Students Say Racial Hostilities Simmered at Historic Boston Latin School

Two black students, employing YouTube videos and a hashtag, started a campaign to expose what they see as a hostile climate at Boston Latin School, a beacon of high achievement that was founded in 1635.

Who's won so far

Here is the list of the winners of the 22nd Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (winners indicated by asterisk and bold):

Denmark's Harsh New Immigration Law Will End Badly for Everyone

COPENHAGEN, Denmark -- Prior to the cartoon crisis of 2005-6, which arose after a Danish newspaper published a handful of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, Denmark did not have strong national brand recognition in the Middle East and North Africa. During numerous research trips to the region before the crisis I often heard questions along the lines of, "Denmark? Isn't that the capital of Oslo?"

Egyptians, for instance, jokingly used to refer to Denmark as "the country of cheese" (balad al-gibna), a reference to Danish dairy products exported to the region. Or they would take amusement from referring to a popular slapstick comedy starring a prominent Egyptian actor, Adel Imam, in which the plot is built around a Danish blonde in skimpy clothes. And there were soccer fans (quite a lot) who could name more famous Danish or Arab soccer players than I even knew. Beyond that, everything turned a bit hazy.

The cartoon crisis changed that. It instantly hurled Denmark into the Arab and Middle Eastern collective consciousness and tarnished Denmark with a reputation as a frontrunner in European xenophobia and Islamophobia.

Whether we find it fair or not, the dominant narrative about Denmark in the Middle East remains forcefully impacted by this experience. Danish businessmen know that and so do the Danish intelligence and foreign services. Over the past 10 years each has worked to repair and rebuild what Denmark's image lost in 2006. In the foreign service, for instance, the newly established regional reform program that I headed in Cairo from 2008 through 2011 had to scale down its reform agenda and instead focus on public diplomacy and "dialogue" activities.

Syrian migrants arrive at the main train station in Copenhagen in September, 2015. (Finn Frandsen/POLFOTO via AP)

The cartoon crisis not only created a branding challenge for Denmark in the Middle East; it also made the country weaker in the eyes of countries it normally compares itself with. The association with European xenophobia and Islamophobia had grave consequences for Denmark's capacity for international diplomacy and its exposure to international terrorism. Every incoming Danish government since 2006 has been forced to handle this structural weakness through the diplomatic, trade and security agencies.

But the current government has utterly failed to do this. Out of an eagerness to dissuade Syrian and other refugees to seek asylum in Denmark, the government, since it came to power about seven months ago, deliberately and proactively built an image of Denmark as a leader in European anti-immigration policies. It has done so by placing dissuasive ads in Lebanese media, by challenging the applicability of international conventions on the regulation of refugees and, most recently, by passing a highly controversial and symbolic anti-immigration law. In Denmark and in other countries, the success of this type of negative branding has generated tough criticism and split the electorate, sending the parties in the social democratic opposition that supported the government into an almost historically unprecedented free fall.

But that's not all. Besides the almost unbearable human costs that the new law will impose on legal asylum seekers in Denmark -- in particular the separation of parents and children for up to three years and the confiscation of personal valuables -- the government has neglected three key insights that were bitterly acquired during the cartoon crisis in 2006 but appear now to have been forgotten.

Small state, big attitude

A key lesson from the cartoon crisis was that Denmark is and always will be a small state. No matter how much the Americans love our "scando style," the cartoon crisis emphatically showed that the close relations with Washington built by successive governments could not be translated into deterrence in international politics. The cartoon crisis showed us that if we stick our noses into the wrong places and make diplomatic missteps, we may easily become an object of other more powerful states' domestic and international policies.

Contrary to what is often argued in Danish media, it was neither the printing of the cartoons as such, nor the dumb trip by a group of ill-prepared Danish imams to several countries in the Middle East that instigated the crisis. The crisis only developed when a host of political actors in the Middle East and beyond picked up on a strong but almost cost-free case for popular mobilization that the Danish government had provided them on a silver platter.

The then-prime minister and later head of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, refused to meet a group of ambassadors who arrived to express a strong worry over what they perceived as increasing Islamophobia in the Danish press and media, with the cartoons of Prophet Muhammed as the most recent case. From there, the conflict took a new and international dimension.

