Private Schools Are Adapting to Lockdown Better Than the Public School Monopoly

private school

More than 120,000 American schools have closed since March, a change affecting more than 55 million students. As we approach August, an intense debate about reopening schools has been brewing. One side argues that schools should reopen so that families can return to work and children can receive the education taxpayers have paid for. The other side says that schools cannot reopen safely without $116 billion more in federal funding, on top of the $13 billion already allocated to states to reopen schools.

This debate wouldn’t be so contentious if we funded students instead of school systems. The funding could follow children to wherever their families feel they would receive an effective education, be it a district-run school, a charter school, a private school, or a home setting. In that situation, if an individual school decided not to reopen—or if it reopened unsafely or inadequately—families could take their children’s education dollars elsewhere.

That is how food stamp funding currently works. If a neighborhood grocery store refuses to reopen, it may be inconvenient, but families wouldn’t be devastated; they could take their money elsewhere. Imagine if you were forced to pay your neighborhood Walmart the same amount of money each week regardless of whether they provided your family with any groceries. The store would have little incentive to reopen in an effective or timely manner.

It sounds absurd. But you have essentially just imagined today’s compulsory K–12 school system.

And it’s even worse than that. Even if the institution were required to provide goods and services through online or other platforms, it would still have weak incentives to get things right, because families would still be powerless.

New data show that’s precisely what happened with the K–12 school system during the lockdown. 

A nationally representative survey conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs found that private and charter schools were substantially more likely to continue providing students with meaningful education services during the lockdown than traditional public schools.

The survey found that private and charter school teachers were more than twice as likely to meet with students daily than teachers at district-run schools. Private and charter schools were about 20 percent more likely to introduce new content to their students during the lockdown. About 1 in every 4 traditional public schools simply provided review material for what students had already learned before the closures. Arlington Public Schools, for example, decided in April not to teach students any new material for the rest of the school year.

Another national survey, this one conducted by Common Sense Media, found similar results. Private school students were more than twice as likely to connect with their teachers each day, and about 1.5 times as likely to attend online classes during the closures.

A recent report by the Center for Reinventing Public Education found that only 1 in 3 school districts examined required teachers to deliver instruction during the lockdown, and less than half of all districts expected teachers to take attendance or check in with students regularly.

And just yesterday, The New York Times reported that in many towns, private schools are reopening while public schools are staying closed.

Traditional school systems’ failure to adapt to COVID-19 helps explain why many families are turning toward homeschooling. A new nationally representative survey by EdChoice and Morning Consult just found that the pandemic has made families about 2.4 times as likely to have a more favorable view of homeschooling as they are to have a less favorable view. Another national poll, this one by RealClear Opinion Research, found that 40 percent of American families say they are now “more likely” to homeschool after the lockdowns end. So many families in North Carolina committed to homeschooling this month that they crashed the state government’s website.

This might also explain why the new national Education Next survey found that parents were substantially more satisfied with private and charter schools’ responses to the pandemic than they were with those of district-run schools. Parents of children in private and charter schools were at least 50 percent more likely to report being “very satisfied” with the instruction provided during the lockdown than parents of children in traditional public schools.

These results aren’t surprising. Private schools can adapt to change more effectively because they are less hampered down by onerous regulations than their government-run counterparts. Choice schools also have real incentives to provide meaningful educations to their students while reopening safely. Private and charter schools know that their customers—families—can walk away and take their money with them if they fail to meet their needs.

K–12 students have been getting the short end of the stick for far too long. But it doesn’t have to be this way: We could fund students directly and truly empower families. Legislators in Pennsylvania and Maryland have already made proposals to partially fund families directly in the fall. Hopefully they’ll succeed—and hopefully more states will follow.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Cprlc2
via IFTTT

Market’s Euphoria Faces Test Of EU Negotiations

Market’s Euphoria Faces Test Of EU Negotiations

Tyler Durden

Fri, 07/17/2020 – 12:20

Authored by Michael Msika, Bloomberg macro commentator

European stocks are benefiting from renewed investor popularity, largely on hopes that the European Union’s proposed 750 billion-euro ($854 billion) recovery fund will be agreed. As the bloc’s leaders try to thrash out a deal over the next two and a bit days, any serious clash could put the market rally at risk.

