Scientist He Jiankui, shown on Nov. 28, 2018 at the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing in Hong Kong
A Chinese scientist who last year sparked controversy with the announcement that he had used gene-editing technology on human embryos has been sentenced to prison, Chinese state media reported.
The Xinhua News Agency reported Monday that a court in Shenzhen, Guangdong province – a booming city near Hong Kong – had sentenced researcher Jiankui He to three years in prison and fined him 3 million yuan, equivalent to about $430,000.
Two researchers at other medical institutes in Guangdong, Renli Zhang and Jinzhou Qin, received respective two-year and 18-month prison terms and fines as well, Xinhua reported. The verdict stated that all three had knowingly violated China’s regulations and ethical principles to practice gene editing despite not being licensed physicians and had done so in the interest of personal gain.
He, a researcher at the Southern University of Science and Technology, also in Shenzhen, caused a global outcry last November when he announced in a series of videos on YouTube the birth of twin girls whose genomes he and a team of researchers had edited using CRISPR-Cas9 technology. The girls’ genomes were edited so they would not carry the gene CCR5, which hypothetically would render them immune to HIV, smallpox and cholera.
The announcement sparked an immediate backlash, with 120 Chinese scientists condemning the experiment as “crazy” and “unethical,” and He’s university soon suspended him without pay pending an investigation. Xinhua later reported that a second woman had also given birth to a gene-edited child, and He had used falsified ethical review papers to persuade couples to take part in his experiments. Meanwhile, 18 scientists signed a statement published in Nature calling for a global moratorium on human genetic engineering, with countries agreeing not to approve editing of heritable DNA – also known as human germline editing – unless certain conditions are met.
Rice University in Houston, which He had attended, also launched an inquiry into a professor under whom He had studied, Michael Deem, following news reports that quoted him as saying he had been involved in the research. Rice University director of media relations Doug Miller said in a phone interview that the investigation was still underway, but declined to comment further.
Look, I’m all for restoring ex-convicts to the full status of American citizenship. If you are deemed safe enough to be allowed free, then you are once again a part of society and should be treated as such. So I’m all for this new legislation in California that will allow ex-felons to serve on juries.
Just, don’t tell me you’re doing this to get “black” people on juries. That’s not the point here. Yes, incarceration disproportionately affects African-American communities. Yes, refusing to restore the rights of ex-cons disproportionately affects African-American communities. Yes, the restoration of rights are withheld because those most affected are disproportionately black and brown. All of that is true. But these quotes from local officials in San Francisco really pissed me off. From the San Francisco Examiner:
The new legislation is supported by both Public Defender Manohar Raju and incoming District Attorney Chesa Boudin.
Boudin called the legislation a “significant step” toward ending racial disparities in the criminal justice system.
“Up to now, California law bars anyone with a felony conviction from serving on a jury,” Boudin said. “This disproportionately silenced people of color and prevented many people from being tried by a jury of their peers — a fundamental pillar of our justice system.”
For Raju, the change in state law means people with real experiences in the criminal justice system will be able to share their “invaluable” perspectives in the jury room.
He also said the legislation will help people with felony convictions reengage in society.
“It is very common for an African American client to look around the courtroom and feel that they do not have a jury of their peers, as there may not be a single seated African American juror,” Raju said.
Listen, fellow do-gooders, the reason African-American defendants cannot get a jury of their peers is because prosecutors use their peremptory challenges to exclude all the black jurors. Do not act, even in your zeal to make this important change, like you can’t get a diverse jury in San Fran Freaking Cisco because all the black people are in jail or just out of lock-up. You can’t get a fair jury because prosecutors exclude fairness.
Prosecutors regularly use peremptory challenges in a racially biased manner, and this new legislation does nothing to stop them. That’s because the core of the problem is that Batson is a load of crap. Prosecutors are easily able to avoid the race-neutral test laid out in Batson v. Kentucky, PRECISELY as Thurgood Marshall predicted they would in his concurrence in that case. Let’s listen to old Justice Marshall for a second, shall we?
The decision today will not end the racial discrimination that peremptories inject into the jury selection process. That goal can be accomplished only by eliminating peremptory challenges entirely… I wholeheartedly concur in the Court’s conclusion that use of the peremptory challenge to remove blacks from juries on the basis of their race violates the Equal Protection Clause. I would go further, however, in fashioning a remedy adequate to eliminate that discrimination. Merely allowing defendants the opportunity to challenge the racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges in individual cases will not end the illegitimate use of the peremptory challenge.
