Right now, across the world, people are beginning to open their eyes and realize something bigger is happening. We are being told humanity is progressing, that justice is advancing, that the world is becoming fairer — yet every day I see people struggling to survive, wildlife losing habitats, children being born into inequality, and entire ecosystems pushed closer to collapse.
People are no longer just looking for hopeful words and polished campaigns. They are looking for truth. Real truth. Because if we truly want to save animals, protect people and give future generations a fighting chance, then we must have the courage to ask whether the systems shaping this world are actually creating meaningful change — or simply becoming better at marketing the appearance of it.
That is the deeper conversation now being raised by the Fair Start Movement in relation to Harvard University and what the organization describes as a “fantasy world of social justice undone daily by birth inequity.”
This is not about attacking good people.
There are countless students, researchers, activists and educators who genuinely want to make the world better. Many dedicate their lives to helping vulnerable communities, challenging injustice and fighting for equality. That work matters. But the wider concern being raised is whether some institutions have become too focused on presenting narratives of progress while failing to fully confront the structural systems continuing to produce inequality underneath the surface.
And that matters more than ever right now.
The Fair Start perspective argues that many social justice institutions focus heavily on downstream solutions — programs, campaigns, reforms, diversity initiatives and public advocacy — while the upstream conditions driving inequality continue growing stronger every year.
In simple terms, we may celebrate individual victories while the larger system producing suffering remains largely untouched.
That is where the idea of “birth inequity” becomes central.
The argument is that children are not entering the world on anything close to equal ground. Some are born into safety, wealth, opportunity and political influence. Others are born into poverty, instability, environmental decline and systems already stacked against them from the beginning.
And as climate instability, economic inequality and ecological collapse intensify globally, those gaps only grow wider.
The concern being raised is that institutions can sometimes unintentionally create the appearance of meaningful progress by measuring outputs rather than genuine net outcomes. A university can point to programs launched, scholarships funded or initiatives promoted, but the deeper question remains: are the structural conditions affecting future generations actually improving overall?
Because that is the truth people are beginning to search for now.
Not branding.
Not polished narratives.
Not carefully managed public relations.
Truth.
The reality is that across the world we are seeing ecosystems pushed to breaking point. Wildlife is disappearing at terrifying speed. Communities are struggling under economic pressure. Young people are growing up with uncertainty about their future, while millions of children are born into conditions where survival itself becomes harder every single year.
And yet many institutions continue presenting narratives that suggest society is steadily moving toward fairness and sustainability.
That disconnect is what people are starting to question.
For those of us working directly with wildlife and vulnerable communities, these realities are impossible to ignore. I see firsthand how deeply connected everything is. When forests disappear, communities suffer. When inequality grows, ecosystems come under pressure. When people are desperate, wildlife suffers too. The survival of humanity and the survival of nature are tied together whether we acknowledge it or not.
That is why transparency matters.
Not to tear institutions down.
Not to shame people trying to help.
But to ensure that the work being done in the name of justice, sustainability and equality is actually capable of creating long-term change in the real world.
The Fair Start discussion ultimately asks a powerful question: are institutions willing to fully examine whether the outcomes they promote publicly still hold true once the wider baseline realities are honestly accounted for?
Because if we truly care about future generations, then we cannot build systems based only on appearances.
We need courage.
The courage to question whether the current path is truly sustainable.
The courage to confront uncomfortable truths about inequality, growth and ecological decline.
And the courage to build a world where justice is not simply something spoken about in lecture halls or campaign slogans, but something reflected in the actual conditions people, animals and future generations are living through every day.
That is the kind of future worth fighting for.
A future built not on illusion, but on truth.
Letter –
May 8, 2026
Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell Office of the Attorney General Commonwealth of Massachusetts One Ashburton Place, 20th Floor Boston, MA 02108
Re: Request for Attorney General Review of Directional Impact Representations and Baseline Omission in Massachusetts Animal-Welfare Institutional Communications Under Chapter 93A
Dear Attorney General Campbell,
Fair Start Movement and TruthAlliance.global submit this letter to request review and guidance concerning a specific and recurring pattern in Massachusetts-based institutional communications: the creation of a directional impression of progress through public-facing language that does not disclose the baseline conditions necessary to interpret whether that progress is occurring on balance.
This submission is narrow and disclosure-focused. It does not allege improper motive, and it does not dispute that the institutions discussed perform real work, expend real resources, and achieve identifiable outputs. The issue is whether public-facing representations—particularly those that operate in donor-facing, student-facing, or credibility-bearing contexts—are structured in a way that invites reliance on an implied trajectory of improvement without providing the baseline information required to evaluate that implication.
The concern arises from a consistent pattern across multiple Massachusetts institutions. Language is often framed carefully to avoid explicit, measurable outcome claims. Terms such as “committed to,” “working to,” and “seeking to advance” appear frequently in institutional descriptions of animal-law programming and advocacy. At the same time, that language still communicates something to a reasonable reader. It conveys forward motion. It signals that progress is being made, or at minimum that support for the institution contributes to that progress. That signal influences behavior. It shapes donation decisions, student enrollment, partnerships, and policy attention.
The problem is not the use of aspirational language itself. The problem is that the directional impression created by that language is not accompanied by the context needed to determine whether the implied progress is occurring when broader conditions are taken into account. Public-facing materials do not typically disclose the scale of countervailing forces—continued expansion of animal agriculture, growth-driven demand, ecological degradation, and structural conditions that perpetuate harm across generations. Without that context, the impression created by the language may be materially incomplete.
This dynamic becomes more pronounced where institutions move from aspirational phrasing into definitive outcome language. In Massachusetts, MSPCA-Angell provides a clear example. The organization describes itself as “positively impact[ing] the lives of tens of thousands of animals each year” and as driving “meaningful, systemic change.” These are present-tense outcome statements. They communicate that impact is occurring and that systems have changed. At the same time, the organization has publicly disclosed that it no longer tracks the metrics used to measure its results. The combination of definitive outcome language and the absence of outcome measurement creates a gap between the impression conveyed and the substantiation available. That gap is not theoretical. It exists at the point where donors decide whether to contribute, and where the public decides whether progress is being achieved.
A similar issue arises with quantified claims made by Humane World for Animals. Statements that millions of meals have been transitioned or that over a million animals have been improved are specific and concrete. They communicate progress through numbers. But those numbers operate within a broader system that is not disclosed alongside the claim. If the total scale of animal agriculture or confinement grows by more than the improvements cited, the directional impression created by the numbers may not reflect the net trajectory. The claim itself may be accurate in isolation. The impression created by the claim, absent baseline context, may still be incomplete.
Across these examples, the same structural issue appears. Public-facing communications operate at the level of narrative, while the conditions necessary to interpret that narrative—what is counted, what is excluded, what baseline governs the claim, and how competing forces affect the outcome—are not disclosed at the point of reliance. This is the baseline omission problem. It is not a dispute about values. It is a question of whether the information environment in which decisions are made is complete enough to support those decisions.
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A provides a framework for addressing this issue. The statute does not require that a statement be literally false to be actionable. It encompasses conduct that creates a misleading impression through omission of material information. Where a representation invites reliance and the meaning of that representation depends on context that is not disclosed, the omission may be material if it would change the understanding of a reasonable audience.
In this context, baseline conditions are not peripheral details. They are the elements that determine what the claim means. They define whether a statement reflects activity, projected contribution, or demonstrated net outcome. When those elements are absent, the resulting impression may be incomplete in a way that affects decision-making.
This submission therefore requests that the Office consider whether directional impact representations in Massachusetts animal-welfare communications should be evaluated under a material-omission framework when they omit baseline conditions necessary to interpret implied progress. The request is not for punitive action based on isolated statements. It is for a structured review of whether current practices create reliance risks that can be addressed through disclosure.
Specifically, we request that the Office consider initiating a Chapter 93A review of how animal-welfare institutions in Massachusetts communicate impact and progress, with attention to whether those communications distinguish between program outputs and net outcomes once baseline conditions are accounted for. We further request consideration of whether guidance should be issued clarifying that aspirational and outcome-oriented language can create materially incomplete impressions when baseline conditions are omitted.
In addition, we request that the Office review MSPCA-Angell’s use of definitive outcome language in light of its disclosed cessation of outcome measurement, and that it examine whether quantified claims by Humane World for Animals create directional impressions that are supported when evaluated against broader system-level trajectories.
The remedy sought is disclosure-forward and corrective, not punitive. The objective is to ensure that when institutions communicate impact, the public is provided with the information necessary to understand what that impact means and what it does not mean. This can be accomplished through baseline disclosure: clear statements of what is counted, what is excluded, the time horizon used, the presence of uncertainty, and the distinction between outputs and net outcomes.
Fair Start’s Tell the Truth framework provides one model for this approach. It asks institutions to align public claims with the baseline conditions that determine their meaning, so that reliance is based on complete information rather than directional impression alone. The framework is designed to be applied cooperatively, allowing institutions to maintain their advocacy while improving the clarity and integrity of their communications.
We recognize that the institutions discussed are respected and perform meaningful work. This request does not challenge that work. It addresses the structure of the information environment in which that work is presented. Where public trust is involved, clarity is not optional. It is the condition that allows that trust to function as intended.
We respectfully request confirmation of intake and identification of the division or bureau assigned for review.
Respectfully submitted,
Suriya Khan Fair Start Movement / TruthAlliance.global suriya@fairstartmovement.org 516-725-3157
There is a growing conversation happening across the world about justice, inequality and the stories institutions tell about progress.
Not just in climate activism or animal protection, but in universities, nonprofits, philanthropy and social justice movements themselves.
People are beginning to ask a difficult but necessary question:
Are we truly addressing the root causes of suffering and inequality, or are we building narratives of progress while the underlying systems continue producing harm every single day?
That question sits at the heart of the recent Fair Start Movement article discussing Yale and what the organization describes as a “fantasy world of social justice undone daily by birth inequity.” (Fair Start Movement)
Importantly, this conversation should not be framed as an attack on individuals trying to create positive change. Many people working in academia, social justice advocacy and philanthropy genuinely care deeply about equity, human rights and creating a better future. Many dedicate their lives to helping vulnerable communities and challenging injustice.
But the article raises a broader systems-level concern.
It argues that many public-interest institutions may be measuring impact inside incomplete frameworks that fail to fully account for the structural conditions shaping real-world outcomes — particularly inequality at birth, political inequity and the long-term effects of growth-driven systems. (
At the center of Fair Start’s argument is the idea that “downstream” social justice work can be continuously undermined if the “upstream” systems driving inequality remain unchanged.
The article places particular emphasis on what it calls “birth inequity.”
This refers to the reality that children enter the world under vastly unequal conditions depending on wealth, race, geography, political influence and environmental stability. Fair Start argues that these starting conditions profoundly shape health, opportunity, democratic influence and long-term survival itself, especially as climate instability and ecological degradation intensify globally.
The broader concern being raised is that many institutions discuss justice without fully accounting for these baseline inequalities.
From the Fair Start perspective, if systems continue allowing millions of children to enter conditions of severe inequity, then downstream reforms alone may struggle to produce meaningful net progress over time. The movement argues that many public-facing impact claims fail to fully disclose how structural growth, ecological degradation and political inequality may be undoing the very outcomes organizations publicly celebrate. (Fair Start Movement)
Whether one agrees entirely with Fair Start’s framework or not, the deeper questions being raised are significant.
How should institutions measure progress honestly?
How do we distinguish between symbolic progress and systemic transformation?
And how do we ensure that public trust is grounded in transparency rather than carefully managed narratives?
These are questions that are becoming harder for society to ignore.
