On Feb. 5, the report on an independent probe into an outbreak at the York County Jail in Alfred this past summer was released. The report found that before the outbreak, which resulted in the infection of 48 inmates, 43 employees and 16 members of their households, the jail had failed to adhere to a number of COVID-19 preventions, including conducting health screenings and requiring corrections officers to wear masks at all times. This event showcased the exorbitant risk that incarcerated individuals and corrections staff face as a result of the crowded environment that they live and work in. However, as a result of ill-logic or negligence, the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Governor Mills have neither required corrections staff to take the vaccine that has been made available to them in order to work, nor included the state’s vulnerable incarcerated population in any phase of vaccination plans. 

45% of Americans have or have had an immediate family member incarcerated, according to a 2019 study from Cornell. There are 2.3 million individuals serving sentences in U.S. correctional and detention facilities, manned by 400,000 officers and jailers, all considered to be at a “high risk” of contracting COVID-19 by the CDC. Outbreaks in these facilities have not only been shown to harm the incarcerated population, many of whom suffer from chronic illnesses such as hypertension and asthma, but also the communities that surround them. However, because these people are concealed from the public eye, the failure of the CDC and many states to explicitly include incarcerated populations in any stage of their vaccination plans has been left largely unresolved.

This is not to suggest that there are not serious and legitimate logistical hurdles facing vaccine distribution in every state. Vaccine supplies are limited, detention centers are not outfitted with freezers capable of maintaining the necessary temperatures to stock vaccine doses, and The New York Times suggests that incarcerated individuals may not be inclined to accept the vaccine. Not to mention that, on its face, many members of the greater public may find it unjust to vaccinate convicted felons at the same time as, or before, individuals living in other congregate care settings, such as nursing homes.  

However, even if the majority of a constituency believes that incarcerated people should stand at the back of the vaccination line on purely ethical grounds, the fact of the matter is that an individual vaccination given to someone in a correctional facility may do more good for the community than elsewhere. According to Maine Public, 100 of the largest single-site outbreaks have occurred in correctional facilities; thus, to inoculate a relatively small population (about 1,700 people in Maine) would result in a disproportionate benefit for the state as a whole. 

According to a Columbia study in collaboration with Yale and University of North Carolina researchers, there are currently 12 states/territories that have come to a similar conclusion and included their incarcerated population in the first phase of vaccine distribution. However, governments still seem to have reservations with regards to the possibility of public backlash. Massachusetts, which has chosen to make incarcerated individuals a priority in its vaccination process, notably fails to include correctional facilities in the explanation of eligible “congregate care settings” on the official vaccination webpage, or make any mention of them at all for that matter.    

Part of the problem is the lack of a comprehensive plan for all states to adhere to. According to the CDC, “Jurisdictions are encouraged to vaccinate staff and incarcerated/detained persons of correctional or detention facilities at the same time because of their shared increased risk of disease.” Many states have either chosen to prioritize the vaccinations of neither, or, like Maine, they have offered vaccinations to corrections staff exclusively. 

While the state’s decision is a pretty problematic statement on the value of incarcerated people’s lives, the other, more immediate issue is that not all of the corrections officers have accepted the vaccination. According to Maine Public, only 70% have done so at York County Jail, where it only took one symptomatic employee, who had just come from a now infamous wedding-turned-spreader-event in Millinocket, to ignite last summer’s outbreak. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that a wall that is only 30% percent finished is not going to protect much of anything, it’s just a waste of time and money. 

Any chance of a unified approach in terms of vaccine distribution was largely botched by the previous administration, but now there is a real chance for a course-correct. To simply accept that 2.3 million people, who face a significantly higher risk of contracting COVID-19 and dying of it than the majority of the U.S. population, will not receive the vaccine until the third phase of the process in most states is, well, unacceptable. There needs to be an effort in Maine, and in every other state, to start treating CDC “recommendations” as gospel; vaccinating incarcerated individuals and corrections staff needs to be a collective priority. Should a corrections officer decide they do not want to be vaccinated or wear a mask, then perhaps it would be best that they stay home and collect their stimulus check.

As University of Maine students end a semester steeped in pessimistic news coverage, it’s easy to look back at a semester of Zoom meetings and Brightspace and question whether it was all worth it. However, that sort of thinking is ultimately useless. Hindsight is 20/20. All students, faculty, and administrators can do now is figure out what they learned and how to use it going forward.  

According to UMaine’s student financial aid webpage, the price of tuition for the 2020-2021 academic year is $9,240 for in-state students and $30,030 for out-of-state students. These prices represent an increase of $240 for in-state students and $720 for out-of-state students from the previous academic year. One might look at this information and think that students are overpaying for an education that has been, in more cases than ever before, strictly online, but the debate over price is irrelevant. Revenue losses associated with COVID-19 mean that tuition won’t be coming down anytime soon; students will either pay it or they won’t. The conversation worth having, though, is that of value. 