This is your problem, California. It’s not that felons aren’t allowed on juries, it’s that black people aren’t allowed on juries if the prosecutor has a modicum of creativity when inventing a reason to exclude them. And if California prosecutors are already good at excluding NON-CRIMINAL black people from juries, you can imagine the field day they’re going to have with a potential juror with a rap sheet.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s still a good law. Well, it’s a good thought. But until you deal with the racist prosecutorial elephant in the room, the Sixth Amendment rights of black and brown defendants will still be nothing more than a theoretical promise, as opposed to a reality of justice.
Pepper Hamilton isn’t a stranger to disappointing bonuses. But the bonus scale released by the firm last week continues the trend. The firm announced their bonus grid, keyed to hours associates have billed, and it is noticeably smaller than the market bonuses going around Biglaw.
Here’s the scale the firm released:
If the limited number of bands, as opposed to class years, is confusing, a tipster has provided an easy guide — as well as some commentary:
Level 1: 1&2+ years Level 2: 3+4+ Level 3: 5+6+ Level 4: 7-8+ years People may spend more than one year in the same class year or band
So essentially, even on the fastest track of leveling up (class year = level), 8th years are still making the same bonus as a first year at other firms with market bonuses
As a reminder, market bonuses as set by Milbank in November, are giving second year associates (class of 2017) $25,000. So… yeah. Though the firm also announced associates may be eligible for additional discretionary bonuses based on merit, which could bring their total bonus in line with market levels.
Remember — we can’t do this without you, dear readers! We depend on your tips to stay on top of important bonus updates, so when your firm matches, please text us (646-820-8477) or email us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Matches”). Please include the memo if available. You can take a photo of the memo and send it via text or email if you don’t want to forward the original PDF or Word file.
And if you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Bonus Alerts (which is the alert list we also use for all salary announcements), please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. If you previously signed up for the bonus alerts, you don’t need to do anything. You’ll receive an email notification within minutes of each bonus announcement that we publish. Thanks for your help!
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).
A subpoena that Congress serves on the president is not like a subpoena that one litigant serves on another.
When one litigant serves a subpoena on another, we (unfortunately, perhaps) expect battles over the propriety of service, and the scope of production, and whether documents are in one’s control, and so on.
That’s just life. Lawsuits are an adversarial process, and the opposing parties are expected to resist (within the bounds of the law) to protect their respective interests. So they fight.
But what about subpoenas served by Congress on the executive branch?
When I first turned this question over in my mind, I thought that the executive branch should naturally try to assist Congress. These are not subpoenas served in an adversarial process. Congress and the executive are co-equal branches of government. Congress has a constitutionally mandated duty to oversee the president. Surely, if Congress subpoenas the executive branch, the executive branch should strive to comply.
But then I thought harder.
Litigants are mere litigants. As one wise litigator told me decades ago, “They’re my opponents, not my enemies.” (One of the parties, nearly forced into bankruptcy by the litigation, responded, “They may be your opponents. They’re my enemies.” But that’s another story.)
Anyway, in a sense, politicians are worse than mere litigants.
The opposing political parties, unlike most litigants, seemingly will do anything in their power to hurt each other, including things that would be unethical in litigation (such as knowingly misrepresent facts, and so on).
Given that crazed partisans in Congress are serving subpoenas on crazed partisans in the executive branch, is the executive branch really duty-bound to assist in good faith?
(Be fair now. You might first think “impeachment.” But then think “Benghazi.” What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.)
Logically, you might think the branches of government should cooperate with each other, but I’m not sure.
Maybe the executive can legitimately resist at every turn, playing just as hardball as a private litigant.
That puts the courts, of course, in a terrible situation.
When litigants disagree, the judiciary calls balls and strikes. Everyone complains, but the parties accept the decisions and go on with their lives.
When partisans disagree, the judiciary could decline to call balls and strikes under the “political question” doctrine. But then no one would decide these disputes, which is an impossible situation.
Or the judiciary could involve itself in the fray, but judges would then be decried as partisan, no matter what the decision.
I’m not sure that the executive and legislative branches of government are duty-bound to cooperate with each other, but I know that the judiciary is the institution that suffers when they don’t.
