h1 politics essay

Leaving Cert Papers, News, Notes, Tips and Resources

Politics and Society

Higher Level Exam Papers

Ordinary Level Exam Papers

Higher Level Marking Schemes

Ordinary Level Marking Schemes

Get the Reddit app

Welcome to r/unimelb, a subreddit dedicated to the University of Melbourne community. Whether you are a current student, staff member, alumnus, or simply interested in the university, this subreddit is for you. This community serves as a platform for discussion on a variety of topics, from academic discussions, campus life experiences, and event updates to news and research insights. Members are encouraged to engage in respectful and informative conversation.

H1 Essay Tips

Anyone have any tips to H1 essays? Specifically for politics subjects. I can’t for the life of me break a 75.

Any advice is appreciated!!

A website to support students and teachers of A-Level Politics

Edexcel Past Questions and Topic Tracker

Paper 1: UK Politics and Core Political Ideas

Using the source, evaluate the view that UK democracy is in crisis (Sample).

Using the source, evaluate the view that the major parties still remain the dominant force in UK politics (Sample).

Evaluate the view that general elections in the UK are lost by the government rather than won by the opposition (Sample).

Evaluate the view that social factors determine voting behaviour (Sample).

To what extent do modern and classical liberals agree over the role of the state? (Sample).

To what extent are different socialists committed to ‘equality of outcome’? (Sample).

Using the source, evaluate the view that the outcomes of general elections are stable and predictable (2019).

Using the source, evaluate the view that proportional representation would improve elections to the House of Commons (2019).

Evaluate the view that think-tanks, lobbyists and pressure groups have little impact on government decisions (2019).

Evaluate the view that the only political parties that matter in our political system are the Labour and Conservative parties (2019).

To what extent do socialists have conflicting views over how the economy should operate? (2019)

To what extent are conservatives united in their view of society? (2019)

Using the source, evaluate the view that a person’s age and the media have now replaced social class and region as clear indicators of voting behaviour (2020).

Using the source, evaluate the view that state funding of political parties would be preferable to a situation in which a party can win a general election because it has more members and income than other parties (2020).

Evaluate the view that the actions of pressure groups have been more significant than government legislation in defending and promoting rights in the UK (2020).

Evaluate the view that the various electoral systems in use in the UK make significant differences to party representation (2020).

To what extent do modern liberals accept the ideas of classical liberals? (2020).

To what extent does socialism depend on a view of society based only on class? (2020).

Using the source, evaluate the view that opinion polls bring more advantages than disadvantages to elections and referendums (2021).

Using the source, evaluate the view that in a democracy MPs are free to ignore referendum results and their own political party’s manifesto (2021).

Evaluate the view that the emergence of multiple parties in the UK means that the Westminster electoral system must be changed (2021).

Evaluate the view that the influence of the media in politics is exaggerated; it is not heavily biased and has little power of persuasion (2021).

To what extent is liberalism more concerned with society than with the economy? (2021).

To what extent is there more to unite rather than divide the New Right from One-Nation conservatives? (2021).

Using the source, evaluate the view that ‘pick-and-mix’ politics is replacing ‘Left-Right’ politics and political parties are becoming more internally divided than ever. (2022)

Using the source, evaluate the view – with specific reference to at least one devolved region using an alternative electoral system – that the case for PR to replace the Westminster FPTP voting system has now been established (2022)

Evaluate the view that it is the media not pressure groups that has the greater influence on governments (2022)

Evaluate the view that neither individual rights nor collective rights in the UK are adequately protected and guaranteed (2022)

To what extent are conservatives united in their attitude towards the state? (2022)

To what extent is socialism more disunited than united? (2022)

Specimen Papers (Locked – Topics only, not questions)

Source 1 – Democracy and Participation

Source 2 – Electoral Systems

Essay 1 – Political Parties

Essay 2 – Electoral Systems

Ideologies 1 – Conservatism

Ideologies 2 – Conservatism

2022 Mock Papers (Locked – Topics only, not questions

Source 1 – Political Parties

Source 2 – Democracy and Participation

Essay 1 – Voting Behaviour

Essay 2 – Democracy and Participation

Ideologies 2 – Socialism

2023 Papers (Locked – Topics only, not questions)

Essay 1 – Electoral Systems

Essay 2 – Political Parties

Ideologies 1 – Liberalism

Paper 2: UK Government and Optional Political Ideologies

Paper 3A: US and Comparative Government and Politics

Paper 3B: Global Politics

Share this:

Recent posts, politics online – election newsletter.

What is the history of the Liberal Democrats and where do they stand today?

How effectively are Human Rights and Civil Liberties protected in the UK?

• 24 Mark Ideologies Question
• AQA – Paper 1
• Comparative Theories
• Constitution
• Democracy and Participation
• Edexcel – Paper 1
• Edexcel – Paper 2
• Edexcel – Paper 3B
• Electoral Systems
• Exam Papers
• Examination Skills
• Exemplar Essay
• Global Politics
• Human Rights and Environment
• Political and Economic Governance
• Political Ideologies
• Political Parties
• Power and Developments
• Regionalism
• Relations Between Branches
• Revision Guide
• The Executive
• The State and Globalisation
• UK Government
• UK Politics
• Uncategorized
• Voting Behaviour
• WJEC – Paper 1
• WJEC – Paper 2

• Complete Guide: H1 Leaving Cert History Guide 2023
• Theodore Roosevelt: Imperialist and Peacemaker 1901-1909 for Leaving Cert History #625Lab
• Terence O’Neill was a failure as a political leader for Leaving Cert History #625Lab
• History Predictions 2024 (Later Modern) for Leaving Cert Higher Level
• Racial equality during 1945-1989 for Leaving Cert History #625Lab
• How effective a leader was Joseph Stalin during World War II for Leaving Cert History #625Lab
• What were the main developments in church-state relations under Hitler and Mussolini?
• Partition of Ireland 1912 to 1920 for Leaving Cert History #625Lab
• Connolly and Larkin in the Irish Labour Movement for Leaving Cert History #625Lab
• Irish government and the consolidation of democracy 1922-32 for Leaving Cert History #625Lab

We’re very excited to present our work on Later Modern History (Higher Level). 

