Free Speech Battles | California DEI Totalitarianism

Just as an aside, Leftists and Democrats are the ones pushing “institutional racism,” as the below notes. Also note, I use “totalitarianism” in the sense of “total thought.” Which is a forced “homogenization” of thought… or, state instituted/forced “total thought.”

UPDATED VIDEO

This is an interview by Lex Fridman of Greg Lukianoff of F.I.R.E. (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression). The entire interview, “Greg Lukianoff: Cancel Culture, Deplatforming, Censorship & Free Speech | Lex Fridman Podcast #397,” can be seen HERE (I grab from around the 1:10:50 mark). There are a few universities/colleges involved in legal action in California, but The Renegade Institute for Liberty at Bakersfield College is one this is made for.

DEI stands for “diversity, equity, and inclusion” — all of which sounds fine, right? But materials put out by the state of California show that in this case, DEI translates to highly contested and controversial views. The state’s definitions say that the idea of “color blindness” “perpetuates… racial inequities,” and even the idea of “merit,” is “embedded in the ideology of Whiteness” and “upholds race-based structural inequality.” FIRE has filed a lawsuit on behalf of six California community college professors to halt new, systemwide regulations forcing professors to espouse and teach these politicized conceptions of “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” The regulations are now in effect in the State Center Community College District, and FIRE’s clients have already been forced to change their syllabi and teaching materials, lest they face repercussions. (More info on the lawsuit @FIRE)

Here is an article from THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE that is worth reading in it’s entirety. It is titled: “First Amendment lawsuits challenge state’s DEI rules for community colleges” If you encounter a paywall, grab the URL from the link and put it into this “hopper: REMOVE PAYWALL.

California’s new community college rules sound simple enough: As of this year, all instructors must teach in a way that is culturally inclusive and must prove during employee evaluations that they respect and acknowledge students and colleagues of diverse backgrounds.

But what if an instructor holds so-called color-blind [more on this idea after article excerpt] views and prefers to ignore people’s race, ethnicity, gender or other physical and cultural characteristics as a personal philosophy? Or if an instructor disagrees entirely with the “anti-racism” and “diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility lens” that state’s college officials now require?

Seven instructors from four community colleges in the Central Valley are now testing that cultural collision on constitutional grounds, saying their views could get them fired under the new rules. With the backing of national advocacy groups, the instructors are suing state and local college officials in federal court to have the regulations tossed.

The suits echo another federal lawsuit, filed in May against the University of California, in which a psychology professor hoping to work at UC Santa Cruz ran up against a UC requirement that applicants submit a statement supporting “diversity, equity and inclusion.” The applicant likened it to a “modern-day loyalty oath” of the kind discredited in the 1950s, when those who wouldn’t sign might be labeled communist subversives.

[….]

Another group, the Institute for Free Speech, filed a similar lawsuit on July 6 on behalf of Daymon Johnson, a history instructor at Bakersfield College in Kern County.

“Almost everything Professor Johnson teaches violates the new DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility) requirements — not just by failing to advance the DEIA and anti-racist ideologies, but also by criticizing them,” the suit says, noting that compliance with the new rules would violate the instructor’s conscience and force him to surrender his academic freedom.

SEE MORE AT THE INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH’S BLOG:

RPT is asking people to donate HERE.

In his U.S. History class this fall, for example, Johnson plans to have students read two books claiming to debunk the historian Howard Zinn’s work, which reveals less flattering versions of the American story, and the well-known 1619 Project, which digs deeply into the foundations of slavery.

His lawsuit contains a long list of things that the instructor “does not wish” to do. These include referring to transgender students by their preferred pronouns, acknowledging that social identities are diverse, and demonstrating “DEI and anti-racism practices” because he “rejects and even finds (them) abhorrent.”

Johnson is also a leader of the Renegade Institute for Liberty, a Bakersfield College group that opposes “political and ideological tyranny.” Its acronym is RIFL.

The suit claims that Johnson is already in the crosshairs of the college administration for his views and quotes a Kern college district trustee saying, in reference to employees holding anti-DEIA views: “They’re in that 5% that we have to continue to cull. Got them in my livestock operation and that’s why we put a rope on some of them and take them to the slaughterhouse.”

The Kern trustees did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

The suit says that Bakersfield College already fired another instructor, who was Johnson’s predecessor at RIFL, and calls him “the first cullee.”

