Onward to 2025

Image courtesy of Freepik

And so we once again turn the calendar page to a New Year soon. On my end, I’ve been preoccupied with work tasks during the past week — grading exams & papers and finishing up a law review article — but I’m also looking ahead to what I’ll be focusing on during 2025. They include:

  • The Workplace Bullying Accountability Act — As I shared in my last blog post, I’ve been quietly working on a new proposed approach to workplace anti-bullying legislation, an alternative to the Healthy Workplace Bill, which has long been the template for U.S. law reform efforts in this realm. I’m calling it the Workplace Bullying Accountability Act (WBAA), and it’s designed to bring multiple stakeholders — including both unions and employers — to the table in preventing and responding to workplace bullying. I’ll be introducing it in greater detail early in the New Year.
  • A new initiative on “psychologizing” law, policy, and politics — I think it’s vital that we develop a deeper understanding of the roles that psychology and related social sciences play in shaping our political and civic life, laws and legal systems, and public policy making. This conviction comes out of my ongoing work in the workplace anti-bullying movement, therapeutic jurisprudence, and political advocacy. Moreover, we need to understand the psychological intersections between politics, law, and policy. Per a blog piece I wrote in October, I will be rolling out some plans on this during the coming year.
  • Applying some work-life balance lessons to myself — On a more personal note, I will be applying some needed lessons about work-life balance to myself. In an earlier post, I hinted at dialing down my full-time teaching commitment. While don’t plan on completely stepping away from the classroom for quite some time, I will be reducing my academic commitments during 2025 and beyond, to enable more time to work on various projects such as those described above and to create more space for myself. It’s a transition that I’m looking forward to, one that I believe will be rewarding on multiple levels.

As I suggested recently, I think America, in particular, now faces some very challenging circumstances. How my own work and life relate to this state of affairs, I haven’t quite figured out. But I know that I will not be able to ignore the concerns and even threats that are likely to emerge during the coming year.

As for you, dear readers, I wish you a healthy, safe, and fulfilling 2025, as we navigate these interesting times.  

Crunch time, first snowfall, and comfort food delivery

Chinese food delivery…very satisfying

Many folks understandably assume that once classes end for the fall term at a college or university, the weeks until the January term starts up are full of leisurely bliss for professors. However, while academic careers certainly provide more flexibility than many vocations, semester breaks can be full of due dates and catching up.

Most work of all kinds has its crunch times, and the stretch from December through early January tends to be a common one for academics. Grading final exams and papers account for a lot of it. Writing projects that seemed so doable during the semester from the view of August sometimes find themselves kicked down the curb into the semester break as well. And then there’s class prep for the coming semester.

Now I get to read and grade the results…..

For the past 30+ years, this has been my reality. As for this semester break, I’m sandwiching my grading around finishing a law review article for a symposium in Chicago in the spring.

There’s something about the combination of crunch time and the onset of winter weather that draws me to comfort food, and this occasion is no different. We had our first snow storm on Friday, followed by wintry cold temperatures on Saturday. Dinner on Saturday (with leftovers galore) was via an order from one of my favorite local Chinese delivery places, JP Kitchen. Hot & sour soup, chicken wings, Szechuan spiced tofu, and vegetable fried rice all hit the spot.

First snow storm of the season, Jamaica Plain, Boston.

I did get out during the snowfall on Friday evening, opting to croon a few tunes at my go-to karaoke place, VIVA Karaoke x Studios, in Boston’s Theatre District. I figured the bad weather might make for a lighter crowd that evening, and I was right. In less than two hours, I was able to get in five songs: “I’ll Be Home for Christmas” (Sinatra), “On the Street Where You Live” (Andy Williams), “That’s Life” (Sinatra), “Mack the Knife” (Bobby Darin), and — at the request of a young woman with an incredible voice who needed a duet partner — the Lady Gaga/Tony Bennett version of “The Lady is a Tramp.” It was all great fun.

I love singing the Bobby Darin version!

As the calendar year comes to a close, I may be publishing one more important blog post before January rolls around — if not, very early in 2025. I’ve been quietly working on an ambitious drafting project concerning proposed workplace anti-bullying legislation, an alternative to the Healthy Workplace Bill, which has long been the template for U.S. law reform efforts in this realm. I’ll be sharing some details about it very soon.

