The BBC reports a second arrest in connection with the Finsbury Park terror attack.

A man has been arrested on suspicion of posting an offensive Facebook post about the London Finsbury Park attack.

Police said a 37-year-old, believed to be the son of an owner of the Rhondda Cynon Taff company whose van was used in Monday’s attack, is in custody.

Richard Evans allegedly posted: “It’s a shame they don’t hire out steam rollers or tanks could have done a tidy job then.”

Oy.

That’s a disgusting thing to say, and it should have been (and probably was) reported to Facebook, and Facebook should have removed it promptly and perhaps suspended the poster. But arrested?

It’s straightforwardly a crime in the UK to post “an offensive Facebook post”?

I post arguably “offensive” Facebook posts multiple times every day. There are whole large busy Facebook groups that post nothing but unquestionably offensive – and sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic etc – commentary and images. I wonder if the London police have found all the offensive posts about Finsbury Park, and considered charging all the perps.

No, I don’t really, because I’m confident they have far more urgent things to do. But then why this?

Guest post by Lady Mondegreen.

There are numerous parallels between the way trans women are depicted in the media and the way that they have been depicted by some feminist theorists. While many feminists—especially younger ones who came of age in the 1980s and 1990s—recognize that trans women can be allies in the fight to eliminate gender stereotypes, other feminists—particularly those who embrace gender essentialism—believe that trans women foster sexism by mimicking patriarchal attitudes about femininity, or that we objectify women by trying to possess female bodies of our own.

Last time, I looked at Julia Serano’s discussion of media depictions of trans people, specifically trans women. Today I’m going to finish up with chapter 2, which is mainly given over to complaints about feminist criticisms of trans ideology.

As you can tell from the bit quoted above, Serano is more interested in instruction than in argument, and she has little use for those decrepit old Second Wavers who fail to support trans gender theory in all its particulars. (Gender essentialism? Feminists who criticize trans theory are most definitely not “gender essentialists.” They don’t think gender has anything to do with anyone’s sex. In fact they tend to be anti-gender. But Serano defines “gender” however she likes; perhaps here she’s using it as a synonym for “sex” and calls the belief that “people can’t really change their sex” “sex essentialism.”)

Many of these latter ideas stem from Janice G. Raymond’s 1979 book The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male, which is perhaps the most influential feminist writing on transsexuals.

I haven’t read Janice Raymond’s book, and unfortunately the Los Angeles Public Library system doesn’t have a single copy. The book is out of print and used copies are expensive. So I can’t say much about Raymond’s argument; all I’ve got to go on is what Serano says about it. According to Serano, Raymond

focuses almost exclusively on trans women, insisting that they transition in order to achieve stereotypical femininity. She even argues that “most transsexuals conform more to the feminine role than even the most feminine of natural-born women.” This fact does not surprise Raymond, since she believes that femininity itself is an artificial by-product of a patriarchal society. So despite the fact that trans women may attain femininity, Raymond does not believe that they become “real” women.

This sort of sloppy argument makes my teeth ache, and Serano resorts to it time and again in Whipping Girl. “Attaining femininity” and being a “’real’ woman” are two separate things, and one does not lead to the other except in the heads of the sort of people who think Real Men don’t eat quiche and Real Women are submissive and sweet. Serano would surely agree that non-women can “attain femininity,” so what is that “despite” doing there? If Janice Raymond does not believe that trans women are women, her reason(s) can have nothing to do with whether or not they attain femininity.

Thus, Raymond builds her case–

(I’m not sure you’ve presented her case, there, Lou.)

—by relying on the same tactics as the media: She depicts trans women as hyperfeminine (in order to make their female identities appear highly artificial) and she hypersexualizes them (by playing down the existence of trans people who transition to male).

Unlike the media, Raymond does acknowledge the existence of trans women who are not stereotypically feminine, albeit reluctantly.

Oy.

Being that Raymond believes that femininity undermines women’s true worth, you might think that she would be open to trans women who denounce femininity and patriarchal gender stereotypes. However, this is not the case. Instead, she argues, “As the male-to-constructed female transsexual exhibits the attempt to possess women in a bodily sense while acting out the images into which men have molded women, the male-to-constructed female who claims to be a lesbian-feminist attempts to possess women at a deeper level.”…She says, “although the transsexual constructed lesbian-feminist does not exhibit a feminine identity and role, he does exhibit stereotypical masculine behavior.” This essentially puts trans women in a double bind. If they act feminine they are perceived as being a parody, but if they act masculine it is seen as a sign of their true male identity….Both Raymond and the media ensure that trans women …will invariably come off as “fake” women no matter how they look or act.