In many cases, the online semester introduced a different relationship between professors and students than had been previously experienced by either. This is to say, both parties experienced discomfort as they rapidly adapted to the new technology, oftentimes cooperating to work through the complexities of presenting or holding class discussions over Zoom. These circumstances often fostered a newfound camaraderie and empathy between students and professors. 

In an interview with Yahoo Finance, Jenna Sheffield, an assistant provost at the University of New Haven, said, “I’ve seen a different mindset where faculty and students have been more flexible and accepting, because everyone knows that we’re all going through a variety of challenges.” 

This practice of adapting to difficulties with online tools is extremely valuable as a skill for those looking to enter a job market that increasingly relies on prospective employees to have greater degrees of digital literacy. According to a 2017 study by the Brookings Institution, the number of jobs requiring medium levels of digital literacy rose from 39.5% to 47.5% of the market between 2002 and 2016, while jobs requiring little digital literacy declined from 55.7% to 29.5%. In other words, the ability to learn and employ new technologies and programs is an increasingly vital skill on any post-collegiate career path, one that students at UMaine, and at educational institutions across the nation, honed this semester.  

There is also something to be said for the accessibility of professors this semester. Creating the time or mustering up the effort to approach a professor during their office hours can be a challenge for many students. Many professors’ availability over Zoom and email have simplified the process of reaching out for questions or academic advice, reducing the anxiety that some students might struggle with in-person. 

However, easy access to professors and university resources hinges on easy access to reliable internet, something that too many individuals in Maine, and the U.S., lack. The mixed blessing of so many college students and children across the country switching to remote modalities is that the necessity of access to broadband internet is clearer than ever. While public schools can provide some students with inconsistent hotspots and Wi-Fi enabled tablets, many institutions like UMaine can do little more than provide students with information on the nearest Starbucks or McDonald’s where they can sit in their cars and use the free Wi-Fi.

Lack of access to broadband has increasingly been a problem for businesses and students, especially in the many rural parts of Maine. In an interview with News Center Maine, Peggy Schaffer, the executive director of the ConnectME Authority, said that “85,000 is probably the floor of who is not connected” in Maine. The rising notoriety of the issue has not gone unnoticed by politicians like Joe Biden, who made the expansion of broadband infrastructure part of his appeal to rural America. Gov. Mills has taken similar steps during the pandemic, creating a new initiative, ConnectKidsNow!, and pumping $12 million from the CARES Act into it. 

As students, faculty and even politicians learn from the first half of the 2020-2021 academic year, one can only hope that administrators learned something as well. Some institutions, smarting from a failed fall semester, are telling students to stay home in the spring. Others, like the University of California San Diego, Princeton and Colby, plan to encourage just as many if not more students to return to campuses next semester. The New York Times reports that many administrators are not only confident in their testing procedures and social-distancing protocols, but also in their students’ commitment to those rules. 

As far as UMaine’s decision for the spring semester goes, the in-person student body has made about as strong of a case for itself that anyone could ask for. President Joan Ferrini-Mundy will update the community on Jan. 4. 

For now, students can simply finish their finals and reflect. Much of the fall semester ran the gamut from strange to outright terrible, but like any investment, it has the potential for extraordinary value. 

On Nov. 24, President Joan Ferrini-Mundy announced that all University of Maine athletics would pause through Dec. 8 in the wake of multiple positive test results within the athletic programs. According to Bangor Daily News (BDN), the decision was in response to a member of the men’s basketball team receiving a positive result after arriving at the Mohegan Sun Arena in Connecticut for a number of scheduled games. In a Tuesday news release, UMaine Athletic Director Ken Ralph said, “We will do all we can to positively engage our students in the safest way possible.” While Mr. Ralph’s statement may have been made in earnest, it’s clear at this point that the safest way to “engage” student athletes is to not have them compete at all. 

COVID-19 cases have been surging across the U.S., and Maine specifically has hit record numbers of cases as well as hospitalizations in the weeks leading up to Thanksgiving. Prior to the holiday, Gov. Janet Mills pleaded with Maine residents to avoid traveling: “Think every time you want to do something, go somewhere that you’re used to doing and going to, ‘Do I really have to go out right now? Do I really have to go there?’” 

These are the questions to ask UMaine athletics, because some might argue that teams really do not, and should not, have to travel to compete in the midst of a surging pandemic. This is the very conclusion that leaders of the New England Small College Athletic Conference (NESCAC), which includes Colby, Bates and Bowdoin, came to. In a statement signed by the president of every college in the conference, it was announced that the winter season for all sports would be cancelled, citing policies instituted on campuses to protect the health and safety of students, such as limiting travel, physical distancing and a later start to the spring semester, as eliminating the possibility of athletic events. 

There are financial considerations when it comes to the state’s only Division I athletics program that colleges in the NESCAC, a Division III conference, usually do not have. According to BDN, UMaine athletics lost $150,000 in revenue due to the cancellation of the NCAA Division I men’s basketball tournament last spring, and Director Ralph anticipated “an excess of $1 million in lost revenue” if the school were unable to sell in-person seats for football, men’s and women’s ice hockey or men’s and women’s basketball in the fall, which it has not been able to.

