Wednesday, May 31, 2023
Conservatives should embrace filibuster reform. By Matthew Yglesias
Kevin McCarthy releases the hostage — this time. By Noah Berlatsky
India Is Ill Positioned to Harness a Demographic Dividend. By Jack A. Goldstone
Christian home-schoolers revolt by enrolling kids in public school. By Peter Jamison
Christian home-schoolers revolt by enrolling kids in public school. By Peter Jamison — Read time: 22 minutes
The revolt of the Christian home-schoolers
They were taught that public schools are evil. Then a Virginia couple defied their families and enrolled their kids.
Oliver Beall walks with his mother, Christina Beall, outside Round Hill Elementary School as Aimee Beall walks ahead. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post)
Deep Reads features The Washington Post’s best immersive reporting and narrative writing.
ROUND HILL, Va. — They said goodbye to Aimee outside her elementary school, watching nervously as she joined the other children streaming into a low brick building framed by the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Christina and Aaron Beall stood among many families resuming an emotional but familiar routine: the first day of full-time, in-person classes since public schools closed at the beginning of the pandemic.
But for the Bealls, that morning in late August 2021 carried a weight incomprehensible to the parents around them. Their 6-year-old daughter, wearing a sequined blue dress and a pink backpack that almost obscured her small body, hesitated as she reached the doors. Although Aaron had told her again and again how brave she was, he knew it would be years before she understood how much he meant it — understood that for her mother and father, the decision to send her to school was nothing less than a revolt.
Aaron and Christina Beall pose with their daughter, Aimee, then 6, on her first day at Round Hill Elementary School on Aug. 26, 2021. (Christina Beall)
Aaron and Christina had never attended school when they were children. Until a few days earlier, when Round Hill Elementary held a back-to-school open house, they had rarely set foot inside a school building. Both had been raised to believe that public schools were tools of a demonic social order, government “indoctrination camps” devoted to the propagation of lies and the subversion of Christian families.
Press Enter to skip to end of carousel
About this series and home-schooling’s rise in America
1/4
End of carousel
At a time when home education was still a fringe phenomenon, the Bealls had grown up in the most powerful and ideologically committed faction of the modern home-schooling movement. That movement, led by deeply conservative Christians, saw home schooling as a way of life — a conscious rejection of contemporary ideas about biology, history, gender equality and the role of religion in American government.
Christina and Aaron were supposed to advance the banner of that movement, instilling its codes in their children through the same forms of corporal punishment once inflicted upon them. Yet instead, along with many others of their age and upbringing, they had walked away.
Aimee Beall, 7, left, and her brothers finish getting ready for school while their father, Aaron, helps Oliver, 5, at their home in Northern Virginia. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post )
Ezra Beall, 9, climbs into the family car to head off to school earlier this year. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post)
Like all rebellions, this one had come with consequences. Their decision to send Aimee to the neighborhood elementary school — a test run to see how it might work for their other kids — had contributed to a bitter rift with their own parents, who couldn’t understand their embrace of an education system they had been raised to abhor. And it had led Christina, who until that summer day had home-schooled all of their children, into an existential crisis.
“I never imagined sending you to the local elementary school instead of learning and growing together at home,” she wrote later that day in an Instagram post addressed to her daughter. “But life has a way of undoing our best laid plans and throwing us curveballs.”
Story continues below advertisement
Story continues below advertisement
Christina did not describe on Instagram how perplexed she and Aaron had been by a ritual that the other parents seemed to understand; how she had tried, in unwitting defiance of school rules, to accompany Aimee inside, earning a gentle rebuke from the principal.
And she did not describe what happened after their daughter vanished into a building they had been taught no child should ever enter. On that first day of school — first not just for one girl but for two generations of a family — the Bealls walked back to their SUV, and as Aaron started the car, Christina began to cry.
(Matt McClain/The Washington Post)
The ‘Joshua Generation’
Across the country, interest in home schooling has never been greater. The Bealls could see the surge in Virginia, where nearly 57,000 children were being home-schooled in the fall of 2022 — a 28 percent jump from three years earlier. The rise of home education, initially unleashed by parents’ frustrations with pandemic-related campus closures and remote learning, has endured as one of the lasting social transformations wrought by covid-19.
But if the coronavirus was a catalyst for the explosion in home schooling, the stage was set through decades of painstaking work by true believers like those who had raised Aaron and Christina. Aided by the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) — a Christian nonprofit that has been dubbed “the most influential homeschool organization in the world,” and is based less than five miles from the Bealls’ house in Northern Virginia — those activists had fought to establish the legality of home schooling in the 1980s and early 1990s, conquering the skepticism of public school administrators and state lawmakers across the country.
[Tell us about your home-schooling experiences]
Through their influence, a practice with roots in the countercultural left took on a very different character. Among conservative Christians, home schooling became a tool for binding children to fundamentalist beliefs they felt were threatened by exposure to other points of view. Rightly educated, those children would grow into what HSLDA founder Michael Farris called a “Joshua Generation” that would seek the political power and cultural influence to reshape America according to biblical principles.
Christina (Comfort) Beall with Home School Legal Defense Association founder Michael Farris at her graduation from Patrick Henry College, which was founded by Farris to cater to Christian home-schoolers. (Family photo)
Home schooling today is more diverse, demographically and ideologically, than it was in the heyday of conservative Christian activism. Yet those activists remain extraordinarily influential.
Over decades, they have eroded state regulations, ensuring that parents who home-school face little oversight in much of the country. More recently, they have inflamed the nation’s culture wars, fueling attacks on public-school lessons about race and gender with the politically potent language of “parental rights.”
But what should be a moment of triumph for conservative Christian home-schoolers has been undermined by an unmistakable backlash: the desertion and denunciations of the very children they said they were saving.
Former home-schoolers have been at the forefront of those arguing for greater oversight of home schooling, forming the nonprofit Coalition for Responsible Home Education to make their case.
“As an adult I can say, ‘No. What happened to me as a child was wrong,’” said Samantha Field, the coalition’s government relations director.
