issue of the Syrian crisis, his experience as a Jewish Republican leader, and, of course, the growing influence of the Tea Party in national politics.
A video of the entire discussion is posted below, courtesy of the 92nd Street Y.
From a legal and political standpoint the decision to annex Crimea was simply outrageous, to quite literally the entire world. However, what happens when we start to consider the desires of the people who actually live in Crimea. The people, who voted, had a referendum and came out on the other side. The ones who speak Russian, live their lives as ethnic Russians, but have not historically, since the separation, been part of the Russian Federation. Is the world, purely from a legal and political standpoint allowed to say, no you cannot be part of the country you ethnically and culturally feel most at home. You speak the same language, you share cultural traditions, but because the rest of the world says so, you cannot join the rest of your “tribe.”
Should it matter to us at all that the great majority of the people outraged by this event are those that are not actually impacted by it? Is it fair that the countries that are putting forth their dislike for the annexation are not looking at the best interests of those in Crimea but rather the interests of themselves and others with which they are in alliance. I recently had a conversation to this effect and the strongest argument I heard was what happens when Quebec decides it officially wants to be part of France and France accepts and annexes it. Well, to this I respond two-fold. Geographically such an annexation would make far less sense than what has occurred in Crimea but also Quebec has had referendum and the votes have not come out as those in Crimea. By no means am I supporting Putin’s actions in eastern Ukraine and invading, I simply am raising the moral questions about how the world is treating the decisions of the Crimean people and what may be considered “fair” to them.
While few will dispute Putin has an interest necessarily in the well-being of Crimea, maybe, to accomplish what many might consider what is morally fair to those in Crimea, we must employ Machiavelli and simply say the ends justify the means. The fact that there is a group of people happier now to be part of the Russian Federation than they previously were as part of the Ukraine should be sufficient to make those expressing their outrage over the matter a little bit calmer. Perhaps, with all of the political hoopla that has occurred since the annexation, the politicians have forgotten that their actual purpose is to work on behalf of people and their happiness. If then, the people in Crimea are happy, should the world be doing anything?
On March 26, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) in Chicago granted Northwestern University football players the right to unionize (a monumental ruling that could drastically alter the institution of college athletics as we know them today. In short, this decision grants the Northwestern football players the right to vote on whether they want to be represented by the College Athletes Players Association (“CAPA”), who initiated this action with support from the United Steelworkers Union. The most profound part of this decision by NLRB Regional Director Peter Ohr is his conclusion that: “players receiving scholarships to perform football-related services for the Employer under a contract for hire in return for compensation are subject to the Employer’s control and are therefore employees [under NLRA § 2(3)]…”. This characterization of NCAA athletes as employees has the potential to shatter the entire foundation of American college athletics—the idea (or myth) of the “student-athlete.”
While this NLRB ruling is groundbreaking, its immediate impact will be more limited than many believe. First, the authority of this decision is limited to students attending private schools because state labor law still governs athletes at public institutions. In fact, many of the best college football programs are located in the south and mid-west, where most of the states have right-to-work laws, which are not union-friendly and will make it more difficult for players at these schools to unionize. Second, the CAPA has said that—at least immediately—it will not bargain for pay-for-play terms that are prohibited by the NCAA, and would make its member athletes ineligible. Instead, the CAPA appears focused on bargaining for improved player safety, medical insurance to cover the long-term effects of injuries sustained while participating in college athletics, and scholarships that truly cover the full cost of attendance.
As expected, the NCAA is ardently opposed to the NLRB’s characterization of their “student-athletes” as “employees,” and filed an appeal with the NLRB main office in Washington, DC. The NCAA and its member schools continue to view athletics as activities that are used to enhance students’ overall college experience and are not the main purpose for the students’ attendance at the school. In its request for appeal, Northwestern shamelessly claims that scholarship football players are not “initially sought out, recruited and ultimately granted scholarships” for their athletic ability, but rather for their academic prowess.
Really Northwestern? You recruit your major Division I football team because of their biology and trigonometry grades? Let’s be real, scholarship athletes attend their respective schools to perform a service for the institution—to make them money through their performance on the playing field—and are compensated for their efforts through scholarships that include detailed conditions for realizing this payment for their services. It is time that the myth of the “student-athlete” is put to rest. Only time will tell whether this groundbreaking decision by the Chicago NLRB will have a lasting effect on college athletics. But good for you, Northwestern football, for challenging the NCAA to be honest with itself; and congratulations to the NLRB for not succumbing to the outside pressure and characterizing the relationship between scholarship athletes and their schools as it is, a true employer-employee relationship.
A custody battle in California over a child conceived through artificial insemination has become a controversial First Amendment debate. Jason Patric, a Hollywood actor, and his ex-girlfriend, Danielle Schreiber, are engaged in a custody fight over their four-year-old son, Gus. California law dictates that the mother of the child will receive full custody unless parental rights are established in writing before conception through artificial insemination.
As part of his campaign to obtain custody of Gus, Patric created the organization Stand Up for Gus to raise awareness of parental alienation for fathers in similar situations. Patric has used Gus’s name and likeness as part of the promotional campaign surrounding Stand Up for Gus. Schreiber subsequently sued Patric, allegedly that Patric is exploiting Gus for his own fame and using the media to garner support for his case. At stake in the lawsuit is an injunction that would bar Patric from even mentioning Gus’s name.
The outcome of the suit has the potential to set precedent not only for parental rights in cases of artificial insemination but also important First Amendment implications. As reproductive technology changes rapidly, the law has been slow to keep up with the corresponding custody issues. As this case highlights, the very right to speak about one’s child may be implicated in custody rights. This becomes more complicated when sperm donors are involved, since many would argue that they gave up their right to custody before conception even began.
Perhaps the level of publicity involved in this case sets up a unique situation in which custody should be required to use a child’s image and name on such a large scale. However, limiting a father’s right to speak his child’s name seems to step too far across First Amendment boundaries. The custody suit itself seems to imply the need for Patric to articulate a relationship with Gus and to establish the necessary connection between himself and his son. No doubt issues involving custody and technology will continue to evolve into unanticipated legal questions such as those that have arisen with the Patric case.