I can’t speak for Raymond or for the media, but look here: If womanhood has something to do with behavior, then the “double bind” Serano speaks of here is truly unfair. But if being a woman is not about how a person behaves, all this talk about behavior has nothing to do with who’s a woman and who isn’t. It’s a red herring.

Serano then talks about the now-defunct Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival (“Michigan”). The festival (which was still being held annually when Whipping Girl was published,) enforced a “womyn-born-womyn”-only policy that spurred a lot of conflict and animus. Serano mentions two reasons trans women were excluded from “Michigan,” one reasonable and one silly.

…[O]ne of the most cited reasons that trans women are not allowed in the festival is that we are born with, and many of us still have, penises….It is argued that our penises are dangerous because they are a symbol of male oppression and have the potential to trigger women who have been sexually assaulted or abused by men.

OK. Penis-as-symbol doesn’t strike me as a serious problem there, but the other part is reasonable enough, when you consider the fact that at Michigan, women were free to walk around naked. What is Julia Serano’s answer to women who have been assaulted or abused by men, who would prefer not to be around people with penises for a weekend of music?

So penises are banned from the festival, right? Well, not quite: The festival does allow women to purchase and use dildos, strap-ons, and packing devices, many of which closely resemble penises. So phalluses in and of themselves are not so bad, just so long as they are not attached to a trans woman.

What.

WHAT?

Does Serano really believe sex toys and human penises are the same thing?

Does she think women walked around Michigan wearing strap-ons?

I suspect the main problem Michigan had with trans women was that the festival was intended to be for women only, and the organizers defined “women” as “biologically female people.” For some reason Serano does not mention this possibility, any more than she acknowledged that Janice Raymond’s definition of “woman” might not hinge on feminine or not-feminine behavior.

Serano:

[

A]nother reason frequently given for the exclusion of trans women from Michigan…that we supposedly would bring ‘male energy’ into the festival.

OK. I’m certainly not going to defend that: I don’t believe that energy is sexed (or even gendered). And I must say that this notion inspires one ofSerano’s rare moments of lucidity:

Not only is this an insult to trans men…

OK that’s not the lucid part–

…

but it implies that ‘male energy’ can be measured in some way independent of whether the person expressing it appears female or male. This is clearly not the case. Even though I am a trans woman, I have never been accused of expressing “male energy,” because people perceive me as a woman. When I do act in a “masculine” way, people describe me as a “tomboy” or “butch,” and if I get aggressive or argumentative, people call me a “bitch.” My behaviors are still the same; it is only the context of my body (whether people see me as female or male) that has changed.

Welcome to womanhood, Julia.

Sadly this realization on Serano’s part does not lead her to skepticism about gender. Instead, she ends the chapter with some weapons-grade fallacious reasoning:

T

o believe that a woman is a woman because of her sex chromosomes, reproductive organs, or socialization denies the reality that every single day, we classify each person we see as either female or male based on a small number of visual cues and a ton of assumption.

There you have it, folks. A potential for misclassification means the class in question can be redefined at will. Melville was right: Whales are fish!

Followed by the tautology we looked at last time:

The one thing that women share is that we are all perceived as women and treated accordingly….

And with that, I bid you all adieu.

Originally a comment by A Masked Avenger on The Way Forward.

All this huggy-bear stuff is bullshit.

That said, there’s a point to bear in mind that stands out starkly to me as a former right-wing fundie. My therapist made the cogent observation that the attraction of zombie movies is that zombies represent what jingoists want the enemy to be: relentless, implacable, utterly non-human, incapable of reason, incapable of showing mercy and undeserving of mercy.

When the enemy is literally beyond the reach of reason, literally relentless in their efforts to kill you without mercy or quarter, then there’s only one thing you can do: either you shoot them in the head, or they eat your brains. Separation is useless because they will chase you. Negotiation is useless because they can’t even understand you. Imprisoning them all is a practical impossibility. They have to be killed — there’s no other solution.