Arkansas state Rep. Jim Bob Duggar and his wife, Michelle, lead 12 of their 13 children to a polling place in Springdale, Ark., in 2002. (April L. Brown/AP)
Bill Gothard, founder of the Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP), an ultraconservative Christian organization. (Institute in Basic Life Principles)
Earlier this year, Jinger Duggar Vuolo — familiar to millions of TV viewers from the reality show “19 Kids and Counting” — published a memoir in which she harshly criticized Bill Gothard, a pivotal but now disgraced figure in conservative Christian home schooling whose teachings her parents followed. Beginning a decade ago, Gothard was accused of sexual abuse and harassment by dozens of women — allegations the minister vehemently denied.
Farris said it is not uncommon for children who grow up in oppressively patriarchal households to reject or at least moderate their parents’ beliefs. However, he said such families are a minority in the home-schooling movement and are often considered extreme even by other conservative Christians.
“I view this as the fringe of the fringe,” Farris said. “And every kid that I know that has lashed out at home schooling came out of this.”
Aaron and Christina Beall, pictured in the months before their wedding in 2012. (Family photo)
Christina, 34, and Aaron, 37, had joined no coalitions. They had published no memoirs. Their rebellion played out in angry text messages and emails with their parents, in tense conversations conducted at the edges of birthday parties and Easter gatherings. Their own children — four of them, including Aimee — knew little of their reasons for abandoning home schooling: the physical and emotional trauma of the “biblical discipline” to which they had been subjected, the regrets over what Aaron called “a life robbed” by strictures on what and how they learned.
Aaron had grown up believing Christians could out-populate atheists and Muslims by scorning birth control; Christina had been taught the Bible-based arithmetic necessary to calculate the age of a universe less than 8,000 years old. Their education was one in which dinosaurs were herded aboard Noah’s ark — and in which the penalty for doubt or disobedience was swift. Sometimes they still flinched when they remembered their parents’ literal adherence to the words of the Old Testament: “Do not withhold correction from a child, for if you beat him with a rod, he will not die.”
The Bealls knew that many home-schooling families didn’t share the religious doctrines that had so warped their own lives. But they also knew that the same laws that had failed to protect them would continue to fail other children.
“It’s specifically a system that is set up to hide the abuse, to make them invisible, to strip them of any capability of getting help. And not just in a physical way,” Christina said. “At some point, you become so mentally imprisoned you don’t even realize you need help.”
(Family photo)
‘Breaking the child’s will’
Christina had felt no urge to escape when, at the age of 15, she listed her “Requirements for my husband” in neat, looping script on a ruled sheet of notebook paper.
“Must want me to be a full-time homemaker & only have an outside job if required or instructed by my Potter,” she wrote, referring to biblical verses that liken humans to clay in the hands of God. “Must believe in ‘full & unconditional’ surrender of our # of children to God Almighty.” And: “Must desire to homeschool our children.”
Christina’s list of requirements for her husband, written when she was 15. (Peter Jamison/The Washington Post)
The list is a blueprint of what she had been taught about the proper ambitions of a woman: to bear and raise children while shielding them from what those around her called “government schools.” She felt both hopeful and nervous when, several years later, her father, Derrick Comfort, came home with news: He had just met with a young man who had been raised with those same ideals — and who wanted Christina to be his wife.
Aaron was shy and cerebral, a self-taught web developer who had grown up in Fairfax County, Va., had never attended college and, at age 26, still lived with his parents. He barely knew Christina Comfort, the oldest of eight children on her family’s 10-acre farm on Maryland’s Eastern Shore. A graduate of Patrick Henry College — founded by Farris in Virginia to cater to Christian home-schoolers — she taught math and writing to her siblings and did chores around the farm. She prayed while riding a lawn mower for God to send her a husband.
The Comfort and Beall families were both active in a religious community led by Gary Cox, an evangelical pastor and pioneer of Maryland’s home-schooling movement. Christina was a graduate of Cox’s home education network, Walkersville Christian Family Schools, while Aaron began attending Cox’s church in rural northern Maryland as a teenager. The minister exerted a powerful influence over his congregation and students, teaching that children live in divinely ordained subjection to the rule of their parents.
[The Christian home-schooling world that shaped Dan Cox]
Cox — who still operates a home-schooling organization, now called Wellspring Christian Family Schools — declined repeated interview requests. Last year his son, Dan Cox, a home-schooled Maryland state delegate who denied the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election, won the Republican gubernatorial primary. He went on to lose in a landslide to Democrat Wes Moore.
During Aaron and Christina’s “courtship” — a period of chaperoned contact that served as a prelude to formal engagement — they seemed ready to fulfill their parents’ hopes. Eating calamari in Annapolis or touring Colonial Williamsburg, they talked about what their future would include (home schooling) and what it would not (music with a beat that can be danced to). But signs soon emerged of the unimaginable rupture that lay ahead.
On a spring afternoon in 2012, the couple sat in a small church in Queenstown, Md. In preparation for marriage, they were attending a three-day seminar on “Gospel-Driven Parenting” run by Chris Peeler, a minister whose family was part of Gary Cox’s home-schooling group. The workshop covered a range of topics, including the one they were now studying: “Chastisement.”
“The use of the rod is for the purpose of breaking the child’s will,” stated the handout that they bent over together in the church. “One way to tell if this has happened is to see if they can look you in the eyes after being disciplined and ask for forgiveness.”
Bible verses were cited in support of corporal punishment. But Christina had misgivings.
“I really don’t think I can be a parent,” she wrote to Aaron in the margins of the handout. “It just feels like you have to be, like, hardened.”
“YES! YOU! CAN!” Aaron wrote back.
The use of the “rod” — interpreted by different people as a wooden spoon, dowel, belt, rubber hose or other implement — was a common practice among the conservative Christian home-schoolers Aaron and Christina knew, and one they had both experienced regularly in their own families.
