Diversity, equity, and inclusion is not just for urbanites: how Trump’s war on DEI will harm rural communities

Since his inauguration, President Trump has made it no secret that he intends to go after programs supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion ("DEI"). In the span of only a few weeks, Trump has repealed a handful of executive orders promoting DEI in the workplace. Notable among these is Executive Order 11246, signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965, which required federal contractors to "take affirmative action" to ensure that their employees were treated without regard to "race, creed, color, or national origin." 

To further his anti-DEI mission, President Trump has issued a slew of his own Executive Orders, including one on January 21, 2025, entitled Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity. In this Order, President Trump proclaims that DEI undermines the "traditional American values of hard work, excellence, and individual achievement" and exchanges these values for "an unlawful, corrosive, and pernicious identity-based spoils system."

Perhaps no group in the United States is more familiar with these "traditional American values of hard work" than the American working class, which largely overlaps with rural populations. However, rather than President Trump's anti-DEI stance protecting the interests of the working class, his war on DEI is more likely to disproportionately harm poor, rural communities.

In particular, gutting DEI initiatives will inhibit educational access for rural people. For example, Lane Wendell Fischer, a self-described "cisgender white man from Kansas" writing for The Daily Yonder, described how he has personally benefited from DEI programs. As a rural college applicant from a working class background, Fischer had accepted his fate of eternally paying off student loan debt in order to earn a college degree. However, he was encouraged to apply to an Ivy League school, and was accepted into Yale University with a near-full ride scholarship in part due to a DEI initiative designed to recruit rural students.

Fischer emphasizes the importance of rural representation in higher education and beyond. Without rural students in higher education, how will rural interests be represented in companies providing healthcare or insurance to their communities? Who will bring the rural perspective to authoritative bodies, such as Congress? 

Similarly, who will provide legal representation to rural communities? Given that many rural areas have become legal deserts, a lack of DEI initiatives prioritizing rural representation in schools will exacerbate the already existing lawyer shortage.

Further, President Trump's mission to root out DEI will not only impact educational access in rural communities, but will restrict environmental justice initiatives as well. For example, the President has revoked Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations, which directed federal agencies to center environmental justice and address "disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects" on minority and low-income populations.

So far, President Trump has already begun eliminating funding and positions related to environmental projects, including those designed to aid small communities. While projects which have already received funding are in the clear, those for which funds were pending will suffer. 

Examples of the communities that may be impacted include places like Danville, Arkansas, where a 122 mile EF-4 tornado rampaged the county in 2008. Because Danville is a poor, rural community, $2.5 million in federal funds was allocated to build a school tornado shelter.

In an interview with CNN, Professor Robert Bullard, a sociologist dubbed "the father of environmental justice," poignantly stated, "it's not DEI (to have) the right to breathe clean air (or) drink clean water." Unfortunately, the politicization of DEI will only serve to exaggerate rural vulnerabilities and disproportionately restrict the rights and resources rural people require to survive and thrive.

Selma deserves our attention more than one day a year

 On March 7, 1965, 600 activists began peacefully marching in Alabama from Selma to Montgomery to protest the rampant voter suppression of Black Americans. 

Activists chose Selma as the starting point for their march due to its infamous voter suppression, with the Alabama Governor George Wallace opposing desegregation and the local county sheriff opposing Black voter registration drives. As such, only one percent of voting-age Black citizens were registered to vote, and those who tried to vote often faced violence, like police brutality. 

As marchers crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma in 1965, 150 Alabama state troopers descended with little to no warning, violently and maliciously attacking and injuring the peaceful marchers with tear gas and clubs. 

The event became known as Bloody Sunday. The attack sparked national outrage that led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act later that year. The city of Selma, and the Edmund Pettus Bridge in particular, became an enduring symbol for the Civil Rights movement. In the 2020 Democratic primaries, for example, nearly every presidential candidate on the ticket visited Selma to commemorate the anniversary of Bloody Sunday.

As we approach the 60th anniversary of Bloody Sunday this year, politicians will surely flock to the city to walk across the bridge, take photos, and declare the importance of voting rights. However, Selma’s voter suppression and lack of resources, the very reason activists chose it as the location for the march nearly 60 years ago, has not been magically resolved.

Instead, Selma remains a deeply rural area with residents who feel abandoned by their government. Selma is located in the Black Belt region of south central Alabama and has a population of around 17,971 people. About 80 percent of that population is Black.

Ryan Zickgraf describes in his article “Politicians Come to Selma Every Year to Commemorate the Civil Rights Struggle, But Nothing Changes” how the downtown is largely made up of empty and crumbling stores and homes. He talks to Selma native, Owen Peak, who warns:

This is a do-or-die time here – we really need help.

Yet, residents feel they are not receiving help when they need it most. In Chris Arnade’s article “‘Still a city of slaves’- Selma, in the words of those who live there,” Council McReynolds, a lifetime resident of Selma, states that all the factories have closed and that:

Selma has been left behind, and folks are certainly not working together.

In 2020, Selma and the surrounding Dallas County had voter turnout of under 57 percent, among the worst in the state. In Jay Reeves’ article “Despite its civil rights history, Selma, Alabama sees steady voter turnout decline,” Resident Tyrone Clarke explains why, despite the extreme effort and bodily harm endured to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965, residents remain hesitant to visit the polls:

You have a whole lot of people who look at the conditions and don’t see what good it’s going to do for them. You know, ‘How is this guy or that guy being in office going to affect me in this little, rotten town here?’

The numbers tell a similar somber, distressing tale as Selma’s residents. As discussed in a previous blog post, Selma is Alabama’s poorest town. In 2022, the poverty rate in Selma was 29.5 percent. That same year, the median household income was $31,084, less than half the 2022 national average of $74,580. With a high poverty rate and without any prospect of a job, many people turn to using or dealing drugs.

Yet Selma, like the rest of Alabama, has some of the strictest policies concerning drugs, coupled with the second highest incarceration rate in the country; policies that disproportionately affect Black residents. One man from Selma, recently released from prison, commented:

Once I got my felony, I became the walking dead. I couldn’t do nothing. I couldn’t vote, I couldn’t drive, and I sure as hell couldn’t work, so I sat around doing nothing, until I started selling again.