Unfortunately if that’s true then we’re fucked. For one thing, they have all the guns. For another, we have all the pacifists. (A zombie pacifist, like a zombie vegetarian, is an oxymoron.) Oh and remember, they regard us more or less the same way — as single-mindedly devoted to their destruction, incapable of compromise and therefore incapable of negotiation. They already more than half believe that a crisis is inevitable in which they will finally be cornered and forced to defend themselves with deadly force. When they talk about AmRev II (American Revolution 2.0), or debate the correct caliber for zombies (a stand-in for liberals, police, or UN shock troops, depending on context), they’re talking about that behind the thinnest of veils.

So while hugging them is absurd, and overlooking the harm they’re doing is suicidal, I sure as hell hope that they’re not in fact zombies. If they are, then we’re heading for an inevitable violent conflict that they will win. I draw some hope from the fact that I switched sides.

Originally a comment by iknklast on The way forward.

Funny how much of this we hear, but few people point out that the women, people of color, and foreign-born citizens that Trump and his supporters hate (with a passion that exceeds anything I’ve ever seen from the other side) might be lost and afraid. That we might need some support. That we might need some sympathy. And that all of these pundits (I read tons of this) saying WE are the problem because of our “identity politics” and determination that we want to be part of the voice in this large, diverse, noisy country is the reason Trump won. I see tons of this on the so-called left, beating their chest and berating themselves (and mostly, us, the “identities”) for allowing Trump to win by not “reaching out” to the white male (and too many female) voters who hate the rest of the country. None of them ever point out that our worldview includes a place for all of those people, and their worldview includes no place for us. The problem is that, in our worldview, that particular group of people does not automatically get to be at the top, make all the decisions, and keep the rest of us as servants and lowly sandwich makers. This is the world Trump supporters want – they tell everyone else what to do, and everyone else does it. If they say “leave the country, faggot”*, all the LGBTQ pack up and leave. If they say, “leave the country, Commie”, all the liberals pack up and leave. If they say “leave the country, bitch”, all the feminists pack up and leave. If they say “leave the country, n***”, all the people of color pack up and leave. If they say “make me a sandwich”, all the remaining women bow down, kiss their feet, and hop out to the kitchen to return with a beautiful three course meal. At which time, they scream because what they really wanted was a sandwich, and is that really too much to ask, and said woman returns to the kitchen, pitches the three course meal down the garbage disposal, and returns with a PBJ sandwich and never, ever asks them to take out the garbage, wash the dishes, or even put their plate in the sink. Meanwhile, the few people of color they have allowed to remain are mowing their lawn (free of charge), and playing football on the TV to entertain them. This is the world view of the Trump supporters I know (and believe me, I know a lot!). They believe they are superior to the rest of us. They believe the rest of us are usurping resources, such as air and water, that are intended for them.

I have to live and work with Trump supporters every day. My whole family is full of Trump supporters. I have lived my whole life with these people, and they are not nice to me. They have no sympathy for me. They think I should sit down, shut up, and quit voting. Why the hell should I waste one minute of my time crying over their “woes”?

*not my phrase, but the phrase of the haters that have seized our country

Terry Gross talked to Roxane Gay yesterday.

GROSS: So when you were in college, you fell in love with theater. I guess earlier than that you fell in love with theater. You went to Yale, in part, because of their theater department. And you worked behind the scenes. Was that a way of being involved with storytelling and with people but also being kind of invisible because you were literally offstage?

GAY: Absolutely. It was a way of being a part of something because I’m not a joiner. I never was. And so I was never really interested in extracurriculars. I did them because that’s what you do to get into a good college. But theater is where I found my passion in being behind the scenes because I didn’t want to be seen. I just wanted to be useful. And technical theater allowed me that space. It was the – I had – the best memories I have of high school and the first two years of college are connected to theater.

GROSS: I suppose writing gives you that, too – the ability to say what you want and have people look at your work without looking physically at you.

GAY: Well that’s what I hoped.

(LAUGHTER)

GROSS: You’re too famous now. You can’t get away with it.

GAY: (Laughter) No.

GROSS: There’s the internet. And, you know, you travel all over, giving speeches. And you’re on TV. I mean, people know what you look like.

GAY: They do. You know, one of the many reasons I’m a writer is because I didn’t want to be, like, an actor on a stage or on the screen.

GROSS: (Laughter) Too late.

GAY: Whoops.

(LAUGHTER)

GROSS: So how is that for you?