The elder Bealls and Comforts did not respond to repeated requests to discuss the discipline they used with their children and the decision by Aaron and Christina to embrace public education. Aaron’s older brother, Joshua — who Aaron said still home-schools his children — did not return calls. Aaron’s other siblings could not be reached for comment. Christina’s siblings, some of whom have also left her parents’ home, either declined to comment or could not be reached.
Story continues below advertisement
Story continues below advertisement
Aaron actually shared Christina’s qualms. He knew that the term parents in the movement casually used for discipline, “spankings,” did not capture the childhood terror of being struck several times a week — sometimes more, sometimes less — with what he describes as a shortened broomstick for disobeying commands or failing to pay attention to his schoolwork.
The memory of waiting as a small child outside his parents’ bedroom for his mother to summon him in; the fear that his transgressions might be enough to incur what he called “killer bee” spankings, when the rod was used against his bare skin; his efforts to obey the order to remain immobile as he was hit — all these sensations and emotions seeped into his bones, creating a deep conviction that those who fail to obey authority pay an awful price.
“For a long time, I’ve wondered why I was so unable to think for myself in this environment,” he says today, attributing the shortcoming to “learning that even starting to think, or disagree with authorities, leads to pain — leads to physical and real pain that you cannot escape.”
Now, on the threshold of parenthood — Christina would become pregnant within two weeks of their wedding on Sept. 29, 2012 — the couple’s reservations about “chastisement” could no longer be ignored. As a wedding gift, they said, Aaron’s brother and sister-in-law had given them “To Train Up a Child,” by the popular Christian home-schooling authors Michael and Debi Pearl.
The Pearls advocate hitting children with tree branches, belts and other “instruments of love” to instill obedience, and recommend that toddlers who take slowly to potty training be washed outdoors with cold water from a garden hose. Their book advocates “training sessions” in which infants, as soon as they are old enough to crawl, are placed near a desired object and repeatedly struck with a switch if they disobey commands not to touch it.
The Pearls have defended their methods, saying they are not meant to encourage brutality and, when properly applied, reduce the frequency with which parents must later discipline their kids.
Aaron and Christina did not follow the Pearls’ advice when their first child, Ezra, was born. Nor did they take on authoritarian roles with their second, Aimee, or third, Oliver. All were home-schooled, albeit in less isolation than their parents: Christina joined co-ops with other Christian mothers in Northern Virginia.
But by the time the Bealls had Aurelia, their fourth child, Aaron — now a successful software engineer whose job had enabled the family to buy a four-bedroom house in Loudoun County — had begun to question far more than corporal punishment.
“When it came time for me to hit my kids, that was the first independent thought I remember having: ‘This can’t be right. I think I’ll just skip this part,’” he says.
But if that seemingly inviolable dogma was false, what else might be? Aaron gradually began to feel adrift and depressed.
“It’s like having the rug pulled out from under your feet,” he says. “All of reality is kind of up for grabs.”
He scoured Amazon for books about evolution and cosmology. Eventually, he found his way to blog posts and books by former Christian fundamentalists who had abandoned their religious beliefs. He watched an interview with Tara Westover, whose best-selling memoir, “Educated,” detailed the severe educational neglect and physical abuse she endured as a child of survivalist Mormon home-schoolers in Idaho.
And in the spring of 2021, as he and Christina were struggling to engage Aimee in her at-home lessons, he suggested a radical solution: Why not try sending their daughter to the reputable public elementary school less than a mile from their house?
(Matt McClain/The Washington Post)
‘So much pain’
Christina could think of many reasons. They were the same ones Aaron had learned as a child: Public schools were places where children are bullied, or raped in the bathroom, or taught to hate Jesus.
But she also suspected that Aimee could use the help of professional educators. Just as important, she had learned all her life that it was her duty to obey her husband. She was confounded and angry, at both Aaron and the seeming contradiction his suggestion had exposed.
“I guess I’m just honestly confused and wonder what you think,” she wrote in an email to her father in May 2021. “I’m supposed to submit to Aaron, he wants the kids to go to public school. … You think that’s a sin but it’s also a sin to not listen to your husband so which is it?”
At first, Christina’s and Aaron’s parents reacted to the news that they were considering public school for Aimee with dazed incomprehension. Did Christina feel overwhelmed, they asked? Did she need more help with work around the house? As long as Aimee was learning to read, she would be fine, Aaron’s mother assured them. Christina’s father sent a YouTube video of John Taylor Gatto, a famous critic of America’s public education system.
The dialogue took on a darker tone as Aimee, with Christina’s hesitant agreement, began school that fall. By then, Aaron had told his parents he no longer considered himself a believer.
“This is absolutely devastating,” his mother, Linda Beall, wrote in a long email to Christina. “I hurt so much for you Christina!!!”
“I don’t think Aaron is going to be wrestled into heaven with good arguments,” Linda added. “I think this is likely about his response to hard things in his life. I think he needs to come face to face with God himself, and bow before Him in recognition of his own sin, and need for a Savior.”
Despite the sympathy expressed in the email, Christina bristled at the suggestion that her husband’s crisis of faith stemmed from his reluctance to face “hard things” in his life. She knew that reexamining his religious convictions and traumatic memories had perhaps been the hardest thing Aaron had ever done.
Aimee Beall, then 6, poses on her first day of first grade in 2021. (Christina Beall)
Aimee, meanwhile, was thriving at Round Hill Elementary. By the third quarter, her report card said she was “a pleasure to teach,” was “slowly becoming more social and more willing to participate in class” and showed “tremendous growth” in her reading skills, which had lagged below grade level at the beginning of the year.
For several months after that first week of classes — when she had come home wearing a paper hat, colored with blue crayon and printed with the words “My First Day of First Grade” — Aimee had had a stock response when her parents asked her how she liked school: She would suppress a grin, say she “hated it,” and then start laughing at her own joke.
“You should have asked to go to school,” Aimee, who knew her mom had been educated at home, would eventually tell Christina. “It affects your whole life.”