In short, there is more than the student-athletes’ chance to compete at risk for UMaine and many other Division I programs across the country. However, that is not to say that the student-athletes have not been an enthusiastic force behind making the competitions possible. Before the semester even started, UMaine athletes set the tone on campus by wearing masks during practice despite any physical irritation or restriction of breathing. Red Gendron, UMaine’s men’s ice hockey coach, told the Portland Press Herald that “if that’s the thing that is going to make a difference between us having a season or not playing at all, then I think myself and every player in the program will say we’ll wear a mask.” 

One would expect nothing but this level of determination and spirit from UMaine’s athletes. But it is not necessarily their responsibility to consider risks of leaving the state to compete. That responsibility would fall on the university’s administration. In the university’s press release regarding the positive test results, President Ferrini-Mundy said, “the health of our student athletes, coaches, staff and communities comes first.” 

While the university has dedicated significant resources to testing teams weekly throughout the semester and daily during the week before competitions, these policies do not necessarily reflect putting student-athletes’ health first. Testing is generally reactive rather than preventative, which is part of the reason that the men’s basketball team only found out about a positive result after arriving at Mohegan Sun. The only measure that would truly represent putting athletes’ health first would be avoiding competition with other teams all together, especially when case statistics are as concerning as they are. 

This is not to suggest that the university administration has been purposefully negligent in its decision-making regarding athletics. The circumstances of this academic year have been completely unprecedented. Equally, it would be unfair to suggest that the athletic department leadership are allowing revenue concerns to cloud their judgement, especially considering the extremely generous $90 million gift that the department will be receiving over the next 10 years from the Harold Alfond Foundation. 

Rather, President Ferrini-Mundy’s decisions to pause all athletic activities should be applauded, and one should hope that she and other campus leaders continue to put the health of athletes first come Dec. 8.

Last Saturday, in Wilmington, Delaware, former Vice President Joe Biden delivered his first speech as president-elect of the United States. Biden predicated his entire campaign on unity and “restoring the soul of our nation,” and the speeches he and his running mate Sen. Kamala Harris articulated a corresponding vision for America. Biden both acknowledged those groups which won him the election, particularly the African American community, and appealed to those that didn’t: “I ran as a proud Democrat. I will now be an American president. I will work as hard for those who didn’t vote for me — as those who did.” However, even Americans and politicians who supported Biden’s campaign are approaching his all-inclusive vision carefully. Ironically, the expressions of skepticism and the promises for accountability from the American public may be the most refreshing outcome of the 2020 election.

Over the course of the last four years, President Donald Trump has survived gaffes, scandals and an impeachment, and through it all the support from the majority of his constituency seemed unwavering in its borderline idolatry. The support for Biden’s campaign, on the other hand, seemed modest from the start as he faced stiff competition in the primaries from popular progressives like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. However, after Biden won the primary election, progressive and moderate democrats came together behind their candidate, more so in opposition to the incumbent than in support of the 77-year-old former vice president.

The fact that many of his supporters were simply resigned to his candidacy was not something that escaped Biden, or his wife. According to USA Today, at a New Hampshire rally in August, 2019, Jill Biden told her audience that while “maybe you have to swallow a bit” when voting for her husband, he would be the candidate most likely to beat the president. In a bizarre turn of events, it was this message that resonated with young progressives, and it resulted in social media campaigns like Settle for Biden, which has over 290,000 followers on Instagram. 

In the wake of the Biden campaign’s success, Settle for Biden’s bio on Instagram now reads, “We settled. We won. Now we’re preserving our democracy, combating a pandemic, and holding the Biden-Harris administration accountable.” While far from the celebratory response that might be expected from an organization dedicated to a specific candidate, it represents a remarkably positive, democratic sentiment. Biden might say that he intends to represent all Americans, but he can be certain that many of his constituents will be watching him to see that he holds up his end of the bargain. 

The skeptical attitudes in Biden’s constituency are reflected by the progressive representatives in his party. In a recent interview with the New York Times, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, arguably the face of the progressive wing of the Democratic party in the House, remarked that if Biden subordinates progressive voices to moderates from the left and right wings for his cabinet picks, it will “tell a story of who the administration credits with this victory. And so it’s going to be really hard after immigrant youth activists helped potentially deliver Arizona and Nevada….[and] after Detroit and Rashida Tlaib ran up the numbers in her district.”

Votes from demographic groups like immigrants, African Americans, Latin Americans and countless others cannot be taken for granted, and this became all too clear to the Biden campaign as votes were being counted in Florida. According to The Associated Press, Hillary Clinton won the typically democratic Miami-Dade county by 30 percentage points in 2016, but Biden only won it by seven. Miami-Dade has a significant Cuban American population, and there is a broad spectrum of political views within the Latino community that are often unaccounted for in democratic campaigns.

