Category: News Feeds

Even in the most ideal of circumstances, going to law school is a crap ton of work. So, I can’t even imagine the fortitude necessary to tackle getting a JD while also cooking a tiny human in your stomach. But it’s true, people do it all the time, and students at one law school say the administration doesn’t support students who are pregnant.

According to a new story from the Belmont Vision, four current and former law students at Belmont University College of Law allege the law school refused to make accommodations to their attendance policy for pregnant students. Those who have come forward are: Juliana Lamar Above the Law famous for bringing her kid with her to get sworn in, said while she was a student at Belmont after an emergency C-section she felt pressured to return to classes before she could even drive herself or carry her textbooks; Cecilia Young is a 3L who says she was denied additional absences despite being diagnosed with a potentially life-threatening condition and being hospitalized post-birth; Kendall Ponchillia, a 3L with a high-risk pregnancy, was also denied additional absences even when she provided a doctor’s note requesting the accommodation; Rachel Clifton a Belmont Law alumni who says she was initially denied any accommodations, including additional absences, by the school’s former Title IX director, but, after raising the issue with Associate Dean of Academic Affairs Ellen Black, she was eventually allowed to pump after the two hour mark during an exam.

The law school has maintained the need to strictly enforce their attendance policy, which limits missed classes to 15 percent — a more draconian standard than most schools impose when interpreting the American Bar Association’s standard of “reasonable” attendance. Most frequently, schools adopt an 80 percent attendance rule.

Provost Thomas Burns said that what the women were actually requesting were exceptions to the attendance policy, and not medical accommodations. The attendance policy, both he and law school Dean Alberto Gonzales said, would not change.

Belmont law’s attendance policy bars students from missing more than 15 percent of classes in a course; any student to exceed that amount will automatically fail the class with a grade of “FN.”

Rather than change the attendance policy, Burns said the school should find ways to assist pregnant students on a case-by-case basis, which can include additional absences.

“What we need to do is find ways that we can support students and make them successful,” Burns said.

But despite these platitudes, women repeated say they were held to the strict attendance policy despite pregnancy related medical issues. Indeed, when a graduate of the law school, Sarah Martin, brought the concerns to the administration, it was quickly clear that very little would change:

Martin met with Dean Black and discussed the women’s difficulties receiving pregnancy-related support from the law school, requesting that the school change its attendance policy.

“It was a very defensive meeting, there was no commitment to do anything,” Martin said. “She was very clear that nothing was going to change about the attendance policy and no accommodations would ever be made.”

Gonzales, the law school’s dean, reached out to Martin via email the week after that meeting, saying that Martin was “correct in assessing that no changes would be made to the attendance policy.”

But that wasn’t the end of the concerns over pregnancy related accommodations. During a regularly scheduled visit to the law school by the ABA, students approached the ABA contingent and spoke to them about their concerns. The ABA brought those concerns to the law school administration, and it seemed the law school softened its stance on pregnancy accommodations:

The ABA brought those concerns to Belmont in a meeting that Gonzales and university President Bob Fisher attended among others. Following the meeting, the law school altered its language in the attendance policy to further clarify that students were to approach Dean Black for pregnancy-related help.

“I think we’ve taken the appropriate steps to make sure that the student’s health is a priority,” said Gonzales in an interview with the Vision last week. “We try to provide the accommodations they need to be successful as a parent, successful as a law student.”

During that same interview, Black affirmed that the law school is doing all it can.

“I have not had an instance where a student has come to me and asked for assistance and I did not provide it,” said Black, adding that the women should continually follow up with her if their situations require medical accommodations.

However, Ponchillia’s pregnancy occurred after the policy was amended. She says, armed with a doctor’s note detailing her high risk pregnancy, she consulted with Black about possible accommodations, and she wasn’t given any help:

“They basically told me to schedule my doctor’s appointments on Fridays so I wouldn’t miss class, that there was nothing they can do for me now, and that they could readdress it in the spring.”

As Martin notes, “The way Kendall [Ponchillia] has been treated makes me think that nothing has changed.”

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).

“Somewhere around the middle of her forehead.”

— Baltimore Sheriff’s officials confirming that Chief Circuit Judge Wanda Heard was hit by a metal water pitcher hurled at her by Travis Burroughs after Judge Heard finished sentencing him to a life sentence with all but 70 years suspended. The Sheriff’s Department said that they will be pressing charges, not that there’s much more you can do when a guy’s already going down until he’s 106 years old.