Now it was Christina’s turn to question her belief — not in Christianity, but in the conservative Christian approach to home schooling. She began to research spiritual abuse and the history of Christian nationalism. Ideas she had never questioned — such as the statement, in a book given to her by her dad, that it “would be a waste of her time and her life” for a woman to work outside the house — no longer made sense.
Her loss of faith in the biblical literalism and patriarchal values of her childhood was coming in the way the movement’s adherents had always warned it would: through exposure to people with different experiences and points of view.
Those people just happened to be her daughter and her husband.
“This is the guy I’ve been married to for eight years,” she recalls thinking. “I know him. I know his heart. I know what kind of parent he wants to be to our kids. These easy answers of ‘Oh, you’re just not a Christian anymore, you just want to sin’ … didn’t work anymore.”
Christina, left, talks to Oliver while Aimee talks to Aaron as the family gets ready for the start of the day. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post)
Christina prepares a snack for her daughter Aurelia, 2, at their home in Round Hill, Va. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post)
As Aimee’s first year at Round Hill Elementary came to an end, Aaron and Christina were more convinced than ever that they had made the right decision. But they were also at a loss for how to heal the tensions with their parents.
In a 2022 email intended for a pastor at her church but sent by accident to Christina, Linda Beall blamed her daughter-in-law for their deepening rift, saying she had taken undue offense at good-faith efforts to advise and support the family through Aaron’s loss of faith.
“So she is again flipping the script from the reality that we love them and her, want to support them, and have only tried to do that again and again, but have been assaulted every time we engage. And I have given up trying [because] it all gets flipped and used against us,” Linda wrote. “I really can not remember one conversations we have had since this unfolded that has not escalated things. So when she beats up ‘everything’ I say, never offers forgiveness, why would we want to engage again?”
Story continues below advertisement
Story continues below advertisement
Around the same time, Christina sent Aaron’s parents a series of text messages lamenting what she said was their unwillingness to reconcile and explaining that she had changed her opinions about the way she and Aaron had been raised.
“There has been so much pain but I am so excited to now understand and see past the ways that people control and manipulate me,” she wrote. “And you may not believe it but I still love Jesus.”
Aaron and Christina had decided that, in the fall of 2022, all three of their school-age children — not just Aimee but 5-year-old Oliver and 9-year-old Ezra — would attend public school. Aurelia, then 2, would remain at home.
Despite Aimee’s positive experience, Aaron and Christina were anxious, both for their children and about how their parents would react. One afternoon in June, Christina sent a text message to her mother.
“I need to tell you that all three kids are going to school in the fall. I’m sorry, because I know this will be upsetting and disappointing to you and dad,” Christina wrote. “I figured you should hear it from me first.”
Three hours later, her mother texted back.
“Dearest Christina, it is not at all upsetting or disappointing to me,” Catherine Comfort wrote. “You and Aaron are outstanding parents and I’m sure you made the decision best for your family.”
Even Aaron’s parents finally signaled a grudging degree of acceptance. In February, Linda and Bernard Beall walked into the gym at Round Hill Elementary one cold Saturday afternoon to watch a school performance of “The Lion King.” Ezra had a part in the chorus as a wildebeest.
Sitting on plastic chairs in the dark and crowded room, the pair gave no outward sign of the remarkable nature of their visit. When the performance was over, they hugged their grandkids in front of the stage and exchanged halting small talk with Aaron and Christina. Then they drove off, with no discussion of a visit to their son’s house a few blocks away.
(Matt McClain/The Washington Post)
Family night
About 10 minutes remained before the Bealls would have to pile into their minivan, and the children needed to get dressed — in their pajamas.
It was Groundhog Day, a damp night in February, and a low fire glowed in the hearth of the Bealls’ living room. Aaron and Christina sat on the floor playing card and board games with their kids, while Ezra sat on the couch, wearing headphones and absorbed in a game on his laptop.
Soon they would be leaving to attend their elementary school’s “For the Love of Reading Family Night,” held in the school library, where students were encouraged to come dressed for bedtime.
As Oliver rose to change (Ezra, the oldest, would not deign to put on his jammies), Aimee told her parents how her second-grade class had learned that day about Punxsutawney Phil.
Aaron looked at her in bewilderment.
“Phil?” he asked. “Am I out of the loop?”
His daughter stared back at him in disbelief.
“He’s famous!” Aimee said. She explained Phil’s role in predicting the length of winter.
“I knew about groundhogs,” Aaron said. “I just didn’t know about Phil.”
“He’s really famous,” Aimee said.
Christina smiled at her husband.
“Home-schooler,” she said.
Aimee Beall works on homework beside Aurelia while their mother prepares a snack for them. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post)
Christina packs lunches as her children get ready for school. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post)
These were the gaps Aaron and Christina had become accustomed to finding as they learned about a world whose boundaries extended far beyond the one in which they had been raised. There were so many things they had not learned, and perhaps would never learn.
Stacks of books on the living room’s end tables testified to their belated efforts at self-education: popular works by the biologists Neil Shubin and Robert Sapolsky, as well as “Raising Critical Thinkers” by Julie Bogart, a leading developer of home education materials who has criticized conservative Christian home-schooling groups. Aaron and Christina were still young, but they knew enough about the demands of life, work and family to understand that they could not recover or reconstruct the lost opportunities of their childhoods.
But they could provide new and different opportunities for their own kids. They were doing so in Loudoun County, one of the hotbeds of America’s culture wars over public instruction about race and gender. To the Bealls, who truly knew what it was like to learn through the lens of ideology, concerns about kids being brainwashed in public schools were laughable.
“People who think the public schools are indoctrinating don’t know what indoctrination is. We were indoctrinated,” Aaron says. “It’s not even comparable.”
There were still moments when they were condemned by an inner voice telling them that they were doing the wrong thing, that both they and their children would go to hell for abandoning the rod and embracing public schools. But the voice was usually silenced by their wonder and gratitude at the breadth of their children’s education.