Angry protesters shout anti-Denmark slogans in front of the Danish embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, in 2006. (ADEK BERRY/AFP/Getty Images)

It was this diplomatic faux pas, based on a tunnel view of the Danish domestic scene, that was grasped by political leaders and opinion-makers in the state-controlled or government-supportive press in the Middle East. How could the leader of a small European state decline to even speak to ambassadors representing a range of Middle Eastern great powers?

From that point onward the crisis snowballed. Middle Eastern regimes like Egypt, Iran and Syria pushed the issue, orchestrating campaigns and street protests. It was picked up by the domestic opposition in a number of countries in the region, further complicating Denmark's attempts at containing the issue. It was picked up by Al Qaeda, adding to the growing risks of political violence and terrorism in the wake of the Danish military expeditions in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it was picked up by Middle Eastern consumers, leading to one of the worst-ever cases of consumer boycott and damage to Danish business interests in the Middle East.

It did not matter that the prime minister could not have intervened to stop the cartoons even if he wanted. It did not matter that equally presumptuous French cartoons were printed in other European newspapers. What mattered was that the case was powerfully mobilizing the populace. And that was almost risk-free, from a Middle Eastern perspective, since it involved only a European micro-power. It is, after all, a whole lot easier to organize and run an international conflict with Denmark than doing so with big powers like France, Germany or the U.S.

A migrant camp in Vordingborg, south of Copenhagen. (Per Rasmussen/Polfoto via AP)

And now, in the current refugee crisis, the Danish government neglected all the insights and lessons it could have learned from the cartoon crisis, from the limits of the country's deterrence abilities to the deep connectedness between Danish domestic politics and the broader world around us. Until now, the refugee crisis has had a broader European and Western dimension. Sadly, it may not remain so. Although a scenario along the precise lines of the cartoon crisis seems unlikely, the issue may reveal a deeper resonance with Middle Eastern politics, security and business than what we have seen so far.

The probability of this stems form the continued presence of key conditions in Middle Eastern power politics that, a decade ago, drove the cartoon crisis. Regimes remain weak and illegitimate. Jihadists are still at war with Denmark and the West. And businesses still need to appear ethical.

Ten years after the cartoon crisis, Middle Eastern regimes are still dealing with chronically low popular support. A key driver in the cartoon crisis of 2006 was the need for weak autocratic regimes to mobilize popular support internally -- or at least stop their domestic rivals from doing so first. The cartoons in that case were an issue that was obvious enough to garner support and mobilize people. Through smear campaigns and dissociation, the regimes could frame themselves as protectors of the prophet, of Islam and of a good cause.

To many, this appeared wildly hypocritical. Muslims are treated worse in the Middle East than they ever have been in Denmark. But that was not the point back then. And neither is it today. During a recent U.N. Human Rights Council hearing, envoys from a range of Middle Eastern great powers, including Saudi Arabia and Iran, chastised Denmark for its hateful debate about migrants and foreigners. It is hard to believe that this was motivated by a genuine urge to protect human rights and the rights of Muslim migrants and refugees in Denmark.

Middle Eastern migrants walking from southern Denmark towards Sweden in September, 2015. (AP Photo/POLFOTO, Per Rasmussen)

Rather, it seems likely that such criticism arose because the publicity serves political agendas. Internally, Middle Eastern regimes seek to handle their scant political legitimacy by posing as guardians of public morality. Just like it was back in 2006. Hypocritical, yes. But that's politics.

Middle Eastern regimes are active in ongoing power feuds with their neighbors and a quest for regional dominance, a dynamic that is richly illustrated by the battle between Saudi Arabia and Iran. These regimes need to position themselves to gain political advantage and domestic support -- or, at a minimum, ensure that their competitors cannot.

The decision by the Danish government to send a strong message to potential asylum seekers, combined with the existing narrative about xenophobia and Islamophobia, neglects the threats this may generate for Denmark itself. The display at that UNHRC hearing -- where Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia, among others, targeted Denmark for its treatment of migrants and refugees -- suggests that at least some Middle Eastern regimes may be eyeing an opportunity to claim political legitimacy by pointing fingers at Denmark.