It’s that time of the year again. Holiday Parties. Spiked eggnog and lampshades against the backdrop of a legal profession replete with problem drinkers. Along with with that, the increased holiday risk of impaired driving, sexual misconduct, and the general, alcohol-fueled stupidity that ‘spikes’ each holiday season.

It makes sense now, more than ever, to re-evaluate how holiday parties are implemented from Biglaw to small law. Balance is crucial. The good news is that equilibrium can be established in a way that adds to the festivities, rather than “grinching it” with a limited alternative selection of a few liters of soft drinks and bottled water. Think hard about “Mocktailing” your upcoming event. To provide a “blueprint” for your new, incredible, mocktail bar, I reached out to Tanya Pitch, a long-time Dallas, event bartender. Here is her take with recipes!

Mocktails, or zero-proof cocktails, are gaining quite the following these days. Many restaurants are finding that their patrons prefer more options than just mundane sodas, juices, and water. Mocktails also are making their way into the private party scene as well. There is a misconception that nondrinkers are such a minority group that it isn’t worth the effort/investment to create viable options for them.

Providing a mocktail bar at your next party is an opportunity to surprise and delight your audience while making you the BEST host this holiday season. The easiest way to build your holiday party bar is to create a cocktail menu with the catering company you’ve hired.

Don’t assume that guests who want a non-alcoholic beverage have unsophisticated palates. Ask the catering company you hired to help you get creative when it comes to both drink menus. It’s usually best to build the cocktail and mocktail menus off of one another. This will cut down on costs because the ingredients can be used in both the non-alcoholic and alcoholic drink recipes.
If you stock your bar properly, the experienced bartenders will be able to make some unique off-menu drinks as well.

Also, please don’t skimp on glassware. Oftentimes, non-alcoholic drinks are served in flimsy plastic cups, while other guests enjoying their martinis sip out of polished glassware. Without even trying, your holiday party could make the non-drinkers feel like outliers of the crowd. But if you create a full bar just for them, that includes nice glassware, the feeling of inclusion will abound. Holding a drink in a plastic cup may make one feel like a kid at an adult party. But holding a drink in nice stemware that looks different than everyone else’s can give your guests an automatic conversation starter that could help their networking game, as well as lead to interesting discussions about alcohol in general.

A few other additional costs you may possibly incur while providing a separate mocktail bar, besides glassware, are: additional bar staff, extra ice, additional table/bar rentals and, extra linens. The zero-proof/mocktail bar is a great tool to encourage responsible drinking while still participating in the cocktail culture. After all, why should alcohol have all of the fun?  Here are a few potential legally themed recipe options for your upcoming holiday bash. They are yours to use. Feel free to create your own fun drink names!

Mocktail zero proof cocktails (and of these can have alcohol added to them for those who wish to have an alcoholic version.

Objection Over-Yuled!
20 fresh mint leaves. 3 tablespoons lime juice.  4 ounces cranberry simple syrup.  Ice cubes.  4-ounces soda water.  Garnish (optional): fresh mint leaves, fresh cranberries, lime slices. For the cranberry simple syrup:  8 ounces fresh cranberries. 1 cup of water. 1 cup granulated sugar

Subordinate Santa
2 oz. cranberry simple syrup 2 oz. vodka 1/4 c. lime juice, plus extra for garnish 3 oz. ginger beer 1 Handful fresh or frozen cranberries for the cranberry simple syrup:  8 ounces fresh cranberries .1 cup water.  1 cup granulated sugar

Fa Law Law Law Law
1.5 oz. Black Tea .75 oz. Fresh Lemon Juice .5 oz. Simple Syrup .25 oz. Grenadine .25 oz. Raspberry Vinegar Shake ingredients together and then pour into a rocks glass over ice. Garnish with a lemon wheel.

Vested Remaindeer
Middle thumb-sized nub of turmeric 1 oz lime juice 1 oz Agave Syrup Shake and strain into a high ball glass. Top with soda water and a lime garnish

Elf Defense
2 ounces blackberry and raspberry puree 2 ounces cinnamon simple syrup 1/4-ounce fresh lemon juice 4 ounces Ale-8-One or Ginger Beer Orange peel garnish Combine all ingredients in a shaker and pour over ice into a highball glass. Garnish with fresh orange peel.