A terrible cycle exists in Selma in which people cannot find a job, turn to drugs, get arrested, and then receive a felony on their record that disqualifies them from more work and the right to vote for politicians who will make the town better.

The yearly pilgrimage to Selma highlights the irony of celebrating a pivotal moment in civil rights history in a town that fails to reap any concrete benefits of that progress, and feels the lasting impact of centuries of discriminatory policies.

As politicians flock to Selma for their annual visit and photo-ops, they should prioritize Selma the other 364 days of the year. While the Voting Rights Act of 1965 should be celebrated, the work to push forward civil rights is far from over in Selma.

Moving backwards - Australia votes no for the indigenous voice to parliament

On Saturday 14 October, Australia was faced with a monumental opportunity to amend their Constitution with the nation's 45th referendum. The proposal was to recognise Australia's indigenous people - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders - through a constitutionally enshrined body that provides non-binding advice to Parliament. This body is known as 'The Voice'. 

The Voice has been a project in the works since 2017, when the Uluru Statement from the Heart was presented to Australian's. The Statement was devised by a 16-member Referendum Council that travelled around Australia to consult with indigenous Australian's in regional areas, about what they believed would be the best step forward in creating a more equal future. The purpose of the Statement is for indigenous Australian's to actually be given the opportunity to have input over policies that directly effect on them. 

In the Referendum Council's final report released in 2017, they put forward two recommendations:

1. Constitutional reform to implement an advisory body that represents Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders; and

2. An extra-constitutional Declaration of Recognition enacted by legislation. 

After seven years of discussion, the first recommendation has finally been acted upon - but not in the way it was intended.

For what could ultimately be deemed as the most important referendum in Australian history, the 'Yes' campaign has been provided an immensely disappointing lack of promotion by the Australian government, while also having to battle against a wave of false information disseminated through various media platforms. The failure to adequately promote The Voice has left a frightening portion of the Australian population completely unaware of what it is, where it came from and most importantly, why it's desperately needed. 

To my absolute shock and horror, an alarming number of those unaware to The Voice are indigenous Australian's living in rural and remote areas. Yes, you read that correctly. The knowledge of The Voice that has been devised as an incredibly important mechanism to represent indigenous Australian's, has not been provided to Indigenous Australian's in remote areas. If this doesn't illustrate the inequality of the urban- rural divide, I really don't know what will. 

For a population that is already disadvantaged with basic, fundamental human rights such as access to health care and education, it appears that the remote Indigenous population is being further discriminated against based on their geographical location. While it can be argued this is not an intentional form of discrimination, it also demonstrates the lack of access to basic resources that rural populations face. 

Paul Kabai, an environmental activist based in Torres Strait, explained that access to any source of reliable information regarding The Voice was an extreme challenge.  

Nothing has been explained to the elders here on the [Sabai] Island ... talking with people about voting, it's all 'what is this referendum vote all about? What is the no, what is the yes?' Voting is just around the corner and there is nothing. 

The burden of seeking information was placed upon the remote communities, but with some of these areas not even having knowledge of The Voice's existence in the first place, there wasn't even the option to self-educate. As a young, white woman, with both a tertiary and private school education, I have come to realise the absolute privilege I have to be informed about national politics. For what I thought was just a factor of everyday life, is actually something I have taken completely for granted - and for this I feel completely ashamed and embarrassed. 

The idea that a constitutionally recognised body, devised to represent me, as an attempt to create a more equal future after centuries of intergenerational trauma and discrimination, was not even brought to my knowledge is simply beyond comprehension. This is not only an example of geographical discrimination, this is a shameful representation of Australia and its care towards remote populations. 

The result of the referendum was released in the late hours Saturday evening - an overwhelming 60.05% vote against The Voice resulted from a majority no vote within all six states and one territory. The one territory to have a majority vote for yes was the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), the home to the seat of the Australian government, and Australia's capital city, Canberra. 

I think it would be completely ignorant to believe that this is merely coincidental. At this point, it is well known that The Voice was not well promoted by the government and the push from the Yes campaign came far too late. The fact that the ACT has the easiest access to any parliamentary based information - with more than half of the population within the ACT are government workers - speaks volumes about what could have happened if every state and territory received the same amount of education. 

The ACT is known as Australia's only city-state. Almost all of its 472,000 population live within urban areas and its agricultural industry provides an insignificant input to the economy. As can be seen below, geographically, information doesn't have very far to travel within the ACT, which places them in a serious point of advantage when it comes to being educated on governmental based issues and incentives. 

Australian Capital Territory marked out on an Australian map. 

Image sourced from Getty Images.

While I strongly believe that self-education is the responsible thing to do when it comes to exercising your right to vote, the reality is, the majority of Australian's are lazy. If they are not spoon fed exactly what they need to know, they simply will not attempt anything further. The fact that the ACT voted yes isn't because they are most progressive out of all states and territories, its because they have the easiest access to all the relevant information.

A further factor of concern around the dissemination of information to rural areas, is that indigenous Australian's make up the majority of rural and remote populations. The lack of engagement with these remote communities has been expressed by Mulgyin Jaru-Kitja and Gooniyandi woman, Corina Martin, in what can only be described as an accurate, yet heart breaking summary:

That's a problem with anything to do with Aboriginal people, we are the last lot to get information on ourselves.

While there are strong arguments that The Voice wasn’t the best solution to centuries of abuse and oppression, it was going to be a step in the right direction and the platform for future development. The Australian government and politics has never been a perfect system. So why all of sudden are we wanting a perfect solution? 

As explored in a previous blog post, the theory of 'interest convergence' coined by an American law professor seems to be applicable in this circumstance. Black people only achieve civil rights victories only where white and black interests converge. White Australia has demonstrated in this referendum, that indigenous rights are not within their interests. 

Australia is allegedly the country of giving everyone a ‘fair go’; but this decision has showcased anything but. Just like the kangaroo and emu (our national animal and bird, which can only physically move forwards, not backwards) on the coat of arms, we are meant to be a nation that has the ability to only move forwards. Yet here we are, running back to our white, conservative origins.

Scared straight: The legislative war on LGBTQ+ people

This year’s Pride felt different. June, a month that corporate America has for several years doted on as a rainbow festival, returned to its painful, humble beginnings: a protest. In 2023 alone, more than  540 anti-LGBTQ+ bills have been introduced in state legislatures, and 45 anti-LGBTQ+ laws have been enacted, with the majority targeting transgender and nonbinary people. Laws passed in certain states have banned gender-affirming care, allowed misgendering, banned drag performances, and censored school curriculums, including books.