Aimee walks ahead of Christina, carrying Aurelia, while followed by Aaron during a reading event at Round Hill Elementary. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post)
Kate Jeffers, 8, left, Aimee Beall, 7, Christina Beall and Alice Lyons, 7, take part in a reading group at Round Hill Elementary. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post)
That breadth was on display as the Bealls jostled into the school library with other families. It was the second day of Black History Month, and the shelves were set up with displays of books about the Underground Railroad, soprano Ella Sheppard and Vice President Harris. Where the walls reached the ceiling a mural was painted, with Mary Poppins and Winnie the Pooh.
Aaron and Christina stood shoulder-to-shoulder, surveying the room. This was the belly of the beast, the environment their parents had worked to save them from.
But they weren’t scared to be inside this school, and were now familiar with it. On Tuesday mornings, Christina volunteered here, helping Aimee’s class with reading lessons.
“Let’s go out this way, guys,” she said, leading the way through an exit when it was time to disperse from the library to listen to the teachers read stories aloud.
The hallways were long and wide, with plenty of room for small legs to gather speed. Soon Aaron and Christina were watching as their children, who knew the way to their classrooms, ran far in front of them.
correction
An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported the source of Christina Beall’s post about her daughter’s first day of school. It was on Instagram, not Facebook. This story has been corrected.
70 years after first summit, Everest keeps giving
70 years after first summit, Everest keeps giving
A painting of late mountaineer Tenzing Norgay at the summit of Mount Everest at the Himalayan Mountaineering Institute museum in Darjeeling, India. | AFP-JIJI
Khumjung, Nepal – When Edmund Hillary and Sherpa Tenzing Norgay first climbed Mount Everest 70 years ago, they paved the way for thousands of foreign climbers to try to follow in their footsteps.
The eight-day trek to the Everest base camp is among the most popular multiday hikes in Nepal, with tens of thousands of tourists making the journey every year.
What were small agrarian villages when the British expedition passed through in 1953 have since been transformed into tourist hubs with hotels, tea houses and equipment shops, boosting the livelihoods of local communities.
In many homes, three generations have found employment in mountaineering — a far more lucrative occupation than farming or yak-herding.
The work is hazardous by definition, but in a climbing season of about three months, an experienced guide can make up to $10,000 — several times the country’s average annual income.
And other Sherpas and Himalayan community members have opened restaurants and guesthouses that line Everest’s money trail.
Veteran mountain guide Sherpa Phurba Tashi was born and raised in Khumjung, a village about 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) from base camp.
He grew up watching his father and uncles go to the mountains for work, and soon joined them on expeditions, eventually climbing Everest 21 times before he retired.
“There would be just a few expeditions before but now there are so many every year,” he said.
“That means an increase in income. It has helped improve the lifestyle here. A lot has changed.”
Mount Everest, the world highest peak, and other peaks of the Himalayan range, in January 2020 | REUTERS
Mount Everest, the world highest peak, and other peaks of the Himalayan range, in January 2020 | REUTERS
Since the first British teams set their sights on making the summit of Everest in the 1920s, Nepali climbers — mostly from the Sherpa ethnic group — have been by their side.
The word “Sherpa” became synonymous with high-altitude guiding as they became the backbone of the multimillion-dollar industry, bearing huge risks to carry equipment and food, fix ropes and repair ladders.
Now local expedition groups — instead of playing second fiddle to foreign climbing agencies — bring the bulk of paying clients into Nepal.
And a younger generation of Nepali climbers is slowly being recognized in their own right.
Renowned Italian climber Reinhold Messner said in a 2021 interview that it was a well-deserved climb up the ladder.
“It is an evolution,” he said. “And this is also important for the future economy of the country.”
The first ascent of Everest brought Nepal to the world’s attention and its mountains have since captivated adventurers and tourists alike.
That has played a crucial role for Nepal’s branding as a destination, according to tourism writer Lisa Choegyal.
“Through COVID and earthquakes and all the other setbacks, the insurgency even, that Nepal has suffered over the decades, mountaineering has really endured,” she said.
The Himalayas from the summit of Mount Everest in Nepal | AFP-JIJI
The Himalayas from the summit of Mount Everest in Nepal | AFP-JIJI
The Khumbu region welcomes more than 50,000 trekkers a year.
“It is a gift of the mountains and we have to thank the first summit for opening this region to tourism,” said Sherpa Mingma Chhiri, chairman of the local municipality.
“Education and modern amenities have come here because of it.”
Driven to help the community he worked with, Hillary funded the region’s first school in Khumjung and is said to have hauled timber himself to help build it.
One of its first students, Sherpa Ang Tsering, now owns an expedition company.
“It is because of mountaineering that the young Sherpas today have higher education,” he said. “It has brought a wave of economic prosperity.”
More than 10% of Nepalis are employed in tourism and the government this year collected over $5 million in Everest permit fees alone as a record number of summit hopefuls arrived.
Sherpa Tenzing Chogyal, 30, whose grandfather Sherpa Kancha was part of the 1953 expedition, is a glaciologist and said that education had opened up options for Sherpa youths.
“A Sherpa can now be a doctor, engineer or a businessman, anything they want to be. That is very good,” he said.
“And if they want to be a mountaineer, they can.”
Tuesday, May 30, 2023
What can we really learn about housing from Vienna? By Matthew Yglesias
What can we really learn about housing from Vienna?
Mostly that it's good to build more housing
MATTHEW YGLESIAS
MAY 30, 2023
There’s a perennial fascination in certain circles with the success of Vienna’s large-scale social housing program, which really does seem nice (Vienna is a nice place in general) and which demonstrates that public ownership of a very large share of the housing stock is possible.
The city was recently described in the New York Times as a “renters’ utopia,” and the Financial Times profiled it in 2018 as a “renters’ paradise.” More pointedly, Daniel Denvir and Yonah Freemark wrote a piece in Slate last week calling for more investment in public housing as the real solution to America’s housing woes. I find Freemark to be a vexing figure. He was the lead author on a recent study that conclusively proved supply skepticism is wrong, but chose to frame the outcome as calling YIMBYism into question.