The Stoxx Europe 600 Index has advanced about 9%, while the euro-area focused Euro Stoxx 50 benchmark is up 16% since the French-German agreement on the economic stimulus proposal was made public on May 18. The plan has been cited as one of the main reasons for the preference for European equities over U.S. or global shares by investors, as well as strategists at Barclays Plc, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

The spread between Italian and German benchmark bond yields – a measure of risk in Europe – narrowed about 50 basis points over the same period.

Fund managers are getting upbeat, with allocations to euro-area stocks jumping nine percentage points to a net 16% overweight, according to the Bank of America Corp.’s July Fund Manager Survey. The EU is now the most-favored region, because surveyed investors “bought Europe on fiscal stimulus,” wrote strategist Michael Hartnett last week.

Since mid-May, the European rally has been driven mostly by economically sensitive shares, such as technology, financials, chemicals and industrials, amid hopes that increased government spending would benefit those sectors.

“Given the recent outperformance of European cyclicals, there is some expectation that something will be agreed,” Bloomberg Intelligence strategist Laurent Douillet said by phone. “So the meeting of European leaders over the weekend is very important.”

The rally in the euro and Europe’s riskier government bonds also started to gain traction in May and is contingent on an agreement between EU leaders over the fund. While the European Central Bank’s bond-buying programs have backstopped the region’s debt, President Christine Lagarde reiterated on Thursday that efforts to bolster economies are incomplete without a joint fiscal response and that it’s assumed that a deal will be approved.

But Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, who’s been leading the criticism of the plan on the table, this week said he’s “somber” about the prospects for this weekend while Germany’s Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron, who helped trigger the rally with their May proposal, are talking about a deal by the end of the month rather than the start of next week.

The 27 leaders all need to be in agreement for the plan to move ahead and Austria, Denmark and Sweden have also voiced some of the concerns articulated by Rutte. Consequently, not all investors expect rapid progress.

The “Frugal Four”

Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic said the group is aware of the weight of expectations as they head into the talks. “For the markets, for the general image of the European Union, for the political message toward our member states, toward our citizens, it would be fantastic if we can reach agreement,” he told reporters on Thursday evening in Brussels.

“The political willingness of the Germany-France axis to get the package in place is very big,” Markus Steinbeis, managing partner at Steinbeis & Haecker Asset Management, said by phone. “Capital markets know this, but are also used to the fact that things move slowly in Brussels and a solution is often reached at the last minute. Little progress on the weekend should cause a short-term disappointment, but hopes will remain.”

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3985Jx6 Tyler Durden

Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg Says She Is Dealing With “A Recurrence Of Liver Cancer”

Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg Says She Is Dealing With “A Recurrence Of Liver Cancer”

Tyler Durden

Fri, 07/17/2020 – 12:10

After being discharged from hospital over fears of an infection earlier in the week, Scupreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsbrug has issued a statement confirming her health status and her capabilities of fulfilling her commitments.

Full Statement from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

On May 19, I began a course of chemotherapy (gemcitabine) to treat a recurrence of cancer. A periodic scan in February followed by a biopsy revealed lesions on my liver. My recent hospitalizations to remove gall stones and treat an infection were unrelated to this recurrence.

Immunotherapy first essayed proved unsuccessful. The chemotherapy course, however, is yielding positive results. Satisfied that my treatment course is now clear, I am providing this information.

My most recent scan on July 7 indicated significant reduction of the liver lesions and no new disease. I am tolerating chemotherapy well and am encouraged by the success of my current treatment. I will continue bi-weekly chemotherapy to keep my cancer at bay, and am able to maintain an active daily routine. Throughout, I have kept up with opinion writing and all other Court work.

I have often said I would remain a member of the Court as long as I can do the job full steam. I remain fully able to do that.

 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3jgR86Q Tyler Durden

AOC-Backed Progressive Unseats 30-Year Incumbent In NY Democratic Primary

AOC-Backed Progressive Unseats 30-Year Incumbent In NY Democratic Primary

Tyler Durden

Fri, 07/17/2020 – 11:55

A fifth Democrat backed by the DSA might be about to join Congress.

In a rare electoral victory for America’s inchoate “Democratic Socialist” movement (they lost a primary for a Queens DA seat last year, and haven’t really had any major successes since AOC’s primary victory over Joe Crowley, a member of the Congressional Democratic leadership and head of the Queens Democratic Party), former middle school principal Jamaal Bowman has defeated 16-term US Rep Eliot Engel in a Democratic Congressional Primary in New York.