Legislative attacks on the LGBTQ+ community are so worrisome that last week Canada issued a travel advisory to warn its LGBTQ+ community about U.S. laws that may affect them. The country’s Global Affairs department did not specify which states, instead advising travelers to “check relevant state and local laws” because “Canadians could face certain barriers and risks when they travel outside Canada.” In a similarly alarming vein, the Human Rights Campaign declared a ‘State of Emergency’ for LGBTQ+ Americans for the first time in its 40-year history following this year’s spike in anti-LGBTQ+ legislation. 

This past June, New York City’s West Village was dripping confetti, flags, and extravagant floats, celebrating the progress the city has made since the 1969 Stonewall Riots. Yet, amongst the crowds of urbanites in brightly colored bikinis and wigs, were signs that read, “Not All Country Boys are Bigots,” “Ban Assault Rifles Not Drag Queens,” or “Y’all Means All.” The dichotomy paints the bigger picture of Pride in America—one that includes the growing struggles of rural LGBTQ+ people. 

While overall support for the LGBTQ+ community has never been stronger, “nearly half (49%) of LGBT youth in rural areas and small towns stated that their community was somewhat or very unaccepting of LGBTQ people compared to just over a quarter (26%) of those in urban and suburban areas,” according to The Trevor Project. 

The urban-rural divide in LGBTQ+ community support hurts LGBTQ+ people. Equal rights cannot afford an “us” versus “them” rhetoric. Society has labeled some states as more “liberal” or “safer” than others, when in reality there are still pockets of "rural" and "red" in states like California. Read more about polarization and red LGBTQ+ lives here and here. 

Rural resistance to LGBTQ+ people and same-sex marriage can be attributed to a cultural divide. Luke Boso in “Rural Resentment and LGBTQ Equality,” posits that “[m]any rural Americans, especially in predominately white communities, feel that they are under attack” because policies that protect LGBTQ+ people from discrimination threaten “several core tenets of rural identity: community solidarity, self-reliance, and compliance with religiously informed gender and sexual norms.” Pro-LGBTQ+ legislation symbolizes a changing America and opposing LGBTQ+ rights is one mechanism to protect and assert rural identity.

Representation of LGBTQ+ people in mainstream media and popular culture suggests that LGBTQ+ people mainly live in cities or on the coasts. However, “an estimated three million or more LGBT people call rural America home,” according to The Movement Advancement Project’s 2019 Report. That number will likely grow, with “roughly 10% of youth identifying as LGBT,” and “with rural youth just as likely as urban youth to identify as LGBT.” Yet, rural LGBTQ+ people face additional challenges such as fewer alternatives to service providers when facing discrimination. You can read more about LGBTQ+ discrimination in healthcare here and here. 

Anti-LGBTQ+ legislation has become so threatening that families have fled their states out of fear that their children could face prejudice or violence. In a recent VICE News video, parents discuss leaving their schools and jobs behind to keep their transgender children safe from alt-right extremists who want to force their kids to be someone they are not. The Shappley family from Texas discuss leaving for a state with laws in place to prevent parents of trans children from being extradited after they move. Meanwhile, the Trujilo family from Arizona discuss their frustration with their state laws banning transgender kids from playing sports and getting gender-affirming surgery. 

“I get really freaked out,” Daniel Trujilo (15 years old) says, “they want to arrest parents or pediatricians and people that are helping.” 

“We are often reduced to just body parts,” says Daniel. 

“We have all of our family and friends here, and Daniel would lose more than he would gain,” says Lizette Trujilo (Daniel’s mother). 

Yet, there is hope to found as LGBTQ+ representation in government increases. Last week, Fabian Nelson, 38, became Mississippi’s first openly LGBTQ+ legislator. “When he campaigned in South Jackson, he talked about the city’s water crisis and about crime. When he campaigned in his district's rural areas, he talked about broadband access and economic development.” While Nelson’s platform strictly focused on specific issues facing his district, he wants people to understand that Mississippi has someone to fight anti-LGBTQ+ legislation. 

“Failure to protect” laws fail victims of domestic violence: The case of Tondalao Hall

Previously on this blog, I have written about child welfare laws in rural areas, specifically as they relate to poverty and neglect. While the kinds of statutes that I discussed in that post were not exclusive to rural areas, they had greater negative impacts in rural areas. Similarly, “failure to protect” laws have more dire impacts in rural places. Because of the legal and medical deserts which pervade rural areas, survivors of abuse, who are often implicated in failure-to-protect cases, tend to have poorer outcomes within the criminal justice system. This is oftentimes due to the fact that they do not (or rather cannot) seek assistance “in time,” for authorities to not consider them to be contributing to abuse, as will be discussed below. For more information on legal deserts, you can start with the blog posts here, and here. As to medical deserts, a good beginning can be found here, and here.

In the dependency context “failure to protect” statutes are ones which allow CPS to allege neglect on the part of the victim-parent in a domestic violence situation. This occurs either because the child has witnessed the domestic violence occurring between the parent and another individual, or where one individual is directly abusing the child and the other party does not report it or take other measures to stop it. In dependency court this means that, at least in some states, a child can be removed from the care and custody of the victim-parent.

Twenty-nine states have specific failure to protect laws within their penal codes as well. Twenty-two states have more general provisions which allow for the interpretation of failure to protect as falling under the code sections. All but one of those states’ laws call for jail or prison time upon violation of the statutes. Six states’ laws call for life in prison, depending on the severity of the abuse. These six states are all rural: Nebraska, Missouri, Oklahoma, New Mexico, West Virginia, and North Carolina. Other states call for the equivalent, with sentences of fifty years or more. These are all also largely rural, with states such as Texas,Tennessee, Iowa, and Indiana, making up the list.

Oklahoma, noted above as allowing life imprisonment for “failure-to-protect,” has a fairly standard statute which states: “any parent or other person who shall willfully or maliciously engage in enabling child abuse shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections not exceeding life imprisonment.” It continues to explain that “failure to protect” a child from abuse, constitutes abuse under this statute:

as used in this subsection, ‘child abuse’ means the willful or malicious harm or threatened harm or failure to protect from harm or threatened harm to the health, safety, or welfare of a child under eighteen (18) years of age by another, or the act of willfully or maliciously injuring, torturing or maiming a child under eighteen (18) years of age by another.