And his praise of Viennese social housing seems to suggest that there’s something missing in the argument between those of us who believe relaxing regulatory barriers to construction is good and those who believe relaxing regulatory barriers to construction is bad:
But this debate is often impoverished. As policymakers continue to confront this crisis, it is time for them to reconsider an obvious but long-taboo solution: building new public housing. Right now, it’s so disfavored that you rarely hear anyone argue about making more of it—but that’s beginning to change in a number of cities and states.
But this debate is not impoverished at all. The stakes around the regulatory issues are quite high, and battles are currently being waged over them in many different places. Land use reformers have won a lot of battles lately; we’ve also seen promising initiatives go up in smoke in New York. In Texas, we came really close to passing an ADU law but were narrowly defeated. The coalitions in each place are different, the organizing dynamics are different, the strategies pursued are different, but the goal is always the same: fewer constraints on housing supply.
Meanwhile, I don’t actually understand what problem it is that social housing, specifically, is supposed to solve. Normally, you look to the public sector to build things when the thing to be built is socially useful but so unremunerative that private capital isn’t willing to finance it. In that case, the government needs to either subsidize it (the way the Inflation Reduction Act subsidizes zero-carbon energy production) or build it (the way most of our infrastructure is built). But the whole point on housing is that private capital does want to expand the housing supply, and there are lots of rules in place to constrain that. Those same rules would also constrain the public sector, over and beyond other problems with publicly financed homebuilding, including the need to raise taxes to pay for it.
So what, exactly, are we talking about and why?
Viennese-style housing requires massive deregulation
Here’s a building in Vienna that has eight units per floor built around a central corridor with one staircase.
It’s built to the Passivhaus standard for ultra-low energy use. I’m not sure whether this particular building is part of Vienna's public housing program, but it seems pretty nice.
Meanwhile, in the United States, it’s illegal to build a mid-rise apartment building across the overwhelming majority of residentially zoned land. Not just in the NIMBY suburbs or on the west coast — on 48% of D.C.’s buildable land you can’t build apartment buildings, and even where you can, you often can’t build one that’s eight stories tall. And almost nowhere in the United States are you allowed to build a building this tall that’s served by a single staircase. The NYT article on housing in Vienna profiles the large Alt-Erlaa complex, which features apartment towers that are 70 meters tall, much taller than you’re allowed to build anywhere in D.C.
So if your point about Viennese housing is that America should reduce regulatory barriers to home-building, then I agree. Of course what makes the situation utopian is that not only are the apartments nice, they’re cheap to rent. How does Austria make housing cheap without creating huge shortages?
According to Statistics Austria, 16,000 new units were built in Vienna in 2021, not including additions to existing buildings. In all of Austria (population 9 million), 71,000 units were added.
The Los Angeles Metropolitan Statistical Area contains approximately 13 million people, roughly 50% more than the country of Austria, but it adds housing units at less than half the rate.
New York City builds about 50% more units per year than the city of Vienna, but it has about quadruple the base population — so it’s adding units at a dramatically slower rate.
Compared to the United States, a very large share of Austria’s new units are publicly financed and publicly owned. But as Michael Lewyn noted during an earlier iteration of this argument, Vienna also builds private housing at a much higher rate than America’s most constrained cities. Vienna and Manhattan have similar populations, but Vienna adds private housing units at 10 times the rate of Manhattan over and above its social housing. It’s also worth noting that Austria’s social housing units are awfully small by American standards.
And that’s fine. But it’s worth keeping in mind that this debate is always making a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison. If you really wanted to attract middle-class Americans into social housing, the units would probably need to be significantly bigger than Austria’s co-ops and communal flats, which would end up raising costs.
What problem are we solving?
Vienna, of course, was the capital of the Habsburg Empire, which on the eve of World War I was a vast polyglot state of 52 million people.
Then four long years of war imposed economic difficulties on the residents of all the belligerent countries, especially the Central Powers, which were subject to Allied blockade. Things only got worse once they lost the war, and the post-war Austrian successor state was saddled with reparations and other problems. But from an economic point of view, Austria was in even worse shape than Germany because its whole economic structure was built around a country that no longer existed. Austria used to export manufactured goods to and import agricultural commodities from the eastern areas of the empire. It used to have a port city in Trieste. It used to provide administrative functions for a large empire rather than a small nation-state. Patterns of trade and employment were completely disrupted, and the various postwar successor states were run by cranky nationalists who didn’t cooperate with each other. Several parts of Austria tried to break off and reunite with Germany. The upshot was that the economy tanked and the central government tried to pay the bills by printing money, leading to ruinous hyperinflation. Amidst the chaos, national Austrian politics tilted to the right, but local politics in Vienna tilted left, setting the stage for “Red Vienna” and the social housing boom:
The macroeconomic turmoil of the late 1910s and early 1920s added fuel to conservative resentment, but it also presented an opportunity. The revenue raised from city taxes went further because the city government was able to buy out property owners buffeted by hyperinflation and economic crisis. This gave the public housing programme access to land all over the city that otherwise would have been prohibitively expensive (if it were for sale at all). The massive economic dislocations of the postwar years gave the Social Democrats’ housing plan an edge. By 1924, the municipal government was the biggest property owner in Vienna.
“The Social Democrats took advantage of a crisis,” says Janek Wasserman, associate professor of history at the University of Alabama. “They used that hyperinflationary moment to basically expropriate land and property from people going under – the people who owned a lot of the real estate stock in the city.”
You could imagine this turning out poorly — Austria had a lot of ups and downs between 1924 and the withdrawal of Soviet occupation forces in 1955. But as it happens, it worked out well.
The government bought land cheaply, employed what would have otherwise been idle labor building up the city’s housing stock, and following WWII, Austria became a peaceful and prosperous country with a rich capital city that benefitted from the existence of all this social housing. It’s good that the Viennese have kept up with it because a functional public sector institution is a valuable thing, and it’s absolutely a cool and noteworthy story of social policy development.