Litigation Libation
4 ounces orange juice ½ ounce heavy cream ½ ounce honey syrup (1-part honey, 1-part water, mixed well) 3 dashes vanilla extract 3 squirts salt tincture 3 drops orange flower water 6 drops pistachio extract
Combine all drink ingredients in a small cocktail shaker. Fill with crushed ice, then shake for 3 seconds. Pour into a large Collins glass. Top with crushed ice. Garnish with an orange peel rosette and sprinkles of powdered sugar and ground cinnamon.

Brian Cuban (@bcuban) is The Addicted Lawyer. Brian is the author of the Amazon best-selling book, The Addicted Lawyer: Tales Of The Bar, Booze, Blow & Redemption (affiliate link). A graduate of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, he somehow made it through as an alcoholic then added cocaine to his résumé as a practicing attorney. He went into recovery April 8, 2007. He left the practice of law and now writes and speaks on recovery topics, not only for the legal profession, but on recovery in general. He can be reached at brian@addictedlawyer.com.

Back in 2014, Alibaba Group, the massive Chinese e-commerce, retail, Internet, and technology company, raised $25 billion in its record-shattering initial public offering (including the option to sell more shares that underwriters exercised a few days after the original IPO). Prior to that, the largest IPO was the 2010 public debut of Agricultural Bank of China Ltd., at $22.1 billion. Agricultural Bank of China also increased its IPO size a bit after-the-fact in a fashion similar to Alibaba. One has to skip over another massive Chinese bank to get to the largest IPO ever from a U.S. firm: the iconic General Motors emerged from its bankruptcy filing with a spectacular $20.1 billion IPO in November of 2010. As I write this, General Motors has the fourth largest IPO in history.

Very soon though (probably the day this article is published, according to unnamed Reuters sources), the General Motors IPO will be knocked into fifth place. Shares in the massive, state-owned oil giant Saudi Aramco will be available to investors for the first time. An Aramco statement says that the company is pricing its IPO at 32 riyals, or $8.53, per share, which would raise $25.6 billion. In addition to giving Aramco the largest IPO ever, that level would put Aramco’s total market valuation at $1.7 trillion, making it by far the world’s most valuable publicly listed company. Sorry, Apple Inc.

Now, I’m no babe in the woods when it comes to the moral ambiguities of investing in the 21^st century. An enormous Chinese tech and Internet company, grossly swollen foreign banking institutions, and even an American-as-apple-pie/too-big-to-fail automaker are hardly philanthropic endeavors. Teasing out the ethical implications of investing in the simplest of 21^st century index funds would give Aristotle a headache, if not an aneurysm. Still, an oil company, and one which will remain mostly owned by an absolute monarchy that just started to let women drive and carves up journalists like so much Christmastime goose…doesn’t an investor have to draw the line somewhere?

I’m not going to go through every morally questionable thing that Saudi Arabia and Saudi nationals have done recently. Among other reasons, I try to keep this column to around 700 words per week. But, as someone who considers himself at least a third-rate journalist and is writing something unfavorable to Saudi Arabia right now, I suppose I’d be a coward if I didn’t briefly bring up Jamal Khashoggi. You all know the story at this point: Khashoggi went to his appointment at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul to get documents he needed for his pending marriage, and was almost immediately set upon and dismembered by 15 state-sponsored Saudi murderers. For the crime of criticizing Saudi Arabia and the leadership of its crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, to try to help the country become a better place for its people, Khashoggi was executed and his body desecrated. He was killed for doing his job as a journalist. What a bunch of bullshit.

One could say that, as troubling as many of his decisions are, at least some things have improved in Saudi Arabia under the rule of MbS. One could even justify participating in the Aramco IPO on the basis that its stated purposes include bringing in foreign investment, ultimately diversifying the economy of Saudi Arabia away from oil, and driving job growth in a country that desperately needs it. Opening up Saudi Arabia’s economy to make it less of a one-dimensional petrostate could only increase the level of freedom its people enjoy. But sometimes you need to require some real, dramatic improvement, a demonstrated willingness to change, before you volunteer to help someone stop being a train wreck.

So far, most major active fund managers are indeed steering clear of the Aramco IPO, “citing persistent concerns about risks around governance, the environment and regional geopolitics,” according to Reuters. That’s just a more diplomatic way of saying what I’m saying: Saudi Arabia, and by extension Aramco, both suck, and they need to get a lot better before we should voluntarily entrust them with (even more of) our hard-earned money.

In a year or two, given the sheer size of the IPO, those of us who invest in index funds probably aren’t going to have any choice but to own a little bit of Saudi Aramco. For now, however, maybe we should do our best to speak in the international language of money to tell Aramco we’re not cool with Saudi Arabia’s bullshit no matter how high the dividend is.