To Biden’s credit, he has done his best to inspire confidence in his message of democratic unity. The selection of Harris, for one, is a positive indication of the variety of voices Biden may be considering for his cabinet, and her status as the first woman and first woman of color to be vice president-elect has dominated the most recent news cycle. Additionally, Biden made a point during his speech on Saturday to make it clear that he recognized how vital the African-American community was to his campaign, slamming on the podium as he declared, “they always have my back, and I’ll have yours.”

Three and a half hours after Biden’s speech, Dave Chappelle delivered a monologue on Saturday Night Live that struck startlingly similar notes to that of the president-elect. At the tail-end of a typically brash set, the comedian empathized with conservative voters who feel ignored or forgotten in the wake of their candidate’s loss and made his own earnest appeal to their better angels. 

“You gotta find a way to live your life, you gotta find a way to forgive each other, you gotta find a way to find joy in your existence in spite of that feeling,” Chappelle said.

Chappelle’s monologue speaks to the fundamental challenge that Biden’s campaign faces in a political climate that has fed on conflict for four long years: not only convincing Americans to believe in his administration, but to believe in each other.

With the Maine Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the use of ranked choice voting for the presidential election in September and early voting numbers in the state shattering previous records, Maine voters have arguably never been more liberated with regards to how they vote and who they vote for. However, one major barrier to fair election processes, if such a thing exists, has reared its head during the 2020 election campaigns in particular: money. 

Maine’s Senate race has been one of the most expensive in the entire country, with spending from the candidates and political action committees (PACs) reaching well over $100 million with a little over a week until election day. While this spending is, in a way, awe-inspiring, it is also troubling, especially considering that over 90% of the contributions to both of the major campaigns have come from out-of-state, specifically cities like Boston, New York, Washington D.C. and Los Angeles, according to OpenSecrets.org.

Sandy Maisel, a professor of government at Colby College, told the Portland Press Herald that “While this race is about Sen. Collins and Speaker Gideon, it’s really just as much about the extent to which people in Maine and around the country don’t want Mitch McConnell to stay as leader in the Senate.”

Maisel also admits that part of the reason that parties and PACs spend so much money is that without it a candidate doesn’t seem as legitimate. As much as advertisements approved by the Gideon and Collins campaigns may tout the candidates’ commitment to Mainers, voters could be forgiven for feeling like a means to an end rather than valued and respected constituents. 

During Thursday’s televised debate, sponsored by News Center Maine, both Collins and Gideon criticized each other for taking money from and favoring special interest groups. Gideon in particular suggested that “something I think we all agree with is that there is too much money in politics” and made a point of declaring that she had accepted no corporate PAC money over the course of the campaign. While Gideon may have made these statements in earnest, the fact of the matter is that both she and Collins have benefited greatly from the over $71 million that has been spent by PACs and super PACs during the Senate race, mostly on the attack ads that just about every Mainer with a computer or a television has seen a hundred times by now.  

Lisa Savage, one of the two third-party candidates on the debate stage, made a far more simple but effective argument to viewers than either of the major party representatives: “I’m the only non-millionaire in this race.” Savage, an independent teacher from Solon, is campaigning on pennies, having raised a total of $174,709 by the end of September. Despite financial limitations, in debates she has delivered her progressive agenda with refreshing poise, notably handing her mic over to an activist with Black Lives Matter Maine to use the time for the candidate’s final remarks during Thursday’s debate.

While Savage and fellow longshot Max Linn both benefit from the institution of ranked choice voting, it is a far-cry from leveling the playing field and making space for voices outside of the two-party system. Sarah Gideon’s campaign platform, as it is described on her official website, includes important steps in effectively reforming campaign finance like passing an amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision, increasing financing transparency and banning former members of Congress from becoming lobbyists. Savage’s platform takes this in an even more progressive direction by arguing for limits on campaign spending across the board. 

These aren’t new ideas, they aren’t even necessarily partisan. The battle for divesting money from politics dates back nearly two decades to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, better known for the judicial decision that resulted from it, Citizens United v. FEC, infamous for granting the freedom of speech (in the form of monetary contributions) to corporations. Now, in 2020, states like Maine, Kentucky, Iowa and South Carolina have become spending contests; less about candidates connecting with voters and more so about parties purchasing seats. 

With that said, the situation is far from hopeless. Candidates and parties may be spending and raising more money than ever, but citizens in Maine and throughout the United States are taking advantage of different ways to engage in the electoral process. The Wall Street Journal reported that nearly half of all states have reported that early voting numbers are way ahead of those from the 2016 election, and for the first time Mainers will be able to vote for a third-party candidate without being worried about wasting their vote. The current system of campaign finance both devalues and underestimates the American voter, and there is no other way to change a fundamentally broken system than by involving fresh perspectives in that process. Voting is part of it, but being informed enough to know when a representative is selling out their constituents is a power and responsibility in and of itself.