But this is nothing like the situation in any high-cost American city.
By the same token, Singapore’s housing and development board construction, another frequently cited social housing success story, also arose under conditions quite unlike those in the U.S. today. Lee Kuan Yew started out as the leader of a very poor country. One of his big ideas was that a poor country could develop economically by having a very high domestic savings rate, which would lead to a lot of capital accumulation. But he didn’t want Singaporeans to just accumulate financial capital in the form of foreign assets; he wanted to increase Singapore’s stock of domestic physical capital. So people were essentially forced into a government-run savings scheme that then plowed their savings into domestic apartment construction. It’s a different financing structure than the Viennese program, but it also seems to have worked well and mostly achieved its goals — another good public policy success story.
But, again, these are not the circumstances facing any high-cost American city today. Private capital is absolutely willing to finance the construction of apartment buildings in expensive jurisdictions. There are just lots of rules making it illegal. I don’t think those laws are a good idea, and an increasing number of people agree with me. Lots of other people, though, are on the other side of this and want it to continue to be illegal to build denser building types in various places. Publicly financed construction is a solution to a problem we don’t have, where some hypothetical high-cost city does want new housing and has created a regulatory framework that’s friendly to new housing but that the private market doesn’t want to finance. That’s something that can happen — but it’s not the thing that actually is happening.
It’s bad to waste money
Among single-minded housing supply enthusiasts, I think it’s become fashionable to play nice with the internet’s tiny cabal of self-proclaimed PHIMBYs who want public housing to play a big role in increasing supply.
And on some level, I agree with that. Texas was recently considering a big ADU bill that had the support of most, but not all, Republicans in the legislature. It narrowly failed because even though a few Democrats supported it, most were opposed. If throwing some money for public housing into the bill had gotten two Democrats to flip from “no” to “yes,” that would have been a deal worth making. And if that legislative math doesn’t work in Texas, maybe it does in Hawaii or Massachusetts. Anything is worth a shot in terms of coalition-building.
But I do want to say that in a world of limited budgetary resources, this really does not make a lot of sense as an expenditure category.
If you’re making market-rate housing more abundant but are still concerned about the fate of poor people, why not give them money? For state-provided housing to be a better deal than cash, you’d need to believe that either the government is going to be able to build more cost-effectively than private developers (which I think is wrong) or that the government has some kind of comparative advantage at landlording, which is definitely wrong. There are plenty of situations in which it absolutely does make sense to spend money on public sector construction projects. Only the government is going to build the infrastructure to prevent rainwater runoff from poisoning rivers. Only the government is going to build the transportation infrastructure that growing cities need.
At the same time, we can see that almost every level of government is struggling with contracting issues and cost control in its construction projects. There’s no need to take on ancillary, unnecessary construction projects. We need to be figuring out how to execute better on the public sector projects we really need. We need to be providing people with social services (schools, police, parks) that only the government can provide. And we need to be giving poor people money so they can be less poor.
Getting intellectually invested in public housing solves the very niche problem of “you understand that housing supply is important, but you’re uncomfortable sounding like a libertarian or someone who’s friendly to capitalism so you’ve decided to find a socialist way to do it.” But while this seems to be a problem that a decent number of journalists have in their lives, it doesn’t seem like a major problem facing Americans as a whole. What we need to be doing is working on solutions for people’s concerns about traffic and parking while continuing to build bipartisan coalitions for regulatory change.
Why Uganda’s LGBTQ Community is Under Renewed Fire. By David Malingha
Why Uganda’s LGBTQ Community is Under Renewed Fire. By David Malingha | Bloomberg — Read time: 3 minutes
Analysis by David Malingha | Bloomberg
May 29, 2023 at 8:35 a.m. EDT
Uganda is a tough place to be LGBTQ and the authorities are making it even harder. President Yoweri Museveni has signed off on the draconian “Anti-Homosexuality Act,” which extends colonial-era sodomy laws and envisions violators being sentenced to lengthy prison terms or even death. Civil rights groups have condemned the measure amid warnings that it may deter foreign aid and investment in one of Africa’s fastest-growing economies.
Homosexuality is banned in more than half of the 55 African nations and frowned upon in many others. That includes Uganda, which inherited its original anti-gay laws from Britain, the former ruling power. Ugandan lawmakers and religious leaders — often encouraged by US evangelical groups — have said LGBTQ practices are contrary to their culture and have no place in Uganda. In February, the archbishop of the Church of Uganda, Stephen Kaziimba, condemned a decision by the Church of England to allow clergy to preside over a blessing for same-sex unions — an issue that has split the Anglican Communion, of which both are part. (Uganda was among those boycotting last year’s conference of the global grouping of Anglican churches.) Museveni signed a previous version of the law that was later struck down by the courts on a technicality. The president has described homosexuality as “degeneration” and a threat to procreation.
Story continues below advertisement
2. What does the new law propose?
It states that the nation’s capacity to deal with “emerging internal and external threats to the traditional, heterosexual family” must be enhanced and that Ugandans need protection against activists who “promote” homosexuality. These are some of its main provisions:
• The death sentence may be imposed on those who engage in so-called “aggravated homosexuality.” That categorization includes same-sex intercourse involving someone who is HIV positive or under the age of 18.
• Individuals can be sentenced to up to life imprisonment if they are convicted of other homosexual acts.
• Persons under the age of 18 who are judged to have engaged in homosexuality can be jailed for as long as three years.
Story continues below advertisement
• Legal entities that are convicted of “promoting homosexuality” can be fined 1 billion shillings ($267,000).
An earlier version of the legislation approved by lawmakers in March sought to punish people for merely identifying as LGBTQ, but that provision was removed after Museveni requested changes.
3. Is this constitutional?
The Constitutional Court struck down similar anti-gay legislation in 2014 that Museveni had signed. But that was on the grounds that lawmakers approved the law without the required quorum, and no determination was made on its constitutionality. Some legal experts have argued that discriminating against people based on their sexual identity or practices could constitute a violation of the constitutional right to freedom of expression, association and liberty. Sexual Minorities Uganda, a coalition that fights for LGBTQ rights, and other organizations have indicated that they will challenge the new law in court if the president approves it.