Across the world, people are watching ecosystems deteriorate, inequality deepen and political trust erode, even while institutions continue presenting optimistic narratives about sustainability, justice and progress. Increasingly, there is public demand for more honest conversations about whether current systems are truly addressing the root causes of the crises humanity now faces. (Fair Start Movement)
For those of us working directly with animals, conservation and vulnerable communities, these realities are impossible not to see.
We see humans and wildlife increasingly competing for shrinking resources. We see communities struggling under economic and environmental pressure. We see ecosystems under stress. And we see how inequality and ecological collapse are deeply connected.
Because when systems fail people, they also fail nature.
The Fair Start article ultimately calls for something larger than political ideology or institutional branding. It calls for a deeper level of honesty about how we measure impact, how we define justice and whether the systems currently shaping the world are truly capable of delivering a fair future for the next generation.
And perhaps that is the most important part of this conversation.
There comes a point where we have to stop applauding promises, and start measuring outcomes.
Across the world, we are seeing major institutions, charities, corporations and organisations present themselves as leaders in environmental protection, sustainability, animal welfare and social progress. Many of the people within these organisations genuinely care. Many begin with honourable intentions. But when operations scale, priorities can shift. Profit margins, public image, fundraising targets and institutional KPIs can begin to outweigh the very mission these organisations were created to serve.
That is where accountability matters.
What we are now seeing is a growing dispute over whether certain institutions are using legally and ethically sound baselines when fundraising around animal protection and public-benefit work. In particular, serious concerns have been raised regarding whether publicly promoted animal protection efforts were presented in a way that failed to disclose the wider systems of inequitable growth that continued to undo those same efforts in practice.
This issue sits at the centre of the letters submitted to the University of Denver and to the Attorney General’s Office in Denver.
The purpose of these letters is not outrage for the sake of outrage. It is clarification. Transparency. Accountability. They seek to assess the standards used in public-facing animal law and animal protection programming, particularly where institutions represent outcomes to donors, investors and supporters as meaningful progress, while broader conditions may show worsening realities underneath the surface.
This is not a small issue.
If an institution claims success in protecting animals, but the surrounding systems continue expanding suffering faster than protections reduce it, then the public deserves to understand that reality honestly. If fundraising campaigns present isolated victories while larger structural growth continues driving exploitation, then those baselines must be disclosed clearly and openly.
Because outcomes matter more than narratives.
A quick assessment of broader trends during the relevant period raises difficult questions. Not only were more animals subjected to abuse and suffering than programming efforts were able to prevent, but wider indicators across society also showed increasing levels of human suffering, including rising child neglect, poverty and instability. These baseline failures are not confined to one field. They repeat across environmental policy, social systems, conservation, food reform and public-benefit campaigns whenever outputs are marketed as net success without proper disclosure of the surrounding conditions.
This is why transparency must become standard practice moving forward.
The public should know exactly where money goes. Investors should know whether goals are truly being achieved. Donors should know whether campaigns are producing measurable net improvements, or whether they are merely slowing damage while larger systems continue accelerating harm elsewhere.
Without honest baselines, progress can become an illusion.
This same issue can be seen far beyond universities or legal programs. Around the world, humans and wildlife are increasingly being pushed into conflict over shrinking resources. Forests disappear. Water systems collapse. Species vanish. Communities face hunger, displacement and instability. And as inequality deepens, more people are forced into survival-driven crime, exploitation and desperation.
Everything is connected.
If wildlife disappears, ecosystems collapse. If ecosystems collapse, human survival collapses with them. Nature is not separate from humanity. It is the foundation underneath all human life.
We cannot build a sustainable future while ignoring the systems driving destruction in the background.
That is why this moment matters.
The goal is not to attack good people trying to help. The goal is to create a higher standard — one built on truth, measurable outcomes and transparency. A standard where organisations no longer hide behind carefully crafted narratives while underlying realities worsen year after year.
Because the world does not need better marketing around compassion.
It needs courage.
It needs institutions willing to be honest about what is working, what is failing, and where reform is truly needed. It needs systems where funding reaches the ground effectively, where public trust is earned through measurable integrity, and where protecting animals, people and the planet becomes more than a slogan.
If we truly want a future where humanity and nature survive together, then accountability is not optional.
It is the beginning.
Letter ‘
February 11, 2026
Office of the Dean
University of Denver Sturm College of Law
2255 E. Evans Avenue
Denver, CO 80208
Re: Open Letter to the University of Denver, Sturm College of Law, Regarding Animal Law
Programming, Donor-Intent Governance, and Baseline Disclosure in Public “Impact” Claims
Dean Smith
Summary of requests
Within 14 days, provide a written response confirming whether any donor requested
return of funds connected to the Animal Activist Legal Defense Project and/or Animal
Law Programming, identify the gift instrument terms and any restrictions, and identify
the university office handling the request.
Within 30 days, provide an accounting of the relevant funds (amounts, dates received,
restrictions, expenditures to date), the policy basis for any decision to deny return, and
the decision authority.
Within 60 days, conduct and publish an internal review of the Project/Program’s public
impact statements to ensure they do not imply net benefit without disclosing baseline
variables and modeling limits, and adopt a written standard for future impact reporting in
this programming.
This letter is submitted to request institutional process and written clarification regarding the
standards used to assess and publicly represent impact in animal law programming and related
advocacy, based on information Fair Start activists received after terminating their role in the
programming. It is not a critique of intent, nor a dispute over values. It is an inquiry into whether
prevailing impact frameworks omit baseline variables in ways that may misstate net outcomes,
distort competition among advocates, and impede coordinated correction of known harm. This is
not infighting among advocates. It is a governance and public-reliance question about what is
being claimed, what is being measured, and what is being omitted.
Those engaged in upstream reforms cannot compete with actors who benefit from inequitable
growth dynamics while funding downstream advocacy and avoiding the implications of that
growth. This is a collective-action problem: the system rewards omission and penalizes
disclosure. That is why we are asking for institutional review and formal written answers rather
than informal discussion.
Core Issue Under Review: Whether “Impact” Claims are Bounded by Baseline Disclosure
Total Liberation Colorado (TLC) Packet
Denver Institutional Complaint
1
At the center of this concern is legitimacy. Public claims of value or impact are relative to what?
They either remain accurate once assessed in full context, or they do not. When institutions claim
public benefit while omitting legally relevant baseline variables, particularly those related to
growth, political equity, and the creation of future persons, those claims can become structurally
misleading even when program outputs are real.
The core issue is that the standards being used to assess and report “impact” can conflict with
fundamental human-rights norms and the preemptive basis of legal legitimacy. Institutions
should not imply net outcomes while omitting whether and how baseline variables are treated
and what the modeling limits are.
To evaluate public-benefit claims, Fair Start uses what we refer to as the XYZ test, a minimum
legitimacy check that asks whether public claims of value or impact (X) remain accurate once
assessed against baseline inequity impacts during the value assessment and impact reporting,
relative to children’s rights and political equity standards (Y), and the actual value and impact,
on balance in the key context, accounting for the correct baseline Y (Z). The point is not that any
single program controls all macro drivers. The point is that net-outcome implications should not
be implied without disclosing whether and how these baseline variables are treated, and what the
modeling limits are.
This presents an institutional governance issue. Where a law school supports or hosts
programming that invites public reliance (students, donors, and the broader community), the
standards used to describe “impact” must be stated with clarity, including any modeling limits.
Institutions should be cautious about lending professional credibility to impact narratives that
cannot survive full-context review, because institutional authority can become part of the
mechanism that normalizes and propagates claims that are not actually being substantiated as net
outcomes.
Legal and Compliance Context for Counsel Review (non-exhaustive)
This complaint is submitted to facilitate counsel review and internal escalation, not to litigate in
correspondence. The University can evaluate the issues raised here against existing legal and
compliance frameworks that already govern donor restrictions and public-facing representations,
including:
Donor restrictions and gift-instrument compliance for institutional funds under Colorado’s
Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act (UPMIFA), C.R.S. § 15-1-1101 et seq.,
including provisions addressing release or modification of restrictions and Attorney General
notice in certain circumstances (see C.R.S. § 15-1-1106).
Standards governing deceptive or misleading public representations in trade or commerce under
the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, C.R.S. § 6-1-101 et seq., including deceptive trade
practices provisions (see C.R.S. § 6-1-105). The relevance here is the governance principle:
public statements that imply net outcomes should be bounded by disclosed assumptions and
limitations to avoid materially misleading reliance.
Baseline non-discrimination and political equity principles reflected in widely accepted
human-rights norms that legal educators routinely reference, including the International
Total Liberation Colorado (TLC) Packet
Denver Institutional Complaint
2
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), particularly Article 24 (protection of children
without discrimination including by birth), Article 25 (equal suffrage and participation), and
Article 26 (equal protection and non-discrimination, including on grounds of birth).
Our relationship to the programming
As you know, members of the Fair Start Movement assisted in the co-founding and operation of
the school’s Animal Activist Legal Defense Project and assisted with teaching in the Animal
Law Program in roughly 2022, including participation in a key launch event that was recorded
and framed the intended work of the program as a matter of total liberation, including
environmental restoration.
We are writing now as part of the Fair Start “Tell the Truth” campaign – while we do not
represent the funders in any capacity, given our role in recruiting them for Sturm, we are
communicating information they shared with us.
The intent of our prior work with the school was, consistent with animal liberation and right to
rescue advocacy, to eventually end animal propertyhood at both a micro-level, through criminal
liability and food reforms, and at a macro-level through baseline-corrected family reforms
needed to ensure net outcomes are not reversed by upstream dynamics. A quick assessment
shows that not only were more animals subject to abuse and suffering during the relevant time
period than the programming was able to save, but more children were subject to abuse, neglect
and suffering than animals saved during that time.
The programming at Sturm formed in the wake of controversy around another animal protection
organization hiding historic liability for having used the lower standard for evaluating
animal/environmental policy. The media covered the baseline controversy explicitly. See:
https://www.newsweek.com/secret-war-natural-rights-children-opinion-1771365 and
Our recent research for litigation against Coca-Cola’s factory farming operations showed 5x or
more the damages if we account for illegal baselining/discounting, which makes public interest
interventions that also illegal baseline/discount a deadly charade: See
The macro framework is disfavored by funders because while food law and even criminal law
reforms can ensure good media that support existing entitlements and investments, the family
law and other reforms that the macro entails pose potential preemptive liability for value
assessments and impact reporting around micro, downstream-level interventions undone by
macro, upstream-level forces that illegally enriched some at deadly cost to others.
That macro framework was not speculative or external to the institution. It was developed and
publicly articulated in collaboration with University sustainability leadership, including
co-authored peer-reviewed work involving university staff identified in public materials as
Clinical Professor and Faculty Director, Center of Sustainability. Fair Start further understands
that, after an attempted implementation effort with University stakeholders, the professor
withdrew from participation.
Total Liberation Colorado (TLC) Packet
Denver Institutional Complaint
3
That was despite extensive peer-reviewed research that shows measurable birth-equity as a
preemptive legal standard, one that makes accounting for and offsetting birth positionality a
necessary part of academic neutrality and accurate research. The deadly costs of “separate but
equal” reproductive rights, versus “no child is worth more than another” will kill millions:
https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/disparities-in-access-to-air-conditioning-andimplications-for-heat-related-health-risks/
Due to the role of key funders involved, who reject the need for assessing value and reporting
impact in the context of child inequity exacerbated by growth, and who reject macro-level
reforms that would treat measurable birth equity as a fundamental human right, we do not
believe the Project or Program ultimately met the macro goals originally contemplated.
We also understand that funders were aware of the larger context, including prior national
discussion condemning animal protection efforts that failed to account for countervailing impacts
of inequitable growth and birth-based political equity.
