In this series, Tess Anderson looks back on news events impacting the NEC community and provides an update.
Scottish Independence
In February 2012, The NewEnglander reported the proposal made by the Scottish government on a referendum that would allow Scottish citizens to vote for independence.
Later that year in October, an agreement between the U.K. and Scottish governments, called the Edinburgh Agreement, was made, which enabled the referendum to take place. Along with the Edinburgh Agreement, a Section 30 Order was also approved that stated the Scottish Parliament was within its powers to hold the referendum as long as the referendum occurred before the end of 2014. Essentially, the Scottish Parliament was only given the ability to hold the referendum temporarily, as the Scottish government “cannot pass legislation that related to various ‘reserved’ matters including ‘the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England’.”
Two years after the proposal on September 18, 2014, Scottish voters were asked, ‘Should Scotland become an independent country?’ to which 45% of voters voted in favor of independence and 55% voted against.
Although Scottish people rejected independence in 2014, many Scots are still hoping for an independent nation, particularly the Scottish National Party, which first advocated and proposed the referendum, and are still pushing for another referendum to take place that would secure their independence from the United Kingdom.
Scottish independence has remained a topic of interest for many Scots, especially after the U.K.’s decision to leave the European Union (EU) in 2016. Scottish people largely voted against Brexit, as 62% of Scottish voters wanted to remain in the European Union, which left many Scots unhappy with the decision to leave the EU. The former First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, said in a statement following the vote that “as things stand, Scotland faces the prospect of being taken out of the EU against our will.” Sturgeon followed this statement by explaining how many voters during the referendum voted against independence because they were “told” that independence would end their membership in the EU and rejecting their independence would protect their membership in the EU.
The former First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, and other members of the Scottish National Party have argued that another referendum should be allowed to take place as “there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014” and that “the option of a second referendum must be on the table.”
Nicola Sturgeon, during her time as First Minister of Scotland, had attempted to put forth another referendum for Scottish independence. Although there has seemingly been a renewed push for Scottish independence, the Scottish Parliament does not have the ability to hold another independence referendum. As previously explained, the Scottish government was only given the temporary right to hold the referendum in 2014 and would not be able to hold another referendum unless the UK government approved it. The UK Supreme Court in 2022 also clearly ruled that the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to legislate for another referendum for Scottish independence.
The current First Minister, John Swinney, is also a member of the Scottish National Party and supports an independent Scotland. Just last month, Swinney argued in a speech for an independent Scottish nation and stated that “for the sake of our security and our prosperity, Scotland returning as swiftly as possible to membership of the EU must be a core national priority…”
Recent surveys, such as YouGov in January 2026, have shown that about 47% of those surveyed voted yes for Scottish independence and 53% voted no. Other polls from January, including one from Norstat, however, showed that 48% of respondents voted for Scottish independence and 46% against.
NEC Fraternity Does Blackface
An NEC fraternity faced significant backlash after performing an insensitive routine for the annual Greek Gong Show in 1991. In February 2014, The NewEnglander wrote about the controversial history of fraternities at NEC and one particular story and image stood out at among the rest.
Sigma Phi Delta’s (SPD) performance for the Gong Show was a Jackson 5 tribute that featured frat brothers singing and dancing in afro wigs and blackface.
SPD reportedly recognized their actions after their performance in letters published by The NewEnglander. The brothers responded that they “did not intend to be racist, but the content of their skit may have been perceived as being insensitive and distasteful.”
Various members of the NEC community, including the Student Senate, professors, and other faculty members, issued comments on the situation, calling Sigma Phi Delta’s actions unacceptable and not a reflection of the community. In a comment made by the Student Senate, they argued that this incident was a chance for NEC students to become educated on an issue that is prevalent across the world, not just at New England College.
The Greek Council implemented a new policy following the incident at the Greek Gong Show, and required future performances to be screened before the event.
The statement made by the Student Senate was certainly right about the worldwide issue of blackface and racial insensitivity at the time. In the 1980s and 1990s, blackface was somewhat normalized and was frequently seen within the media. Movies like Trading Places and Soul Man were released in the 1980s, which portrayed white men stereotypically dressing and “acting” as black men. Movies and shows presented blackface as comedic.
Blackface has a long-standing history, especially within the United States, as it has been used by White Americans to mock and stereotype Black Americans. Blackface can be dated back to the early 1830s where minstrel shows began being performed that showed “white performers with blackened faces… and tattered clothing who imitated and mimicked enslaved Africans on Southern plantations.”
Celebrities and other major public figures in recent years have been exposed or questioned about their history of doing blackface. Jimmy Fallon is one on these celebrities who have come out and apologized for previously doing blackface, which he did on Saturday Night Live in 2000, where he was impersonating Chris Rock. Last year, Fernanda Torres apologized for wearing blackface in a Brazilian comedy sketch in the early 2000s and notably the former Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau issued a statement after a photo of him wearing brownface/blackface was released.