Laws such as these, which allow for removal of children and penalization of victim-parents, are deeply flawed. They create more issues for children and parents than they solve. To start, removal of children from non-abusive parents in “marginal cases,” such as ones where the only issue is witnessing of domestic violence, creates severe medical, psychological, and sociological issues for the children. In the short term, family separation can cause developmental regression, difficulty sleeping, depression, and acute stress. In the long-term it can cause chronic health problems such as cardiovascular disease, hypertension, obesity, and decreased longevity.

Further, studies show that removal in such instances leads to higher rates of delinquency and teenage births, and lower earnings as adults for the children involved. Longitudinal studies have found that removal into foster care also leads to adult arrest rates two to three times higher for children in marginal cases than for those who remained with their families.

As to those children that are not removed from their families, researchers have shown in those cases that children have poorer short-term educational and medical outcomes. For instance, children exposed to domestic violence had worse attendance and lower math and reading comprehension levels than their non-affected peers. One U.S. study also found greater weight increases for infants aged 6-12 months among mothers whose violence had ended at 6 months than those whose violence continued. A follow-up study found an increased risk for obesity at age 5 for those same children. However, given these issues are short-term, and that removal causes a greater host of issues long-term and overall, as discussed above, removal, which occurs with “failure-to-protect” laws may not be the answer to the problem. Still proponents often ignore this and give the main reason for their support of the laws as the high correlation between domestic violence and (direct, non-accidental) child abuse.

Several legal and social issues arise with respect to these laws. One of the greatest issues with such laws is the chilling effect they have on domestic violence victims to report the abuse, and to seek legal or medical aid. Generally, “failure to protect” laws create mandatory reporters out of the police officers who are responding to domestic disturbance calls, the medical professionals treating a victim’s injuries, and the aid workers in shelters and counseling centers. This leaves victims with no one to go to, because they fear either having their children removed from them, or fear being arrested themselves. In rural areas, where medical, legal, and social resources are already depleted this further alienation of domestic violence victims creates even greater problems. If rural victims were already less likely to come forward, “failure to protect” laws make it completely unthinkable for them.

Another major issue with such laws is their discriminatory effect. On average, 1 in 4 women are victims of domestic violence, compared to 1 in 9 men. This means that more often than not, women are the ones being charged with or accused of “failure to protect.” This effect is particularly visible in Oklahoma, which imprisons more women per capita than any other state or country, while also ranking in the top five states for women experiencing the most extreme domestic violence from their partners. In fact, more than half of the incarcerated women’s population in Oklahoma Are survivors of domestic abuse.

A story that exemplifies many of the problems with failure-to-protect laws, is that of Tondalao Hall. Almost 20 years ago, Hall, who was about 20 at the time, was sentenced to 30 years in prison for failing to protect her children from abuse at the hands of her partner, Robert Braxton. Braxton testified in court that he had abused their 3-month old child, breaking her rib and femur, stating that he had grabbed her “too tightly” and “cranked” her leg. Later, hall testified that on top of abusing their child, Braxton had choked, punched, and grabbed her by the neck on several occasions. Despite the fact that enforcement officials conceded that Hall never abused the children herself, they stated that she allowed Braxton to watch the children, and that she took too long to report the abuse.

However, prosecutors failed to show any evidence that Hall knew of the abuse to her children, and they failed to consider the fact that she had actively been planning an escape from Braxton at the time the case arose. Braxton negotiated a plea deal, bringing his sentence down to 10 years total: 2 years in prison, and 8 years probation. But, Braxton got credit for time served the day he pleaded and walked free. Hall was released three years ago, at the end of 2019, only after a unanimous vote by the Oklahoma Parole and Probation Board. Her children were 15, 17, and 19 by the time of her release.

Worse still is that Tondaloa Hall is not an exception, she is the rule. As of three years ago, in Oklahoma alone, 41 women were imprisoned under failure-to-protect laws. Fourteen of them received greater sentences than the abuser themselves. It is imperative that all states, not just ones with greater rural populations, get rid of their “failure to protect” laws. On top of the issues discussed above, these laws blame victims, and therefore perpetuate a culture of leniency towards abusers as it is “not their fault,” they abuse. Further, these laws actively re-victimize the survivors of domestic violence, taking away any and all autonomy from them. In such states the survivors cannot seek aid when they want to, safely plan an escape, or support or raise their children. This is because, with everyone from whom they may seek aid being designated a mandated reporter under the laws, they cannot control their entrance into a new life, in the same way they cannot control their current one under the fist of an abusive partner.

It is understandable that states want to be harsh on child abuse. If that is the goal, however, they should be harsh to the actual abusers, not on those who are also their victims.

Rural women are vital to global food systems

As the United Nations Women Watch's overview on food security identifies, rural women not only act as food producers and agricultural entrepreneurs, they also informally facilitate food security and stability in their households and communities (another post on women in farming is here). Expanding on the latter point, both the UN Women's research on rural women and girls and a 2019 Root Capital article, "How Climate Change Impacts Women Farmers," suggests that rural women are well positioned to foster resilient agricultural hubs, due to demonstrated skill at community networking, mobilization, and adaption in the face of environmental threats and economic crises. 

Over the past few years, the International Day of Rural Women has consistently endeavored to draw attention to this often unappreciated reality. In 2021 the theme, "Rural Women Cultivating Good Food for All," spotlighted how investing in rural women engaged in agribusiness could help alleviate global food insecurity. Food insecurity, which has been exacerbated by recent climate crises (discussed here) and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic (discussed here), affects upwards of 800 million people worldwide, including over 33 million Americans, who are disproportionately from communities of color and in rural areas (previous posts on food insecurity in the U.S. here and here). 

The premise, as informed by National Geographic's article, "Empowering female farmers to feed the world," is that gender-specific barriers, such as discriminatory practices, limited access to resources, and misogynistic social norms, prevent rural women from maximizing their agricultural and economic potentials. Consider, despite equivalent competency, on average women-run farms tend to produce smaller crop yields and generate less profit than those run by men. If barriers were eliminated, rural women might be able to close the gap between them and their male counterparts, in ways that would also strategically amplify their existing contributions to global poverty and hunger reduction. Citing the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the National Geographic article estimates that if women farmers were provided equal access to resources, then global food production by women could increase by up to 30%, providing food to roughly 150 million additional people. 