During the resulting schism, efforts were made to reframe Fair Start’s work as downstream
population activity rather than the upstream equity override it is. This included the elevation of a
partner organization that subsequently received a substantial grant and removed Fair Start-related
content from its public materials. The effect was to obscure the equity analysis originally
understood by all parties and to avoid confronting the legitimacy implications of the baseline
issue described here.
We are aware that Fair Start’s relationship to a professional funder complicated matters, and we
have since severed ties and are pursuing similar requests for reforms around conflicts of interest
standards before the Association of Fundraising Professionals to address the problem.
Our First Request: donor funds, donor intent, and remedy
We understand that at least one donor who supported the upstream, baseline-disclosure work
originally contemplated for this programming later requested return of funds after the upstream
framework was not implemented, and that the school declined. We request written confirmation
of:
● Whether a return request was made, by whom, and the date received
● The gift instrument terms (restrictions, purpose language, any conditions)
● The office and decision authority that denied or is evaluating return
● The policy and legal basis for denial (including any UPMIFA analysis)
Requested remedy
We request one of the following, in writing, with a dated implementation plan:
Return: full return of the relevant funds to the donor(s), with a closing accounting; or
Restricted reallocation: transfer of the relevant funds into a segregated, restricted
account used only for the upstream work that was originally contemplated and that
resolves the reliance issue at the center of this complaint, including:
Total Liberation Colorado (TLC) Packet
Denver Institutional Complaint
4
● Adoption of a written impact-reporting template (baseline disclosure + modeling
limits + outputs vs net outcomes)
● Internal review and correction/disclaimer of any public statements implying net
outcomes without disclosure
● Publication of a short standards memo describing the baseline used for any
impact language going forward
Escrow pending review: placement of the funds into escrow pending completion of the
60-day internal review and any required notice/review by appropriate oversight channels.
If the University asserts that return or reallocation is not feasible, we request a written alternative
resolution proposal that is functionally equivalent in integrity terms, including documentation of
constraints, responsible offices, and next steps.
Core disclosure standard requested (for institutional adoption)
We request adoption of a written standard for animal-law programming communications
that:
● States the baseline used for any impact language,
● Discloses modeling limits relevant to any net-outcome implications, and
● Distinguishes outputs (services performed, cases handled, rescues supported)
from net outcomes.
Campaign posture and standards pathway (non-punitive, process-driven)
This request is process-driven and non-punitive. The objective is early alignment on a
baseline (not “purity”), with a voluntary, pass/fail diagnostic standards pathway that
organizations and institutions can use to test whether their metrics and assumptions are
structurally coherent with their stated missions. The goal is documented governance,
donor-intent compliance, and corrective disclosure so that public reliance is not induced
by net-outcome implications the institution is not substantiating.
Illustration of the standard problem: institutional narratives and campaign dynamics
Baseline errors are not confined to any one domain. They recur wherever outputs are
narrated as net outcomes without disclosure. For illustration, we will be addressing these
same modeling issues in the context of Denver’s 2024 slaughterhouse ban effort
(Ordinance 309), where competing public-benefit claims in a high-salience context
illustrate why modeling limits and baseline disclosure matter.
Preemptive standards referenced
A central obstacle to reform is the collective action problem. Because major actors
depend on the same flawed impact standard, any institution that corrects it independently
can incur disproportionate reputational and competitive harm. Our response has been to
turn to state law and to legally preemptive standards that align public-benefit claims with
measurable empowerment and political equity.
Total Liberation Colorado (TLC) Packet
Denver Institutional Complaint
5
Continued use of prevailing standards for evaluating value and reporting impact out of
context misaligns legal obligations and the coercive power of the state from the objective
empowerment and self-determination of those subject to them.
These standards are outlined here:
● https://fairstartmovement.org/fair-start-today-moves-to-standardize-climate-dama
ge-evaluations-at-the-un-and-override-any-conflicting-standards/
● https://fairstartmovement.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Fair-Start-MovementACPHR-Petition-3.pdf
● https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/fair-start-movement-urges-califo
rnia-attorney-general-to-recognize-full-justice-standard-as-preemptive-of-fraud-cl
aims-1035104323
● https://fairstartmovement.org/fair-start-and-truth-alliance-file-notice-of-preemptiv
e-standards-with-the-california-attorney-general/
Recent enforcement efforts, including Truth-in-Legitimacy compliance initiatives at the state
level, reflect the beginning of an effort to enjoin business models whose public-benefit claims
rely on these same flawed standards. These efforts operationalize the legitimacy principles
described above and are relevant to how institutions should evaluate and bound public-facing
impact claims.
Public representations at issue
We are specifically concerned with public statements and materials that could reasonably be read
as implying net benefit without disclosing baseline variables or modeling limits. For counsel
review and institutional handling, we request identification and review of the specific items
below:
“Supporting animal activists in their efforts to elevate awareness and understanding of
animal well-being”
“Developing best practices in the counseling and representation of activists,
whistleblowers, and investigators”
“Catalyzing a network of attorneys positioned to advance the welfare of non-human
animals”
“Exploring new and compelling narratives designed to elevate understanding of animal
suffering”
“Partnering with key stakeholders and supporters, including, without limitation,
plant-based and other humane producers, academic institutions, non-profit
organizations, labor activists, reformist professional associations, and environmental
organizations”
“Forging a more inclusive, populist, and activist-centered animal welfare movement.”
Total Liberation Colorado (TLC) Packet
Denver Institutional Complaint
6
“While the AALDP cannot agree to take cases without screening, we are eager to hear
from activists in need of our assistance. Please contact the AALDP.”
“Interested in working with the AALDP as a volunteer attorney? Please complete the
volunteer attorney sign-up sheet.”
That said, it is less about the claims, and more about the baseline numbers behind the claims, and
deviation from what would be accurate and legitimate accounting for illegal shifting of
costs/harms onto the most vulnerable.
Fair Start states the baseline-disclosure dispute is inseparable from donor intent and institutional
reliance because at least one donor has stated, “When I made my gift to Sturm in 2022, it was my
understanding that it would be used for an ecocentric baseline,” and Fair Start further states that
since January 2023 funders and institutional stakeholders have “doubled down on the
anthropocentric standard,” creating a material mismatch between what was reasonably
understood to be funded and what baseline governed “impact/public benefit/liberation”
representations.
Anthropocentrism is human-centered valuation; ecocentrism recognizes intrinsic ecosystem and
nonhuman value, and Fair Start’s position is that the University must state baseline choice
(including any turn to animal-centric and human-centric systems) with modeling limits because it
determines whether outputs are being narrated as net outcomes and can create downstream harm
when donors, students, and the public rely on implied net benefit. Funding for this effort rests on
a simple premise: the baseline must be explicitly defined, measured, and audited against
collective-action incentives, with specific protection for those most likely to absorb harm when
claims outpace evidence, including protected classes under civil-rights and anti-discrimination
law.
Fair Start states return requests have been made and should be treated as a reliance signal
requiring documented resolution, including Frank (A. F. Rothschild, PhD, Director, Center for
Contemporary Equine Studies) stating the institution should “either return CCES’s grant or
implement our funding for the designated purpose stated in our Agreement with DU Sturm, as
promised,” and requests written baseline clarity (promised vs applied), a full accounting, and a
written remedy of return, restricted reallocation to the designated baseline purpose, escrow
pending review, or a functionally equivalent integrity remedy.
Systems shouldn’t teach, assume, or operationalize legal authority unless there is measurable
empowerment of the people subject to that authority. Otherwise, we’re just automating “separate
but equal” under a technological veneer.
Fair Start’s model in Denver is that we don’t build new institutions, we require existing
institutions to replace non-compliant parts. The same logic would apply to AI governance. If the
language doesn’t invert toward “no child worth more than another,” it fails the baseline.
We propose a standardized reusable legal injunction mechanism triggered by
consumer-protection style action when a public-facing impact/benefit claim materially implies
Total Liberation Colorado (TLC) Packet
Denver Institutional Complaint
7
net benefit without disclosing the baseline and model limits pushing institutions and government
to either prove benefit under a stated baseline or correct the claim.
Our Second Request: participate in the Tell the Truth campaign and assess value and report
impacts in context.
Fair Start Movement and TruthAlliance.global offer a legitimacy-based framework grounded in
the principle that all facts are relative to values, and that value and impact claims either
constitute or deconstitute legitimate political systems relative to a legally required ideal of
measurable empowerment.
Participation in the Tell the Truth campaign, as it relates to the College of Law, would minimally
include:
● A public clarification distinguishing program outputs from net outcomes
● An updated impact-reporting template that discloses baseline variables and modeling
limits
● A non-punitive, voluntary pass/fail diagnostic standards pathway that can be used
● Internally to test structural coherence of impact language and underlying assumption
● A meeting hosted by the College where competing impact standards are evaluated in a
structured, evidence-based format
The fundamental driver is illegal baselining/discounting, and birth-inequity based growth that
enriches funders, but does more harm than good by the advocates’ and funders’ own professed
values – saving animals. Illegal baselining assumes children deserve what they are born with,
even as growth degrades their prospects, rather than what rights and political legitimacy require.
That said, we recognize that fundamental equity reforms are a collective action problem – so we
ask all as part of the Tell the Truth campaign to back the development and implementation of
model constitutional injunction to block illegal baselining in business models. If it’s illegal to not
hire persons of color, it’s illegal to enrich mostly white children at deadly cost to children of
color.
See:
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/fair-start-movement-urges-california-attorney-g
eneral-to-recognize-full-justice-standard-as-preemptive-of-fraud-claims-1035104323
Unless a person or company claiming to add value to the world can show they were evaluating
and reporting by accounting for the preemptive costs of having to measurably empower all
children equitably as they enter the world—and at a standard where those children could protect
themselves from the climate crisis—the person or company making the claims was using an
illegal Ponzi/equity-fraud standard and benefiting at deadly cost to others, mostly children of
color.
Those willing to account for those costs, to legitimate political systems and engage in the most
just and effective reforms possible, cannot compete with those who do not – but they don’t have
to.
Total Liberation Colorado (TLC) Packet
Denver Institutional Complaint
8
Given the specific funders at issue, a fair application of the baseline would center on the
on-balance and birth-inequity / growth impacts on animals used in ejiao production, as well as
the vulnerable populations who rely on these animals and experience the related oppressive
impacts of the industry.
Systems shouldn’t teach, assume, or operationalize legal authority unless there is measurable
empowerment of the people subject to that authority. Otherwise, we’re just automating “separate
but equal” under a technological veneer.
Fair Start’s model in Denver is that we don’t build new institutions, we require existing
institutions to replace non-compliant parts. The same logic would apply to AI governance. If the
language doesn’t invert toward “no child worth more than another,” it fails the baseline.
Meeting request
To resolve these issues efficiently, we request a meeting with the appropriate University
representatives (College of Law leadership and the office(s) responsible for donor funds and
public communications for the relevant programming). Proposed agenda:
donor funds status, accounting, restrictions, and decision authority
the specific public impact statements identified above and what corrections/disclaimers are
needed
adoption of an impact-reporting standard for animal-law programming and next steps with dates
Conclusion
We encourage the University of Denver and the Sturm College of Law to address the donor
funds issue, to correct public representations where necessary, and to engage in the Tell the Truth
campaign by adopting an impact standard that does not omit baseline variables and that clearly
distinguishes outputs from net outcomes.
About FairStartMovement.org and TruthAlliance.global
Fair Start Movement and TruthAlliance.global are solution-focused, compliance-oriented
organizations. Our objective is to secure accurate disclosures, lawful handling of donor-restricted
funds, and governance processes that allow institutions to correct public-facing statements where
needed. Where an institution is willing to engage, we can provide structured documentation,
draft disclosure templates, and a defined process for separating outputs from net outcomes in
impact communications, with clear modeling limits suitable for counsel review and institutional
adoption.