According to the suit, the person who oversaw the firing was the Kern district’s former chancellor, Sonya Christian, who has just become the chancellor of the California community colleges. With 116 schools and more than 2 million students enrolling each year, it’s the nation’s largest higher education system.  

On Friday afternoon, state Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office filed a response to Johnson’s suit on behalf of Christian, arguing that the instructor has not only failed to show that he’s been harmed by the rules, but because of that, he also lacks standing to complain about them. 

The response defends the diversity regulations and says the rules “do not restrict the free speech of any employee,” nor do they infringe on anyone’s academic freedom, “including Johnson’s.”

The system’s Board of Governors has the right to establish policies that “reflect its ideals and principles regarding diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility,” the state argues. 

A spokesperson for Christian said the college system has not yet responded in court to the more recent lawsuit and would not comment on it.  

The new regulations require all 73 college districts to develop policies for evaluating employee performance and tenure eligibility in light of their “DEIA competencies.”

The rules follow a series of other DEIA guidance and messages from the chancellor’s office in recent years, and say that to ensure academic success, “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) and anti-racism remain at the heart of our work.”

The college system also posts a glossary of DEIA terms, which defines color blindness as a “racial ideology” that ignores “a large part of one’s identity and lived experience” and therefore “perpetuates existing racial inequities.”….

COLOR BLIND

Dennis Prager discusses a call about a gentleman disagreeing with his statement that he doesn’t see color, and others shouldn’t as well. After the discussion of the previous call, I include the call as well as the lead up to it.

MORE!

  • LINK to a Facebook video: Dennis Reacts: “I See No Color” Is Racist?” (FACEBOOK)

The Issue Is Values, Not Systemic Racism

Do you let your race, gender, or orientation define you? If you are on the left, everything is perceived through the lens of identity politics. Systemic racism is not the real issue plaguing America—it is our opposing values system. Dennis Prager offers some refreshing insight into how to heal our broken nation.

Should We Be Colorblind?

Nothing reveals the moral confusion of our time more than those who label the term “colorblind” racist. Who would want to see themselves in terms of their skin color? And what does a person’s skin color really say about who they are — their likes, dislikes, values, and so on?

Prager Notes The Left’s Proclivity Towards Racism

A girl is legally kidnapped in Santa Clarita by state authorities. The Left’s dogged emphasis on race, class, gender is destroying families, keeping them in poverty, and utterly failing our country’s motto, “out of many, one.” The Left has dumped out the melting pot and keeps us as divided as ever. This story is maddening!

Here is the what the main battle is over: “A battle over custody of a little girl who is 1/64th Choctaw has been in and out of the courts for three years now, and returns on Friday with a new appeal hearing” (ABC-7).

  • “Is it one drop of blood that triggers all these extraordinary rights?” — Justice Roberts

Keep in mind the racial science of NAZI Germany were concerned with a 1/16th racial mix… here we see the racial sciences of the Choctaw Nation and the State of California concerned over a 1/64th portion of heritage. Sick! Racist! Leftism!

  • In 1911, Arkansas passed Act 320 (House Bill 79), also known as the “one-drop rule.” This law had two goals: it made interracial “cohabitation” a felony, and it defined as “Negro” anyone “who has…any negro blood whatever,” thus relegating to second-class citizenship anyone accused of having any African ancestry. Although the law had features unique to Arkansas, it largely reflected nationwide trends. (source)


ONE DROP RULE


More from the LOS ANGELES DAILY NEWS Opinion Page:

Five hundred years ago, the Incas sacrificed children.

They removed children as young as six from their families, transported them with great ceremony to a mountain location, and left them to die of exposure.

Did they have the moral right to do it?

Some people think so. “To their credit,” wrote Kim MacQuarrie, an Emmy-winning documentary filmmaker, anthropologist and author, “the Incas did their best to ensure the survival of their people and empire by paying close attention to nature and doing their best to use every means at their disposal, including human sacrifice, to gain control over it.”

There’s something seriously wrong with any kind of reasoning that places human sacrifice in the category of “doing their best.”

SEE MY: “Mayan, Incan and Aztec “Terrorism

And there is something seriously wrong with what happened in Santa Clarita this week to a 6-year-old girl named Lexi and the foster family that has cared for her since she was 2.