And in the name of all the pagan Yuletide gods, if I disappear into a consulate somewhere, please call someone.

Jonathan Wolf is a litigation associate at a midsize, full-service Minnesota firm. He also teaches as an adjunct writing professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, has written for a wide variety of publications, and makes it both his business and his pleasure to be financially and scientifically literate. Any views he expresses are probably pure gold, but are nonetheless solely his own and should not be attributed to any organization with which he is affiliated. He wouldn’t want to share the credit anyway. He can be reached at jon_wolf@hotmail.com.

Back in 2015, when the concept of Hillary merely winning the popular vote was a farcical notion, Ted Cruz and his circle started making noise about imposing term limits on the federal judiciary. He was also talking about judicial elections, which are stupid, but there was a nut of an idea here so let’s throw the guy a bone. Several liberal legal scholars chimed in to say Cruz was on to something.

While Cruz has different ideological hopes and dreams, the idea that an 86-year-old cancer survivor is the only bulwark against the collapse of several basic constitutional protections doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in the American experiment. The courts are supposed to be lagging reflections of the electorate and the vagaries of the human lifespan shouldn’t dictate why Trump gets to pick two justices and Carter got none. As Erwin Chemerinsky put it, “a system of government that allows a handful of men and women to hold great power for such an extended period of time is, by nature, more feudal than democratic.” Regardless of politics, the very credibility of the judicial branch is undermined when the country views it as a race to find ideological zygotes and shove them into robes. When liberals openly questioned Merrick Garland’s fitness for the Court because he was already in his 60s, things are broken.

The folks at Fix the Court pointed me to a recent National Review column where John Fund made the conservative case for doing something about life tenure:

“Returning our courts to their proper place in our constitutional framework is a tall order, and not one to be solved by abandoning life tenure for Supreme Court justices. But the idea is a sensible step, enjoys support from both conservative and liberal legal scholars, and just might give Congress the opportunity to prove to the American people that it’s still capable of bipartisan action.”

Fund also endorsed our plan for 18-year terms. “The Fix the Court plan would preserve the Constitution’s guarantee of tenure during ‘good Behavior’ by having departing Supreme Court justices serve on one of the nation’s eleven appeals courts.”

Fund isn’t exactly the Republican base at this point, but that this idea still has some currency on the right is huge. There might actually be an opening to do something about this constitutional anachronism with a little bipartisan effort.

And yet, I’m sure the Democrats will find a way to screw this up. They’re already unironically talking about “court packing” so the work of building the instruments of their own destruction continues unabated. Back when Cruz pitched his plan, I asked Nan Aron of Alliance For Justice if this might be a good time for liberals and progressives to reach out and create some makeshift alliances on the right to secure a more sensible judiciary going forward. Her response, which was in line with most of the Democratic-leaning world at that point, was to question why one would ever want to do that. Certainly Republicans were holding up nominations and creating judicial emergencies around the country, but a Democratic president was on the horizon so why handcuff the cause?

Trump won. Republicans run the Senate. The advise and consent norm set by the Founders got a swift kick in the nuts from McConnell, and then they put Brewsky McDayplanner on the Court.

The idea that turnabout is fair play may have a visceral appeal but it basically never works. It’s the elimination of the filibuster all over again — Democrats give themselves a short-term today only to be bludgeoned to death with it tomorrow. Gerrymandering worked the same way for years until Democrats started calling for independent commissions whenever they own power instead of just blessing antidemocratic redistricting by gerrymandering things back their way.

McConnell is the greatest “tit for tat and tat and tat” player in the world. Court packing? Putting a Democratic rubber stamp on that is basically his wet dream. The only way out of this cycle is to flip the script. When Lucy’s going to pull out the football anyway, the answer isn’t a helmet, it’s to go play baseball. Put some neutral, fair term limits on these jobs.

There are even Republicans willing to help! That’s like stumbling over a unicorn, don’t waste that.

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

If you read legal blogs and publications regularly, you will occasionally find an editorial column mourning the lack of civility in the legal profession today. The author then follows up with a call for more-civil behavior among lawyers. In most cases, they make vague suggestions, such as extending professional courtesies, or just generally being “nice” to each other. Since these columns appear somewhat regularly, I assume that nothing is done, and the words fall upon deaf ears.