Respectfully submitted,
Name: Suriya Khan
Email: suriya@fairstartmovement.org
Phone: 516 – 725 – 3157
Organization: Fair Start Movement / TruthAlliance.global
February 11, 2026
The Honorable Phil Weiser
Office of the Attorney General
State of Colorado
Colorado Department of Law
1300 Broadway, 10th Floor
Denver, Colorado 80203
Re: Request for Attorney General review and investigation concerning University of Denver
Sturm College of Law animal-law programming “impact/public benefit/liberation”
representations and donor-restricted funds governance (Total Liberation Colorado packet)
Dear Attorney General Weiser,
This letter is submitted as part of the Total Liberation Colorado (TLC) packet and requests
counsel review and Attorney General attention to an institutional complaint already submitted to
the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. The complaint concerns animal-law
programming and affiliated advocacy that publicly describes “impact,” “public benefit,” and
“liberation,” and raises governance and public-reliance issues where those public-facing
representations are made without baseline disclosure and where donor-restricted funds
governance is disputed. While we do not represent the funders in any capacity, given our role in
recruiting them for Sturm, we are communicating information they shared with us.
The Attorney General’s role is materially different from the University’s role. The University is
the institution whose public representations, donor-restricted funds governance, and internal
review mechanisms are at issue. The Attorney General is the State’s recognized protector of
charitable interests and charitable assets, with statutory and common-law authority regarding
trusts established for charitable, educational, religious, or benevolent purposes.
Factual Posture – Institutional complaint already filed
FairStartMovement.org and TruthAlliance.global have filed an institutional complaint with the
University of Denver Sturm College of Law requesting a written response and internal review
regarding: (a) how animal-law programming and affiliated advocacy assess and publicly
represent impact; and (b) whether public-facing claims distinguish program outputs from net
outcomes once baseline variables and modeling limits are disclosed.
Core disclosure issue (baseline disclosure and net-outcome implication)
The unifying issue is baseline disclosure: whether public impact language implies net
benefit without stating the baseline, disclosing modeling limits, and separating outputs
Total Liberation Colorado (TLC) Packet
Attorney General Complaint
1
(activities performed) from net outcomes (net effects once baseline variables are
counted).
For TLC purposes, this is operationalized as an “XYZ” minimum disclosure check:
X: the public claim of value and impact
Y: birth inequity impacts during the value assessment and impact reporting,
relative to children’s rights and political equity standards
Z: the actual value and impact, on balance in the key context, accounting for the
correct baseline Y
The point is not that any single program controls macro drivers. The point
is that solicitations should not imply a substantiated net-outcome claim if the
program is not stating its baseline, disclosing modeling limits, and separating
outputs from net outcomes in solicitation-facing materials and incorporated
public-facing materials.
Donor-intent dispute requiring a remedy the Attorney General is positioned to
supervise
Fair Start states that a donor who supported the originally contemplated upstream
baseline-disclosure work requested return of funds after the upstream framework was not
implemented, and that return was declined. The institutional complaint requests written
confirmation of: the request, the gift-instrument terms, the decision authority, and the
policy/legal basis for denial, and requests a remedy in one of these forms:
A) return of funds (with a closing accounting), or
B) restricted reallocation into a segregated account used only for the upstream
baseline-disclosure work originally contemplated (disclosure template adoption;
internal review and correction/disclaimer of public statements implying net
outcomes without disclosure; publication of a short standards memo describing
the baseline used going forward), or
C) escrow pending completion of the internal review and any required
oversight/notice steps.
Fair Start states the baseline-disclosure dispute is inseparable from donor intent,
charitable-asset governance, and reliance because at least one donor has stated, “When I
Total Liberation Colorado (TLC) Packet
Attorney General Complaint
2
made my gift to Sturm in 2022, it was my understanding that it would be used for an
ecocentric baseline,” and Fair Start further states that since January 2023 funders and
institutional stakeholders have “doubled down on the anthropocentric standard,” creating
a material mismatch between what was reasonably understood to be funded and what
baseline governed “impact/public benefit/liberation” representations. Anthropocentrism
is human-centered valuation; ecocentrism recognizes intrinsic ecosystem and nonhuman
value, and Fair Start’s position is that baseline choice (including any turn to
animal-centric and human-centric systems) must be stated with modeling limits because
it determines whether outputs are being narrated as net outcomes and can induce
downstream harm when the public relies on implied net benefit.
Funding for this effort rests on a simple premise: the baseline must be explicitly defined,
measured, and audited against collective-action incentives (donors, funders, government
dollars, students, voters, consumers, and future generations), with particular protection
for those most likely to absorb harm when claims outpace evidence, including protected
classes under civil-rights and anti-discrimination law.
Fair Start states return requests have been made and should be treated as a reliance signal,
including Frank (A. F. Rothschild, PhD, Director, Center for Contemporary Equine
Studies) stating the institution should “either return CCES’s grant or implement our
funding for the designated purpose stated in our Agreement with DU Sturm, as
promised,” and requests a written remedy of return, restricted reallocation to the
designated baseline purpose, escrow pending review, or a functionally equivalent
integrity remedy.
Systems shouldn’t teach, assume, or operationalize legal authority unless there is
measurable empowerment of the people subject to that authority. Otherwise, we’re just
automating “separate but equal” under a technological veneer.
Fair Start’s model in Denver is that we don’t build new institutions, we require existing
institutions to replace non-compliant parts. The same logic would apply to AI
governance. If the language doesn’t invert toward “no child worth more than another,” it
fails the baseline.
We propose a standardized reusable legal injunction mechanism triggered by
consumer-protection style action when a public-facing impact/benefit claim materially
implies net benefit without disclosing the baseline and model limits pushing institutions
and government to either prove benefit under a stated baseline or correct the claim.
Reliance and Governance Context (material to review)
Fair Start states that the upstream baseline-disclosure framework at issue was previously
developed and publicly articulated in collaboration with University sustainability leadership,
Total Liberation Colorado (TLC) Packet
Attorney General Complaint
3
including co-authored work involving university staff who were identified in public materials as
Clinical Professor and Faculty Director, Center of Sustainability, and that the staff member later
withdrew after attempted implementation with University stakeholders. Fair Start further states
that the dispute and the requested internal review should be analyzed as a governance and
reliance issue: the public is invited to rely on “impact/public benefit/liberation” narratives, while
the underlying baseline and modeling limits that determine whether outputs plausibly translate
into net outcomes are not disclosed.
Why Attorney General’s Office
Colorado recognizes and reaffirms the Attorney General’s powers regarding
charitable trusts and charitable interests – Colorado law expressly recognizes
and reaffirms that the Attorney General has powers conferred by statute and by
common law regarding trusts established for charitable, educational, religious, or
benevolent purposes. Colorado statutes also preserve the Attorney General’s
rights and powers with respect to any trust. Colorado appellate authority
describes the Attorney General as “the recognized protector of public interests in
charitable trusts,” and explains the enforcement structure that routes these
disputes to the Attorney General.
UPMIFA oversight features (restriction governance; notice to the Attorney
General in modification contexts) – If the disputed funds are governed as
donor-restricted institutional funds, Colorado’s UPMIFA framework provides
specific mechanisms for releasing or modifying restrictions and includes notice to
the Attorney General in court proceedings affecting restrictions, reflecting the
Attorney General’s participation interest where charitable restrictions are being
altered or addressed. The institutional complaint’s requested remedies (return,
restricted reallocation tied to the originally contemplated baseline-disclosure
work, or escrow pending review) are framed to align with orderly
restriction-governance analysis and documented authority, rather than informal
or discretionary handling.
Standing constraints and the enforcement gap the Attorney General fills –
Colorado appellate authority explains the structural point that private parties
commonly face standing barriers in charitable-trust enforcement and that the
Attorney General is positioned to act to protect the charitable interest. This
standing architecture is a principal reason this matter is properly routed to the
Attorney General for review and, where warranted, investigative action.
Consumer protection and public-reliance lens for materially misleading
“impact/public benefit” representations – Colorado’s Consumer Protection Act
includes deceptive trade practices such as false representations about
Total Liberation Colorado (TLC) Packet
Attorney General Complaint
4
characteristics, uses, or benefits and failures to disclose material information
known at the time of an advertisement or sale when intended to induce a
transaction. Separately, the Attorney General has statutory authority to
independently initiate actions to enforce state laws including the Colorado
Consumer Protection Act. In this matter, the relevant public-reliance concern is
whether institutional “impact/public benefit/liberation” representations invite
donor/student/public reliance while omitting baseline variables and modeling
limits that determine whether outputs plausibly constitute net outcomes.
Charitable representations and donor-protection context – Colorado’s
charitable solicitations framework reflects a public policy interest in protecting
the public from deceptive or fraudulent charitable solicitations and requires
registration and non-deceptive solicitation practices. While the TLC packet does
not presume a conclusion, it requests Attorney General review because the dispute
concerns donor-intent governance and public-facing representations tied to
charitable/educational programming where the public is asked to rely on
“impact/public benefit/liberation” framing.
Requests to the Colorado Attorney General (time-bound)
Intake and counsel routing (14 days), confirm in writing:
a. the office/division assigned for review; and
b. whether the Attorney General will request documents from the University
relevant to donor-intent governance and public-facing impact representations.
Donor-intent governance review and remedy pathway (30 days), request from the
University (and review for sufficiency):
a. the applicable gift instrument(s) and any written restrictions or purpose
language;
b. the return request(s) (date received; who submitted; what was requested);
c. the decision authority and documented policy/legal basis for denial (including
any UPMIFA analysis, to the extent applicable);
d. an accounting (amounts, dates received, restrictions, expenditures to date);
e. the University’s proposed remedy: return; restricted reallocation tied to the
originally contemplated baseline-disclosure work; escrow pending review; or a
documented alternative that is functionally equivalent in integrity terms.
Total Liberation Colorado (TLC) Packet
Attorney General Complaint
5
Public-reliance and impact-claim review (60 days), request that the University:
a. identify the specific public statements/materials most likely to imply net
outcomes without baseline disclosure;
b. submit those materials for counsel review; and
c. adopt a written disclosure template for future impact language that (i) states the
baseline, (ii) discloses modeling limits, and (iii) separates outputs from net
outcomes.
Enforcement
The TLC packet does not demand punishment for imperfection. It requests documented
governance, donor-intent compliance, and corrective disclosure so that public reliance is not
induced by net-outcome implications the institution is not substantiating. Fair Start states its
standards work is designed so organizations are not punished for imperfection, with an objective
of early alignment on a baseline (not “purity”) and a voluntary, pass/fail diagnostic standards
pathway that organizations can use to test whether their metrics and assumptions are structurally
coherent with their stated missions. This posture aligns with the Attorney General’s role as
protector of charitable interests and with the Attorney General’s authority to investigate and
enforce against materially misleading public representations when the facts warrant.
Attachments / packet materials referenced
Press release announcing TLC and summarizing the institutional complaint, including the
XYZ baseline-disclosure standard, donor-intent remedy request, and the requested
internal review.
Open letter to the University of Denver Sturm College of Law requesting time-bound
written answers, donor funds accounting, internal review, and adoption of an
impact-reporting disclosure template.
Copy of the Colorado Secretary of State complaint submission and supporting exhibits
(as included in the TLC packet).
Respectfully submitted,
Name: Suriya Khan
Email: suriya@fairstartmovement.org
Phone: 516 – 725 – 3157
Organization: Fair Start Movement / TruthAlliance.global
Total Liberation Colorado (TLC) Packet
Attorney General Complaint
6
REFERENCES
● Colorado Revised Statutes § 24-31-101 (Powers and duties of attorney general;
subsection recognizing/reaffirming AG powers re
charitable/educational/religious/benevolent trusts) (2024, as amended effective Jan. 1,
2025).