While obstacles to rural women farmers vary depending on regional particularities, certain impediments can be identified fairly consistently across contexts. Specifically, as discussed in a 2018 World Bank story, "Breaking the 'Grass Ceiling': Empowering Women Farmers," inequitable access to both land rights and financing opportunities, influenced by historic and ongoing gender-bias, emerges as a common limiting phenomenon. Synthesizing the World Bank story and the National Geographic article, this can be seen in certain developing countries where women comprise half of the agricultural labor force, but only make up 10% of landowners. Without autonomy over the land they are farming, women cannot structure land use and farming agreements to maximize their benefit. As a related matter, smallholder women farmers in these areas can struggle to access credit in the face of insufficient collateral and sexist cultural norms. Accordingly, they must operate under a funding deficit that can place advanced tools and techniques capable of improving production out of reach.

Focusing now on rural America, one can see that parallel limitations similarly inhibit women farmers. On one hand, as noted by the American Farmland Trust's 2021 report on "Women in Agriculture," women are currently outpacing men in agricultural education programs throughout the country (at UC Davis, in 2019-2020, 75% of students who earned a bachelor's degree in agriculture-related majors were women). Despite this, women are the principle operator on only 14% of U.S. farming operations. The American Farmland Trust report contextualizes this statistic within additional research documenting women farmers' obstacles to obtaining land, including exclusion from networks, challenges accessing credit and obtaining conservation support, and patriarchal norms that prioritize male heirs.

The American Farmland Trust report further notes that disparities in access to loans and capital hit women farmers of color the hardest. This is, in part, a result of women and farmers of color tending to run relatively smaller operations with lower revenues and weaker credit histories, but also the product of implicit bias in resource and loan provision. Additionally, as theorized in a 2022 National Institute of Health study, "Decolonizing agriculture in the United States," the predominant agricultural narrative in the U.S. has been constructed around white masculinity in ways that exclude women and people of color from our cultural imaginary of who a farmer is and should be. 

Juxtaposition of two feminist projects grappling with these issues shows a range of approaches being employed to support women farmers in the United States. The first, a One Earth-backed project, "Supporting Black Women farmers working to expand regenerative agriculture in the Southeastern US," embodies concrete resource-based programmatic support that must be paramount. Specifically, this project will expand on the American Farmland Trust's existing partnership with the Black Family Land Trust in order to promote land access, enhanced viability, and increased resilience for black women farmers. The second, FarmHer, a social media campaign initiated by Marji Guyler-Alaniz in 2013, represents a supplementary resistance strategy. This internet-based photo project aims to update modern conceptions of farmers in ways that recognize, celebrate, and recruit women.

Beyond these select examples, SeedChange, an organization committed to supporting farmers and combatting hunger, poverty, and climate change, provides broader recommendations for empowering women farmers. Specifically, its publication, "Women Seed Change," advocates for the following actions:

(1) strengthen women's leadership by funding women-led farmer organizations ... (2) prioritize women's knowledge and agency in climate resilient agriculture ... (3) invest in women farmers, including youth and indigenous women ... (4) develop gender equity frameworks to guide policies ... (5) enhance women's agency, decision-making power and rights over land and productive resources [and] (6) uphold the rights of women ...    

In short, rural women in agriculture are vital to global food systems, and they need robust support from a range of domestic and international institutions.

Sexual and gender minority health care in rural America (Part I): The state of affairs

When I told my family practitioner that I was having sex with men, he walked out of the consultation room and never treated me again. The medical profession was not, as I had naively hoped, immune to the stigmas that permeated the rest of my life as a gay kid living in rural Virginia (prior post on LGBTQIA+ bullying here). 

A few years later, I expressed an interest to my replacement doctor in starting Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP), a preventive treatment commonly used by gay and bisexual men, among other at risk populations, which decreases the risk of contracting HIV sexually by 99% according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (prior post on rural HIV treatment here). My doctor informed me that he had "never heard of that" and was "not comfortable prescribing" it to me.  

My experiences with health care providers are far from unique for sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations residing in rural America. In a CBS News article headlined "Transgender people in rural America struggle to find doctors willing or able to provide care," Tammy Rainey, a transgender woman who needs hormone estrogen, details her inability to access gender affirming care near her hometown in rural northern Mississippi. I mention Rainey, specifically, because my own doctor's words echo in her doctor's response to her request for an estrogen prescription: 

I just don't feel like I know enough about that. I don't want to get involved in that.

I now drive an additional 35 minutes towards Washington, D.C. for doctor's appointments. Rainey has to drive 170 miles round trip to pick up her estrogen from a provider in Memphis, Tennessee.

It is well documented, including by the CDC, that rural Americans suffer significantly poorer health outcomes relative to urban Americans. These disparities arise from a myriad of social determinants of rural health, many of which have been discussed on this blog, including financial constraints and the intertwined phenomena of rural doctor shortages and hospital closures. 

SGMs in rural America, a population estimated to be up to 3.8 million, face the same health disparities as their non-SGM counterparts, but also confront unique challenges as SGMs that are amplified by the rural experience. Specifically, heteronormativity, discrimination, and stigma distinguish the health of SGM groups in ways that demand specific attention from academics, public health professionals, and policymakers. 

As Ilan Meyer identifies in an editorial in the American Journal of Public Health, from an institutional perspective heteronormativity contributes to health disparities by disadvantaging SGM people in: 

the selection of research priorities, the design of public health prevention and intervention programs, the development of standards of care, access to care, and the provision of culturally sensitive care.

A WVUToday article from last year summarizing Zachary Ramsey's research highlights specific examples of obstacles SGMs face as a result of heteronormativity in health care systems, including insurance plans that fail to cover imperative SGM treatments and a knowledge gap between health care providers' training and SGM health needs. The existence of this knowledge gap is evident in a 2019 study conducted by the Movement Advancement Project (MAP), "Where We Call Home: Transgender People in Rural America," which found 23% of transgender people in rural America had to teach their provider about transgender health care needs in order to receive necessary care.