GAY: Oh, it’s – you know, I’m afraid of public speaking, so I’ve had to learn how to do it. And it’s gotten much better. And I actually do enjoy doing these events and connecting with audiences because I have a really passionate audience. And it’s a privilege to do. I hate doing television not because I’m on television but because when I go on TV, the amount of hate mail and the amount of trolling I get on social media is unbearable. And so I try not to make myself that kind of a target as often as possible.

GROSS: So when you’re trolled on the internet and social media, do you think that has to do at all with describing yourself as a feminist? Because there’s so much, like, anti-feminist trolling.

GAY: Oh, yeah. Like, I would say 40 percent of my trolling is because I’m a feminist. Thirty percent of my trolling is because I’m black. And 30 percent of my trolling is because I’m fat.

GROSS: I love that you have it broken down into percentages.

(LAUGHTER)

GAY: I do. I have so many trolls.

GROSS: Is there any percent where it’s, like, all three?

GAY: Oh, God, yes.

GROSS: They hate you because you’re black and feminist and fat?

(LAUGHTER)

GAY: Yeah. The Venn diagram of my trolls would be a circle.

It looks sort of brutal in the transcript, all that (LAUGHTER), but if you listen, it’s not.

GROSS: You’re a feminist. And you write…

GAY: I am.

GROSS: …(Reading) I’m a feminist, and I believe in doing away with the rigid beauty standards that force women to conform to unrealistic standards. And you also write, (reading) I’m not comfortable in my body. Nearly everything physical is difficult. So – and you say, as a fat woman, you’re not supposed to take up space. But as a feminist, you’re encouraged to believe you can take up space – so, again, more contradictions you have to deal with.

GAY: Always. I mean, you always want to be the best version of yourself and the best feminist you can be and as inclusive as you can be in your thinking and in your behaviors. At least for me, that’s something I want. But it’s really hard when you are also just human, and you are dealing with the world as it is and not as we would like it to be. And so I absolutely believe that people should be able to live in this world free from harassment and cruelty at any size and that people should be allowed to be healthy and happy at any size. But I struggle with it sometimes. I absolutely do.

It’s an interesting interview.

The BBC reports a horrifying statistic:

About 1,300 US children under the age of 17 die from gun-related injuries per year, a government study has found.

Researchers at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also found that guns seriously wounded about 5,800 children each year.

We’re horrified by all the people who died or were injured in Grenfell Tower, and this number dwarfs that.

“Firearm injuries are a leading cause of death among US children aged one to 17 years and contribute substantially each year to premature death, illness and disability of children,” said CDC’s Katherine Fowler, who led the study.

“About 19 children a day die or are medically treated in an emergency department for a gunshot wound in the US,” she told Reuters.

CDC researchers examined national data in what they describe as “the most comprehensive examination of current firearm-related deaths and injuries among children in the United States to date”.

The study found a 60% increase in gun suicides from 2007-15, according an analysis of national injury records.

A Grenfell Tower every few days, not because a tower block catches fire but because there are way too many guns floating around in this country.

Boy, that Shakespeare guy, he had a hell of a nerve, right? Insulting our president that way. Somebody ought to go spit on that church in Stratford – in Connecticut is it? Alabama? Idaho? I forget. Anyway they should, and all his novels should be banned out of the schools and libraries, and his descendants should be thrown out of their local churches what denominationsoever they may be. Plus those government art Nazis should all be fired.

Several theatres in the US have received threats and complaints after a show in New York depicted the assassination of a Julius Caesar made to look like President Donald Trump.

Messages wished death upon theatre staff at unrelated establishments in an apparent mix-up.

It appears complainers did not check which theatre they were angry about.

Never mind that, smarty, it’s all part of the same conspiracy.

Although the show’s run has now ended, protesters have been getting in touch with theatres with Shakespeare in the name to voice their disgust.

Shakespeare Dallas, in Texas, has had 90 emails, while Shakespeare & Company in Massachusetts has had nearly 50, plus about 10 angry phone calls.

I should hope so. That guy was a Democrat, and a Muslim, and a faggot, and a witch-hunter, and an FBI director. He was a bad hombre.

Shakespeare & Company shared some of the messages with the BBC. (Some have been edited to remove swearing.) They included:

• “Your play depicting the murder of our President is nothing but pure hatred. You are vial [sic] despicable excuses for human beings. I wish you all the worst possible life you could have and hope you all get sick and die.”

• “Hope you all who did this play about Trump are the first to die when ISIS COMES TO YOU… scumbags.”