● Colorado Revised Statutes § 15-1-1005 (Rights and powers of courts and attorney general
not impaired).
● Colorado Revised Statutes § 15-1-1106 (Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional
Funds Act; release/modification of restrictions; notice/opportunity for Attorney General).
● Colorado Revised Statutes § 6-1-105 (Colorado Consumer Protection Act; deceptive
trade practices).
● Colorado Revised Statutes § 6-16-101 (Colorado Charitable Solicitations Act; short title).
● Colorado Charitable Solicitations Act, Title 6, Article 16, Colorado Revised Statutes
(compiled statutory PDF).
● Herbst v. University of Colorado Foundation, 2022 COA 38, No. 20CA2067 (Colo. Ct.
App. Mar. 31, 2022)
Summary “In Kenya’s Amboseli region, many Maasai children are still denied a fair chance at education as poverty, hidden school costs, corruption, colonial-era inequalities, weak local systems, and the growing impacts of climate change continue to make learning and opportunity harder to reach for struggling families cost of education for local children.” When Accountability Is Diluted, Children in Amboseli Pay the Price Through Unequal Protection, Limited Opportunity, and the Rising Cost of Education
In the heart of Kenya’s Amboseli region, where the iconic Mount Kilimanjaro watches over the land, a more subtle yet equally pressing issue persists: the high cost of education for local children. While many see Amboseli as a haven for wildlife and indigenous Maasai culture, it’s also a place where structural inequalities—fueled by historical and contemporary systems—continue to impede access to quality education. These obstacles intersect with global issues like climate injustice and the enduring effects of white supremacy.
At the center of this multifaceted struggle is the issue of school fees, which often serve as a barrier to education in a community where poverty and marginalization have deep roots. Local Maasai children, like many across rural Kenya, find themselves caught in a web of equity fraud, where the promise of education remains a distant dream, largely inaccessible to those who need it most.
The Reality of School Fees in Amboseli
For many families in Amboseli, school fees are not just a minor inconvenience—they are an insurmountable burden. While education is officially free in Kenya, there are numerous hidden costs associated with sending children to school. These include contributions for textbooks, uniforms, and other necessities, which, when accumulated, often exceed the financial reach of many Maasai families. The average household in Amboseli relies heavily on livestock for income, a livelihood that is vulnerable to the ravages of climate change. Droughts, erratic rainfall patterns, and other environmental stressors directly impact food security and income generation, making it even harder to pay for education.
Many of these school fees, however, are not just a result of national policies—they are compounded by local corruption and equity fraud. Teachers or administrators sometimes collect additional fees for non-existent services, with funds failing to reach their intended educational purposes. This reinforces a cycle of inequality, where education becomes a commodity for those who can afford it, perpetuating a class divide and further disenfranchising marginalized communities like the Maasai.
White Supremacy and the Legacy of Colonization
The historical legacy of colonialism is deeply embedded in the educational system in Amboseli. The British colonizers, in their quest to “civilize” African societies, imposed an educational framework designed to subjugate and control local populations rather than empower them. Though Kenya gained independence decades ago, the residual effects of this system still shape the education infrastructure in many rural regions.
One of the enduring impacts of this colonial legacy is the persistence of white supremacy in the form of Western-centric curricula and educational standards that fail to recognize the unique needs of indigenous communities like the Maasai. Many children in Amboseli are taught in schools where the language of instruction is English or Kiswahili, languages not spoken by their families. The curriculum often centers around Western ideals and economic structures, which may feel distant or irrelevant to Maasai children who are raised in a pastoralist culture deeply tied to the land and animals.
The marginalization of indigenous knowledge systems and the lack of representation in education contribute to feelings of alienation. For the Maasai, whose identity is tied to their land, culture, and heritage, this disconnect only reinforces the cultural imperialism that has been entrenched for centuries.
Decentralization: A Double-Edged Sword
Kenya’s push for decentralization—a key aspect of its post-independence governance structure—was intended to bring services closer to the people. In theory, local governments would have the autonomy to allocate resources based on community needs. In practice, however, decentralization in Kenya has often resulted in uneven resource distribution and significant disparities in service delivery.
In Amboseli, the promise of local governance often falls short. While county governments may receive funding to improve educational infrastructure and reduce fees, the lack of accountability, corruption, and a weak local administrative capacity has meant that funds do not always reach the intended schools. This has left Amboseli, a region already grappling with the effects of climate change, without the necessary educational resources to uplift its children.
The decentralization process also amplifies inequality in regions like Amboseli, where local leaders may prioritize the needs of urban areas over those in more remote, rural communities. This disparity contributes to the feeling that Maasai children are further excluded from the promise of education.
Climate Injustice: The Silent Killer
Perhaps the most insidious force affecting education in Amboseli is the slow but persistent rise of climate injustice. The Maasai people, whose livelihoods are tied to livestock, face increasingly hostile environmental conditions due to climate change. Droughts and changing rainfall patterns have led to massive livestock deaths, food shortages, and a subsequent rise in poverty. This climate crisis directly impacts families’ ability to pay school fees, let alone ensure that their children attend school regularly.
In many parts of Amboseli, children are forced to stay home and help their families cope with the aftermath of climate-induced disasters. This leads to a cycle of intergenerational poverty, where children who are unable to complete their education have fewer opportunities to break free from the poverty that their parents and grandparents have faced.
What’s worse, climate injustice is not something that Maasai communities have caused—they are among the least responsible for the global climate crisis. Yet, they are among the most affected. This injustice further underscores the need for global solidarity and local action, with initiatives like the Truth Alliance aiming to amplify the voices of those most impacted by environmental changes and educational inequities.
Truth Alliance: A Call for Change
In this context, organizations like Truth Alliance are crucial in advocating for systemic changes that address the root causes of inequity, colonialism, and climate injustice. Their work highlights the need for a more equitable approach to education, one that is locally controlled and culturally relevant, yet supported by national and international frameworks that prioritize the needs of marginalized communities.
Truth Alliance advocates for educational policies that are inclusive, not just in terms of access but also in how education is delivered. This includes curriculum reforms that embrace indigenous knowledge and perspectives, as well as a push for transparent and accountable management of school fees. They also emphasize decentralization as a tool for local empowerment but with safeguards to prevent the misuse of funds and ensure that resources are reaching those who need them most.
Above all, organizations like Truth Alliance highlight the need for urgent action on climate justice, calling for both local and global solutions to the environmental challenges that disproportionately affect communities like the Maasai. Climate change is not a distant issue—it is a present reality, and its effects on education, particularly in rural areas like Amboseli, cannot be ignored.
Conclusion: Moving Forward with Equity and Justice
The story of education in Amboseli is a complex one, woven together by the threads of history, culture, climate, and systemic injustice. School fees, equity fraud, white supremacy, decentralization, and climate injustice are all intertwined in a way that continues to limit the educational opportunities available to Maasai children. However, through the tireless efforts of organizations like Truth Alliance, there is hope for change.
True transformation will come when the voices of the most marginalized are heard, when education becomes an instrument of liberation rather than exclusion, and when the global community takes collective responsibility for addressing the root causes of climate injustice. It is only through this holistic approach that communities like Amboseli will see the dawn of a more equitable future for their children—one where access to education is a right, not a privilege.
Summary “In many complex systems, responsibility becomes so spread out that preventable inequalities harming children continue without clear accountability, even though true fairness means ensuring every child is equally protected, supported, and given a real chance to thrive”
In complex systems that shape public outcomes, responsibility is often widely shared and in the process, diluted. When outcomes improve, institutions claim success. When they fall short, responsibility becomes less clear. Challenges are attributed to complexity, limited resources, or external conditions. Over time, this creates a system where decisions carry impact, but not always accountability.
This gap becomes most visible when we look at the outcomes experienced by children. In many contexts, children continue to face preventable harm whether through environmental exposure, limited access to essential services, or unequal living conditions. These outcomes are not accidental. They result from a series of decisions: how resources are allocated, which risks are prioritized, and whose needs are addressed first.
Consider extreme heat.
In many cities, rising temperatures are a known and growing risk. Yet some neighborhoods, often lower-income areas, have fewer trees, less shade, and limited access to cooling. Children in these environments face higher exposure to heat-related illness. The risk is predictable, documented, and recurring.
The question is not whether the danger is known.
The question is: who is responsible for ensuring those children are equally protected?
Yet accountability for these decisions is rarely direct.
Institutions operate within defined mandates, measuring success against internal targets. Funders evaluate impact based on reported results. Professionals rely on established frameworks to guide their work. Each part of the system may function as intended, but the combined outcome can still fall short of fairness.
When this happens, a critical question must be asked: Who is responsible for the gap between intention and outcome?
Accountability requires more than meeting predefined goals. It requires questioning whether those goals are sufficient especially when they leave the most vulnerable at risk.
At the center of this issue is a simple standard: no child is worth more than another.
If this principle is taken seriously, then accountability cannot stop at process; it must extend to outcomes. Demonstrating effort is not enough; there must be responsibility for whether systems deliver equal protection and opportunity in practice.
This has implications at every level.
Institutions must assess not only whether their programs function, but whether they meaningfully reduce disparities.
Funders must look beyond reported success and consider whether their investments contribute to lasting fairness.
Professionals including researchers, policymakers, and advocates must ensure that the frameworks they use do not overlook or minimize unequal impacts.
Accountability also requires transparency.
Clear and honest reporting is essential to understanding where systems succeed and where they fall short. Without it, gaps remain hidden, and improvement becomes difficult. Transparency allows problems to be identified early and addressed before harm becomes entrenched.
There must also be consequences.
When systems consistently produce unequal outcomes, maintaining the status quo is itself a decision. Inaction or insufficient action shapes who benefits, who is protected, and who is left behind.
This is not only about individual responsibility. Many inequities are systemic, built over time through layers of decisions and practices. But complexity cannot become an excuse to avoid accountability.
It must instead strengthen the commitment to act.
A system that values fairness must be designed to detect imbalance, respond to it, and correct it. This requires clear standards, consistent evaluation, and a willingness to change when outcomes do not align with principles.
Ultimately, accountability is what turns values into practice.
Without it, commitments to equity remain aspirational. With it, they become measurable, enforceable, and real.
Because when systems fail to protect children equally, the issue is not only what went wrong it is whether anyone is prepared to answer for it and to ensure it does not continue
Looking at Yale’s website on animal protection one would think great progress is being made for the most vulnerable.
But relative to what was any of the progress made?
Fact: Inequitable growth that enriched mostly wealthy, white children at deadly cost to countless children of color did exponentially more harm to animals than the program ever did good. Use of an inaccurate valuation and reporting model hides liability for the deaths of tens of millions as the climate crisis intensifies, and reflects the academic and public interest practice that ensured the polycrisis: Constantly moving goalposts away from the absolute infant-health-as-enfranchisement standard necessary for political legitimacy in order to falsely claim truth, or victories, and to thus raise funds.
The fundamental unit of moral currency is the influence one has over the outcomes of their political system, or what is loosely understood as political equality / equity though common conceptions are incomplete. Other currencies, like welfare, cannot exist outside of systems of political and legal obligation or “oughtness” and the primacy of how people are positioned relative to others and Earth’s ecologies at birth.
This equity is consistent with an objective “one person, one equal and influential vote” (equal offsets of influence relative to zero) standard, empowering persons to limit the influence others have – including ecologically and socially – over them. This is also consistent with more collective systems of family planning in which no child is treated as worth more than another, an outcome ensured through a threshold or level of empowering birth and development conditions and relations outside of which no child should be born.