Rusty and Summer Page tried for years to adopt Lexi but were blocked from doing so. The reason? The little girl has a tiny bit of Choctaw ancestry — just 1.5 percent — and under federal law the Choctaw Nation can decide her fate. The tribal authorities decided that Lexi will live in Utah with distant relatives. They issued this statement:

“The Choctaw Nation desires the best for this Choctaw child. The tribe’s values of faith, family and culture are what makes our tribal identity so important to us. Therefore we will continue to work to maintain these values and work toward the long-term best interest of this child.”

This is not human sacrifice, but it is closely related. It is collectivism, the opposite of individual rights.

Collectivism holds that an individual’s life belongs not to the individual, but to the group in which the individual is a member. Where other children would have the right to have a parent or guardian make decisions for them, Lexi’s future has been decided by group leaders seeking to preserve “tribal identity.”

On Monday, in a most disturbing scene, the 6-year-old was pulled weeping and frightened from the arms of her foster father on the driveway of the only stable home she has ever known.

Lexi is not the only child to be victimized by the enforcement of a federal law that, ironically, was intended to prevent children from being removed from their families.

In Arizona, a foster family’s adoption of a baby girl, who was placed with them at birth, is being blocked by the Gila River Indian Community, and the Navajo Nation is standing in the way of foster parents seeking to adopt a 5-year-old boy who has lived with them for four years.

The Goldwater Institute, a conservative think tank based in Phoenix, has filed a lawsuit on behalf of these children and “others similarly situated” over this “separate and unequal treatment.”

The lawsuit argues that children of Native American ancestry are being unfairly denied their civil rights: “Alone among American children, their adoption and foster care placements are determined not in accord with their best interests but by their ethnicity, as a result of a well-intentioned but profoundly flawed and unconstitutional federal law, the Indian Child Welfare Act.”

The Indian Child Welfare Act was passed in 1978 in reaction to another government program, the Indian Adoption Project, which began in 1958 and continued until 1967.

The Indian Adoption Project was the result of an agreement between the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Child Welfare League of America. It encouraged the removal of Indian children from their families on reservations so they could be adopted and “assimilate” into “mainstream society.” By the 1970s, between 25 and 35 percent of all Indian children nationwide had been removed from their homes, and 90 percent had been adopted by white families.

Outrage over the Indian Adoption Project led to the Indian Child Welfare Act. It requires social workers to make an extra effort to avoid removing Indian children from troubled homes, a greater effort than they would make for non-Indian children. When foster care or adoption becomes necessary, the law requires an active effort to place the child with an Indian family.

The Goldwater Institute says these requirements are discriminatory and harmful, making it harder to protect Indian children from abuse and neglect, and forcing longer waits for permanent homes.

The foster care system has many challenges and many heartbreaking stories. We don’t need laws that cause more pain. The Indian Child Welfare Act should go. Give the kids a break.

Susan Shelley is a San Fernando Valley author, a former television associate producer and twice a Republican candidate for the California Assembly.

The parents of a six-year-old girl taken from her family due to her Native American heritage speak out in a statement after officials from the Los Angeles County Department of Child and Family Services took their daughter, Lexi, away. Read more at SCV-NEWS.

George Will gets it right over at WA-PO:

Opinion | The Brutal Racial Politics Of The Indian Child Welfare Act

Lexi lived four of her first six years with a non-Native American California foster family, but because she is 1/64th Choctaw, tribal officials got her taken from the Californians and sent to live in Utah with a distant relative. On Friday, the Supreme Court will consider whether to hear a challenge to the law that made this possible — the Indian Child Welfare Act, which endangers many young Native Americans. It also is a repudiation of the nation’s premise that rights are inherent in individuals, not groups.

In 1978, before “Native Americans” became the preferred designation for Indians, but when racial “identity” was beginning to become the toxic political concept it now is, Congress enhanced tribal rights. This violated, among other principles, those of federalism: Congress thereby reduced the right of states to enforce laws on child welfare. And it plunged government deeper into making distinctions solely on the basis of biological descent.

The ICWA, an early bow toward multiculturalism, buttressed tribal identities by strengthening tribal rights. For example, tribes can partially nullify states’ powers to intervene against tribal parents’ abuse endangering children. And the ICWA conferred rights on tribes, rights adjudicated in tribal courts, including the right to require Native American children be adopted by Native Americans.