Free Workplace Bullying Online Summit starts on Nov. 18

Dear readers, you are warmly invited to “Navigating Workplace Bullying,” a free, 9-day, online summit starting on Monday, November 18. The summit features interviews with leading subject matter experts on understanding, preventing, and responding to bullying at work, conducted by host and organizer Andy Regal.

I’m delighted to be among the participants. Andy and I had a lively and wide-ranging conversation that we’re looking forward to sharing with you, centering on the challenges of enacting workplace anti-bullying laws in the U.S., but going well beyond that topic.

Go here to sign up. If you cannot attend the summit each day, then you can purchase a modestly-priced subscription for 18-months streaming access to the recordings and materials. I’m among those who bought the subscription as a wise investment in my own continuing education about this destructive workplace phenomenon.

Podcast: Cult control expert Steven Hassan interviews me about workplace bullying and narcissistic bosses

What do cult control and workplace bullying have in common? More than initially meets the eye, perhaps.

Several weeks ago, I had the distinction of being interviewed by Dr. Steven Hassan, a leading expert on cult psychology and mind control, about workplace bullying and narcissistic bosses. You may freely access the interview by going here.

Steve and I met at an international law and mental health conference in Barcelona this summer, and he thought there might be some overlap between our respective interests. We ended up having a lively, one-hour exchange that covered a surprising amount of ground. I hope you’ll find our conversation to be interesting and thought-provoking.

America, by choosing the bully, has entered a New Dark Age

Into the darkness we go

The bully won, at least for now.

I’m not shocked. Even as experienced political operatives holding views aligned with mine were touting the possibility of a big win for the Democrats, my judgment was telling me all along that this was going to be a very close election.

And yet, it is hard for me to describe my deep sadness and concern over America’s decision to return Donald Trump to the White House. 

A smug, intolerant, and mean-spirited energy has increasingly gripped this country since that fateful day in 2015, when Trump announced his presidential candidacy. It has fully manifested in an authoritarian, cult-like bloom now that this unstable, raging, cognitively deteriorating man, and his ominously creepy running mate, J.D. Vance, will be assuming their positions of enormous power.

Grasping the twisted psychological dynamics of what led us to this terrible place will require deep study and a capacity for complexity and nuance. I intend to be part of that inquiry. After all, the Trump phenomenon embodies so much of what I have already learned about bullying, abuse, cruelty, misogyny, bigotry, dishonesty, and trauma during the course of my career. This toxic force is accompanied by a deep contempt for the rule of law, especially when applied to Trump’s own many proven and alleged offenses.

I realize that, for the moment, I am emphasizing the disturbing personal qualities of America’s next president. But make no mistake, these qualities will drive public policy in awful ways, posing fundamental threats to the rule of law, democratic governance, human dignity, and the health of the planet. Personalities have consequences.

I mourn for this country and apologize to the world for what we have unleashed. America, a nation whose origins were inspired by the Enlightenment, has now empowered an authoritarian strongman and chosen to enter a New Dark Age. I can only hope that somehow we will find a way to reverse course.

We need to more deeply “psychologize” our understanding of law, public policy, and politics

Image courtesy of freepik.com

My dear friend Dr. Gary Namie, co-founder of the Workplace Bullying Institute, states what I regard as an ultimate compliment when he says that I’m one of the most “psychologized” law professors and lawyers he’s ever known. By that, he means that I’ve repeatedly shown an ability and inclination to apply psychological insights to law and public policy. Much of his observation traces to our shared commitment to prevent, stop, and respond to bullying at work.

Striving to understand the dynamics of workplace bullying has indeed led me to become more grounded in pertinent aspects of psychology. This includes comprehending not only the organizational and social aspects that feed into bullying behaviors at work, but also the clinical aspects that shed light on the psychological states of both aggressors and targets. This, in turn, has critically informed my work on drafting and advocating for legal protections against workplace bullying.