This physically disembedded persons from any effective role in their political systems. It also allowed those in power, both with political authority and entitlements to wealth defended by that authority, to avoid having to legitimate their power by actually, and measurably empowering those subject to it. Rather than seeing the creation of actual (relative to the legal baseline) empowering relations as the source of political authority, nations treated symbolic or representative instruments like treaties and constitutions as themselves authoritative.
While civil rights movements made headway in areas like housing, employment, and education, the notion of autonomy without equity amounted to the privatization of the creation of power relations, and the totally arbitrary basis for the concentration of extreme levels of generational white wealth – over the span of decades – that drives many of the outcomes we see today. That wealth never had to pay the costs of legitimacy – and the full impacts are now being revealed.
Within less than a few generations the regime caused unsustainable growth, vast political, social, and ecological inequity, the destruction of world ecologies, and the decline of democracy. This inequitable and disenfranchising growth breached political, ecological and social thresholds for objective values we all share like comfortable temperatures, equality of opportunity,
Public interest work and outcomes during these decades and into today have generally oriented from arbitrary, ever-changing and illegal (both because they disenfranchise and otherwise harm children, relative to a host of accepted legal standards usually only applied to existing rather than future children) baselines that violate the “one person, one equal and influential vote” standard. High levels of climate emissions championed by “environmental” organizations that enrich some at deadly cost to others, still permitted and defended by coercive authority of nations, are an example.
Use of these baselines represents an undemocratic, diluted and commercial form of freedom, rather than values consistent with political freedom, that is more akin to “free market” choice” of a shopping mall more than the political influence of a functional town hall.
Public interest interventions to challenge greenwashing and humanewashing have failed because they themselves did not account for the massively countervailing impacts of growth on the interventions themselves – growth that for instance has created more climate emissions than the interventions removed, while bringing children into the world without the resources or political influence to deal with them.
And yet accounting for growth by itself would not account for the inequity of the relations formed by that growth.cIt would not account for how some benefit at deadly cost to others based simply on their birth and developmental positionality, with benefits defended by nations on the false premise that all are empowered equally at birth. One of the false assumptions at work was that some children were magically born poor and others rich, instead of the reality of a policy choice to elevate family autonomy (and not in the sense of being free of the climate crisis, but free in a “free market” sense) over family equity and political legitimacy.
Today women “liberated” by this reproductive rights regime, as well as their children, are dying in growth-based heat waves, living in poverty, with no way to use their political influence to save themselves or their children. They are subject to top-down abstract rules, not rules derived from the inclusive creation of power relations by those subject to them.
Worse yet, wealthy funders benefiting from that inequitable growth – like Tim Midura – have helped conceal this with the downstream charade interventions discussed above, and low standards for defining terms like “green,” “humane,” and “equitable” designed to enrich their own children at deadly cost to others.
For example, Fair Start activists were funded by such funders in their work with prior organizations, and prominent activists turned business owners today benefit from having used assessment and reporting models that each year allowed them to claim progress for vulnerable entities – like animals – that was easily being undone on exponential levels by birth-inequity based growth. The hallmark of equity fraud involves the fraudster omitting from evaluation and reporting the largest driver of the relevant outcome – the birth-based creation of power relations – in order to exploit that process.
The solution?
The FalseClaimsChecker.org accounts for this minimum necessary condition of political equity by replacing those assumptions – and the illegal baselining – with a base assumption that political authority and the entitlement to wealth it can generate must be derived from a “one person, one equal and influential vote” / “no child is worth more than another standard,” thus situating those making the value assessments and impact reporting themselves as part of, or outside of, a discourse legitimacy moving towards a just future. This accounts, at a most fundamental level – at a constitutional or basic system of obligation level, for the driver of the polycrisis.
These claims situate them in their political system, and allow us to assess how they arbitrarily benefit from, or suffer the costs, of the “separate but equal” standard.
When someone makes a value assessment and impact claim, we should ask: Relative to what?
You will find rampant use of shifting baseline – moving goalposts – that allow claimants to appear to create value and beneficial impact with no functional protections for the most vulnerable, infants and animals, as the climate crisis, autocracy, and massive inequity worsens. That means the impact is being undone relative to the minimum legally required threshold, or an illegal baseline – illegal because it does not account for legitimacy, or the need to measurably empower those subject to the legal system, including ensuring minimum levels of health-as-enfranchisement for all infants.
This is called growthwashing, or more accurately equitywashing. Why the latter? Because to treat humans quantitatively as numbers is less accurate than to see them as living in complex qualitative relations, and because past certain ecological, social, and political thresholds, growth has devastating nonlinear impacts – with climate emissions triggering things like ecological feedback loops.
We can use these claims to demonstrate the problem, that the values and impact they claimed would have been undone relative to the legal / preemptive as opposed to arbitrary baselines, and encourage reforms towards the legal baseline and their becoming part of an empowering system of truly self–determining persons by realigning fundamental authority and entitlements around a system of fair birth positionality, consistent with the values that they are signaling in their claims This is a state of autonomy through political equity by rearranging constitutional entitlements, sufficient to ensure Dasgupta’s optimality, but in the qualitative sense of empowering relations.
Given that few if any use the legal “one person, one equal and influential vote” standard, this exercise generally entails their having to admit benefiting from arbitrary birth and developmental positionality (national, racial, intergenerational, etc.) at deadly cost to others, and having disparate influence over others defended by unlegitimated authority, and threat of coercion, of the state.
We admit: Being part of a system of birth inequity that treats children of color as deserving fewer resources and influence, including omitting this as a countervailing factor in our value assessments and impact reporting, by overshooting ecological, political and social thresholds does more harm to our values than we do to further them.
This “Tell the Truth” discourse creates an opportunity for permanent resistance to oppression because it protects, through the use of an intergenerational justice threshold, the most vulnerable, Infants and animals and identifies those who reject that protection, and systems of mutual self-determination with it.
See the fallacious claims by prominent food entrepreneur Paul Shapiro, who ironically started his work as an animal rights activist climbing to a level of national influence on a false advertising campaign against egg producers for humane washing, His claims to have saved animals while explicitly refusing to back equity reforms or qualify his claims, make them inaccurate and out of context because he omits how he chose underlying policies that did vastly more harm to animals than he did good. His omission enables him to exploit financial systems – as lead at a profitable food company with military contracts – that in turn growth exploit animals and elevate his voice above those pursuing on-balance reforms.
Initial attempts, in other scenarios, by Fair Start Movement and Truth Alliance advocates to implement this preemption were met with sabotage by public interest entities hiding liability for decades of inaccurate claims, usually for micro interventions undone – relative to a true system of empowerment – by macro forces that enriched those involved, and their funders, at deadly cost to others.
As a practical matter one can challenge illegal baselining, or political equity and impact fraud, using inexpensive and widely available consumer protection and unfair competition laws to enjoin public and private business valuation, and impact reporting, that don’t comply with the minimum baseline of inclusive legitimacy.
Given that political authority, including to entitle wealth, derives from having to empower those subject to the authority, these cases get to the ultimate question of political freedom: Are we obligated to a political system that does not empower us? And what are the limits of self-defense against such a system?
After 1948 and the inception of universal human rights that limited national authority, nations were obligated to derive their authority and any entitlements protected under it from the equitable empowerment of their subjects. This requirement is widely reflected in the Bill of Human Rights instruments and their references to the right to self-determination – and one person, one equal and influential vote. This requirement should have created an interpretation of the collective pronoun that premises those documents, like the reference to “we the people,” treating a level of influence in one’s political system (“oughtness” or an “influl” that precedes a “util”) as a fundamental currency that precedes utility and welfare.
The textual basis for this interpretive rule is clear – these pronouns are the linguistic premise of the language that follows. Such a currency and universal linguistic rule of interpretation would have entailed a harsh principle: Each person in a system of law and obligation would be owed the level of public protection, or oughtness, they would account to the most vulnerable: Infants, and the animals whom the infants would impact. The value of self, versus other, determination would require it. Again, a racist system of self-determination blocked this change.
Regardless, the principle creates a textual basis to interpret law as requiring the inclusion and empowerment of those subject to it, consistent with standards for intergenerational justice, and ensuring equal offsets of influence relative to a zero baseline and the idea that no child is worth more than another. At a policy level this would have required a fundable, minimum threshold of empowerment beneath which no child should be born, with future children holding entitlements sufficient to create collective family planning systems based on readiness, delay, and the equitable distribution of levels of influence among children. The threshold ensures equal offsets relative to zero, or the preemptive costs of having to measurably empower all children equitably as they enter the world – and at a standard where those children could protect themselves from things like a climate crisis, autocracy, deadly inequity, etc.
Put simply:
If it’s illegal to use a business model that prohibits hiring or housing persons of color, it’s illegal to structure cost/benefit business models to enrich some children at deadly cost to children of color. Use of that model hides liability for the deaths of tens of millions as the climate crisis intensifies, and reflects the academic and public interest practice that ensured the polycrisis: Constantly moving goalposts away from the infant-health-as-enfranchisement standard necessary for political legitimacy in order to falsely claim truth, or victories, and to thus raise funds.
Unless a person or company claiming to add value to the world can show they were evaluating and reporting by accounting for the preemptive costs of having to measurably empower all children equitably as they enter the world – and at a standard where those children could protect themselves from the climate crisis, autocracy deadly inequity, etc. – the person or company making the claims has been using an illegal baseline, a Ponzi/equity-fraud standard that benefits them at deadly cost to others, and mostly children of color.
Those willing to pay the costs of a legitimate political system that avoids arbitrary benefits of birth positionality and conditions authority on empowerment could never compete against those willing to exploit others, and they need not given that any authority to govern or assign wealth derives from first empowering those subject to these things. The other solution to inequity-gained wealth backed by state violence – as the oppression it is – is to treat that violence as illegitimate and triggering the right to self-determinative self-defense against “trolley targets” who benefit themselves at deadly cost to others.
It’s this truthful and obligation-creating discourse, a Tell the Truth campaign, that is most preemptive and legally authoritative over all conflicting obligations, including treaties and constitutions.
But relative to what was any of the progress made?
Fact: Inequitable growth that enriched mostly wealthy, white children at deadly cost to countless children of color did exponentially more harm to animals than the program ever did good. Use of an inaccurate valuation and reporting model hides liability for the deaths of tens of millions as the climate crisis intensifies, and reflects the academic and public interest practice that ensured the polycrisis: Constantly moving goalposts away from the absolute infant-health-as-enfranchisement standard necessary for political legitimacy in order to falsely claim truth, or victories, and to thus raise funds.
The fundamental unit of moral currency is the influence one has over the outcomes of their political system, or what is loosely understood as political equality / equity though common conceptions are incomplete. Other currencies, like welfare, cannot exist outside of systems of political and legal obligation or “oughtness” and the primacy of how people are positioned relative to others and Earth’s ecologies at birth.
This equity is consistent with an objective “one person, one equal and influential vote” (equal offsets of influence relative to zero) standard, empowering persons to limit the influence others have – including ecologically and socially – over them. This is also consistent with more collective systems of family planning in which no child is treated as worth more than another, an outcome ensured through a threshold or level of empowering birth and development conditions and relations outside of which no child should be born.
This physically disembedded persons from any effective role in their political systems. It also allowed those in power, both with political authority and entitlements to wealth defended by that authority, to avoid having to legitimate their power by actually, and measurably empowering those subject to it. Rather than seeing the creation of actual (relative to the legal baseline) empowering relations as the source of political authority, nations treated symbolic or representative instruments like treaties and constitutions as themselves authoritative.
While civil rights movements made headway in areas like housing, employment, and education, the notion of autonomy without equity amounted to the privatization of the creation of power relations, and the totally arbitrary basis for the concentration of extreme levels of generational white wealth – over the span of decades – that drives many of the outcomes we see today. That wealth never had to pay the costs of legitimacy – and the full impacts are now being revealed.