Equal protection of the laws? Not under ICWA.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has asked, “Is it one drop of blood that triggers all these extraordinary rights?” Indeed, the primitive concept of racial “blood,” recast as DNA, triggers tribal rights and extinguishes a state’s right to protect many children’s rights. Sometimes with dire consequences.

In 2015, this column acquainted readers with Declan Stewart and Laurynn Whiteshield. Declan was 5 in 2007 when he was beaten to death by his mother’s live-in boyfriend. Oklahoma had removed him from his mother’s custody after he suffered a fractured skull and severe bruising between his testicles and rectum. But when the Cherokee Nation objected to his removal, Oklahoma, knowing that the ICWA favors tribal rights, relented. Beaten again, he died a month after returning to his mother.

From the age of 9 months until almost 3, Laurynn was in a North Dakota minister’s foster care. When the minister tried to adopt her, the Spirit Lake Sioux tribe invoked the ICWA, and Laurynn was sent to a reservation and the custody of her grandfather. Less than six weeks later she was dead, having been thrown down an embankment by the grandfather’s wife, who had a record of child abuse.

The ICWA requires that “Indian children” be placed with “Indian” foster families. Because the ICWA allows a child to be yanked from a non-Indian foster home — and from possible adoption — it discourages non-Native American adults from providing care, including early infant attachment, which is a foundation of healthy child development.

Born with fetal alcohol syndrome, Antonio Renova was 3 days old when he was taken from his biological parents, members of the Crow tribe, and put in foster care. Five years later, the biological parents, both on probation following felony convictions (the mother’s included child endangerment), obtained custody of Antonio through a Crow tribal court. He suffered beatings by his parents, who have been charged in his death.

Antonio was a casualty of the ICWA’s form of identity politics — the allocation of legal status and group entitlements based on biology. The ICWA has insinuated into law a “separate but equal” test regarding Native American children in jeopardy. It demotes “the best interests of the child” from the top priority; it makes a child’s relationship with a tribe supremely important.

The nation has abundant reasons to regret its mistreatment of Native Americans, and the ICWA was perhaps motivated by an impulse to show respect for Indigenous cultures. But the cost, in broken bodies and broken constitutional principles, has been exorbitant.

Today, the nation is reverting — in the name of “social justice” and “equity” understood as improved social outcomes for government-favored groups — to a retrograde emphasis on racial identities. So, the ICWA’s sacrifice of individual rights to group entitlements probably has a diminished power to shock. Come Friday, however, the Supreme Court should be shocked into hearing the arguments against the federal government usurpation, through the ICWA, of the states’ responsibility for protecting children in jeopardy, regardless of their biological ancestry.

Steven Crowder Talks Gas ~ Plus an Import from My Old Blog on Gas Prices

Many believe that the gas companies are gauging us… this is just not the case. For EVERY gallon of gasoline sold to Americans from Exxon, Exxon makes $.09 profit (yes, you read that right, nine-cents!)! I recently had a discussion with a democratic co-worker whom had the same idea about Exxon gauging us. For every gallon of gas we buy the government puts a total of $.50 of tax on it. We argued some about the total amount of tax, but I decided that I wouldn’t push the point… so I agreed that we will use the tax rate as posted on California pumps.

Which is $.18. So I said that if Exxon is making nine-cents ($.09) profit on a gallon of gas and there is a eighteen-cents ($.18). Let’s assume that the 8.4 billion dollar profit for Exxon last quarter was only from Americans, then the government “profit” is 16.8 billion. I asked my Democrat co-worker if we were to compare “SOCIAL CAUSES” between Democrat policies and Republican policies… which party has more “social programs” (welfare, universal health care, Medicare, school lunches, and the like), he agreed with me that the Democrats would support more of these types of programs.

I then asked how these programs are paid for. He realized his mistake now, but answered anyways… taxes. So I said he should be happy that the government has made “windfall profits,” maybe California can be in the black for once. I then made another point. I asked him what is the best way to make something increase in value? He answered that one would make it scarce – like diamonds, or the Federal reserve controlling inflation by letting more or less dollars into the market. He asked what that had to do with gas. I then answered by asking a question:Who is more beholden to environmental groups and causes, the Democrats or Republicans?