In fact, I credit my psychological dives into workplace bullying for leading me to therapeutic jurisprudence (“TJ”), the multidisciplinary field of legal theory and practice that examines the therapeutic and anti-therapeutic properties of law, legal procedures, and legal institutions. In 2017, I served as the founding board chair of the new International Society for Therapeutic Jurisprudence, a non-profit, learned society established to support TJ-related public education, scholarly work, and best practices in the legal profession and judiciary.

I have found myself steadily advocating for the deeper psychologizing of law and public policy. Last year, for example, I penned a blog piece, “A Case for Therapeutic Jurisprudence in Legal Education and the Legal Profession,” calling for the wider mainstreaming of TJ. In 2020, I examined whether public policy should center on society’s overall sense of well-being in an essay appearing in The American Commentator. I have presented about the need for trauma-informed law and public policy and have a law review article in the works about it.

Now, I also wish to call for the wider application of psychological insights to our political realm. Regardless of what happens at the ballot box next week, this inquiry should examine how our civic culture has become so toxic and how Donald Trump — a man utterly without compassion or conscience — stands a respectable chance to regain the White House. This campaign season alone has provided a bounty of significant and disturbing reportage and commentary on the psychological health of our presidential candidates and of the electorate in general.

In sum, this tripartite perspective on psychologizing law, public policy, and politics covers a lot of important ground. It ranges from a broad inquiry into the civic health of our world writ large, to a more specific focus on topics such as bullying at work.

I look forward to sharing more plans for this work during the months ahead.

Webinar: “Psychological Health and Safety at Work: Is Your Organization at Risk?”

Last Friday, it was my pleasure to participate in a webinar hosted by the Psychology in the Workplace Collaborative, “Psychological Health and Safety and Work: Is Your Organization at Risk?” The webinar was hosted by Dr. Merv Gilbert (Vancouver Psych Health + Safety Ltd), who engaged Dr. Ashley Speech (WorkSafeBC, British Columbia, Canada) and me in a wide-ranging conversation that left us wishing we had more time to continue our exchange! Here’s a description of the program:

Moderator: Merv Gilbert, PhD, Vancouver Psych Health + Safety Ltd Guests: Ashley Spetch, PhD, WorkSafeBC, & David Yamada, JD, Suffolk University Law School

From unreasonable job demands to workplace bullying to unpleasant or dangerous working conditions, there are many stressors that have the potential to negatively affect workers’ mental health. Employers increasingly have a duty of care to protect workers from these hazards and can be held liable when they fail to meet their obligations.

In this webinar, Dr. Merv Gilbert sits down with Dr. Ashley Spetch, Chief Mental Health Officer at WorkSafeBC, and David Yamada, Professor of Law and Director of the New Workplace Institute at Suffolk University Law School in Boston, to talk about the role of prevention and risk management, implementation challenges and solutions related to psychological health and safety programs, and how employers can get upstream of potential problems to protect their workers and the organization.

Presented by the Psychology in the Workplace Collaborative with support from the Kentucky Psychological Foundation

You may go here to freely access a YouTube recording of our discussion.

This webinar, part of the Collaborative’s Executive Leadership series, was organized by Dr. David Ballard, a co-founder of the Collaborative. David is a long-time colleague and friend who has a special talent for connecting practitioners, researchers, scholars, and public officials from many professional and academic backgrounds to address compelling issues of psychological health and safety at work.

I was especially interested to learn from my co-participants about regulatory efforts to address workplace bullying in Canada. Our neighbors to the north are well ahead of the U.S. in creating workplace safety and health standards that cover bullying and related behaviors. Dr. Spetch (see her bio, below) is the Chief Mental Health Officer for British Columbia’s workers’ compensation board. British Columbia’s workers’ compensation law covers workplace bullying as a form of compensable workplace violence.

Our group of four so enjoyed our exchanges before, during, and after the webinar that we’re looking to continue our conversations in the future. I’ll be sure to share any future collaborations here.

***

Here are bios for my co-participants on this webinar:

Ashley Spetch, PhD

Dr. Ashley Spetch is WorkSafeBC’s Chief Mental Health Officer — the first position of its kind for any workers’ compensation board in Canada. She is responsible for the organization’s overall strategy on mental health, and works with various stakeholders to support B.C. workers affected by psychological injury — with the goal of improving their recovery and safe return-to-work outcomes.