Within less than a few generations the regime caused unsustainable growth, vast political, social, and ecological inequity, the destruction of world ecologies, and the decline of democracy. This inequitable and disenfranchising growth breached political, ecological and social thresholds for objective values we all share like comfortable temperatures, equality of opportunity,
Public interest work and outcomes during these decades and into today have generally oriented from arbitrary, ever-changing and illegal (both because they disenfranchise and otherwise harm children, relative to a host of accepted legal standards usually only applied to existing rather than future children) baselines that violate the “one person, one equal and influential vote” standard. High levels of climate emissions championed by “environmental” organizations that enrich some at deadly cost to others, still permitted and defended by coercive authority of nations, are an example.
Use of these baselines represents an undemocratic, diluted and commercial form of freedom, rather than values consistent with political freedom, that is more akin to “free market” choice” of a shopping mall more than the political influence of a functional town hall.
Public interest interventions to challenge greenwashing and humanewashing have failed because they themselves did not account for the massively countervailing impacts of growth on the interventions themselves – growth that for instance has created more climate emissions than the interventions removed, while bringing children into the world without the resources or political influence to deal with them.
And yet accounting for growth by itself would not account for the inequity of the relations formed by that growth.cIt would not account for how some benefit at deadly cost to others based simply on their birth and developmental positionality, with benefits defended by nations on the false premise that all are empowered equally at birth. One of the false assumptions at work was that some children were magically born poor and others rich, instead of the reality of a policy choice to elevate family autonomy (and not in the sense of being free of the climate crisis, but free in a “free market” sense) over family equity and political legitimacy.
Today women “liberated” by this reproductive rights regime, as well as their children, are dying in growth-based heat waves, living in poverty, with no way to use their political influence to save themselves or their children. They are subject to top-down abstract rules, not rules derived from the inclusive creation of power relations by those subject to them.
Worse yet, wealthy funders benefiting from that inequitable growth – like Tim Midura – have helped conceal this with the downstream charade interventions discussed above, and low standards for defining terms like “green,” “humane,” and “equitable” designed to enrich their own children at deadly cost to others.
For example, Fair Start activists were funded by such funders in their work with prior organizations, and prominent activists turned business owners today benefit from having used assessment and reporting models that each year allowed them to claim progress for vulnerable entities – like animals – that was easily being undone on exponential levels by birth-inequity based growth. The hallmark of equity fraud involves the fraudster omitting from evaluation and reporting the largest driver of the relevant outcome – the birth-based creation of power relations – in order to exploit that process.
The solution?
The FalseClaimsChecker.org accounts for this minimum necessary condition of political equity by replacing those assumptions – and the illegal baselining – with a base assumption that political authority and the entitlement to wealth it can generate must be derived from a “one person, one equal and influential vote” / “no child is worth more than another standard,” thus situating those making the value assessments and impact reporting themselves as part of, or outside of, a discourse legitimacy moving towards a just future. This accounts, at a most fundamental level – at a constitutional or basic system of obligation level, for the driver of the polycrisis.
These claims situate them in their political system, and allow us to assess how they arbitrarily benefit from, or suffer the costs, of the “separate but equal” standard.
When someone makes a value assessment and impact claim, we should ask: Relative to what?
You will find rampant use of shifting baseline – moving goalposts – that allow claimants to appear to create value and beneficial impact with no functional protections for the most vulnerable, infants and animals, as the climate crisis, autocracy, and massive inequity worsens. That means the impact is being undone relative to the minimum legally required threshold, or an illegal baseline – illegal because it does not account for legitimacy, or the need to measurably empower those subject to the legal system, including ensuring minimum levels of health-as-enfranchisement for all infants.
This is called growthwashing, or more accurately equitywashing. Why the latter? Because to treat humans quantitatively as numbers is less accurate than to see them as living in complex qualitative relations, and because past certain ecological, social, and political thresholds, growth has devastating nonlinear impacts – with climate emissions triggering things like ecological feedback loops.
We can use these claims to demonstrate the problem, that the values and impact they claimed would have been undone relative to the legal / preemptive as opposed to arbitrary baselines, and encourage reforms towards the legal baseline and their becoming part of an empowering system of truly self–determining persons by realigning fundamental authority and entitlements around a system of fair birth positionality, consistent with the values that they are signaling in their claims This is a state of autonomy through political equity by rearranging constitutional entitlements, sufficient to ensure Dasgupta’s optimality, but in the qualitative sense of empowering relations.
Given that few if any use the legal “one person, one equal and influential vote” standard, this exercise generally entails their having to admit benefiting from arbitrary birth and developmental positionality (national, racial, intergenerational, etc.) at deadly cost to others, and having disparate influence over others defended by unlegitimated authority, and threat of coercion, of the state.
We admit: Being part of a system of birth inequity that treats children of color as deserving fewer resources and influence, including omitting this as a countervailing factor in our value assessments and impact reporting, by overshooting ecological, political and social thresholds does more harm to our values than we do to further them.
This “Tell the Truth” discourse creates an opportunity for permanent resistance to oppression because it protects, through the use of an intergenerational justice threshold, the most vulnerable, Infants and animals and identifies those who reject that protection, and systems of mutual self-determination with it.
See the fallacious claims by prominent food entrepreneur Paul Shapiro, who ironically started his work as an animal rights activist climbing to a level of national influence on a false advertising campaign against egg producers for humane washing, His claims to have saved animals while explicitly refusing to back equity reforms or qualify his claims, make them inaccurate and out of context because he omits how he chose underlying policies that did vastly more harm to animals than he did good. His omission enables him to exploit financial systems – as lead at a profitable food company with military contracts – that in turn growth exploit animals and elevate his voice above those pursuing on-balance reforms.
Initial attempts, in other scenarios, by Fair Start Movement and Truth Alliance advocates to implement this preemption were met with sabotage by public interest entities hiding liability for decades of inaccurate claims, usually for micro interventions undone – relative to a true system of empowerment – by macro forces that enriched those involved, and their funders, at deadly cost to others.
As a practical matter one can challenge illegal baselining, or political equity and impact fraud, using inexpensive and widely available consumer protection and unfair competition laws to enjoin public and private business valuation, and impact reporting, that don’t comply with the minimum baseline of inclusive legitimacy.
Given that political authority, including to entitle wealth, derives from having to empower those subject to the authority, these cases get to the ultimate question of political freedom: Are we obligated to a political system that does not empower us? And what are the limits of self-defense against such a system?
After 1948 and the inception of universal human rights that limited national authority, nations were obligated to derive their authority and any entitlements protected under it from the equitable empowerment of their subjects. This requirement is widely reflected in the Bill of Human Rights instruments and their references to the right to self-determination – and one person, one equal and influential vote. This requirement should have created an interpretation of the collective pronoun that premises those documents, like the reference to “we the people,” treating a level of influence in one’s political system (“oughtness” or an “influl” that precedes a “util”) as a fundamental currency that precedes utility and welfare.
The textual basis for this interpretive rule is clear – these pronouns are the linguistic premise of the language that follows. Such a currency and universal linguistic rule of interpretation would have entailed a harsh principle: Each person in a system of law and obligation would be owed the level of public protection, or oughtness, they would account to the most vulnerable: Infants, and the animals whom the infants would impact. The value of self, versus other, determination would require it. Again, a racist system of self-determination blocked this change.
Regardless, the principle creates a textual basis to interpret law as requiring the inclusion and empowerment of those subject to it, consistent with standards for intergenerational justice, and ensuring equal offsets of influence relative to a zero baseline and the idea that no child is worth more than another. At a policy level this would have required a fundable, minimum threshold of empowerment beneath which no child should be born, with future children holding entitlements sufficient to create collective family planning systems based on readiness, delay, and the equitable distribution of levels of influence among children. The threshold ensures equal offsets relative to zero, or the preemptive costs of having to measurably empower all children equitably as they enter the world – and at a standard where those children could protect themselves from things like a climate crisis, autocracy, deadly inequity, etc.
Put simply:
If it’s illegal to use a business model that prohibits hiring or housing persons of color, it’s illegal to structure cost/benefit business models to enrich some children at deadly cost to children of color. Use of that model hides liability for the deaths of tens of millions as the climate crisis intensifies, and reflects the academic and public interest practice that ensured the polycrisis: Constantly moving goalposts away from the infant-health-as-enfranchisement standard necessary for political legitimacy in order to falsely claim truth, or victories, and to thus raise funds.
Unless a person or company claiming to add value to the world can show they were evaluating and reporting by accounting for the preemptive costs of having to measurably empower all children equitably as they enter the world – and at a standard where those children could protect themselves from the climate crisis, autocracy deadly inequity, etc. – the person or company making the claims has been using an illegal baseline, a Ponzi/equity-fraud standard that benefits them at deadly cost to others, and mostly children of color.
Those willing to pay the costs of a legitimate political system that avoids arbitrary benefits of birth positionality and conditions authority on empowerment could never compete against those willing to exploit others, and they need not given that any authority to govern or assign wealth derives from first empowering those subject to these things. The other solution to inequity-gained wealth backed by state violence – as the oppression it is – is to treat that violence as illegitimate and triggering the right to self-determinative self-defense against “trolley targets” who benefit themselves at deadly cost to others.
It’s this truthful and obligation-creating discourse, a Tell the Truth campaign, that is most preemptive and legally authoritative over all conflicting obligations, including treaties and constitutions.
Take action: Urge the lead at Harvard’s animal law program here to tell the truth.
Professors are influential, and when they make public benefit claims, they should do some from clear baselines, and in a way that does not hide inequitable and disenfranchising growth. Not dealing with baselines is evidence to support the Fair Start thesis: That wealth obtained by violating the rights of future children now drives public interest narratives and outcomes to hide and violate those rights.
*This critique is intentionally done outside of customary back and forth academic discourse. A constitutive discourse is more public, and rather than treating values like animal protection as abstract, it assesses the value and impact claims influential people make that fundamentally benefit them, through a system of illegitimate and disentrancing growth and birth positionality, at deadly cost to others and in contravention of academic neutrality.
The Program’s website states it is: “Committed to analyzing and improving the treatment of animals through the legal system.”
That statement is inaccurate. Stilt and the program use an illegal baselining and equity fraud standard that creates a fantasy world of benefit for animals that is undone, upstream, by inequitable and disenfranchising growth.
Stilt’s work on the illusory concept of “rights of nature,” the benefits of which are undone by growth every day, is exemplary of her approach. Claims of using animals benefiting animals are the worst example of the Winners Take Allphenomenon because animals are the most numerous category of vulnerable entities, and because claiming our current political inequity-based system of growth can benefit them are outlandish.
Fact: Inequitable growth that enriched mostly wealthy, white children at deadly cost to countless children of color did exponentially more harm to animals than the program ever did good. Use of that valuation and reporting model hides liability for the deaths of tens of millions as the climate crisis intensifies, and reflects the academic and public interest practice that ensured the polycrisis: Constantly moving goalposts away from the absolute infant-health-as-enfranchisement standard necessary for political legitimacy in order to falsely claim truth, or victories, and to thus raise funds.
The fundamental unit of moral currency is the influence one has over the outcomes of their political system, or what is loosely understood as political equality / equity though common conceptions are incomplete. Other currencies, like welfare, cannot exist outside of systems of political and legal obligation or “oughtness” and the primacy of how people are positioned relative to others and Earth’s ecologies at birth.
This equity is consistent with an objective “one person, one equal and influential vote” (equal offsets of influence relative to zero) standard, empowering persons to limit the influence others have – including ecologically and socially – over them. This is also consistent with more collective systems of family planning in which no child is treated as worth more than another, an outcome ensured through a threshold or level of empowering birth and development conditions and relations outside of which no child should be born.