My co-worker said the Democrats. I then said that in the past almost FORTY YEARS we haven’t built a refinery to make crude oil into gas… I then asked him if he knew why? He didn’t. Mostly because environmental groups like the Sierra Club and others have successfully stopped us from building them. I asked if he could answer that with the growth of China’s infrastructure and shift towards industry, as well as India’s shift towards the same, if just those two countries alone (comprising half the worlds population) have increased exponentially their demand for “fossil” fuels and the companies that supply that need cannot increase production – that “that” will naturally – at some point – bring up the price of not only fuel, but any good to be sold, who’s fault is that????? (I put fossil fuel in ” ” because I do not believe that oil is a fossil fuel, research is showing that it is “a-biotic,” and that the earth is producing it always as part of the natural inner-working of the planet. The real red-hearing is making us believe that it will run out, which is another belief that has kept the prices high. So environmental “Doomsday” predictions about a limited supply of “fossil” fuel are “fueling” the hype and price as well… no pun intended.)

Exxon’s fault? Or the same people – liberal democrats – who stopped us from drilling in ANWAR a decade ago which could have produced enough barrels each day to match what we get from Venezuela? It seems funny to me that the people bitching about the problem now are the same ones that caused it to begin with. I then zinged my co-worker about his belief (which mirrors Al Gores) that fossil fuels are hurting our Earth via “Global Warming.” I asked him what the best way to get people to conserve or look for alternative fuels would be. By now he was catching up to me, he said somewhat sheepishly “to make the prices higher so people are forced to look elsewhere.”

So Stop Bitching!!! I would be more pissed at our inept politicians about drilling and building refineries in “The 48” rather than demand Exxon stop making a profit and socialize them like many other now defunct nations (U.S.S.R. and NAZI Germany) have tried, and like they are once again trying in South America.

Who’s to blame for high gasoline prices?

San Francisco Chronicle

Brian P. Simpson

Thursday, April 14, 2005

Gasoline prices are at record highs again. Many think oil companies are to blame. A Field Poll from May 2004 showed that 77 percent of Californians believed this to be true. But this just shows that people are misinformed about who’s causing high gas prices. Investigating a few clues can help find out who’s responsible.

One thing is certain: Oil companies are not the culprits. In California, where gas prices are among the nation’s highest, the oil industry has been repeatedly investigated yet no evidence of “price manipulation” has ever been found.

Though other factors cause high gas prices, such as high taxes and increasing world demand, environmental regulation is among the primary reasons. For example, environmental regulation has significantly restricted drilling for oil in Alaska and on the continental shelf. More drilling will increase the supply and thus lower prices.

Furthermore, 18 different gasoline formulations are in use across the United States, making it much more costly to produce and distribute gasoline. These blends aren’t needed due to requirements of automobile engines, nor are they required by oil companies. The blends, including different ones used at different times of the year and in different geographic areas, are imposed by environmental regulations. Among other things, the regulations force refiners to incur greater costs in switching from the production of one blend to another. They also force refiners to produce a more costly “summer blend,” which is partially responsible for the rise in price.

The situation is worse in California, where environmental regulations are strictest. For example, California was one of three states to require the removal of the octane booster MTBE in January 2004. This reduced the gasoline supply by almost 10 percent, because MTBE accounted for about 10 percent of the volume in the old gasoline formula. Using corn-based ethanol as a replacement doesn’t help much, because California’s strict emissions regulations require the removal of almost the equivalent in other gasoline components to accommodate ethanol. Ethanol must also be shipped from the Midwest in trucks, because it cannot be produced in refineries and doesn’t travel well through pipelines.

As a result, gas prices were predicted to increase by 35 to 40 cents per gallon. Given that the average price in 2004 was almost 30 cents higher than in 2003, these predictions weren’t too far off.

Additionally, California required gasoline stations to install double- walled underground tanks, which forced many stations to rip perfectly good single-walled tanks out of the ground. California also imposes the harshest emissions requirements in the country, necessitating the use of a more costly, special blend of gasoline not produced anywhere else. It’s no accident that gas in California is generally 30 to 40 cents above the national average.

From drilling to refining to distribution, environmentalists have done everything they can to raise gas prices.

The above raises a question: Why do environmental regulations exist?