Recently, we were reminded what type of behavior is clearly uncivilized. A California lawyer sent opposing counsel numerous emails with profanities, slurs, and credible threats of violence. And his excuse? He claims to be using a “confidential negotiating tactic.” But his tactic may end up getting him into career-ending trouble and will serve as a warning to other attorneys who seek to use the “tactic” for themselves.

But why do calls for civility fall on deaf ears? Here are a few reasons.

First, it’s hard to define what it means to behave civilly. There’s no objective answer. Some say it is being able to disagree without being disagreeable. Others say acting professionally even when it is tempting to act otherwise. To put it another way, when does one cross the line into being obnoxious? Crude, offensive behavior is obviously uncivil, but is opposing counsel being uncivil when they disagree with your unquestionable belief that your client is clearly right? Or when opposing counsel annoys you by asking too many questions?

Second, some lawyers want to establish a reputation. Some newer lawyers have said that they are willing to take a close or even an unfavorable case to trial just to show opposing counsel that they are willing to go all the way. This is usually the case when a lawyer believes he or she will run into the same opposing counsel or law firm again in the future. Some just believe that it is better to be feared than to be loved. The problem is that while these lawyers want to make it clear they won’t take any crap, it can make them look like bullies.

Third, sometimes there is no win-win situation, and one side will clearly lose if it plays by the rules. Litigation between wealthy clients could present more opportunities for creative, peaceful resolutions since they have more assets that can be used to structure a settlement, but the middle class and the indigent don’t have that luxury. And sometimes, there is no misunderstanding between the parties. The landlord wants higher rent payments, and the tenant can’t afford it. The defendant is accused of embezzling company funds, and the company wants them back immediately. What’s a defense lawyer supposed to do when his client has no case, and opposing counsel is not willing to cut a deal? His client paid a lot of money with the hopes that his lawyer will use some fancy courtroom tricks to get him out of his mess.

Also, the lawyer does not want to lose face in front of a prominent client. For example, a lawyer might typically be willing to settle quickly if faced with a losing case, but what if the client was someone who has the clout and connections to make (or break) a lawyer’s future career? The lawyer might not want to look weak out of the fear that it may damage his reputation and cost potential clients or other opportunities.

Finally, being uncivil is sometimes part of the game. Why do most people want to go to law school? Some want a steady job. Others want to fight for their clients. Some of the most memorable cases (and movie screenplays) involved a lawyer standing up to unjust laws, unfair judges, or a team of high-priced lawyers defending evil corporations.

So is it possible for lawyers to act civilly? Yes, but realistically it’s not going to happen all the time. I’ve found that because every client, opposing counsel, judge, and issues are different, it is impossible to give a one-size-fits-all answer on how to act in a given situation.

The first thing I try to do is not take it personally. Keep in mind: lawyers are advocates for their clients going against other lawyers advocating for their clients. So some level of conflict should be inevitable.

Second, I always treat opposing counsel (or, in my case, tax auditors or collection officers) with respect regardless of whether my client and I are right or wrong. I make an effort to listen to their side of the story and try to explain this to my client. This does not mean that we have to agree with the other side or submit to their demands.

Third, is opposing counsel being uncivil for a reason? He might have had a bad day and could be taking it out on you (knowingly or not). In that case, it could be appropriate to be forgiving if they show proper remorse. Or opposing counsel might be using “confidential negotiation techniques” to try to intimidate you. If you suspect that, you will need to stand your ground and call the bluff.

Finally, I try to see if there is a way for my client to win while at the same time allow the opposing side to save face. If the opposing party thinks they will lose everything, including their reputation, they will likely used scorched-earth tactics that will unnecessarily prolong the dispute. The other party is likely to accept a settlement that will allow them to walk away with dignity.

While we pay lip service to achieving civility in the legal profession, the adversarial nature and the high stakes involved sometimes make it difficult. Opposing counsel chooses to take the low road for a number of reasons. But instead of complaining about it, you will have to learn how to deal with it.

Steven Chung is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California. He helps people with basic tax planning and resolve tax disputes. He is also sympathetic to people with large student loans. He can be reached via email at sachimalbe@excite.com. Or you can connect with him on Twitter (@stevenchung) and connect with him on LinkedIn.

The bus, which was travelling from Cape Town to Zimbabwe, burst into flames near the William Nicol off-ramp. It was carrying 44 passengers, News24 reported earlier.

Minnaar added that traffic on the highway remains interrupted because the bus is still on the road. The blaze has since been extinguished.

According to Johannesburg EMS spokesperson Nana Radebe, over 10 passengers have been taken to various hospitals to get treatment for smoke inhalation.