The president’s free lawyer is back from his Excellent Eastern European Adventures and hopes to present his book report to the Senate real soon.
“He’s going to make a report, I think to the attorney general and to Congress,” Trump promised earlier this month, adding, “he has a lot of good information.” By which he means some hallucinatory meanderings accusing investment giant Franklin Templeton of laundering $7 billion of stolen Ukrainian government assets back into Ukrainian government bonds. And that’s not even a joke.
“I’m working on pulling it together and hope to have it done by the end of the week,” he told the Washington Post.
Unbelievably, the august members of the upper chamber have one or two tiny reservations about America’s Mayor.
“I wouldn’t trust Rudy to represent me in a parking dispute so I’d say avoid,” a senior GOP Senate aide told The Daily Beast. Which is downright unkind! Who among us hasn’t managed to talk our client into an impeachment by convincing him that Ukraine hacked the DNC server, then framed Russia and smuggled the equipment over to Kyiv, only to bury it in some oligarch’s backyard where it sits today just waiting for the president to insist on its prompt return? (Again, not a joke.)
“Rudy Giuliani long ago lost any shred of credibility, especially after the dossier he assembled for the State Department stunningly mirrored Russian propaganda,” Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., told the Daily Beast. “Knowing that, anyone that attempts to defend President Trump’s behavior by citing Rudy’s information over our own intelligence agencies is simply irresponsible, uninformed, or willing to be that useful idiot the Kremlin desires.”
Well, he would say that. He’s a Democrat and doubtless trapped under Nervous Nancy’s iron thumb. Surely, Rudy will be better received by his fellow Gippers.
“My advice to Giuliani would be to share what he got from Ukraine with the IC [intelligence community] to make sure it’s not Russia propaganda. I’m very suspicious of what the Russians are up to all over the world,” Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said.
How odd! Especially after the State Department already refused to act on Rudy’s last book report, compiled with the help of a graduate of the KGB academy in Moscow and a Ukrainian parliamentarian from the pro-Russian Party of Regions.
“It’s not Russian propaganda,” Giuliani told the Daily Beast. Which should, after all, settle the matter. He is after all a world-renowned cyber expert and former Attorney General of the United States.
It’s just bizarre that not a single senator will agree to meet with him. Inexplicable, really.
Elizabeth Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.
It’s falling on individuals to take the oft-problematic industry to task.
Photo: Edward Berthelot/Getty Images
“Seinfeld”‘s final episodes are centered around a fictitious “Good Samaritan law” that obliges private citizens to intervene if they witness a crime. The online fashion community, it seems, is increasingly governed by that same law, with individuals taking up the mantle of holding brands and individuals who work in the industry accountable for their actions. While fashion criticism has traditionally revolved around aesthetics, this new breed of criticism hinges on evaluations of originality and ethics. The Diet Prada model has shown time and time again that call-outs have an uncanny ability to go viral. Is that why we’re seeing the proliferation of watchdog critics online? Are all of these fashion mercenaries just hungry for fame and likes and retweets?
Not necessarily. The rise of these individual watchdogs — good samaritans intent on making the fashion industry a healthier, more wholesome space — owes a lot to the increased democratization of fashion and the erosion of the barrier to entry; those who had long been excluded are now able to have their voices heard.
Plagiarism, surely, is what most think of when they think of fashion’s call-out culture. Diet Prada is partially to thank, but it’s always been the accusations — and proof — of copying that have garnered the most attention.
Julie Zerbo founded The Fashion Law in 2012, when she was still a law student, because she felt that the topic of fashion law was underreported. In 2013, TFL went viral for the first time. Zerbo had written about Chanel’s Fall 2012 bracelets that seemed to be replicas of independent designer Pamela Love’s creations. More mainstream publications started talking about it, citing TFL and linking back, which helped build both the blog’s readership and its reputation. Lawsuits and tax evasion, damning as they may be for a company’s bottom line, don’t draw the same attention as a high-profile brand caught copying.
Still, Zerbo and the fashion industry’s other watchdogs appear intent on covering more than just the theft of intellectual property. They’re also focused on calling out cultural appropriation, racism, bad business practices, misleading advertisements, bootlegs — bad behavior writ large.