Zooming in, a 2021 Center for American Progress article, "Protecting and Advancing Health Care for Transgender Adult Communities," details how recurring exposure to discrimination, stigma, and the threat of violence, in conjunction with disadvantageous sociopolitical and economic risk factors, materially contributes to worsened overall health outcomes for SGMs, such as increased rates of chronic health conditions. Notably, mental illness among SGMs resulting from regular psychological stress is of particular concern in rural areas, where specialized SGM mental health resources are almost never available.   

Moreover, as I experienced in rural Virginia, the trauma of anti-SGM discrimination and stigma is frequently reenacted by poor clinical care. According to MAP's 2019 analysis, one in three transgender people in rural America experienced discrimination by their health care provider in the past year. Similarly, a 2021 Williams Institute survey found 38.3% of SGM patients expressed concern about being judged negatively when accessing health care due to their SGM status. Experience and fear of stigma in health care settings has significant implications beyond concerns of bedside manner. A 2016 study published in PLOS ONE identified that higher stigma in health care settings directly correlated to lower utilization of primary care services by rural SGM groups, thereby contributing to health disparities.       

Refocusing on rural contexts, MAP's 2019 analysis highlights four ways rural life exacerbates negative health consequences experienced by SGMs: (1) increased visibility, (2) ripple effects, (3) fewer alternatives, and (4) fewer support structures. First, increased visibility, arising from decreased population and heightened sense of community, renders non-conforming SGMs more at risk for harassment. Second, the intimate nature of rural communities increases the likelihood that ostracization by a portion of the community, such as a religious body, will have a ripple effect that spreads unlike it would in an urban setting. Third, scarcity of rural health care providers is especially challenging for SGMs because accessible providers often are not informed on their distinct needs and sometimes are religiously affiliated, such that, they can deny service under state religious exemption laws. Finally, geographic isolation means fewer support structures generally, a reality which leaves rural SGMs struggling to find adequate support in virtually every area ranging from social to legal.        

While I have painted a bleak picture of the American public health landscape as it pertains to SGM populations in rural areas, there are actionable ways in which we as individuals, local communities, and a nation can improve this state of affairs (prior post on improving transgender health care in rural Colorado here). Critically, adopting an intersectional framework that centers SGMs existing at the axis of multiple marginalized identities, specifically transgender people of color, is necessary for effective mitigation of SGM health disparities. 

Covid stimulus bill includes $4 billion debt relief program for Black farmers

Most experts expect the Democratic-controlled Senate to pass President Biden’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill in the coming days, although negotiations will continue as Republicans use various procedural levers to amend some aspects of the bill. 

This will be the third stimulus package passed by the United States Congress since the start of the pandemic, and like the previous two, this bill (the American Rescue Plan) will also include funding for agricultural programs (see agriculture provisions in the March 2020 CARES Act and the December 2020 stimulus package). 

However, one new centerpiece of this round of agriculture funding is a $4 billion program of debt relief for “socially disadvantaged” farmers. More precisely, the program would provide farmers of color with direct payment to pay off U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) loans and USDA-guaranteed loans and provide an additionally 20% in funding to cover related taxes. 

Today, 98% of agricultural land is owned by white people. Slavery and the Homestead Act of 1862 primarily benefitted white men and disadvantaged women. Further, outdated tenancy-in-common laws (sometimes called heirs’ property) that trigger land partition persist in many states, leading to widespread land loss for many racial and ethnic groups, particularly African American families in the South. Despite these giant obstacles, law professor Jessica Shoemaker notes, “[B]y 1890, African Americans represented 14 percent of all farmers and owned roughly 15 million acres.”

Yet, over the past century, Black land ownership plummeted dramatically. Black land owners lost 12 million acres of farmland, which has especially impacted people in Southern states as illustrated in the below graph from the New York Times. For example, Black farmers in Mississippi lost 800,000 acres of land from 1950-1964, which researchers have calculated would be a $6.6 billion loss today. 

This bill merges a 2020 proposal by New Jersey Senator Cory Booker with a proposal by newly-elected Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock. 

Despite the bill’s likely passage, there is still plenty of pushback. Former Republican New York lieutenant governor, Betsy McCaughey, argues in an op-ed that the bill won’t solve any problems “because the restaurants that accounted for half the demand for . . . [farmers’] products aren’t buying.” What is noteworthy about this reasoning is its focus on the plight of New York restaurants—an urban-centered argument. 

Additionally, Georgia Republican Rep. Austin Scott argues that the allocations are unjustified because there is no proof of discrimination against Black farmers. He offered as a better model the 1997 Pigford v. Glickman class action, which resulted in large settlements paid out by the USDA for discriminating in its allocation of farm loans. (For more background on the history of civil rights and the USDA, including Pigford, see this prior blog post.)

However, Scott’s argument only underscores the need for legislative action here because it shows Black farmers’ reasonable distrust in the USDA as an institution due to its historic discriminatory practices. As journalist Mark Bittman writes in an op-ed for the New York Times:

Black farmers understandably have called the USDA “the last plantation.” 

Moreover, this bill reflects an important public policy interest in preserving Black agricultural land ownership, which is already at such low numbers. Many Black-operated farms are smaller and have less income, which can be precarious in an industry where farmers regularly rely on credit to finance operations. As a result, the USDA recently suspended debt collections for distressed borrowers, but this may not be enough wiggle room for some farmers. 

Senator Booker believes this is only the start if the aim is to increase the number of Black farmers. Shoemaker observes that “10 percent of U.S. agricultural land— or roughly 100 million acres—will change hands over the next five years based on natural aging events,” which creates opportunities for meaningful intervention for the next administration. Bittman proposes the U.S. federal government can buy out “buy land from farmers cashing out for retirement so that rather than being absorbed by existing large landholders, the land can be redistributed to smaller or beginning farmers of color.” Additionally, law professor Thomas W. Mitchell recommends state legislatures adopt the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act to stave off Black land loss by updating tenancy-in-common and partition laws—a proposal that recently passed in Florida, Mississippi, and Virginia. Hopefully, this bill signifies potential political momentum.

Black Lives Matter in rural America (Part VII): The flip side of the coin

I wrote this post in early June about the many rural and small town places where Black Lives Matters activists were taking the issue to the streets.

Among the small towns I was delighted to be able to mention in my June post was Harrison, Arkansas, population 12,943.  Harrison happens to be the place where I was born, and I grew up 20 miles south of there in neighboring Newton County, a place I've frequently written about here on the blog (see "my hometown" tag/label and the "Law and Order in the Ozarks" series).