With an executive order issued on Oct. 6, Gov. Janet Mills announced the “Plan to Restart Maine’s Economy” would move into Stage 4 beginning on Oct. 13. As a result, the previous indoor seating limit of 50 has been raised to 50% of the typically permitted occupancy or 100 seats (whichever is less). This was welcome news for the food service portion of the hospitality industry in Maine, whose previous reliance on outdoor seating during the pandemic will become less tenable with the arrival of freezing temperatures and snow. However, even as Maine’s restaurant industry benefits from the state’s exemplary management of the pandemic, a profitable path forward for the other part of the hospitality industry is clouded. It could be that the only way to save many hotels and the livelihoods of their employees is for Congress to pass a fifth bipartisan stimulus bill, which is a disheartening possibility.

To be abundantly clear, Maine is dealing remarkably well with the pandemic, at least relative to most other states. In the Oct. 6 announcement, the governor’s office boasted that Maine has reported the “lowest hospitalizations, second lowest new cases, and fourth lowest deaths.” However, to at least some extent, the economic damage has already been done. According to a report published by the University of Maine’s School of Economics, hotels, restaurants and bars will generate 30% less taxable sales in 2020 than in 2019, totaling out to a loss of about $1 billion. 

Luckily, Maine’s restaurants are resilient, due in no small part to loyal patrons who are desperate for social interaction, but also because of the inherent flexibility of the industry. Restaurants have a variety of service models available to them: indoor seating, outdoor seating, take-out, and delivery. Restaurants in Maine have also invested in a number of measures to enable social distancing indoors and outdoors. According to the Bangor Daily News (BDN), Paddy Murphy’s in downtown Bangor has installed plexiglass between booths, and Timber Kitchen and Bar has invested in heated tents in order to provide outdoor seating well into the winter. 

Hotels, on the other hand, are not faring nearly as well. While restaurants and bars can survive on in-state customers, hotels rely on out-of-state travelers and conferences, both of which are nearly non-existent. According to Maine Public, late fall and winter is generally the height of conference season in Maine, but Steve Hewins, CEO of Hospitality Maine, says “there’s virtually no meetings, zero, and they’re canceling into 2021.” The fact of the matter is that hotels are not nearly as flexible as restaurants, and it is not a problem that local patrons can realistically help with. Despite hospitality’s role as the second largest private sector in Maine, BDN reports that the industry will provide 28,000 fewer jobs than in 2019. 

As much as Maine’s hotels are suffering, those in states that are still struggling with the pandemic are in even worse positions. According to the New York Times, over 100 hotel loans spread across New York, Austin and Chicago alone are delinquent, and analysts do not expect the industry to recover until 2023. Some hotels have chosen to close outright and hunker down until the pandemic subsides, leaving many unemployed, but others have taken more creative routes in order to stay open. Many states and municipalities are paying hotels to house medical workers, patients or homeless citizens, and other hotels are turning rooms into temporary office space available for lease. However, these measures, while admirable, are hardly stable sources of revenue. 

What the hospitality industry and many others need is for Congress to pass an additional stimulus bill. Unfortunately, the vital ingredient for passing such a piece of legislation is bipartisan agreement, and while President Donald Trump, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell all agree that a stimulus needs to be passed, a bill that they can all support remains frustratingly, yet unsurprisingly elusive. Democrats have passed a $2.2 trillion relief bill in the House that went nowhere in the Republican controlled Senate, and this coming Wednesday McConnell has announced that the Senate will vote on a $500 billion bill that will likely go just as far as the previous bill. This way, members of both parties can accuse the other of obstructing bills to help the American people without actually doing anything at all. 

On Sunday, Pelosi issued an ultimatum: the White House has 48 hours to negotiate a $1.8 trillion proposal to submit to the Senate, or a stimulus will simply have to wait until after the election on Nov. 3. However, Axios reports that even if such a bill were to materialize, “it has virtually no chance of passing the Senate.” While local individuals can and should support restaurants and bars in their communities, many hotels are, in essence, at the mercy of party leaders who appear to be completely opposed to finding common ground. It would be a shame if a stimulus were to have to wait until after the election, but perhaps it will make voting a simpler decision for stakeholders in the hospitality industry. 

On April 26, 2019, Maine joined 13 other states and the District of Columbia as Gov. Janet Mills signed a bill to replace Columbus Day with Indigenous Peoples’ Day into law. As the state celebrates the holiday for the second time on Monday, it is important that, rather than a day off, Americans recognize it as an opportunity to direct their attention to the voices of Indigenous peoples across the country and, most importantly, around their local communities. The Penobscot Nation’s struggles with the state for environmental justice and sovereignty are potentially reaching major turning points, and there is no better time for members of the Orono, Old Town and University of Maine communities to start listening. 

The Penobscot Nation has been in and out of court with the state of Maine since 2017 for lawsuits regarding the limits of the territory that the tribe has stewardship over, with debates centering around the 40-year-old Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act. The tribe argues that, in addition to Indian Island and those up the river from it, the tribe has a right to their namesake river itself as it is vital to their fishing rights, which are protected by the Settlement Act. 

However, the tribe’s connection to the river is not as simple as a food source. The Bangor Daily News (BDN) reported that, during a rally in 2017, Penobscot Nation Chief Kirk Francis stated that their position in the case was about “more than just fishing. It’s an identity issue for the Penobscot people, and it’s about the right of the unborn to be a Penobscot.” While the state’s decision making about the river includes economic considerations, the tribe’s concerns have everything to do with their heritage, their culture and their posterity. 