Give Credit is one such example; it’s “an educational platform that raises awareness about the fashion industry’s sources of inspiration,” explains its founder Andreea Tanasescu. Unlike, say, Diet Prada, Give Credit is less concerned about intra-fashion plagiarism, choosing to instead focus on instances where fashion appropriates traditional garments without acknowledging or outsourcing to the artisans that have spent generations creating the aesthetics now being profited from.
Tanasescu was inspired to start Give Credit after a pair of major fashion labels, Tory Burch and Dior, copied traditional Romanian designs in June of 2017. “To my astonishment, [the Tory Burch coat] was described as being of African inspiration,” Tanasescu said, but it was “a copy of a Romanian Coat from Oltenia region.” That was followed by Dior, which “copied a traditional Romanian sheepskin vest from Bihor county [but] presented it as a ‘Bohemian Vest’, [and] the company made no mention of its source of inspiration.”
These watchdog accounts are becoming increasingly niche, too. Take StockXBusta: It’s an Instagram account that exists solely to catalog crowdsourced examples of purported corporate delinquency by StockX, the Detroit-based “stock market of things” known best for its streetwear and sneaker marketplace. The type of behavior StockXBusta reports on ranges from the platform not properly vetting the condition of sneakers to potential instances of market manipulation by displaying inflated sale prices.
But, it comes with a caveat: “No stories confirmed true,” warns the page’s description.
When contacted by Fashionista, the page’s administrator was initially willing to answer questions, so long as their identity remained concealed. However, they eventually declined to answer our questions, including whether they had any ties to StockX or its competitors.
It’s indicative of the fine line that pages like StockXBusta must toe. For all of the light shed on potential misdeed, there remain questions about just how objective StockXBusta and other mercenary watchdogs can be. Despite promises of objectivity, there’s no stopping them from posting so-called kill pieces that seek to disparage brands and companies because of some personal or corporate vendetta, or from being kinder to companies they work with or have some sort of allegiance to.
Of course, it’s that lack of regulation and independence that makes mercenary watchdogs like Diet Prada and The Fashion Law so influential. They don’t answer to advertisers or brands or even editors, thanks to the advent of self-publishing and social media. “Because anyone can speak her or his mind and does not need a boss or a board to approve every move and action makes this type of activism more flexible and authentic,” Tanasescu tells Fashionista. And, according to Gerrie, that’s central to the success of accounts and sites like Diet Prada and TFL: “The fashion industry was hermetically-sealed within a hierarchical homogenous system and now through social media and call-out culture, access has really opened up and people are empowered to challenge these big businesses in a meaningful way.”
Diet Prada’s exponential growth, in particular, is a testament to the thirst for this brand of independent criticism and commentary. “It’s really refreshing and has an aura of authenticity, which is something consumers and practitioners are looking for,” Gerrie tells Fashionista. And that stands in stark contrast to what’s happening with the industry publications that should be tasked with doing the type of work these independent watchdogs are. In Gerrie’s eyes, “traditional media outlets are losing credibility due to the fact they are often beholden to advertising money from large brands.”
What’s ironic, is that with the explosive growth of fashion’s call out movement, the growing pains for these mercenary accounts have come quick — and fatigue has set in relatively quickly, too. It’s a bit of an ouroboros, really.
Diet Prada — the star pupil of the movement, if you will — is a polarizing name in the fashion industry. “There are merits to some of what Diet Prada [does],” one employee from a major luxury retailer told Fashionista, “but a lot of the commentary seems biased.” When Diet Prada first burst onto the scene, it was run anonymously and supported by merchandise sales. But, as soon as Tony Liu and Lindsey Schuyler revealed themselves, it opened them up to accusations of bias and conflicts of interest.
Of course, working with Gucci and being handsomely compensated for it didn’t help. Questions also arose when they accused bourgeoning British designer Richard Quinn of knocking off Demna Gvasalia, a designer whom Diet Prada had gone to bat for before, when in fact, Quinn had been experimenting with the aesthetic in question for years. Still, Liu and Schuyler doubled down on their post. Not having to answer to anybody might have its perks, but it also means there aren’t any editors standing in the way of dubious allegations being made.
“From what I can see, people don’t really care about what Diet Prada calls out anymore,” the employee added. “I used to follow them, but not anymore and I don’t think I’m the only one.” Well, it’s important to note that the account now has over 1.6 million followers, and it can’t be denied that Diet Prada has been an agent of change — embodied in no better way than the fact that Gucci and Dapper Dan have become official partners in recent years.