An ongoing battle against terrorism

Another key lesson from the cartoon crisis was that stories about Danish xenophobia served jihadist mobilization. Since 2006 jihadists in the Middle East, and in particular Al Qaeda, have had Denmark on their target list. As a symbolic representative for European Islamophobia in the new mainstream Arab popular perception, jihadists saw Denmark as a particularly interesting target for their global jihad, and for years after the crisis in 2006, several Danish journalists, editors and cartoonists were forced to live with 24/7 police protection. Some experienced assassination attempts. While the threat from global terrorism towards Denmark was believed to have dropped gradually during the last decade -- a development that helped by the withdrawal of Danish troops from Iraq and Afghanistan -- the threat has reemerged recently.

Less than a year ago, a Danish "lone wolf" terrorist who had shown sympathies for the so-called Islamic State attacked and killed several people in central Copenhagen. Much of the propaganda emerging from ISIS addresses real and imagined grievances of the Muslim minority groups in Europe.

As with broader European terrorist threats, the renewed alert in Denmark seems intimately linked with Denmark's participation in the international military coalition against so-called Islamic State in Syria -- a factor that may have increased further by the recent deployment of ground troops to Mali in support of the stabilization of areas in the northern part of the country.

A man outside the burning Danish consulate in Beirut during a violent demonstration against the Muhammad cartoons in 2006. (HAITHAM MUSSAWI/AFP/Getty Images)

There is, of course, nothing indicating that Middle Eastern jihadist groups have the plight of refugees particularly close to heart. ISIS, from which a great deal of refugees are fleeing, continues to threaten all who flee its territory.

But the story about the Danish government's proactive struggle to limit the influx of asylum seekers from Muslim majority countries plays into the deeper narrative inherited from the cartoon crisis, a narrative that picks out Denmark as the most Islamophobic of European countries. This was the narrative underpinning the jihadi mobilization in 2006 and onwards. There is a fair reason to fear that Denmark's and Europe's attempts to block asylum seekers from entering Europe will be interpreted as yet another chapter in the imperialist and colonialist policies that jihadists claim Europe in enacting. In that worldview it is only to be expected that refugees from the Middle East will meet refusal rather than welcome -- that universal rights are not universal at all, only applicable to whites, Christians or Europeans.

The Danish government is thus running a great risk of increasing the threats of terrorism in Denmark. By actively seeking to establish a bad standing among potential asylum seekers, the government deliberately neglects lessons from 2006 -- bad publicity for Denmark may be good mobilization material for global jihadists. From a perspective of security policy, the government's proactive branding of itself as a bad country for Middle Eastern migrants and refugees rather looks like a harmful disservice.

Business and ethics

Lastly, the cartoon crisis taught Danish companies that Middle Eastern consumers and businessmen also purchase ethically. While businesspeople share the ability of autocrats and terrorists to look the other way as human rights are violated, the cartoon crisis also showed us that when their business is threatened, their stamina plummets. This is likely to still be the case today. And just as it was 10 years ago, Danish companies active in the Middle East still need to stand on the right side of public morals and ethical business. In the tough competition to reach Middle Eastern consumers, there is a continuous need to mobilize buyers. And in the Middle East, this happens the same way as back home in Denmark -- by businesses keeping their name morally and ethically clean.

Some of the many boycotts and other damages to Danish businesses that arose during and after the cartoon crisis certainly reflected genuine anger over the cartoons or the Danish government's handling of them back then. But some were also motivated by considerations of branding. It simply was not convenient to be associated with Denmark, a perceived Islamophobic brand.

In its effort to take a symbolic leadership position among European countries currently pushing for tighter migration policies, the Danish government has plainly neglected multiple important experiences collected during the cartoon crisis of 2006.

In the end the government's refugee policies are not just ethically questionable. They are also potentially harmful for Danish growth and for Danish diplomacy. And they may contribute to an increase in threats from jihadists in Denmark and beyond.

Earlier on WorldPost:

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Billionaire Paul Allen's Yacht Wrecks Cayman Islands Coral Reef

One of the world's largest yachts, owned by Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen, destroyed 14,000 square feet of reef in the Cayman Islands. 

The anchor chain of the 300-foot luxury boat, named the MV Tatoosh, damaged more than 80 percent of the coral in about a quarter-acre of protected territory earlier this month, according to the Cayman News Service. The damage occurred near an area popular with scuba divers. 