Instances of blackface in the media were still ridiculed at the time, as was Sigma Phi Delta for their performance. The NewEnglander, however, did not explicitly state if SPD received any formal punishment.
A Fight Against New Hampshire House Bills
New Hampshire House Bills 1148 and 1457 were hot topics at NEC in February 2012, as an NEC adjunct lecturer appeared at both legislative hearings to testify in opposition to the bills. The house bills were sponsored by Republican representatives and were concerning the teaching of science in public schools.
House Bill 1148 would “require evolution to be taught as a theory in public schools of this state as a theory, including the theorists’ political and ideological viewpoints and their position on the concept.”
House Bill 1457 stated that it would “require science teachers to instruct pupils that the proper scientific inquire results from not committing to any one theory or hypothesis, no matter how firmly it appears to be established, and that scientific and technological innovations based on new evidence can challenge accepted scientific theories or modes.”
These house bills failed to pass and were killed around a week apart.
Gary Hopper, one of the two representatives who sponsored HB 1457, was outspoken about his beliefs regarding the teaching of science in public schools. The Concord Monitor reported that Hooper had stated that he “want[ed] to introduce children to the idea that they have a purpose for being here.” Although HB 1457 did not explicitly propose changing how evolution is taught in public schools as HB 1148 did, Hopper was pushing for public school students to be taught the concept of intelligent design but claimed that he did not introduce this concept in his bill as other bills throughout the country had attempted to but failed to pass.
The sponsor for HB 1148, Jerry Bergevin, was also against how evolution was being taught, as the bill clearly indicated his opposition to evolution being presented as a scientific “fact” rather than just a “theory” in NH public schools. Bergevin spoke to the Concord Monitor, and he explained that he “wanted the full portrait of evolution and the people who came up with the idea to be presented.” The Concord Monitor no longer has this article available to access on their website but has been cited by NBC NEWS on January 1, 2012.
Proponents of intelligent design generally believe that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”
Anti-evolution bills or other legislation with the purpose of limiting or changing how science is taught in schools have continued to be presented throughout the U.S. Just last month in Arizona, Senate Bill 1025 was introduced, which states that “public school may provide instruction in evolution by natural selection only if the school provides concurrent instruction in intelligent design.” New Hampshire has also recently attempted to pass legislation on this topic through House Bill 1206, which was introduced in 2024. This bill was created with the intent to teach “education not indoctrination.” The bill would have prohibited “educators and school administration from pushing or asserting, advocating for, or otherwise compelling belief in, any particular theory or ideology.” The bill subsequently added that “educators shall not present unproved theories as fact. In order to further discussion and thought by students, freeing them to form and argue for their own belief systems…”
The New Hampshire House bill 1206 was not successful and similarly died after being introduced, as did the bills in 2012.
High-Speed Rail in the United States
Former President Barack Obama proposed a bold budget plan for the development of high-speed rails in February 2011. The proposed plan was to cost $53 million over the span of six years which would be used for the “construction of a national high-speed and intercity passenger rail network.” Obama additionally requested $8 billion to invest in high-speed rails for the following fiscal year in 2012. Obama ultimately aimed to be able to “give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail” in 25 years.
Congress, however, did not approve of Obama’s request for $8 billion to invest in a high-speed rail network and the proposed $53 billion that would be dispersed over a six-year span.
Obama’s high-speed rail plan was criticized by certain Republicans who generally argued that the budget was too expensive. Republican Representative Bill Shuster responded to the rejection of funds by staying that it marks “an end to President Obama’s misguided high-speed rail program.”
During former President Joe Biden’s administration, he attempted to improve the funding high-rail projects. The Biden Administration awarded $6 billion to California to build a high-speed train with intention that the train will run from San Francisco to Los Angeles. California plans to build a high-speed rail that would be able to reach a little over 200 mph, making it the fastest train in the United States.
The Environmental and Energy Study Institute explains that trains that can reach around 120 to 160 mph are generally considered to be high-speed. Other countries, however, have been able to produce trains that can go over 200 mph. Currently the highest-speed trains in the United States are the NextGen Acela, which can run at speeds up to 160 mph and was released in August of last year.
The Trump administration cut $4 billion in federal funding toward California’s high-speed rail program last year, which has been met with much outrage from the California High-Speed Rail Authority and by the Governor of California, Gavin Newsom. In 2026, U.S. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz announced an investigative report on “how, despite billions of dollars in state and federal funding, California’s high-speed rail is nowhere close to functioning.”
This situation is ongoing.