The primary took place more than 2 weeks ago, but due to the virus, it has taken weeks to count all the mail in votes. Bowman declared victory in the race on June 24, the day after the primary, saying his lead was too large for Engel to overcome. Many votes still remain to be counted, the AP said. But on Friday morning, it was officially persuaded and agreed that Bowman had won.

Engel has held the seat for roughly 30 years.

A political novice who has never held public office before, Bowman, 44, is a progressive black man who decided to challenge Engel, the 73-year-old chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, because he had “lost touch with his economically and racially diverse district.”

And as the progressive left hones its primary get-out-the-vote machine, it appears we might see more of these types of primary wins in blue districts across NY State.

Neither candidate was able to campaign because of the virus, but Bowman apparently struck a chord by accusing Engel of hiding out at his home in Maryland as the pandemic hammered his district (New York’s 16th Congressional District), which covers parts of the Bronx and suburban Westchester County. The Bronx has of course seen infection rates as high as 40%, or more according to some preliminary studies.

Of course, Engel can still run as an independent. He might even win, depending on whether his team feels they can connect with enough voters in the suburbs.

So far, the progressive left faction in the House consists of 4 reps: AOC and the rest of “the squad”.

We imagine many of them might be out of step with the DSA’s whole “abolish the suburbs” campaign.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/32rhux0 Tyler Durden

“Project Zimbabwe”

“Project Zimbabwe”

Tyler Durden

Fri, 07/17/2020 – 11:35

Submitted by Adventures in Capitalism

Did The Market Actually Recover From COVID-19…???

Here’s the head-scratcher:

  • On one side, we have wave 2 of COVID-19, complete with new restrictions in multiple counties and states. Roughly 30 million people are out of work. Thousands of businesses are failing each week due to government COVID-19 mandates. Rent and mortgage payments are increasingly delinquent and all of this is before the fiscal stimulus tapers off.
  • On the other side, the Nasdaq is at new all-time highs and the S&P 500 isn’t far behind.

Isn’t the market supposed to be correlated to the overall economy? Otherwise, this would be the greatest spread yet between reality and fantasy during the “everything bubble.”

I’ve taken to calling the current government actions “Project Zimbabwe” as we are following the same failed monetary policies that Zimbabwe used. Oddly, despite no electricity, running water or food, much less a functioning economy, the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange index went up violently for years straight—it frequently doubled in a single day. Why? Because that was the rate of money printing and inflation. As the US economy embarks on a similar (but hopefully more subdued) policy path, we’ll also experience a similar reaction in our markets.

But what about the collapsing economy? How can the market be at highs while things are so awful? I played around with my Bloomberg and built the chart below.

The top panel should be pretty self-explanatory. In white, we see the S&P 500 ETF (SPY – USA) over the past decade and in yellow we can see the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet over the same time-span. In the lower panel, we’re going to analyze the ratio of the two. Coming out of the GFC, we had a bounce in the first year, a shake-out during the European debt crisis and then a narrow trading range as the S&P and Federal Reserve’s balance sheet expanded at a constant pace. Then, following Trump’s election victory, the S&P gained some real steam as taxes were reduced, regulations removed and the President tweeted everyone into the market. So far, the lower panel makes logical sense. What I find stunning is that after the COVID-19 crash, we’ve barely even bounced off the lows. In fact, we gave back a decade of retained earnings, financial engineering and everything else. We’re actually all the way back at 2010 levels. That’s stunning right? It’s literally been a wasted decade in the financial markets when indexed to the Fed’s balance sheet. That’s your COVID-19 crash and it’s as severe as you’d expect it to be.

Anyone who’s telling you that they do not understand the stock market making new highs while the economy is broken isn’t looking at the market when indexed to the Fed’s balance sheet. They’re not thinking of the radical implications of “Project Zimbabwe.

It simply makes my head hurt that there are investors out there who are shorting equities with a structural view that the economy is a mess. Your only logical exposures are long and very long. There will be a whole lot of volatility along the way (especially during those short periods where the Federal Reserve shrinks their balance sheet), but as long as the government has us on the “Project Zimbabwe” path, the market is going much higher in US Dollar terms. I want to be riding that freight train, not shorting the occasional violent contra-trend moves. Besides, based on the chart above, we actually have some ground to make up as I refuse to believe the past decade was completely wasted.