Allen, 63, was not on board at the time, according to his company Vulcan, which blamed the local port officials for telling the boat's crew where to position the Tatoosh. Reuters said the five-decker vessel is the 49th-largest yacht in the world. 

Winds reportedly shifted to push the boat into the reef. The crew left the area when the damage was discovered. 

The irony of the mishap is that Allen is a conservationist "working to save endangered species [and] improve ocean health," according to his corporate biography. Allen, 63, is the world's 26th richest man, with a net worth of $19.2 billion, according to Forbes. He also owns the NFL's Seattle Seahawks and the NBA's Portland Trailblazers. 

A Cayman Island environmental department will release a full report about the reef's damage next week, according to the Cayman News Service. Allen faces fines of up to $600,000. He and the crew are cooperating with investigators, CNN reported.

Also on HuffPost:

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Helen Mirren's SAG Awards Dress Is Absolutely Regal

Helen Mirren is nominated for an impressive three SAG Awards Saturday night, and while we don't know if she'll snag any statuettes, she's already winning on the red carpet.

The "Trumbo" and "Woman in Gold" actress turned heads in an ivory beaded and sequined gown by Jenny Packham. The look is a perfect reflection of her regal personal style and position as a certified style star.

Are you loving Dame Mirren's SAG ensemble?

Also on HuffPost:

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

New stealth fighter unveiled

Could this be the stealth jet of the future? Japan has unveiled a test aircraft for its first domestically-made stealth fighter.

Got a COO?

"Operations" has become a difficult term to define over the past 15 years or so, given the disappearance in that time of the Chief Operating Officer (COO) position from a number of companies both large and small. In fact, over 40% of Fortune 500 corporations have eliminated the position altogether. Some argue that the role of a COO conflicts with the authority of the CEO and creates an unnecessary layer of management. While this argument may have some merit, the CEO is ultimately responsible for ensuring the success of the business. Recent research shows that there is a direct correlation between increased organizational performance and the presence of a COO. (Marcel 2009)

The role of the COO has existed forever. One of the best examples that I can think of (Game of Thrones fans will get a kick out of this) is the role of the Hand of the King. The Hand is the king's chief advisor and executor of his command. He manages the day-to-day of running the kingdom and may act on the king's behalf. He's the king's number 2 - or in the king's own words, he's "my shield, my stalwart, my strong right hand". Okay, enough with the Game of Thrones references. The point that I was attempting to make is that in order for an effective leader to lead, she needs to be able to trust that she's got a strong right hand that she can count on to keep the ship afloat.  
When an organization doesn't have a clear number 2 in place, if something goes wrong, its leadership is likely to fall victim to a finger-pointing circus in an attempt to figure out precisely who dropped the ball. Was it the president of a division, or the CTO, or maybe someone in Marketing? If you're in the C-Suite in an organizational structure without a COO, then I'm sure you know exactly what I'm talking about. The COO prevents this from happening because if it has to do with the day-to-day of running the business, then it falls on her shoulders. Whether it's Marketing, Technology, Finance, or what have you, she's the one accountable to the CEO and the Board of Directors for getting the job done.

Of course it's ridiculously complicated to find someone capable of taking on the role of the COO, and it's even more difficult finding someone WILLING to do it. But once you've found the right person, your organization is destined for success. The COO frees up the CEO to serve as the public face of the organization and focus on the growth and strategic direction of the company. Not to mention that she eases the board's anxiety about succession plans: more than likely she's slotted as the CEO's successor. Take if from me -- if you're looking to reorg your organization, include a COO in your plans.

This blogger graduated from Goldman Sachs' 10,000 Small Businesses program. Goldman Sachs is a partner of the What Is Working: Small Businesses section.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Bernie Sanders And Big Business Find Something They Can Actually Agree On

Hillary Clinton has tried to convince Democratic primary voters that she is firmly opposed to the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

But the president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the country's leading business trade group and a proponent of the accord, told Bloomberg News earlier this month that he isn't buying Clinton's public stance. Now Sen. Bernie Sanders is seizing on those comments as a sign that his presidential primary rival can't be counted on to oppose TPP. 