As far as whether or not the likes of Diet Prada or other independent watchdogs have actually affected how retailers and consumers buy, the employee doesn’t really think so. “It’s rare and consumers are still going to buy something that might be copied or inspired by another designer. What happened with Dolce & Gabbana was different, because there’s a pattern of repeated racist behavior.”
But, while the impact on the commercial side of things may be limited, it feels like emergence of these mercenary watchdogs has made individuals and institutions alike more comfortable with call-outs. We see publications like this one and CNBC digging into The RealReal’s authentication practices, and individuals calling out tokenism that’s designed to sidestep criticism. When Kerby Jean-Raymond went off on Business of Fashion, it resonated — and rightfully so — because that type of discussion and discourse — about ethics, rather than just aesthetics — is now familiar. Would his comments have received the same attention in mid-aughts, or would a designer have felt comfortable making them? It’s impossible to say.
“These subjects were covered before, but it was always from a controversial perspective, especially in the mainstream media,” says Tanasescu. “Now we see a different perspective, with a clear message calling for systemic change towards cultural, racial and social inequality.”
So where is this all going? Diet Prada’s aforementioned polarization is a cautionary tale of sorts for other watchdogs seeking to bring about change. “When callout culture transitions to cancel culture, that’s when it becomes dangerous,” says Gerrie, the Ph.D. candidate, “I think a nuanced and open conversation needs to be had in these situations.”
Take Give Credit, for example; rather than just call out to cancel, Tanasescu has embraced what can be seen as the second wave of call-out culture. The goal is to raise awareness, create dialogue and allow others to benefit from what the individuals doing the calling out are benefitting from: inclusion within the fashion industry after years of being excluded.
“The phenomenon has instigated a really positive awareness of cultural appropriation, bigotry, and racism in the industry, which comes in the form of aggressions both macro and micro,” says Gerrie.
While it’s hard to say definitively that every instance of a fashion company being called out — of which there have been so many over the past year — is rooted in altruism or had an ultimately positive outcome, it can’t be denied that they’ve at least made people — consumers, brands, designers and critics a like — think just a little bit more.
Thanks to a confluence of events –- the election of more moderate District Attorneys (some who were former defense attorneys), the proliferation of podcasts like “Serial” and crime series like “When They See Us” and “The Night Of” — more people are aware that it’s possible to be wrongfully convicted and that incarceration is costly, sometimes unnecessary, and often cruel.
The sweeping “woke” movement has prompted changes including reducing federal sentencing on crack-possession crimes, the legalization of marijuana, and a vast rethinking of police procedures: No longer is it “acceptable” to stop and detain young men merely because they are black or Hispanic; police who don’t videotape arrests or interrogations are considered to be hiding something; and, a shoot-first, ask-questions-later philosophy is no longer accepted as proper police practice. Cops are being reprimanded for bad arrests and sometimes even prosecuted for murder, although still rarely convicted.
Groundbreaking changes in how crime is prosecuted in New York begin on January 1, and include compelling the prosecutor to turn over evidence against a defendant early in a case, as opposed to the eve of trial. People accused of most low-level crimes will no longer be thrown in jail simply because they don’t have the money to make bail. Many cities have already instituted similar changes and crime has not risen. The prosecution’s thumb on the scales of justice is slowly being lifted.
“Decarceration” (the process of getting people out of jail) has become as debated a topic as incarceration. Exoneration initiatives have proliferated, and stories of people being released from prison after serving decades of time for crimes they did not commit are commonplace.
All of these changes are welcome and much needed. But I remain cautious.
Our approach to crime, like the political swings of our country, is cyclical, never only moving forward but circling back when things get tough or crime goes up. In the bad old 1980s, when crime was rampant in New York City and property values fell, the “broken window” philosophy took hold, and stop-and-frisk became a tool to address crime. Stop-and-frisk was based on racial profiling. Stop enough young black and Hispanic kids, and cops are bound to find someone with a gun, right? Sometimes they did, but few records were kept of how many thousands of innocent kids were stopped and searched with nothing illegal found. The practice was not only discriminatory, but it created a huge animosity between communities of color and the police. It has not only been discontinued, but even former NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg had to apologize for permitting it to happen under his watch when he recently announced his candidacy for president.