If you enjoyed this post, subscribe for more at http://adventuresincapitalism.com

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/30gsVVI Tyler Durden

Private Schools Are Adapting to Lockdown Better Than the Public School Monopoly

private school

More than 120,000 American schools have closed since March, a change affecting more than 55 million students. As we approach August, an intense debate about reopening schools has been brewing. One side argues that schools should reopen so that families can return to work and children can receive the education taxpayers have paid for. The other side says that schools cannot reopen safely without $116 billion more in federal funding, on top of the $13 billion already allocated to states to reopen schools.

This debate wouldn’t be so contentious if we funded students instead of school systems. The funding could follow children to wherever their families feel they would receive an effective education, be it a district-run school, a charter school, a private school, or a home setting. In that situation, if an individual school decided not to reopen—or if it reopened unsafely or inadequately—families could take their children’s education dollars elsewhere.

That is how food stamp funding currently works. If a neighborhood grocery store refuses to reopen, it may be inconvenient, but families wouldn’t be devastated; they could take their money elsewhere. Imagine if you were forced to pay your neighborhood Walmart the same amount of money each week regardless of whether they provided your family with any groceries. The store would have little incentive to reopen in an effective or timely manner.

It sounds absurd. But you have essentially just imagined today’s compulsory K–12 school system.

And it’s even worse than that. Even if the institution were required to provide goods and services through online or other platforms, it would still have weak incentives to get things right, because families would still be powerless.

New data show that’s precisely what happened with the K–12 school system during the lockdown. 

A nationally representative survey conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs found that private and charter schools were substantially more likely to continue providing students with meaningful education services during the lockdown than traditional public schools.

The survey found that private and charter school teachers were more than twice as likely to meet with students daily than teachers at district-run schools. Private and charter schools were about 20 percent more likely to introduce new content to their students during the lockdown. About 1 in every 4 traditional public schools simply provided review material for what students had already learned before the closures. Arlington Public Schools, for example, decided in April not to teach students any new material for the rest of the school year.

Another national survey, this one conducted by Common Sense Media, found similar results. Private school students were more than twice as likely to connect with their teachers each day, and about 1.5 times as likely to attend online classes during the closures.

A recent report by the Center for Reinventing Public Education found that only 1 in 3 school districts examined required teachers to deliver instruction during the lockdown, and less than half of all districts expected teachers to take attendance or check in with students regularly.

And just yesterday, The New York Times reported that in many towns, private schools are reopening while public schools are staying closed.

Traditional school systems’ failure to adapt to COVID-19 helps explain why many families are turning toward homeschooling. A new nationally representative survey by EdChoice and Morning Consult just found that the pandemic has made families about 2.4 times as likely to have a more favorable view of homeschooling as they are to have a less favorable view. Another national poll, this one by RealClear Opinion Research, found that 40 percent of American families say they are now “more likely” to homeschool after the lockdowns end. So many families in North Carolina committed to homeschooling this month that they crashed the state government’s website.

This might also explain why the new national Education Next survey found that parents were substantially more satisfied with private and charter schools’ responses to the pandemic than they were with those of district-run schools. Parents of children in private and charter schools were at least 50 percent more likely to report being “very satisfied” with the instruction provided during the lockdown than parents of children in traditional public schools.

These results aren’t surprising. Private schools can adapt to change more effectively because they are less hampered down by onerous regulations than their government-run counterparts. Choice schools also have real incentives to provide meaningful educations to their students while reopening safely. Private and charter schools know that their customers—families—can walk away and take their money with them if they fail to meet their needs.

K–12 students have been getting the short end of the stick for far too long. But it doesn’t have to be this way: We could fund students directly and truly empower families. Legislators in Pennsylvania and Maryland have already made proposals to partially fund families directly in the fall. Hopefully they’ll succeed—and hopefully more states will follow.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Cprlc2
via IFTTT

Good News: COVID-19 Vaccines Stimulate the Production of Both Antibodies and T-Cells

CovidVaccineyouneedgraphicsDreamstime

The COVID-19 vaccine being developed by researchers at Oxford University and the pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca reportedly stimulates the body’s immune system in early trials to produce both antibodies and killer T-cells. Antibodies protect against infections by binding to pathogens in order to prevent them from entering or damaging cells, and by coating pathogens to attract white blood cells to engulf and digest them. Longer-lasting killer T-cells work by finding and destroying infected cells in the body that have been turned into virus-making factories.