Prior to joining WorkSafeBC, Dr. Spetch held progressive leadership positions in workplace mental health and psychological health and safety. She has extensive experience in helping employers develop programs to cultivate return to work, employee well-being, and psychologically safe and healthy workforces and workplaces.

Dr. Spetch has a PhD in consulting psychology, and is a respected leader in her field. She brings to every situation a balance of academic, clinical, and practical expertise.

Merv Gilbert, PhD

Dr. Merv Gilbert is a Director at Vancouver Psych Health + Safety Ltd, a consulting group providing services that enable organizations to foster psychologically healthy employees and workplace climates.

He has worked as a psychologist for over thirty years in clinical and leadership roles in regional, provincial, and international settings. He is a primary participant in the development, evaluation, and dissemination of resources for workplace mental health.

Dr. Gilbert has published in national and international professional journals and has presented at a diverse array of forums on the importance of workplace psychological health issues for individuals and organizations.

He has consulted with governmental, private, and public-sector organizations. He recently led an evaluation of 40+ organizations as they implemented the National Standard of Canada for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace on behalf of the Mental Health Commission of Canada.

Marking 30 years at one university: I’m a career path throwback!

Hmm, it is curious that the inscription refers to my singular “contribution.”

A friend called my attention to the odd color of the cupcake icing. She’s right!

When I teach Employment Law at Suffolk University Law School, I use a 1981 California appeals court case, Pugh v. See’s Candies, as a vehicle to discuss the changing nature of career paths in American employment. The plaintiff, Wayne Pugh, began working for the See’s Candies company as a dishwasher. He steadily moved up the ladder at See’s to the point where, 32 years later, he was a company vice-president and a member of its board of directors.

Unfortunately for Pugh, things started unraveling for him at that point, and he was terminated. The judicial decision addresses whether or not Pugh was wrongfully terminated, ultimately finding that his case was wrongfully dismissed by the trial court and that he should’ve had a chance to further plead his legal claims. For my students, the appeals court’s analysis provides a useful example of applying contract law to employment settings.

In addition to highlighting the legal significance of this case, I call my students’ attentions to Wayne Pugh’s 32-year career path, starting as a dishwasher and finishing as a company VP and board member, all working for a single employer.

A half-century ago, the notion that one might spend the bulk of their working days in the employment of one company, government office, or non-profit organization wasn’t all that unusual. But today, frequent job changes are more the norm, sometimes by a worker’s affirmative choice, other times because of the changing nature of hiring and job security. Among other things, “gig” jobs and independent contractor relationships are more common — and also more legally complex.

Another salient point is that today, if one aspires to company leadership positions, few would advise starting as a dishwasher and working up the organizational chart. I could make a strong case for learning one’s work ethic and understanding the experience of work by washing dishes for a living. Nevertheless, the standard-brand advice for opening doors to professional success would be to get a university degree, pile up a bunch of internships, and maybe pursue an MBA.

Academic careers

Academe is one vocational sector where long-term faculty affiliations with a single college or university have long been the norm, often spanning many decades, and enabled by tenure and long-term, renewable contracts. The same can be said for many staff members and mid-level administrators in academic workplaces, even though many work without the long-term job protections provided to many full-time faculty. 

These patterns of employment still exist in academe, though much less so than before. On the faculty side, many tenured and long-term contract positions have been replaced by short-term and part-time teaching appointments. Also, although hiring of administrative personnel has exploded in higher education, we’re seeing a continual pruning of staff — often to be “replaced” by apps and offloading of work onto remaining staff members and faculty.

In addition, the culture of academe has become even more infused with notions of hierarchy, characterized by an obsessive focus on institutional prestige and on published rankings of universities and their respective academic units. Within this milieu, it’s more common to see younger scholars enter academe with the express objective of teaching at the most prestigious institutions that will have them. This can lead to academic careers that involve successive moves to higher ranked institutions.

Also, a good number of academics move between schools due to geographic and family priorities. These individual migrations have likely increased with the growing practice of conducting “national searches” for new faculty.

Three decades at Suffolk Law…wowza!