• “What exactly were you idiots thinking about producing a play that depicts the killing of our President? Does anyone over there have an ounce of morality, decency, and or common sense? Your organization is a disgrace to the community and to the arts. If you have a problem with the president protest, as is your constitutional right or just vote him out. I will do my best to ensure taxpayers’ dollars are not used in the future to fund your disrespect and stupidity!”

And your dressing rooms, and your roof, and your costume department, so there!

Roshan Salih of 5Pillars is defaming Sara Khan and Maajid Nawaz by way of responding to the Finsbury Park terror. The result of course is that horrible people are rushing to harass and abuse them.

1. The Islamophobia industry – Maajid Nawaz, Sara Khan, Tommy Robinson, Douglas Murray, Katie Hopkins, Melanie Phillips #FinsburyPark

— Roshan M Salih (@RmSalih) June 19, 2017

That’s simply a lie, a Trump-level lie. Sara and Maajid are Muslims, so what sense does it make to call them part of “the Islamophobia industry”? Advocacy of reform≠hatred or phobia.

Katie Hopkins & Tommy Robinson should be serving jail time for inciting hatred, Maajid Nawaz & Sara Khan should be no platformed by media

— Roshan M Salih (@RmSalih) June 19, 2017

For…? For not inciting hatred, perhaps? And what of the hatred Roshan Salih is inciting?

Paul Krugman is scathing about the Republican senators’ super-secret take-away-health-care bill.

Last month House Republicans rammed through one of the worst, cruelest pieces of legislation in history. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the American Health Care Act would take coverage away from 23 million Americans, and send premiums soaring for millions more, especially older workers with relatively low incomes.

This bill is, as it should be, wildly unpopular. Nonetheless, Republican Senate leaders are now trying to ram through their own version of the A.H.C.A., one that, all reports suggest, will differ only in minor, cosmetic ways. And they’re trying to do it in total secrecy. It appears that there won’t be any committee hearings before the bill goes to the floor. Nor are senators receiving draft text, or anything beyond a skeletal outline. Some have reportedly seen PowerPoint presentations, but the “slides are flashed across the screens so quickly that they can hardly be committed to memory.”

Clearly, the goal is to pass legislation that will have devastating effects on tens of millions of Americans without giving those expected to pass it, let alone the general public, any real chance to understand what they’re voting for. There are even suggestions that Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, might exploit loopholes in the rules to prevent any discussion on the Senate floor.

Evil, isn’t it.

When it comes to the Republican replacement for Obamacare, however, it’s not just the process that’s secretive; so is the purpose. Vox.com asked eight Republican senators what problem the legislation is supposed to solve, and how it’s supposed to solve it. Not one offered a coherent answer.

Of course, none brought up the one obvious payoff to taking health care away from millions: a big tax cut for the wealthy.

It’s their One True Thing – keep making the extremely rich even richer. It’s a bonus to get to fuck over the poor and middling to do it, but the core goal is to keep feeding more billions to the billionaires.

Oh guess what, the cladding on Grenfell Tower that went up like a torch wasn’t supposed to be there.

The cladding used on Grenfell Tower, which has been widely blamed for spreading the blaze, is banned in the UK on buildings of that height, Philip Hammond has said.

The chancellor told BBC1’s Andrew Marr Show: “My understanding is the cladding in question, this flammable cladding which is banned in Europe and the US, is also banned here.

“So there are two separate questions. One: are our regulations correct, do they permit the right kind of materials and ban the wrong kind of materials? The second question is: were they correctly complied with?

“That will be a subject that the inquiry will look at. It will also be a subject that the criminal investigation will be looking at.”

Regulations are there for a reason…

What qualities does one need to be a good leader? Prudence Gourguechon discovered that it’s not easy to find definitive answers to that question.

Although there are volumes devoted to outlining criteria for psychiatric disorders, there is surprisingly little psychiatric literature defining mental capacity, even less on the particular abilities required for serving in positions of great responsibility. Despite the thousands of articles and books written on leadership, primarily in the business arena, I have found only one source where the capacities necessary for strategic leadership are clearly and comprehensively laid out: the U.S. Army’s “Field Manual 6-22 Leader Development.”

That makes sense. They really need to know.