If this pans out, it’s great news. Recent studies have shown that protective antibodies decline steeply in a large proportion of people who have recovered from COVID-19 infections. Swiftly waning levels of antibodies might mean that people could be reinfected and that the vaccines that are being rushed through testing and production would only offer transitory protection against the novel coronavirus. But if the vaccines provoke the immune system to produce T-cells, they could still offer some longer-term protection against coronavirus infections.

While more research needs to be done, some preliminary data suggest that the COVID-19 vaccine being developed by Moderna may also elicit the production of T-cells that react to the coronavirus.

The idea that T-cells could offer protection against the COVID-19 coronavirus is bolstered by new study in Nature. It reports finding T-cell immunity in people who recovered from both COVID-19 and SARS coronavirus infections. The researchers also identified T-cells that react to both coronaviruses in about 50 percent of healthy study subjects who had never been infected by either virus. “This could be due to cross-reactive immunity obtained from exposure to other coronaviruses, such as those causing the common cold, or presently unknown animal coronaviruses. It is important to understand if this could explain why some individuals are able to better control the infection,” said study co-author Antonio Bertoletti in a press release from the Duke-National University of Singapore (Duke-NUS) Emerging Infectious Diseases program.

Earlier studies by Swedish and German researchers have also found that a substantial number of subjects who had never had COVID-19 produced a T-cell immune reaction to the virus. It’s still speculative, but it looks increasingly likely that a good portion of humanity may already have developed some T-cell immune protection against the novel coronavirus. Nevertheless, the Swedish researchers caution, “It remains to be determined if a robust memory T cell response in the absence of detectable circulating antibodies can protect against” the virus.

“While there have been many studies about the [COVID-19 coronavirus], there is still a lot we don’t understand about the virus yet,” said Duke-NUS researcher Jenny Low in the aforementioned press release. “What we do know is that T cells play an important role in the immune response against viral infections and should be assessed for their role in combating the [COVID-19 coronavirus], which has affected many people worldwide. Hopefully, our discovery will bring us a step closer to creating an effective vaccine.”

Even as COVID-19 vaccines are being tested in clinical trials to determine their safety and efficacy, production for several is being revved up in order to deliver them (if they work) as early as this fall. AstraZeneca announced in June that it planned to manufacture 2 billion doses of its vaccine, with 300 million slated for delivery to the United States and the United Kingdom by the end of this year. Moderna plans to deliver about 500 million doses per year, and potentially up to 1 billion annual doses starting in 2021. An effective vaccine against this scourge cannot come too soon.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/32sgGrP
via IFTTT

Good News: COVID-19 Vaccines Stimulate the Production of Both Antibodies and T-Cells

CovidVaccineyouneedgraphicsDreamstime

The COVID-19 vaccine being developed by researchers at Oxford University and the pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca reportedly stimulates the body’s immune system in early trials to produce both antibodies and killer T-cells. Antibodies protect against infections by binding to pathogens in order to prevent them from entering or damaging cells, and by coating pathogens to attract white blood cells to engulf and digest them. Longer-lasting killer T-cells work by finding and destroying infected cells in the body that have been turned into virus-making factories.

If this pans out, it’s great news. Recent studies have shown that protective antibodies decline steeply in a large proportion of people who have recovered from COVID-19 infections. Swiftly waning levels of antibodies might mean that people could be reinfected and that the vaccines that are being rushed through testing and production would only offer transitory protection against the novel coronavirus. But if the vaccines provoke the immune system to produce T-cells, they could still offer some longer-term protection against coronavirus infections.

While more research needs to be done, some preliminary data suggest that the COVID-19 vaccine being developed by Moderna may also elicit the production of T-cells that react to the coronavirus.

The idea that T-cells could offer protection against the COVID-19 coronavirus is bolstered by new study in Nature. It reports finding T-cell immunity in people who recovered from both COVID-19 and SARS coronavirus infections. The researchers also identified T-cells that react to both coronaviruses in about 50 percent of healthy study subjects who had never been infected by either virus. “This could be due to cross-reactive immunity obtained from exposure to other coronaviruses, such as those causing the common cold, or presently unknown animal coronaviruses. It is important to understand if this could explain why some individuals are able to better control the infection,” said study co-author Antonio Bertoletti in a press release from the Duke-National University of Singapore (Duke-NUS) Emerging Infectious Diseases program.