Transport department spokesperson Ayanda Allie-Paine, who attended the scene, said no injuries and fatalities were reported although the passengers lost all their goods. Most of them were travelling home for the festive season, after a year of saving up.

She said many of the passengers were women and children.

Paine had earlier appealed to the public for assistance with non-perishable goods and clothing for the victims.

“The passengers have been left destitute. They will be going home with nothing but the clothes on their backs,” Paine said.

Later she said the passengers had opted to go home immediately, as they were eager to see their loved ones.

She said no more supplies were required.

The bus owner, Ambassador Gabriel Setlhoke, told Allie-Paine that the vehicle had a fire extinguisher, but the blaze was just too big.

He explained that the bus was serviced and in a good condition with all the necessary permits to cross the border.

A passenger said the blaze started after the left tyre burst.  The police assisted in breaking the windows to allow passengers to exit.

(All imaged supplied)

Post published in: Featured

* Any views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author and not of Thomson Reuters Foundation.

For Zimbabweans, the drought is compounded by an economic crisis of spiralling inflation, unemployment, chronic fuel shortages, and the collapse of essential servicesPatrick Watt is Director of Policy, Public Affairs and Campaigns at Christian Aid.

Zimbabwe, once the breadbasket of Africa, is back in the spotlight. Tragically, for the long-suffering people of this exceptionally beautiful country, it is for all the wrong reasons. Last week, the UN issued a hard-hitting report on an escalating food crisis, which has already left half of the population in desperate need of emergency aid. Setting aside the usual diplomatic niceties, the report describes a situation that’s normally found only in countries at war, and warns that – if left unchecked – the current food crisis could develop into full blown famine. The World Food Programme has now asked donor countries for an additional $200 million to enable 4 million people to receive food aid, from January to March, when the crisis is expected to spike.

Earlier this week, I travelled to Mutoko, close to the Mozambican border. It is not the worst hit part of the country, but people there are visibly struggling. Smallholder farmers eke out a marginal existence on sandy soils, typical of the land to which Africans were confined following the colonial land grab of the early twentieth century. The rainy season is over a month late. In many cases, farmers have yet to plant their crops. Cattle are emaciated, and the rivers are running dry.

The farmers of Mutoko live at the epicentre of a global climate emergency they had no role in creating. Southern Africa is experiencing temperature rises double the global average, and the seasonal rains on which the region depends are increasingly erratic, arriving late, finishing early, and often falling as a deluge. Older farmers recall a time when the rains reliably arrived in October, and children could play in the rivers year-round. Now, many of the traditional crops are failing, and people are having to forage in the woods to supplement their diet. Christian Aid and its partners are working with these farmers to adapt what they grow, and when they grow it, in the face of a rapidly changing climate.

But adapting to climate change can sometimes feel like a Sisyphean challenge. Communities in many parts of eastern Zimbabwe are only beginning to recover from the onslaught of Cyclone Idai in March, which left a trail of death and injury, flooding and damaged infrastructure. After two years of poor harvest and one of the worst recorded cyclones to hit Africa, the buffers that help people to withstand a bad year have already been depleted.

This drought is being felt across the region, in neighbouring Malawi and Zambia, which face many of the same threats from climate change. The difference for Zimbabweans is that the drought is compounded by an economic crisis of spiralling inflation, unemployment, chronic fuel shortages, and the collapse of essential services, from electricity and water supply to healthcare. School meals, once provided daily, are down to one a week. The urban population, usually relatively insulated from food shortages, are increasingly wondering where their next meal will come from.

Behind the economic crisis lies a crisis of trust. Donors are making the resumption of IMF and World Bank lending, and the lifting of sanctions conditional on political and economic changes. The government is not indicating any softening of its own position. Meanwhile ordinary people are caught in the middle. Aid workers in Harare describe Zimbabweans as some of the world’s most resilient people. That resilience may be tested to the limit in the coming months.

Food aid is urgently needed to minimise the human cost of the crisis. But it’s also critical that, in a polarised society, that aid is distributed fairly and transparently, free of political considerations and any threat of violence. The UN and donor countries have an obligation to ensure that international humanitarian law is followed, and to learn from past experience.

It’s said that one should never waste a crisis. The current situation in Zimbabwe must be just such a turning point, and lead to far-reaching changes in land policy, water management, crop diversification, early warning systems, social safety nets and the regulation of food markets. Many of the effects of climate change on Southern Africa are already irreversible. But with the right action, they’re not unmanageable.