The Army’s field manual on leadership is an extraordinarily sophisticated document, founded in sound psychological research and psychiatric theory, as well as military practice. It articulates the core faculties that officers, including commanders, need in order to fulfill their jobs. From the manual’s 135 dense pages, I have distilled five crucial qualities:

Trust

According to the Army, trust is fundamental to the functioning of a team or alliance in any setting: “Leaders shape the ethical climate of their organization while developing the trust and relationships that enable proper leadership.” A leader who is deficient in the capacity for trust makes little effort to support others, may be isolated and aloof, may be apathetic about discrimination, allows distrustful behaviors to persist among team members, makes unrealistic promises and focuses on self-promotion.

I assumed before I read the paragraph that “trust” meant the trust of others in the leader, but no, it means the leader’s ability to trust other people. That’s very interesting.

Discipline and self-control

…The disciplined leader does not have emotional outbursts or act impulsively, and he maintains composure in stressful or adverse situations.

…In psychiatry, we talk about “filters” — neurologic braking systems that enable us to appropriately inhibit our speech and actions even when disturbing thoughts or powerful emotions are present. Discipline and self-control require that an individual has a robust working filter, so that he doesn’t say or do everything that comes to mind.

Aka impulse control aka self-inhibition. It’s that prefrontal thing that takes so long to develop.

Judgment and critical thinking

These are complex, high-level mental functions that include the abilities to discriminate, assess, plan, decide, anticipate, prioritize and compare. A leader with the capacity for critical thinking “seeks to obtain the most thorough and accurate understanding possible,” the manual says, and he anticipates “first, second and third consequences of multiple courses of action.” A leader deficient in judgment and strategic thinking demonstrates rigid and inflexible thinking.

The fourth is self-awareness, aka knowing one’s own faults.

Empathy

Perhaps surprisingly, the field manual repeatedly stresses the importance of empathy as an essential attribute for Army leadership. A good leader “demonstrates an understanding of another person’s point of view” and “identifies with others’ feelings and emotions.” The manual’s description of inadequacy in this area: “Shows a lack of concern for others’ emotional distress” and “displays an inability to take another’s perspective.”

It’s not all that surprising, really, since a leader by definition has to interact with people. An engineer can do without empathy, but a leader not so much.

People are walking away.

Six members of the group that advises the White House on HIV and Aids have quit their posts – claiming that the Trump administration does not care about the issue.

In a letter of resignation that was published on a US news site, the experts claimed the government had no meaningful policy on tackling Aids, failed to listen to advice from those working in the field, and actually promoted legislation that harmed individuals living with the disease.

Other than that, everything’s great.

“We have dedicated our lives to combating this disease and no longer feel we can do so effectively within the confines of an advisory body to a president who simply does not care,” wrote Scott Schoettes, project director at Lambda Legal, a New York-based LGBTQ-rights group and a member of the advisory panel.

The council members said that Mr Trump took down the Office of National Aids Policy website when he took office and had failed to appoint anyone to lead the White House Office of National Aids Policy.

“We will be more effective from the outside, advocating for change and protesting policies that will hurt the health of the communities we serve and the country as a whole if this administration continues down the current path,” the letter said.

Don’t worry, he’s making Murica great again.

Inside Higher Ed reports:

The Department of Education last week outlined changes to civil rights investigations that advocates fear will mean less consistent findings of systemic discrimination at colleges.

Under the Obama administration, certain types of civil rights complaints would trigger broader investigations of whether a pattern of discrimination existed at a school or college.

But Candice Jackson, the acting assistant secretary for civil rights, told regional directors for the Office for Civil Rights in a memo that the Department of Education would no longer follow those guidelines. In detailing the latest civil rights shift under Secretary Betsy DeVos, Jackson wrote that the department was setting aside existing rules and empowering investigators with more discretion to clear case backlogs and address complaints in a timely manner.

Ah yes. Treating everything as a one off does indeed speed things up. Consider Grenfell Tower for instance. If there’s no need to see it as part of a pattern of saving money by not getting the fire retardant building material, then it becomes just a matter of tidying up and moving on.

The shift is significant because many of the violations OCR has found in recent years have involved systemic issues that go beyond the original complaint that prompted investigators to look into a college or school.

Former department officials and advocates for victims of discrimination say it’s critical to examine individual cases in the context of wider practices at an institution — and to apply that standard consistently across various OCR offices.

That’s critical unless you’re a libertarian. If you’re a libertarian, there’s no such thing as a “wider practice.” All is random and uncaused, a matter of free people freely choosing, and there’s no need to look for patterns and explanations.