Times change and people’s perceptions of “justice” change with it. That is not due to some massive acceptance of the wrongness of jailing the underclass. It’s merely a reaction to the times. Crime is down. Prisons are costly. Drug abuse (which can lead to incarceration) is no longer just a lower-class phenomenon but affects both haves and have-nots. Because of that, legislative leaders have the leeway to think about the criminal justice system more holistically and not just to build more prisons.
But if the gap between rich and poor grows wider, if poor kids continue to go to poor schools and therefore have fewer opportunities for advancement, and if crime statistics inch up again, we’ll return to the harsh approach of the 1980s a lot faster than it took us to evolve to where we are today.
Whether we continue moving toward greater social justice comes down to three things –- money, judges, and the vilification of “the other.”
Crime brings down property values –- nobody wants that.
Judges determine the interpretation of the law. They’ve got a lot of discretion in that area, and many are coming into this new age of criminal justice kicking and screaming. One judge in New York City was quoted by the Daily News as calling the new bail laws “stupid.”
Then there’s the fact that our conservative president has been appointing conservative federal judges since he took office. While someone’s political affiliation is not necessarily a litmus test of how they’ll rule on the bench, it’s pretty safe to say that certain basic constitutional rights like the right to privacy, which effect how much the government can surveil everything from your social media accounts to your phone conversations, will be impacted in upcoming cases. Miranda rights may be whittled down, and probable cause to arrest is largely still interpreted by a whatever-the-police-say-is-right approach.
Lastly, with the upswing of fear of “the other,” represented in the present day by anti-immigrant speech, a rise in antisemitism, and a concurrent rise in white supremacy movements, gains in the criminal justice system may be short-lived as all of those factors presage an uptick in crime.
In spite of recognition that jails don’t help rehabilitate and should be made more humane, our president has authorized the separation of immigrant children from their parents, detention centers which are little more than cages, and has not provided sufficient funding to appoint more judges to adjudicate their cases efficiently.
So, while we’ve seen some significant, positive changes, continued progress is by no means certain.
Toni Messina has tried over 100 cases and has been practicing criminal law and immigration since 1990. You can follow her on Twitter: @tonitamess.
For Mitch McConnell to say he’s working with the White House, coordinating with the defendant in this trial before the trial has even begun is atrocious. He may think he’s a judge impaneling an all-white jury for a Klansman trial in Mississippi in 1965. That’s not the kind of trial we have.
— Richard Painter, former chief White House ethics lawyer under George W. Bush, appearing on CNN sounding off on the Senate Majority Leader’s strategy on impeachment. Also on the segment was former senator Rick Santorum who disagreed with Painter, saying McConnell was “completely appropriate.”
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).
* There is a lawyer who gets to decide whether bottleheads of the pope are allowed to be made. Sounds like a pretty good gig. [Wall Street Journal]
* A New York lawyer who practiced until he was 101 has passed away. [New York Times]
* Wawa has been hit with lawsuits over a massive data breach. Everyone who lives in North Jersey is breathing a sigh of relief… [ABC News]
* An Illinois man who pretended to be a lawyer for five years has been charged with the unauthorized practice of law. [Patch]
* A Florida attorney has been suspended from practice after making anti-Muslim and homophobic remarks. [Miami Herald]
Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.
Church members sing during the Sunday mass at the Roman Catholic Church in Harare, Zimbabwe, Sunday, Sept. 8, 2019, a church that Robert Mugabe regularly attended. (Credit: AP Photo/Themba Hadebe.)
As the United Nations warns that 2020 could see Zimbabwe’s food security crisis become even worse, an expert for the official overseas development arm of the U.S. bishops says such problems can’t be solved without addressing their underlying cause in climate change.
“Zimbabwe and countries like it continue to struggle despite contributing very little to climate change,” said Brittany Wichtendahl, Public Relations Coordinator for Catholic Relief Services (CRS) in the country. “There is urgent need globally to take action that will slow down, stop, or reverse climate change.”
Zimbabwe used to be called Southern Africa’s breadbasket, but climate change and an economic meltdown have combined to force close to 70 percent of the people into a situation of food insecurity.
“We are facing the worst hunger crisis in more than a decade. The situation is nothing short of tragic. There is no other way of putting it,” says Bettina Luescher of the UN Food Program.