This physically disembedded persons from any effective role in their political systems. It also allowed those in power, both with political authority and entitlements to wealth defended by that authority, to avoid having to legitimate their power by actually, and measurably empowering those subject to it. Rather than seeing the creation of actual (relative to the legal baseline) empowering relations as the source of political authority, nations treated symbolic or representative instruments like treaties and constitutions as themselves authoritative.
While civil rights movements made headway in areas like housing, employment, and education, the notion of autonomy without equity amounted to the privatization of the creation of power relations, and the totally arbitrary basis for the concentration of extreme levels of generational white wealth – over the span of decades – that drives many of the outcomes we see today. That wealth never had to pay the costs of legitimacy – and the full impacts are now being revealed.
Within less than a few generations the regime caused unsustainable growth, vast political, social, and ecological inequity, the destruction of world ecologies, and the decline of democracy. This inequitable and disenfranchising growth breached political, ecological and social thresholds for objective values we all share like comfortable temperatures, equality of opportunity,
Public interest work and outcomes during these decades and into today have generally oriented from arbitrary, ever-changing and illegal (both because they disenfranchise and otherwise harm children, relative to a host of accepted legal standards usually only applied to existing rather than future children) baselines that violate the “one person, one equal and influential vote” standard. High levels of climate emissions championed by “environmental” organizations that enrich some at deadly cost to others, still permitted and defended by coercive authority of nations, are an example.
Use of these baselines represents an undemocratic, diluted and commercial form of freedom, rather than values consistent with political freedom, that is more akin to “free market” choice” of a shopping mall more than the political influence of a functional town hall.
Public interest interventions to challenge greenwashing and humanewashing have failed because they themselves did not account for the massively countervailing impacts of growth on the interventions themselves – growth that for instance has created more climate emissions than the interventions removed, while bringing children into the world without the resources or political influence to deal with them.
And yet accounting for growth by itself would not account for the inequity of the relations formed by that growth.cIt would not account for how some benefit at deadly cost to others based simply on their birth and developmental positionality, with benefits defended by nations on the false premise that all are empowered equally at birth. One of the false assumptions at work was that some children were magically born poor and others rich, instead of the reality of a policy choice to elevate family autonomy (and not in the sense of being free of the climate crisis, but free in a “free market” sense) over family equity and political legitimacy.
Today women “liberated” by this reproductive rights regime, as well as their children, are dying in growth-based heat waves, living in poverty, with no way to use their political influence to save themselves or their children. They are subject to top-down abstract rules, not rules derived from the inclusive creation of power relations by those subject to them.
Worse yet, wealthy funders benefiting from that inequitable growth – like Tim Midura – have helped conceal this with the downstream charade interventions discussed above, and low standards for defining terms like “green,” “humane,” and “equitable” designed to enrich their own children at deadly cost to others.
For example, Fair Start activists were funded by such funders in their work with prior organizations, and prominent activists turned business owners today benefit from having used assessment and reporting models that each year allowed them to claim progress for vulnerable entities – like animals – that was easily being undone on exponential levels by birth-inequity based growth. The hallmark of equity fraud involves the fraudster omitting from evaluation and reporting the largest driver of the relevant outcome – the birth-based creation of power relations – in order to exploit that process.
The solution?
The FalseClaimsChecker.org accounts for this minimum necessary condition of political equity by replacing those assumptions – and the illegal baselining – with a base assumption that political authority and the entitlement to wealth it can generate must be derived from a “one person, one equal and influential vote” / “no child is worth more than another standard,” thus situating those making the value assessments and impact reporting themselves as part of, or outside of, a discourse legitimacy moving towards a just future. This accounts, at a most fundamental level – at a constitutional or basic system of obligation level, for the driver of the polycrisis.
These claims situate them in their political system, and allow us to assess how they arbitrarily benefit from, or suffer the costs, of the “separate but equal” standard.
When someone makes a value assessment and impact claim, we should ask: Relative to what?
You will find rampant use of shifting baseline – moving goalposts – that allow claimants to appear to create value and beneficial impact with no functional protections for the most vulnerable, infants and animals, as the climate crisis, autocracy, and massive inequity worsens. That means the impact is being undone relative to the minimum legally required threshold, or an illegal baseline – illegal because it does not account for legitimacy, or the need to measurably empower those subject to the legal system, including ensuring minimum levels of health-as-enfranchisement for all infants.
This is called growthwashing, or more accurately equitywashing. Why the latter? Because to treat humans quantitatively as numbers is less accurate than to see them as living in complex qualitative relations, and because past certain ecological, social, and political thresholds, growth has devastating nonlinear impacts – with climate emissions triggering things like ecological feedback loops.
We can use these claims to demonstrate the problem, that the values and impact they claimed would have been undone relative to the legal / preemptive as opposed to arbitrary baselines, and encourage reforms towards the legal baseline and their becoming part of an empowering system of truly self–determining persons by realigning fundamental authority and entitlements around a system of fair birth positionality, consistent with the values that they are signaling in their claims This is a state of autonomy through political equity by rearranging constitutional entitlements, sufficient to ensure Dasgupta’s optimality, but in the qualitative sense of empowering relations.
Given that few if any use the legal “one person, one equal and influential vote” standard, this exercise generally entails their having to admit benefiting from arbitrary birth and developmental positionality (national, racial, intergenerational, etc.) at deadly cost to others, and having disparate influence over others defended by unlegitimated authority, and threat of coercion, of the state.
We admit: Being part of a system of birth inequity that treats children of color as deserving fewer resources and influence, including omitting this as a countervailing factor in our value assessments and impact reporting, by overshooting ecological, political and social thresholds does more harm to our values than we do to further them.
This “Tell the Truth” discourse creates an opportunity for permanent resistance to oppression because it protects, through the use of an intergenerational justice threshold, the most vulnerable, Infants and animals and identifies those who reject that protection, and systems of mutual self-determination with it.
See the fallacious claims by prominent food entrepreneur Paul Shapiro, who ironically started his work as an animal rights activist climbing to a level of national influence on a false advertising campaign against egg producers for humane washing, His claims to have saved animals while explicitly refusing to back equity reforms or qualify his claims, make them inaccurate and out of context because he omits how he chose underlying policies that did vastly more harm to animals than he did good. His omission enables him to exploit financial systems – as lead at a profitable food company with military contracts – that in turn growth exploit animals and elevate his voice above those pursuing on-balance reforms.
Initial attempts, in other scenarios, by Fair Start Movement and Truth Alliance advocates to implement this preemption were met with sabotage by public interest entities hiding liability for decades of inaccurate claims, usually for micro interventions undone – relative to a true system of empowerment – by macro forces that enriched those involved, and their funders, at deadly cost to others.
As a practical matter one can challenge illegal baselining, or political equity and impact fraud, using inexpensive and widely available consumer protection and unfair competition laws to enjoin public and private business valuation, and impact reporting, that don’t comply with the minimum baseline of inclusive legitimacy.
Given that political authority, including to entitle wealth, derives from having to empower those subject to the authority, these cases get to the ultimate question of political freedom: Are we obligated to a political system that does not empower us? And what are the limits of self-defense against such a system?
After 1948 and the inception of universal human rights that limited national authority, nations were obligated to derive their authority and any entitlements protected under it from the equitable empowerment of their subjects. This requirement is widely reflected in the Bill of Human Rights instruments and their references to the right to self-determination – and one person, one equal and influential vote. This requirement should have created an interpretation of the collective pronoun that premises those documents, like the reference to “we the people,” treating a level of influence in one’s political system (“oughtness” or an “influl” that precedes a “util”) as a fundamental currency that precedes utility and welfare.
The textual basis for this interpretive rule is clear – these pronouns are the linguistic premise of the language that follows. Such a currency and universal linguistic rule of interpretation would have entailed a harsh principle: Each person in a system of law and obligation would be owed the level of public protection, or oughtness, they would account to the most vulnerable: Infants, and the animals whom the infants would impact. The value of self, versus other, determination would require it. Again, a racist system of self-determination blocked this change.
Regardless, the principle creates a textual basis to interpret law as requiring the inclusion and empowerment of those subject to it, consistent with standards for intergenerational justice, and ensuring equal offsets of influence relative to a zero baseline and the idea that no child is worth more than another. At a policy level this would have required a fundable, minimum threshold of empowerment beneath which no child should be born, with future children holding entitlements sufficient to create collective family planning systems based on readiness, delay, and the equitable distribution of levels of influence among children. The threshold ensures equal offsets relative to zero, or the preemptive costs of having to measurably empower all children equitably as they enter the world – and at a standard where those children could protect themselves from things like a climate crisis, autocracy, deadly inequity, etc.
Put simply:
If it’s illegal to use a business model that prohibits hiring or housing persons of color, it’s illegal to structure cost/benefit business models to enrich some children at deadly cost to children of color. Use of that model hides liability for the deaths of tens of millions as the climate crisis intensifies, and reflects the academic and public interest practice that ensured the polycrisis: Constantly moving goalposts away from the infant-health-as-enfranchisement standard necessary for political legitimacy in order to falsely claim truth, or victories, and to thus raise funds.
Unless a person or company claiming to add value to the world can show they were evaluating and reporting by accounting for the preemptive costs of having to measurably empower all children equitably as they enter the world – and at a standard where those children could protect themselves from the climate crisis, autocracy deadly inequity, etc. – the person or company making the claims has been using an illegal baseline, a Ponzi/equity-fraud standard that benefits them at deadly cost to others, and mostly children of color.
Those willing to pay the costs of a legitimate political system that avoids arbitrary benefits of birth positionality and conditions authority on empowerment could never compete against those willing to exploit others, and they need not given that any authority to govern or assign wealth derives from first empowering those subject to these things. The other solution to inequity-gained wealth backed by state violence – as the oppression it is – is to treat that violence as illegitimate and triggering the right to self-determinative self-defense against “trolley targets” who benefit themselves at deadly cost to others.
It’s this truthful and obligation-creating discourse, a Tell the Truth campaign, that is most preemptive and legally authoritative over all conflicting obligations, including treaties and constitutions.
World leaders, not everyday people, created a climate and inequity crisis that is killing millions. And they did it by valuing some children over others, and in ways that were illegal.
Joseph Chamie is a prolific writer in the area of population and development, and recently wrote that: “Inequalities in human mortality are evident worldwide. Premature death is particularly prevalent in low-income regions due to limited access to healthcare, poverty, and conflict.”
He should know, having served as Director of the United Nations Population Division and the deputy secretary-general for the 1994 UN International Conference for Population and Development.
By ensuring no threshold for intergenerational justice, the system created extreme concentrations of wealth and power at cost to democracy, nature, and child welfare. To avoid that all Chamie had to do was take the logical step of extending child welfare entitlements, including to political equity, to future children. Instead he chose to maintain a privatized process that exploited children for growth, even as the climate crisis became known.
That meant he did not even try to legitimate the political authority he claimed, and exercised over others, by measureably empowering those subject to it. He knowingly used a system that enriched white children at deadly cost to mostly children of color, and that commercialized political freedom.
That’s a serious example of public corruption. Understand this: Chamie embraces and helped build a system that allows wealth and political authority to use the state’s threat of, and application of, official violence to defend themselves without empowering those everyday people subject to these things. It’s obscure, but tyranny nonetheless, and on a scale that dwarfs others.
While human rights activists are accustomed to targeting for retribution acute and palpable abusers like war criminals, on volume of suffering Chamie has done more harm than most, albeit in a subtle way that is hard for humans to perceive. That does not make him any less culpable.
If people really constitute their own political systems through truthful discourses about what we owe future generations, then it’s up to everyone to engage those at the top who are responsible to admit their failures, and their obligations to fix them. This act literally decentralizes influence – the first step to a future that is more just and free.