Last Wednesday, I attended Suffolk University’s Years of Service recognition program. I was among those SU employees who had reached the 30 year mark of service at the university. To be honest, I’m not big on such events. In fact, in the past, I skipped the ceremonies covering my 10th and 20th years of service. But I felt like my 30th year was a milestone worth fussing over a bit. I’m glad that I went.

I mean, 30 years is a loooong time to be working at one place! (Hopefully, my eventual separation of service will be on better terms than Wayne Pugh’s!) My early career path gave no indication that this would be the case. After graduating from NYU Law, I spent three years at the NYC Legal Aid Society, another three years at the NY Attorney General’s Office, and then three more years back at NYU as an entry-level instructor.

My time back at NYU planted the seeds of an academic career, and it led to my securing a tenure-track appointment at Suffolk.

As I shared in a recent personal reflection on living for 30 years in Boston, it was not foreseeable that I would remain at Suffolk for all this time. In fact, at times I assumed the opposite would be true. But as I also noted in that Boston reflection, during my years at Suffolk, I’ve been able to forge a very rewarding academic career. In addition to being a successful classroom teacher, I’ve made significant scholarly, advocacy, and public education contributions in three subject-matter areas — workplace bullying and abuse, therapeutic jurisprudence, and unpaid internships.

In sum, I’ve been able to mature into my true calling during these three decades.

And I’m happy to report that I’ve still got plenty of energy and enthusiasm for my work. While I plan to step away from full-time teaching before the decade is up, I imagine that my work on workplace bullying and on therapeutic jurisprudence will continue for as long as mind and body permit. I’ve got a number of other projects in the planning stages as well!

A contemplation for aspiring difference makers

My three decades at Suffolk have made me quite the outlier in terms of continuous employment at one institution. But herein is a lesson that I’d like to share.

I fully understand that job changes, even pursuits of new careers or vocations, are very common in the realm of work and employment. That said, if you wish to make a positive impact on the world, then I’d like to reiterate the essence of advice I gave some 15 years ago on this blog: Find something you care about and stick with it.

Most of the world’s difference makers have staying power. They are driven by heartfelt commitment and a desire to do something meaningful.

There is no magic “minimum time” for doing so. For some, that focus may be a lifetime mission; for others, it may cover 5, 20, or 40 years. 

Of course, difference making can occur anywhere. It certainly isn’t limited to initiatives or activities that might be labeled “social change” or “public service.” Helping to build a sound business provides useful goods and services, not to mention creates jobs. Applying one’s skills in a craft or trade supports our everyday experience of living. Parenting and caregiving nurture and safeguard individual lives. Caring for animals affirms our humanity. Long-term devotions to civic, charitable, or artistic activities enliven our communities.

In many of these situations and settings, it may be advantageous to attach one’s self to an institution or a community, or perhaps to create an institution or a community, that enables one to make a positive difference.

Of course, I cannot say with full certainty that my decision to remain at one university for the overwhelming share of my working life has been the best choice, for the “what ifs?” are countless and unknowable. However, as a city dweller who is drawn to urban universities that operate at the line between research and ideas on one side, and action and application on the other, the overall fit has enabled me to work on stuff that I care deeply about.

So yes, I can personally attest to the value of longer-term affiliations for those who wish to be change agents within their desired spheres. Furthermore, especially at a time when the world is feeling very tenuous and fractured, these affiliations can keep us tethered to our fellow human beings. Stability and longevity have their virtues in addition to opportunities they may create.

Origin story: Discovering the labor movement

Shop steward training materials, Association of Legal Aid Attorneys, 1986

On this 2024 Labor Day here in the U.S., I thought I’d share how I got involved with the labor movement and why this played such a central role in shaping my life.

During my final year of law school at New York University, I accepted an offer to join the New York City Legal Aid Society as a staff attorney in their Criminal Appeals Bureau, located in downtown Manhattan. At the time, the Legal Aid Society served as the exclusive public defender for the city, and the Criminal Appeals Bureau represented indigent clients from across the city who were appealing their criminal convictions.

I had entered law school with intentions of becoming a public interest lawyer. I devoted much time and effort during law school toward gaining experience and earning credentials that would make me competitive for these hard-to-get, if modestly paid, attorney positions. Thus, even at the princely entry-level salary of $20,000, I was thrilled to join a highly respected appellate defender office upon graduation, starting in the fall of 1985. And because I was thoroughly entranced by New York City, I was equally delighted to be staying there to begin my legal career.