Zimbabwe has been there before, with droughts and cyclones devastation landscapes, killing people and forcing others from their homes.
CRS has been at the forefront of interventions in the country’s many humanitarian emergencies. The Catholic charity could have even more work on its hands as the country is set to slip into perhaps its worst food crisis in decades.
In an exclusive interview with Crux, Wichtendahl talks about the scale of the 2019 drought in Zimbabwe and how past crises could help the charity’s interventions in the future.
Crux: Zimbabwe was hit by drought in 2019. How serious would you say the drought was?
Wichtendahl: It has been one of the worst droughts in decades. Rainfall amounts have been down across the country and weather patterns have been erratic. The impact of this drought has been felt all across Zimbabwe. Almost six million people are currently facing food insecurity, and CRS does worry that the number will increase.
What was the impact in terms of food security and displacement of people?
Millions of people in both urban and rural areas are facing food insecurity, and because of this we have seen an increase in the migration of Zimbabweans. We’ve seen migration from rural to urban areas increase because the ability for people to live off the land is decreasing.
More and more young people are headed to places like Botswana or South Africa to try and find jobs so they can afford to feed themselves. Often, migrating parents leave their young children behind with grandparents who struggle to provide for them. Many more children are out of school and undernourished as a result.
What kind of response did the government and aid agencies provide?
The government has been coordinating disaster response and partnering with aid agencies to ensure targeted, efficient support is provided at provincial and district levels where it is needed most. The disaster risk committees work closely with aid agencies like CRS to make sure this support is getting to the most vulnerable. The government has already started distributing lean season assistance and emergency food aid, and this is expected to be scaled up next month.
How did CRS respond to the crisis?
CRS has been working with farmers across Zimbabwe to help mitigate the effects of the drought through climate-smart crop and livestock agriculture. Working with local partners, CRS teaches farmers soil and water conservation methods. In the long term, these conservation methods are teaching farmers how to replenish the land and will help them utilize every drop of water that falls to the ground.
We also work with the government to send out bulk text messages to farmers to warn them about things like pest attacks or potential floods. With the advanced warning these messages provide, farmers can quickly prepare and make decisions that will help manage any risk to their crops.
In addition, we are providing farmers with drought-resistant crops and livestock that are very adaptable to drought conditions, so they can produce enough food for the farmers and their families, even in the harsh conditions we’re currently seeing.
The situation was worsened by Cyclone Idai. How did all of this play out?
People here in Zimbabwe were still recovering from Cyclone Idai when the drought hit. In fact, many of them are still trying to get back to where they were before the storm disrupted their lives, and the drought has made it even harder. Cholera outbreaks caused by Idai meant that many people who could have been working to rebuild their homes or farms were sick, delaying time spent harvesting and saving food. With the drought, many Zimbabweans have had to focus on finding enough to eat rather than rebuilding their homes and their communities.
There are already warnings more drought is coming. What would this mean for food security?
Food insecurity will get worse. CRS is working with farmers to help them prepare and adapt as best they can for incoming droughts or floods, but there is only so much that can be done. What it comes down to is that climate change is making droughts and weather events like Cyclone Idai stronger, longer, and more frequent.
Zimbabwe and countries like it continue to struggle despite contributing very little to climate change. There is urgent need globally to take action that will slow down, stop, or reverse climate change.
Did you learn any lessons from previous drought situations that could prepare you for better responses in future?
We are always working to adapt our responses so that they work efficiently and provide the most assistance to the most vulnerable At the community level we work with farmers to learn, adjust their methods, and adapt to climate events through learning centers. Each farming season, the farmers we work with are better able to recognize and take appropriate measures to respond to drought and other shocks like flooding.
CRS has farmer learning centers in rural communities in Zimbabwe where farmers learn new farming methods and also form a community to share information and trends. The learning centers have helped farmers recognize early signals of drought and the first signs of pest attacks.
In addition, CRS connects farmers with research institutes which collect crop and livestock samples to study drought-tolerant feed formulations. The information this research has generated over years provides information that helps farmers maximize crop and livestock yields. CRS has also developed a measurement protocol that monitors how communities respond to emergencies. This protocol gives communities information that helps them recognize trends and patterns so they can anticipate climate events and other shocks and prepare for them. CRS intends to deploy this protocol in Zimbabwe.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of 
Jordan Rothman is a partner of 