In 2017, the 1st Circuit Court ruled in the state’s favor 2-1, but the rehearing process for the case began on Sept. 22 of this year and the decision will be made by two, three-judge panels, according to the Maine Beacon. Additionally, a task force composed of tribal leaders, state lawmakers and a representative from Gov. Janet Mills’ administration proposed a sweeping piece of legislation in February that would make significant changes to the relationship between the state and the tribe set forth in the Settlement Act, which defines tribes more as municipalities rather than sovereign states, according to BDN. However, hearings regarding the bill, L.D. 2094, were tense and the bill itself has been in a state of limbo since legislative activity was halted in March in response to COVID-19. 

These efforts ultimately point toward sovereignty as the one solution to improving the relationship between the state and Maine’s tribes. Particularly with regards to the Penobscot River, politicians such as Gov. Janet Mills have expressed their opposition to tribal stewardship. BDN reported that Mills, who was the attorney general that represented the state in the tribe’s 2017 lawsuit for territorial rights to the river, claimed that “the case was about the Penobscots trying to police the entire river,” which Chief Francis argued was a misrepresentation of their position. 

While representatives may be critical of the Maine tribes’ efforts, one could and should argue that the state of Maine has failed in its role as both a steward of the Penobscot River and in its fidelity to the Penobscot Nation. The Sunlight Media Collective (SMC), self-described as “an organization of indigenous and non-indigenous media-makers and activists,” claims that the state allows the Juniper Ridge Landfill in Old Town to pump 10 million gallons of leachate, run-off containing dangerous toxins from the landfill, into the river every year. The leachate is treated and discharged at the ND Paper facility in Old Town, but in the SMC’s documentary on the landfill Hillary Lister, co-founder of Don’t Waste ME, remarks that ND’s treatment facility was in no way designed for the complex irregular mixtures of leachate that are received from Juniper Ridge. 

What is ironic about the situation with the Juniper Ridge Landfill is that, according to state law, it should not actually exist in the capacity that it currently does. In the 1980s and 1990s, the government outlawed commercial landfills in Maine in order to prevent them from taking in any more waste from outside the state. However, according to the Natural Resources Council’s Sustainable Maine Director Sarah Nichols, there exists a loophole: if a shipment of out-of-state waste is passed through a Maine recycling facility, that waste is then considered as generated within the state. As a result, 91% of the waste that passes through Lewiston’s recycling facility is from outside the state, and 93% of their waste is then sent to Juniper Ridge. While Juniper Ridge is state-owned, it is managed by Casella Waste, which earns a profit on the landfill based on how much waste they take in.

In essence, the Penobscot Nation, whose culture and diet is tied to the Penobscot River, are victims of a cycle of environmental injustice, powered by the greed of Casella and the maladministration of the state government. For politicians to say that they cannot trust the tribe with the stewardship of the river, while at the same time allowing a corporation to exploit a legal loophole and treat that river like a waste bin, is the height of hypocrisy. 

Addressing lawmakers in support of L.D. 2094, Chief Clarissa Sabattis of the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians remarked that “there are over 560 other tribal nations around the United States that live with these rights. And as far as I know, the sky has not fallen yet.” To dedicate one day out of the year to Indigenous communities is wonderful, but it is superficial. The only way for Maine and every other state to build a meaningful and productive relationship with tribes is by giving them something a whole lot more valuable than a holiday: trust.

On Friday, Oct. 2, President Donald Trump announced that he and first lady Melania Trump had tested positive for COVID-19. Politicians from both sides of the aisle, including Joe Biden, expressed their wishes for the swift recoveries of the president and first lady, but many of Twitter’s 330 million monthly users made posts expressing their desire for the president to die. In response, Twitter issued a number of statements from their Twitter Communications’ (Comms) profile condemning those who would use the platform to wish serious harm on the president or any other person and said that any such posts would be taken down. Many reacted to Twitter’s statements with anger, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, suggesting a clear double-standard in the company’s treatment of online death threats against the president as opposed to those against women, people of color and disabled individuals. While some of this criticism rightfully falls on the shoulders of Twitter, the fact of the matter is that users must take responsibility for the abuse of social media platforms as well.

As Twitter clarified in a tweet on Friday, their public policies and guidelines on abusive behavior state that “tweets that wish or hope for death, serious bodily harm or fatal disease against *anyone* are not allowed and will need to be removed. this [sic] does not automatically mean suspension.” This was in response to another tweet that said the platform would suspend those that expressed wishes for Trump’s death. Conveying the anger and frustration of many, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez retweeted the post with the caption, “So… you mean to tell us you could’ve done this the whole time?” Rep. Omar and many others, including film director Ava Duvernay, echoed Cortez’s sentiments in similar tweets.