I enjoyed many aspects of the job, but it was a fully unanticipated opportunity connected with it that would open the door to a path that has become personally and vocationally defining for me.

You see, staff attorneys at Legal Aid were (and still are) unionized, under the moniker of the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys, affiliated with the United Auto Workers. I didn’t think much of it when I started the job. To be honest, I wondered why a union was necessary at all, figuring that because of a shared commitment to providing legal services to the poor, we (meaning staff and management) were all in this together.

However, it quickly became clear to me why the union was so important. In fact, I came to regard the union’s presence as being so necessary that I was elected one of four shop stewards (in other words, a union representative) for the staff attorneys at the Criminal Appeals Bureau. During my two years in this role, I found myself developing a deep interest in workers’ rights.

Through collective bargaining, I saw how the union was effective at keeping our salaries and benefits roughly parallel to those of our counterparts at the district attorneys’ offices.

I also saw how the union could exert a collective voice that was more than the sum of its individual members. Sometimes it was necessary to exert that voice towards our own management.

For example, when the Legal Aid Society’s board president (a partner at a large corporate law firm in Manhattan) foolishly stated that being a Legal Aid lawyer was “young man’s work” and suggested that veteran staff attorneys who were not promoted to supervisory positions should be asked to leave, the union led the outcry that quickly put an end to that conversation.

I leveraged my shop steward position to raise issues that I deemed important to a new generation of public interest lawyers. Most significantly, I enlisted the union’s support for addressing and surveying the union membership about the intersection of staff attorney salaries and the rising amount of student loan debt that put significant financial pressures on new Legal Aid lawyers. The photo below shows one of the articles I contributed to the ALAA Organizer, the union’s membership newsletter, in 1987.

An article I contributed to the union newsletter.

A lateral move

Fueled by this new focus, when an opportunity to make a lateral move to the Labor Bureau of the New York Attorney General’s office arose, I went for it.

As an Assistant Attorney General, I handled cases enforcing the state’s wage standards, occupational safety & health regulations, and workers’ compensation law. During my three years in that office, I also enrolled in a master’s degree program in Labor and Policy Studies at Empire State College, a pioneering, distance-learning school of the State University of New York. 

Eventually this path would lead me back to academe, where I would start to develop a scholarly agenda focusing on employment law and workers’ rights. 

I can honestly say that, but for my experiences as a union shop steward, I wouldn’t be doing what I’m so passionate about today. Although I sometimes wince at some of my elevated rhetoric and confrontational behavior in that union rep role years ago, I understand that this was simply a reflection on my emotional maturity at the time. The work of being a shop steward itself was important and meaningful.

The importance of the labor movement

I remain convinced that a strong labor movement is the single most effective force for advancing and defending the interests of workers. 

In my work on workplace bullying, for example, labor unions have been the strongest institutional supporters of the anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill. Here in Massachusetts, SEIU-NAGE, one of the state’s major public employee unions, has provided abundant assistance towards keeping the Healthy Workplace Bill alive in the state legislature.

Like organizations in any sector, some unions are ineffective or even corrupt. But the lion’s share of unions have their hearts in the right place and are deeply committed to supporting their members. 

As a percentage of the workforce, labor union membership in the U.S. has experienced a steady decrease since the 1950s. Somehow, someway, we need to reverse this if we want everyday workers to have strong voices in their places of employment.

***

On origin stories: During the ongoing process of culling the mounds of printed material in my possession, I’m often finding stuff that brings back very meaningful memories. Some recall certain origin stories, i.e., those moments that led to significant, defining things in my life. This is the last of three that I’ll be sharing on this blog, including lessons learned from them. My first two recollections are “Origin story: How serving on a non-profit foundation board opened doors to new opportunities” (to read, go here), and “Origin story: Stumbling upon an interview about workplace bullying” (to read, go here.)

When bullies mock those with disabilities

Early in life, we learn that one of the cruelest things someone can do is to make fun of someone’s disability. Or, at least we’re supposed to learn this. Those who don’t grasp this basic lesson about being a decent person are typically bullies.