One might think they exist to protect consumers, but the evidence doesn’t show this. For instance, MTBE was banned based on claims that it causes cancer. However, it has never been shown to be a danger to humans in the amounts to which they are typically exposed, according to a study by the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Claims that it “causes cancer” are based on experiments in which mice were fed doses almost 70,000 times larger than to what humans are typically exposed. No scientist worthy of the title would make claims based on that extrapolation.

Environmentalists are not actually concerned with the well-being of man. Their real motive is to sacrifice man to nature by stopping industrial activity. For instance, Adam Kolton of the Alaska Wilderness League states, “Drilling the wildest place in America is objectionable no matter how it’s packaged.” David M. Graber, a research biologist with the National Park Service, states, “We are not interested in the utility of a particular species, or free-flowing river, or ecosystem, to mankind. They have … more value — to me — than another human body, or a billion of them.”

Oil companies deserve praise for producing an abundance of gasoline despite the massive burden of environmental regulations foisted upon them. To increase the gasoline supply, we need to start by eliminating needless environmental regulations, including drilling bans and prohibiting certain octane boosters. If the government makes the choice to protect people’s freedom, gasoline prices below a dollar-per-gallon won’t be just a relic of the past.

Brian P. Simpson is an assistant professor of economics at National University in San Diego and author of the upcoming “Markets Don’t Fail!” (Lexington Books).

 

Gas-price controls backfire in Hawaii Cost of fuel rises faster under new law, while drivers pay less in other 49 states

February 19, 2006 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Hawaii’s gas price controls, imposed last fall when the cost of fuel was hovering around $3 a gallon in many parts of the U.S., have actually triggered much higher costs for consumers.

As of Friday, Hawaii drivers were paying the highest per-gallon costs in the nation, with record-setting prices of as much as $3.39. A year ago, consumers in Hawaii were paying nearly $1 a gallon less. The national average today is $2.24 a gallon.

The price controls were set by the state Public Utilities Commission Sept. 1. The idea was that the limits would bring Hawaii’s gas prices in line with the mainland, which has traditionally had lower prices on many goods because of the transportation costs involved in delivering product to the islands.

Now there are moves afoot in the Hawaii legislature to scrap the price controls.

Hawaii’s current controls base limits on per-gallon charges by averaging wholesale gas prices in New York, Los Angeles and the Gulf Coast. The PUC then adds a 4-cent “location adjustment” fee and another 18 cents as a market margin factor. Then a few cents more are added for transportation costs to various islands. Wholesale prices are set by the bureaucrats every Wednesday and go into effect the following Sunday.

In a recent check Hawaii’s average cost per gallon was $2.84, followed by New York at $2.57, California at $2.53 and Connecticut at $2.47. The least expensive gas in the country is in Utah at $2.13.

Before the gas cap law, Hawaii paid an average of 44 cents more per gallon than the rest of the mainland. Since the law went into effect in September, however, the differential has increased to more than 50 cents per gallon.

Still, the proponents of the gas cap insist that prices would be even higher without the limits. Rep. Marcus Oshiro, an advocate of the gas cap, claims the new law has actually saved islanders $33 million. But even he is having second thoughts.

He said this week Hawaii has “achieved price parity with the mainland and in that sense, the law has been working.” But he also notes that “oil companies have posted record profits during this period and without greater transparency, we are unable to determine whether the cap has allowed unreasonable profits.

“Basically the implementation of the gas cap was not as we expected,” said Oshiro, the House majority leader. “The enforcement was not as vigorous as we thought it could be.”

Three House committees in Hawaii this week approved a proposal to suspend the gas cap as of July 1, while mandating the PUC to closely monitor data on the petroleum business in Hawaii, including new standards for the kinds of confidential business information the industry needs to provide to the PUC.

One of the gas cap’s key supporters is Senate Consumer Protection Chairman Ron Menor, who said he will do everything he can to make sure the cap stays in place.

“I cannot support a repeal because I think that would really be caving in to the oil industry that doesn’t want to be regulated,” Menor said.

Menor is proposing changes to the cap which he says could save drivers an extra 16-cents per gallon.

“Instead of talking about a repeal or suspension, legislators ought to be seriously considering strengthening and improving the law so we can provide even greater savings to consumers,” Menor said.

Meanwhile, free-market advocates say retailers charged the maximum allowable under the limits to compensate for the threat of not being able to profit in the future.