This criticism of Twitter’s enforcement of their rules on abusive behavior is not new; the platform has long struggled with how to promote “healthy” discourse, especially with regards to the treatment of women and other marginalized groups online. In 2018, Amnesty International published research that found that while women want to use Twitter for the same reasons that anyone does, to promote ideas, communicate with friends, meet new people, etc., many “are no longer able to express themselves freely on the platform without fear of violence or abuse.” Amnesty argues that Twitter has a “human rights” responsibility to be transparent in how they enforce policies to fight against abuse and threats with collection of data relating to such violations. 

Twitter has a transparency page with data on the accounts that they have taken action against, and, according to Recode, they have dedicated funding to finding a way to measure the “health” of the discourse on the platform. In 2019, Twitter published a blog post reporting that 38% of abusive tweets had been brought to the attention of Twitter’s review teams via algorithms rather than individual flagging by users, which, according to Recode, was up from 0% in 2018. This progress has been important and helpful, but it is insufficient, and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has acknowledged as much in 2017: “We see voices being silenced every day….We updated our policies and increased the size of our teams. It wasn’t enough.”

For all of the justified criticism and all of Twitter’s efforts, it’s fair to say that it will probably never be enough. The nature of Twitter is that it is quick and instantaneous, the id of society in 280 characters or less. Twitter, as it currently exists, cannot review tweets before they are posted, only after they are recognized as abusive by their algorithms or flagged by a user. With 330 million savvy users, the task begins to seem like a fool’s errand. 

Additionally, it is arguable at best as to whether it is in Twitter’s best interest to muffle, and alienate, users who would express their desire for the death or harm of a public figure, as well as users who would see that as protected under free speech. The fact of the matter is that Twitter, for all of the public relations jargon about bringing people together, is a business, and users are the product. In the 2020 documentary, “The Social Dilemma,” former Facebook and Google engineer Justin Rosenstein argues that social media platforms are “not free, they’re paid for by advertisers….They pay in exchange for showing their ads to us. We’re the product.” To alienate users would be to lose users and to lose users would be to lose revenue from advertisers. This is not to say that Twitter is purposefully permissive of hate speech or abusive content, but it is hard to believe that ad revenue is not a factor in their decision-making and enforcement. 

A Saturday tweet from Twitter Safety reported that “more than 50%” of abusive content had been “caught through automated systems” on the platform, which represents significant progress from 2019. However, Amnesty is absolutely justified in arguing that Twitter should be transparent with their collection of this sort of information, which is not currently available on Twitter’s Transparency page. With that being said, Twitter is not completely culpable for all of the unchecked hateful and abusive content, especially the significant amount that is directed toward marginalized groups. That is, ultimately, a reflection of our society. Twitter is no more permissive of hate speech than our community or our politicians. For all the capabilities of modern day technology, speaking out against Twitter, against perceived inequalities and intolerance, like Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Omar, still seems to be just about the only effective way to combat hatred.

On June 22, 1993, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who had been serving on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, was confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court with 96 of 100 senators voting in favor. While a fierce advocate for gender equality throughout her career, Ginsberg was considered a moderate judge that appealed to both parties. On Friday, Sept. 18, she died at the age of 87. As of Monday, the country sits at 44 days from an election, and as Republican Party leaders prepare to confirm a new nominee in a process that will be both quicker and immeasurably more partisan than that of 1993, it is vital that Americans keep a close eye on the decisions being made in the Senate as they prepare to cast their ballots.  

Before addressing the present vacancy on the Supreme Court, it is important to look back to the March of 2016, and former President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. 

Article 2, section 2 of the Constitution states that the executive “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint… Judges of the supreme Court.” This fragment of the Constitution materialized into the following process: the president sends a nominee that they select to the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration, the committee holds hearings with the nominee and makes a recommendation to the Senate, that then holds a debate and takes two votes, one to end the debate, and another the confirm the nomination, both of which require a simple majority vote (a tie can be decided by the vice-president). 

This process was stopped dead in its tracks in 2016 when the Republican-controlled Senate, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, refused to not only hold a vote for Garland, but to even hold a judiciary committee hearing. With the general election seven months away, McConnell declared to the Senate, “our view is this: Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy.” On Sept. 18, less than two months from the 2020 election, McConnell issued a statement on the passing of Justice Ginsberg, and closed it with a declaration: “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.” 

As to be expected, McConnell’s statement has sparked outrage and accusations of hypocrisy among Democrats in Congress and across the country. With a 53 to 47 Republican majority in the Senate, four senators would have to cross party lines and leadership in order for a confirmation not to go through. Two senators, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, have disapproved of the possibility of a nomination before the election. 

This moment seems to be a test designed specifically for Susan Collins at a turning point in her three-decade long career. She is facing her most difficult election yet against Maine House Speaker Sara Gideon, and a controversial vote to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court in 2018 has been a decision that Gideon has repeatedly used against Collins in campaign ads and debates. 

In what might be considered an appeal to Mainers who have voted for Collins on the basis of her reputation as one of the Senate majority’s few moderates, Collins issued a statement to Twitter on Saturday stating that, “the decision of a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should be made by the President who is elected on November 3rd.” 