Thomas Donohue, head of the business lobby, suggested that Clinton is only opposing TPP to improve her chances against Sanders, who has objected to the deal from the beginning. Clinton would likely revert to her previous support for the agreement if she were elected president, Donohue posited.

"If she were to get nominated, if she were to be elected, I have a hunch that what runs in the family is you get a little practical if you get the job," Donohue said.

As leader of one of the most influential groups in Washington, Donohue is an old hand at assessing politicians' moves and motives. TPP is a top priority for the Chamber of Commerce and the businesses it represents. If Donohue is saying he's not concerned that Clinton would ultimately resist the passage of TPP, that's a view worth considering.

The business lobbyist also dismissed concerns about Donald Trump, who is loudly anti-TPP.  He expressed confidence that the populist anger that has characterized the early primary process will give way to more business-friendly sensibilities.

"The citizens are sort of mad, but they haven't voted at all," Donohue told Bloomberg News. "We haven't had a single vote."

"I'm not saying who is going to win," he added. "I'm just telling you that on both the Democratic and Republican side, we are getting down to the real stuff. It isn't going to end the way you think it is."

The Sanders campaign said in a press release Thursday that Donohue's remarks raise "questions about where Clinton stands" on TPP.

"What's her position on this bad trade deal today?" Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs asked. "It's hard to keep track of Secretary Clinton's shifting stands on the trade agreement that would help multi-national corporations ship more decent-paying jobs from the United States to low-wage nations overseas."

The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Clinton announced her opposition to TPP on Oct. 7 last year, telling Judy Woodruff of the "PBS NewsHour" that there were "still too many unanswered questions" about how the agreement would affect U.S. jobs, the affordability of prescription drugs and other matters.

At the time, Clinton was under rising pressure from progressive activists to take a more definitive position on the trade agreement. Yet in her remarks, she appeared to give herself leeway to embrace the deal later if her concerns could be assuaged.

"As of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it," she said.

Even those cautious words marked an about-face from Clinton's previous embrace of TPP, which she had worked on as President Barack Obama's secretary of state. Clinton called the deal the "gold standard in trade agreements" in November 2012, while still serving as America's top diplomat.

More than one progressive activist has argued that Clinton's public change of heart simply shows that she's willing to say things to appease voters, but that doesn't mean she can be relied on to stick to her positions if elected. These skeptics contend, for example, that Clinton only came out against construction of the Keystone XL pipeline in September 2015 when it had become a growing political liability to continue not taking a stance.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, a wide-ranging accord among 12 Pacific Rim nations, would lower tariffs and streamline regulations on goods and services exchanged by the participating countries. The Obama administration, most big business leaders, some congressional Democrats and the majority of congressional Republicans argue that the agreement is essential to maintain the U.S.'s competitive edge in the global economy and counter the rising influence of China in the Pacific region.

Critics of the deal -- including labor unions, environmental groups, global health activists, Internet freedom advocates and the majority of congressional Democrats -- argue that it will cost the U.S. manufacturing jobs, reward nations that abuse human rights and empower corporations to challenge domestic laws protecting consumers, patients and workers.

Last June, Congress granted the president trade promotion authority, which bars Congress from amending or filibustering a trade agreement submitted by the White House for approval. Lawmakers are restricted to an up-or-down vote.

A senior White House official told reporters Wednesday that the opposition to TPP from presidential candidates of both parties was being "closely watched" by America's negotiating partners. The official implied that the candidates' comments made other TPP nations eager to see the U.S. ratify the accord this year.

The official also said the Obama administration did not have a position on whether it would be better to pursue ratification of TPP before the November elections or in the lame-duck session of Congress afterward.

Chamber of Commerce leader Donohue told Bloomberg that he sees the best chance for approving the trade agreement after the election, since Republican lawmakers in particular could vote for it without fear of endangering their own re-elections.

"If you tried to get a vote on it right now, the Senate wouldn't let you do it, because they are not going to take three or four very important senators -- at a time when they are ... running for office, you know, more Republicans than Democrats -- and put them at risk," Donohue said.

He added that waiting until after the election also gives TPP's proponents more time to whip votes in favor of it.

Donohue estimated the likelihood of the deal passing by the end of 2016 at 75 percent.

Also on HuffPost:

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.