Earlier studies by Swedish and German researchers have also found that a substantial number of subjects who had never had COVID-19 produced a T-cell immune reaction to the virus. It’s still speculative, but it looks increasingly likely that a good portion of humanity may already have developed some T-cell immune protection against the novel coronavirus. Nevertheless, the Swedish researchers caution, “It remains to be determined if a robust memory T cell response in the absence of detectable circulating antibodies can protect against” the virus.

“While there have been many studies about the [COVID-19 coronavirus], there is still a lot we don’t understand about the virus yet,” said Duke-NUS researcher Jenny Low in the aforementioned press release. “What we do know is that T cells play an important role in the immune response against viral infections and should be assessed for their role in combating the [COVID-19 coronavirus], which has affected many people worldwide. Hopefully, our discovery will bring us a step closer to creating an effective vaccine.”

Even as COVID-19 vaccines are being tested in clinical trials to determine their safety and efficacy, production for several is being revved up in order to deliver them (if they work) as early as this fall. AstraZeneca announced in June that it planned to manufacture 2 billion doses of its vaccine, with 300 million slated for delivery to the United States and the United Kingdom by the end of this year. Moderna plans to deliver about 500 million doses per year, and potentially up to 1 billion annual doses starting in 2021. An effective vaccine against this scourge cannot come too soon.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/32sgGrP
via IFTTT

Hydroxychloroquine: The One Chart You Need To See

Hydroxychloroquine: The One Chart You Need To See

Tyler Durden

Fri, 07/17/2020 – 11:15

With conflicting reports over the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in treating COVID-19, and large-scale studies pending, it would be really great to have a 10,000-foot view of everything we know about the anti-malaria drug that a host of doctors swear by – and which has been standard treatment protocol in some countries but not others.

To that end, Twitter user Gummi Bear has conducted a ‘deep dive’ into virtually everything we know about HCQ – which starts with this must-see chart comparing country-level case-fatality rates (CFR) by HCQ use. Entire thread embedded below:

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/30m3XnL Tyler Durden

NYTimes Faces $10 Million Lawsuit For “Made Up” Coverage Of Liberty University

NYTimes Faces $10 Million Lawsuit For “Made Up” Coverage Of Liberty University

Tyler Durden

Fri, 07/17/2020 – 10:55

Authored by McKenna Dallmeyer via Campus Reform,

Liberty University is filing a $10 million defamation lawsuit against the New York Times after it “intentionally misrepresented” the college’s response to COVID-19. 

Campus Reform previously reported on Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr.’s handling of the coronavirus on campus in April, specifically highlighting how the New York Times singled out the private, evangelical university that is run by one of President Donald Trump’s most vocal supporters. Liberty faced harsh scrutiny over its response while other colleges that responded in much the same way got a pass.

The 100-page lawsuit refutes the claims made in several articles published by the New York Times,  including an opinion editorial titled, “The Religious Right’s Hostility to Science is Crippling Our Coronavirus Response.” The suit claims that Falwell is painted as a science denier and “religious ultraconservative.” However, Falwell and Liberty University are currently not mentioned in the piece.

The New York Times also ran an opinion editorial titled “This Land of Denial and Death.The piece characterizes Falwell as a science denier and claims that this disbelief led to the creation of “his own personal viral hot spot.” 

The central piece of the lawsuit, however, is a “viral story” by New York Times feature writer Elizabeth Williamson, titled “Liberty University Brings Back Its Students, and Coronavirus Fears, Too.”

The day after defendants published the story and made it go ‘viral’ with the sensational headline, ‘Liberty Brings Back its Students, and Coronavirus, Too,’ they changed the online headline to ‘Liberty Brings Back its Students, and Coronavirus Fears, Too.’” The suit argues that this alteration shows the “defendants’ understanding that their central claim was false.”