Collins’ statement is essential because it conveys something that is sorely lacking in those from McConnell and other party leadership — that being a sense of what is at stake. Blocking Merrick Garland may very well have been an earnest attempt to promote the voice of the American people for some senators. However, during the current charged political environment, it is hard to determine the true motivation behind the process to determine the next Supreme Court appointment. Collins’ seizes on the phrase “lifetime appointment” because she, as a senator possibly facing electoral defeat, understands the weight of permanence. 

Many of the Supreme Court’s most recent landmark decisions would not have passed without Justice Ginsberg’s presence. Major cases on redistricting, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and gay marriage were all 5-4 decisions. Ginsberg voted on three separate occasions to keep the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in place, and with another case challenging the landmark Obama-era legislation scheduled to be heard by the court just a week after the election, many Americans with pre-existing conditions who are supported by it are rightfully concerned. 

With so little time left before the election, leaders in the Senate should look back on 2016 and dedicate serious consideration to deferring to their constituents. A judicial nomination is not something to be rushed, pushed or jammed through. In fact, it should be met with the same precision and exacting gaze that the “Notorious RBG”, as Ginsburg was affectionately dubbed by the internet, so famously approached every decision with.

As every major news outlet in the nation directs its attention to the record-setting wildfires up and down the West Coast, one word seems to unify the reactions of denizens from California to Washington: “apocalyptic.” As of Sunday, there have been 23 confirmed deaths and hundreds of thousands of people have been evacuated from their homes. While this disaster may seem far removed from the lives of Mainers, the phenomenon that set the stage for these fires, climate change, is at our front door. 

The New York Times reported on Saturday that one reason the fires have been so devastating in Oregon is because of unprecedented dryness in areas that are usually less vulnerable due to moisture coming off of the Pacific. Climate change has affected both the precipitation and temperature patterns in these environments in such a way that invites the rapid spread of fire. However, not all of the havoc is entirely because of the changing environment; excessive sprawl and a lack of controlled burning effectively built up the fuel for these fires to get completely out of control. 

In an interview on “Meet the Press,” Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington rebuked President Trump for framing the wildfires as caused entirely by forest mismanagement, and urged Americans to account for climate policy when casting their votes. While Gov. Inslee was likely making a thinly veiled reference to the presidential election, his plea applies to all Americans and all levels of government.

Just last February, the University of Maine’s Climate Change Institute (CCI) published its 2020 update of the “Maine’s Climate Future” report in an ongoing effort to inform Maine residents of the effects of climate change being recorded in their own state. The CCI reports that rates of air and sea warming, precipitation and sea level are all increasing, which are significant findings in a state with a natural resource-based economy. Farmers are fundamentally changing their planting methods to adjust to increased variability and uncertainty in weather that can ruin crop yields, and sea warming “over the next 30 years is expected to lead to a decline in lobster abundance.” 

With an important Senate election approaching in November, it is vital that Mainers consider which candidates are dedicated to climate change prediction and mitigation. On Sept. 11, Sen. Susan Collins, Maine House Speaker Sara Gideon, independent candidate Max Linn and green independent candidate Lisa Savage all participated in a televised debate sponsored by News Center Maine, Portland Press Herald and Bangor Daily News. There was only one question about the candidates’ positions on climate change; Speaker Gideon framed her goals of reducing carbon emissions and increasing renewable energy in terms of the benefits for Maine’s natural resource industries, while Sen. Collins discussed her support for off-shore wind energy and research efforts at UMaine. Despite their partisan differences, both candidates seemed to recognize that deferring on the question of climate change would not serve them or their constituents. 

Out of the four candidates, only one, Lisa Savage, aligned herself with the Green New Deal movement, made popular by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. During the debate Savage argued that “we also need to stop altering things that drive climate change, and instead turn our capacity to building things that will mitigate… climate change,” framing the policy as a way to create jobs and promote sustainable energy. The Green New Deal may seem too far left to actually attract voters, but at the beginning of September, Sen. Ed Markey, who introduced the original resolution to Congress with Sen. Ocasio-Cortez, won his democratic primary against a very popular Joe Kennedy III. 

The president describes the Green New Deal as a product of “the new radical left Democrat Party,” and while it is certainly a product of a significantly progressive ideology, it might not be that Democrats are drifting further left or right, rather climate change is becoming a more significant concern in the eyes of Americans. However horrifying the fires in California, Oregon and Washington are, they are nothing if not a call to action, or at the very least a reconsideration of the way that this country is currently operating. In an interview for UMaine News, Ivan Fernandez, a professor of soil science and forest resources and the lead author of the “Maine’s Climate Future” report, summarizes the global situation about as simply as possible when he concludes, “business as usual is not an option.” 

Scientists are predicting that there will be more, not less, of these severe environmental events. Americans need representatives who will give those warnings the attention and respect that they deserve.  Safeguarding the homes, lives and livelihoods of constituents should not be considered radical or partisan, and it will be the responsibility of every voter, come November, to determine which names on the ballot represent those interests.