Well, in contrast to that May protest in sympathy with Black Lives Matter, great obloquy fell on Harrison a few weeks ago when a YouTuber named Rob Bliss, having spent at least three days there, made and published a video about the place and its people--a video that has gone viral.  Bliss spent his time mostly holding a Black Lives Matter sign near the WalMart, and he had a go pro camera under his shirt, the lens peeking out from a hole or some such to record his interactions.  He then released a video montage of the most racist things people said in response to him and his sign.  After the video went viral, and the Washington Post picked it up, along with a number of other media outlets, including the nearby Springfield News-Leader, about 80 miles away in southwest Missouri.  The short video--just over 2 minutes--has now been viewed several million times on YouTube.  

Here's an excerpt from Gregory J. Holman's story for the News-Leader:

"Harrison, Arkansas is the most racist town in the United States," a man in the video says, characterizing Harrison as "Ku Klux Klan Headquarters." (According to public records databases, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan national director Thomas Robb uses at least three Harrison post office boxes, and the KKK website published makes reference to "The Knights Party whose national headquarters is in Harrison, AR.")

Then the video shifts to the parking lot of a Walmart and depicts a number of interactions between people visiting the store location — none of whom appeared dressed in stereotypical Klan hooded robes — and the man making the video.

"Have a little pride in your race, brother," shouted the male driver of a minivan. "White pride worldwide!"

"I wouldn't stay after dark, man," another man tells the filmmaker.

The video also shows several people making obscene hand gestures toward the camera and using profanity. In one brief conversation, a person says "(Expletive redacted) Black lives!" In another, a person uses a slur word typically intended to dehumanize Jewish people.

The video also shows a man wearing a Walmart employee badge asking the filmmaker to leave the store location.

The Washington Post story by Jaclyn Peiser includes this paragraph:

Bliss is a director and producer based in Los Angeles and is known for making viral stunts aimed at socially conscious messages — including a video from 2014 when he recorded a woman being constantly heckled while walking around New York. .... [Bliss] edited his [Harrison] footage down to a two-minute video, which he argues provides vivid firsthand evidence that racism is alive and well in parts of the country.

The Post story's link to the Bliss video shows the opening screen, which features Bliss standing in front of a billboard for two entities I'd never previously heard of "AltRightTV.com" and "WhitePride Radio.com."

Screenshot from Rob Bliss video taken in Harrison, Arkansas, July 2020

To me, the presence of this billboard is a big part of the story--a bigger deal than what folks said in Bliss's carefully curated video.  Here's my thinking:  I believe if Bliss stood for three days holding a Black Lives Matter sign, on virtually any street corner in America--or outside any Walmart in the country--he could gather an equivalent or greater number of racist or racially insensitive comments than appear in his Harrison video.  In fact, when I think about the Walmart closest to where I live in suburban Sacramento, the Walmart in Orangevale, California, I have no doubt of that.  This does not in any way justify what the people in the Harrison video said--nor what the ones in Orangevale might say given the chance.  My point is that these racist attitudes exist everywhere--not just in a place where a branch of the KKK has decided to set up shop, which is why Bliss selected that place.

What you would not see in Orangevale, California--or anywhere else in greater Sacramento--is a billboard like this one.  Why, I wondered, would the owners of the billboard, the Harrison Sign Company, permit this sort of advertising?  More on that below.

By the way, I did open the home pages of AltRightTV.com and WhitePrideRadio.com, and the headlines didn't look different from those you'd see on Fox News or OAN.   I'm not saying this makes these media outlets ok or unproblematic.  I'm saying that, on the surface, the only clear red flags the day I visited the sites were the names of the sites themselves.  I didn't click through to any content. 

Here's what the Mayor of Harrison said in response to this statement at the end of July:

On July 27 a video recorded in Harrison was released on various social media platforms. It has since been viewed by over 3 million people, who now know Harrison only through this distorted portrayal. On July 28, Harrison Regional Chamber of Commerce President and CEO, Bob Largent; Boone County Judge, Robert Hathaway; and I released a joint statement denouncing the video as unfairly representing Harrison and eroding decades of work to overcome our past racist reputation. I would like to take this opportunity to share some thoughts, feelings, and opinions I have about the situation.

​When the video first aired, several people, including me, came together to look into the truth behind this video and its creator, Rob Bliss. I believe this was nothing less than a professional “hit job.” Our opinion became clear: Rob Bliss, and a partner, both from Los Angeles, are professional agitators who saw an opportunity to exploit Harrison. Bliss presents himself as an “agent of change” when, in fact, he is only interested in making money, and doesn’t actually care about the issue. He has done similar stunts in other places. After posting his highly edited videos, he immediately starts a “Go Fund Me” page where he collects thousands of dollars in donations, in addition to the money he is paid by YouTube and other social media for views. He promotes his video and “GoFundMe” page until he has eked out all the money he can, and then he moves on to his next project. If you doubt this, I challenge you to do your own investigation. The words of the people in the video were way beyond horrible and cannot be justified. 

Those individuals should be ashamed of themselves. However, it is important to know that Bliss and partner spent at least three days in Harrison on a very busy street and in front of a very busy Wal-Mart. We estimate that about 80,000 people would have passed by in those 3 days. They were able to, through provocative comments of their own, which they did not record, get just a couple dozen of those people to respond with disgusting comments, making up just two minutes of highly inflammatory video. We have a local Black Lives Matter group that have been leading peaceful and productive protests. Rob Bliss did not contact this group at all for a partnership. Quinn Foster, organizer of the local Black Lives Matter protests, denounces Rob Bliss as a profiteer, out to make money from a movement in which he has no real interest. Visit the Facebook page of Ozark Hate Watch for more information.

​Many other southern towns and Harrison’s distant past includes some well-documented racist acts of violence. The town and our local race relations group have worked over many decades to overcome our history of racism and its lingering reputation. We are not the racist town we have been made out to be. The fact that the Ku Klux Klan and leader, have settled in nearby Zinc Arkansas, and that a few supporters have rented billboards to display their hateful message has only added to Harrison’s undeserved notoriety. Our race relations task force has worked to successfully remove four of the five privately owned billboards. They continue trying to remove the last one. Neither Bliss, nor the media has contacted our task force or our Black Lives Matter group for comments or insight into the true nature of the majority of people in Harrison.