“Simply put, defendants’ claim that ‘Liberty Brings Back its Students, and Coronavirus, Too’ was made up. Their claim that Liberty ‘Reopened, and Students Got Sick’ was made up. Their claim that after purportedly reopening, ‘students started getting sick’ with ‘nearly a dozen Liberty students . . . sick with symptoms that suggest Covid-19’ was made up. And their claim that the ‘consequences’ of reopening had come home to roost’ in the form of a COVID-19 outbreak was made up,” the suit states.

Dr. Thomas W. Eppes, Jr. claimed to be the doctor who “runs Liberty’s student health service,” according to Williamson’s article and Twitter feed. However, Liberty says the piece “misrepresented” Eppes’ position with Liberty.

In a television interview with Sean Hannity, Falwell revealed that Eppes is a “doctor who has a practice ten miles away from Liberty.” 

Eppes is not “directly involved in providing student healthcare,” the lawsuit states. Liberty further claimed that it instructed the New York Times to contact the person who does run Liberty’s student health services, Dr. Joanna Thomas. However, Williamson never did, according to the suit.

The suit also claims that the New York Times “misrepresented” comments Dr. Eppes made regarding the pandemic. Eppes said the exact “opposite” of what the news organization claimed in the piece, the lawsuit claims.

The Times reported that there were several cases of COVID-19 on campus when there were actually “no known cases,” according to Liberty.

The New York Times “omitted entirely Dr. Eppes’ further explanation that these students were not tested for COVID-19 because they did not meet the symptomatic criteria for COVID-19 testing” and “paraphrased” Eppes’ actual statement so that the news site could “spread their false narrative in a cohesive way,” the lawsuit alleges.

There was never an on-campus student diagnosed with COVID-19. The only actual ‘viral’ element of this narrative that existed was the intense ‘viral’ Internet attention it generated for the New York Times‘ website and for those paying to advertise on that website,” the suit states.

Williamson traveled from Washington D.C. to Liberty’s campus in order to interview students and faculty.  The suit claims that Williamson and New York Times freelance photographer Julia Rendleman “trespassed” after ignoring “no trespassing” signs meant to keep “outside visitors” off-campus.  Williamson then boasted about her visit to campus on Twitter despite the “no trespassing” signs posted to keep students and faculty safe from COVID-19, the suit alleges.

The Central Virginia Health District (CVHD) conducted two surprise inspections of the Liberty campus “during and immediately after spring break” to ensure accordance with Gov. Ralph Northam’s Executive Order 53. Liberty was in “full compliance with all applicable state restrictions concerning the pandemic.” 

“All operations appeared to be in compliance with the governor’s emergency order, which becomes effective at midnight. We observed that all operations were carry-out only, no seating was provided, and onsite security guards — present at each location — were limiting the number of customers in line to 10,” CVHD Environmental Health Manager Jim Bowles stated.

The New York Times neglected to include this information in any of its pieces, Liberty said.

Williamson waited to contact Liberty for comment “until about an hour before publishing the story she had worked on for over a week.” This way, “there would not be time for it to comment on this claim in any informed way,” the suit claims.

A large portion of the suit is dedicated to explaining how the paper has “transformed” into a  “social media production company” and runs on “clickbait.” Because Falwell supports Trump, Liberty has become an “obvious target” for the paper, the complaint states. 

Because the New York Times published these stories, other news outlets picked up the story and reported the same “made up” narrative. Part VIII of the suit lists multiple articles published by other media outlets stating the “defamatory statements” made in the New York Times piece. 

The virality of the piece by Williamson caused “enormous harm” and resulted in “lost enrollment revenue and the substantial costs incurred responding to and mitigating defendants’ false and defamatory allegations.”

Falwell described the New York Times as a “bigoted bunch of liars,” “dumb,” and “stupid” during his interview with Hannity

Liberty is suing the New York Times on four counts, three of which involve alleged “defamation.” The fourth alleges “civil trespass” against the paper, Williamson, and Rendleman.  An arrest warrant for Rendleman was issued following the trespassing incident in late March. The prosecutor decided to dismiss the case, but Rendleman has to receive Falwell’s permission return to the campus moving forward.

The university is suing for $10 million as well as an additional $350,000 in “punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just, equitable, and proper.” 

“They have left us with no choice but to defend our reputation,” Falwell told Hannity.

“This has the potential perhaps to be a landmark case,” Hannity concluded.

Liberty University and the New York Times did not respond to Campus Reform’s request for comment in time for publication. 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3h6Igio Tyler Durden