Story continues below advertisement
4. How has the bill been received internationally?
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk described the bill as devastating and discriminatory — “probably among the worst of its kind in the world.” The World Health Organization cautioned that the legislation risks stunting progress made in reducing the spread of HIV in Uganda. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other civil rights groups warn that homophobic attacks could increase. The US and other Western governments have condemned the measure, while the African Union has refrained from commenting.
5. What’s the potential economic fallout?
The International Monetary Fund has said it expects Uganda’s economy to expand by an average of more than 6% annually over the next five years. However, the new law could make operating in the East African nation awkward and place billions of dollars of investments at risk at a time when companies such as TotalEnergies SE are looking to start producing oil there. The World Bank and other lenders that have helped to shore up Uganda’s finances may also face pressure from shareholders and rights groups to review their relationship with the country. Almost a fifth of the country’s latest budget was funded using external financing. Muhoozi Kainerugaba, Museveni’s son, tweeted that Uganda could do without foreign investors.
--With assistance from Fred Ojambo, Thomas Pfeiffer, Anna Kitanaka and Siraj Datoo.
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com
Don’t Dismiss the Fury Over Fukushima’s Water. By David Fickling
Don’t Dismiss the Fury Over Fukushima’s Water. By David Fickling | Bloomberg — Read time: 4 minutes
Analysis by David Fickling | Bloomberg
May 29, 2023 at 7:44 p.m. EDT
More than 12 years after the disaster that closed Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the country will soon dispose of one of the most enduring legacies of the disaster.
Some 1.3 million metric tons of water, most of it used to cool the radioactive material at the core of the plant, will be filtered and cleaned up before being pumped slowly to sea once a 1-kilometer (0.6 mile) pipe is completed in the coming weeks. It may take decades to trickle out the water at a pace slow enough to keep radioactive concentrations at sufficiently low levels — but that hasn’t prevented bitter opposition from some of Japan’s Pacific neighbors.
“Continuing with ocean discharge plans at this time is simply inconceivable,” Henry Puna, secretary general of the Pacific Islands Forum intergovernmental group, wrote earlier this year. “I fear that, if left unchecked, the region will once again be headed towards a major nuclear contamination disaster at the hands of others.” China has also condemned the plan, while South Korean nuclear experts will be doing their own monitoring of radiation levels.
These widespread fears are spurious. There’s zero risk to human life from releasing Fukushima’s contaminated water at sea under the plan proposed by Tokyo Electric Power Co. Drinking a glass of it direct from the outflow pipe would expose you to about as much radiation (from trace quantities of the hydrogen isotope tritium) as you’d get from eating a dozen bananas. Once further diluted in the vast waters of the Pacific, the radioactivity decreases to homeopathic levels. The 1.3 million metric tons of water that Tepco needs to get rid of sounds like a lot — but the Pacific Ocean holds roughly 500 billion times that amount.
At the same time, Japan of all countries should be empathetic in dealing with the sometimes irrational opposition that nuclear energy can generate.
For decades, US nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers visiting local ports had to give authorities 24 hours’ notice so that geiger checks could be carried out — despite more than 1,000 dockings passing without incident. A 20-minute unapproved arrival in 2001 prompted the country’s foreign minister to temporarily call off such visits. In the 1960s, even agreed visits often prompted thousands of demonstrators to turn out.
Story continues below advertisement
That unique political environment is inseparable from the fact that Japan is the only nation which has had atomic weapons used against it. You would have expected the nation that razed Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be a little accommodating of local sentiments on this issue. Even so, the US’s observance of the radiological theater around ship visits was a potent example that, in diplomacy, listening and pragmatism are usually more important than being right.
Pacific nations have a similar history. Though no country has suffered the death toll that Japan endured from nuclear weapons, the dozens of bombs tested in the Marshall Islands released energy about 5,000-times greater than that of those dropped on Japan. It has been left with a grim legacy of cancers and birth defects.
Most Pacific nations became independent from their former colonial powers in the late 1970s and early 1980s, at a time when both the US and Japan were looking to the region’s vast spaces as a dump for radioactive waste. Fighting against those policies and establishing a nuclear-free zone south of the equator was a foundational event for many young nations, quite as much as pacifism was in post-war Japan.
Story continues below advertisement
Some circumspection earlier in the process might have paid off. It took China’s aggressive diplomacy in the region before Japan, the US and Australia started to reverse decades of neglect and began making serious attempts to woo and listen to Pacific island governments. As recently as 2015, then-Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told a delegation of island leaders meeting some 40 kilometers (25 miles) from the Fukushima plant “to support Japan’s effort without being misled by rumors.” That sort of scolding response was thankfully absent in his successor Fumio Kishida’s summit on the sidelines of the Group of Seven meeting earlier this month with Prime Minister Mark Brown of the Cook Islands. Pacific leaders, in turn, appear to have been mollified by the greater transparency and dialogue.
There’s a lesson here for nuclear advocates, too. It’s common now for supporters of an enhanced role for nuclear energy to dismiss the safety regulation around atomic plants as an unnecessary and costly imposition that must be swept away, sparking a renaissance of atomic power. That’s an unrealistic and ultimately counterproductive ambition.
Every form of major infrastructure has to deal with public opinion, and in a democracy you don’t get to rule whether your opponents’ arguments are valid enough. That’s a problem for renewables as much as nuclear. Europe closed nine factories for wind turbine parts between 2018 and 2022, according to BloombergNEF, as demand slumped in a region that has effectively outlawed onshore wind farms from swathes of its territory.
Still, the solution isn’t to gripe about the injustice of it, but to work with the regulation we have and seek changes where we can to build the clean energy the 21st century needs. If Japan’s problems with the Pacific serve to reinforce this lesson, that’s no bad thing.