​Since the video went “viral,” over three million people have seen. The story has reached at least 14 major media outlets, including an article yesterday in the Washington Post. We have been flooded with emails, social media posts, and phone calls from people spewing hate, vile comments and vague threats. This is one of the most devastating things that I have been through as Mayor, and there have been many. I know that when we are attacked, our community can come together to fight this. We must pray that we can move beyond this and become a better community because of it. I urge you to combat hateful comments with something good. Your opinion is powerful. Please respectfully stand up for our town whenever you get the chance.

These comments made by some of our very own citizens were reprehensible and horrible beyond belief. Like many communities across the country, we do have racist people among us, but we are not going to let a few define our city going forward. In the last few decades, we have taken community efforts to denounce racism on all fronts and we are committed to doing more.

The Harrison Chamber of Commerce issued a statement on August 9 that included this language:

The Board of Directors of the Harrison Regional Chamber of Commerce voted unanimously on August 7th to condemn racism in all forms and the hateful speech heard in a recent viral video filmed in the city. The Board’s action also formally requested the Boone County Quorum Court and Harrison City Council to do the same, as well as support legislation imposing enhanced sentencing for convictions associated with hate crimes. A proposed resolution for each body accompanied the Chamber’s letter. 

“To do what is right, our city and county must immediately address the legitimate concern of racism in Harrison and Boone County,” said Melissa Collins, principal broker at Weichert, Realtors-Market Edge, and chair of the Chamber Board. She continued, “Simply put, there should be zero tolerance for hate speech in our community. The Chamber’s unanimous vote on Friday, coupled with immediate action by the Court and Council, will be the largest show of community unity in anyone’s memory.”

Dr. Stewart Pratt, Superintendent of the Harrison Public Schools and a three-year Chamber Director, noted that the suggested resolutions reflect the core beliefs of area schools that all students are of equal value. Dr. Pratt stated, “I hope the Board’s action and suggested resolutions will encourage and assist our governmental entities to reflect the same beliefs about the importance of all persons and denounce the use of ‘Hate Speech’ and violence based on an individual’s race, sex, or socioeconomic status.”

A 2013 Democrat-Gazette story about a Harrison billboard that said "Anti-Racist is a Code Word for Anti-White," included this information about the history of Harrison as a "sundown town," as well as its current association with the KKK:

Harrison has been dogged by image problems since race riots more than a century ago. The problem was exacerbated in the 1980s when Thom Robb, leader of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, moved to Zinc in Boone County and began using a Harrison post office box for the group’s mailing address.

The Encyclopedia of Arkansas History & Culture says, “Though nowhere near as murderous as other race riots across the state, the Harrison Race Riots of 1905 and 1909 drove all but one African American from Harrison, creating by violence an allwhite community similar to other such ‘sundown towns’ in northern and western Arkansas” where blacks were not welcome at night.

The passage of time hasn’t put to rest Harrison’s reputation as racially biased. Harrison’s City Advertising Tourist Promotion Commission continues to consider hiring a marketing firm at an initial cost of $30,000 to combat the bad image.

That 2013 Democrat-Gazette story also included this information about who paid for that prior billboard:

Claude West, who owns Harrison Sign Co., said he had the “wrap” — the printed material — put on the billboard but he’s “just the middleman.” West wouldn’t say who leased the 12-by-24-foot billboard at $200 a month for a year.

A young man leased the billboard about three weeks ago, saying the statement on the billboard referred to the government, West said. The man told West anyone who complains about the government is called a racist, apparently referring to the fact that President Barack Obama is black.

“I’m not a racist, but I don’t like Obamacare,” West said, paraphrasing the man’s explanation.

“Listening to him, I didn’t see anything wrong with this,” said West. “Would I do it again? Probably. I don’t know why it has exploded like this. I think there’s a tension. I think people are uncomfortable about where the country is going.”

People, including the man who leased the billboard, have a right to free speech, he said.

* * * 

He said he has taken calls from around the country about the billboard and has been called “racist” for allowing it, an accusation he denies. He plans to make himself available during the protest today to answer questions, he said.

Also on the point about Harrison, Arkansas as the headquarters  of the KKK, I note from this piece published in the Chronicle of Higher Education two years ago that a town in North Carolina also claimed that "distinction," or more precisely that it was the home of the KKK.  Those may be two different things:  current headquarters v. home.  Hmmm.  Anyway, as I have written earlier, it's interesting to have grown up so nearby and never to have heard in my youth that Harrison had this reputation and supposed distinction.

I did not see this YouTuber story covered at all by the Harrison Daily Times, but I don't subscribe and may have missed something.  I do get the Harrison Daily Times daily newsletter by email--a default because I subscribe to the sister publication, the Newton County Times.  I understand from a friend who writes for the Arkansas Democrat Gazette that the statewide paper didn't cover vlogger Bliss's Harrison expedition because his intended audience was not local or Arkansas, but rather national.  Also, importantly, Mr. Bliss did not return the reporter's phone calls.  So, that statewide outlet did not run it as a news story, though Democrat-Gazette columnist Mike Masterson has written two columns about the matter.  I don't have access to them since I don't subscribe to the paper. 

In other "Black Lives Matter" news out of rural America, is this story, dateline Douglas County, Nevada (population 46,997), where the County Sheriff Daniel J. Coverley told the county library not to call 911 in case of an emergency.  Why was he miffed (and acting like a child)?  Because the library trustees had indicated their intention to discuss at an upcoming meeting a "statement supporting diversity and inclusion."  Here's what the sheriff wrote to the library:

Due to your support of Black Lives Matter and the obvious lack of support or trust with the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office, please do not feel the need to call 911 for help. I wish you good luck with disturbances and lewd behavior, since those are just some of the recent calls my office has assisted you with in the past.

The sheriff later recanted his threat.

Postscript August 23:  Re my comments above comparing Harrison, Arkansas to Orangevale, California, here's a headline from the Sacramento Bee a few days ago:  "Orangevale man accused of leading white supremacist group has gun order extended for year."  The judge commented in court in announcing the decision:

No one has the right to instill fear in other members of the community or act insidiously toward a targeted group such as a Jewish community or an African-American community. ... These are not jokes. He shouldn’t have the privilege of owing a firearm.

Like I said, sadly, white supremacists are everywhere.