Sadly, a man who would be elected President of the U.S. provides a perfect example. In 2015, Donald Trump mocked a reporter’s disability at a public rally. As reported by the BBC:

Republican presidential contender Donald Trump has been criticised for mocking a disabled New York Times reporter.

Mr Trump performed an impression of Serge Kovaleski, who suffers from a congenital joint condition, at a rally.

…”Now the poor guy, you gotta see this guy,” he continued, before launching into an apparent impression of Mr Kovaleski, waving his arms around with his hands at an odd angle.

“Uhh I don’t know what I said. Uhh I don’t remember. He’s going like ‘I don’t remember. Maybe that’s what I said.'”

Mr Kovaleski has arthrogryposis, a condition that affects the movement of joints and is noticeable in his right arm and hand.

I thought this could well end Trump’s presidential campaign. After all, White House hopefuls have seen their campaigns go up in smoke over smaller mistakes and transgressions, right? 

But oh, was I naive! Trump would make insults, ridicule, threats, and name-calling his personal political brand. Either despite or because of these qualities, millions flocked to him.

Nine years later, he hasn’t changed. On at least two occasions during the 2024 campaign season, Trump ridiculed President Biden’s speech impediment. As reported by Lauren Weber and Carolyn Johnson for the Washington Post:

Former president Donald Trump mocked President Biden’s stutter at a campaign rally in Rome, Ga., on Saturday, the latest in a series of insults he has hurled at his rival but one that disability advocates regard as a demeaning form of bullying.

Trump asked the crowd sarcastically if Biden would “bring the country t-t-t-together” while talking about Biden’s State of the Union address. “I’m gonna bring it together,” Trump added, slurring the words.

But according to transcripts of the speech, Biden did not say that. It was similar to an attack on Biden earlier in January, where Trump accused Biden of stuttering through a speech and then play-acted as if he were Biden.

“He’s saying I’m a threat to democracy,” Trump said earlier this year, segueing into a taunt in which he imitates Biden. “He’s a threat to d-d-democracy.”

More recently, the well-known conservative political commentator Ann Coulter posted a tweet making fun of Gus Walz, the 17-year-old son of Democratic vice-presidential nominee Tim Walz, who was crying and proudly saying “That’s my dad!” during his father’s acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. Coulter, who has said she despises Trump but will vote for him anyway, called young Gus “weird,” the tag used by many Democrats during this campaign to described Trump and his running mate, J.D. Vance.

“The online backlash was swift and snarky,” noted Politico‘s Melanie Mason, adding that “(m)any commenters pointed out that Coulter’s jab was especially cruel given that his parents told People magazine that their son has a nonverbal learning disorder, ADHD and an anxiety disorder.” Coulter quickly deleted her post, later claiming, without apologizing, that she did so after learning about Gus Walz’s disability.

Not everyone believed that an apology was necessary, in any event. For example, right-wing author and conspiracy theorist Dinesh D’Souza later used Gus Walz’s display of affection to make fun of Tim Walz. That attempt was not well-received, either. D’Souza, by the way, is also a convicted felon. In 2014, he pleaded guilty to violating federal campaign finance laws. Donald Trump pardoned him in 2018.

D’Souza is practiced at making fun of the vulnerable. His Wikipedia entry notes, for example, that:

In February 2018, D’Souza was criticized for a series of posts which mocked the survivors of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. In response to a photo of survivors reacting to Florida lawmakers voting down a proposed ban on assault weapons in the aftermath of the shooting, D’Souza posted “worst news since their parents told them to get summer jobs”.

Of course, my first thought is, what is wrong with these people?! Okay, I get it, politics is said to be a blood sport, not for the faint of heart. But mocking or ridiculing someone’s disability is not about electing better candidates or enacting better public policy. Rather, it’s a cruel bullying tactic meant to demean an individual simply for living with what life has dealt them. And this could be any of us.

Memo to candidates and their supporters: Even in the heat of political jousting, you don’t make fun of folks in this manner, as if you’re trying to score a funny, mean-spirited debating point. And if, for some sad reason, people continue to support you, well, that says a lot about them and you.