✔notes as detailed below

We have a lot of free notes online, see our contents here Don’t forget to subscribe for all the latest content and tips!

• Post author: Martina
• Post published: August 1, 2021
• Post category: History

You Might Also Like

US race relations, 1945-1968 for Leaving Cert History #625Lab

Lenin, stalin and economics and social change for leaving cert history #625lab, cosgrave and de valera for leaving cert history #625lab.

The Politics Shed- A Free Text Book for all students of Politics.

Edexcel A Level & AS Level

These resources follow the structure for edexcel a and as level government and politics .there are three units to be studied over two years click the links below to find out more:.

Past Exam Papers  

UNIT 1 :Politics in the UK (Year 12 & 13)

Unit 2 : governing the uk (year 12 & 13), unit 3 : comparative usa (year 13).

OR Unit 3 Global Politics  (Year 13)

Essays, Exams and Advice.  

Politics and Society - Higher

Here you will learn how to be an active citizen through social and political sciences.

Politics and Society is a new subject on the leaving cert that will be first examined in 2018. The subject aims to develop students' capacity to engage in reflective and active citizenship, informed by the insights and skills of social and political sciences.

The course has elements of sociology, anthropology, political studies and philosophy. 

Leaving Certificate Politics and Society can be broken down into four strands. 

• Power and decision-making
• Active citizenship
• Human rights and responsibilities
• Globalisation and localisation

Higher Level Course Content

• 1: Power and decision-making at national and European level
• 1: Power and decision-making in the school
• 2: Effectively contributing to communities
• 2: Rights and responsibilities in communication with others
• 3: Human rights and responsibilities in Europe and the wider world
• 3: Human rights and responsibilities in Ireland
• 4: Globalisation and identity
• 4: Sustainable development
• Data-Based questions
• Key Thinkers

Ordinary Level Course Content

The leaving cert assessment is made up of two parts. 

1. Report on a citizenship project (20%)

The written report will consist of three sections. 

• Section A: Rationale and research
• Section B: Execution of citizenship project
• Section C: Reflections on the knowledge gained and skills developed during the project

2. Written examination (80%)

The written paper takes 2hrs 30 mins and consists of three sections.  Section A contains short questions, Section B contains data-based questions and section C requires students to write essay-type answers. 

Future Careers

Politics and Society can be useful in a number of careers such as Public Administration, Psychology, History, Social Care and Politics.

Useful Links:

Download  Politics and Society Curriculum Specification . 

Download Politics and Society Chief Examiner's Report (2018)

Past Papers

Created by studyclix.

Community Activity

• Newsletters
• Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

Texas’ New Plan for Responding to the Horror of Its Abortion Ban: Blame Doctors

Last week, in a widely watched case, the Texas Supreme Court rejected the claims of Amanda Zurawski and her fellow plaintiffs that they had suffered injuries after being denied emergency access to abortion due to lack of clarity in the state’s abortion ban. Zurawski v. State of Texas has offered an important model for lawyers seeking to chip away at sweeping state bans and even eventually undermine Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization , the 2022 decision that overturned Roe v. Wade . Now the state Supreme Court’s decision offers a preview of conservatives’ response to the medical tragedies that have been all too common after Dobbs : to blame physicians and hint that the life of the fetus ultimately counts as much as or more than that of the pregnant patient.

From the beginning, Zurawski had significance for patients outside Texas. Republicans have been increasingly hostile to abortion exceptions since 2022, demanding that sexual assault victims report to law enforcement when such exemptions do exist, dropping rape and incest exemptions altogether in many other states, and going so far as to require physicians to prove their innocence rather than necessitating that prosecutors prove their guilt . Nevertheless, exceptions are critical to the post- Dobbs regime: They are popular with voters and offer the hope—in reality the illusion—that abortion bans do not operate as harshly as we may expect.

The Zurawski litigation illuminated how exceptions fail patients in the real world. Physicians, afraid of harsh sentences up to life in prison, turn away even those they feel confident will qualify under exceptions. The exemptions, by their own terms, do not apply to any number of serious medical complications or fetal conditions incompatible with life. The Zurawski plaintiffs argued that Texas’ law should cover these circumstances and that if the opposite was true, it was unconstitutional.

Although this did not succeed in Texas, Zurawski created a blueprint for litigation in other states. It also kicked off a political nightmare for Republicans. Earlier this year, when Kate Cox, a Texas woman who learned that her fetus had trisomy 18, a condition that usually proves fatal within the first year, the state’s Supreme Court denied her petition for an abortion. In the aftermath, Republicans were flummoxed about how to respond.

The Texas Supreme Court offered Republicans one way to address the emergencies Dobbs has produced. The court began by limiting physicians’ discretion about when to intervene. The plaintiffs in Zurawski argued that physicians require protection when they believe in good faith that they need to protect the life or health of their patients. The court disagreed, suggesting that the standard was whether a reasonable physician would believe a particular procedure to be lifesaving.

On the surface, this doesn’t sound so bad. Who doesn’t want doctors to have to act reasonably? But determining how sick a patient must be is never straightforward—and is all the more complicated when the wrong answer will be determined after the fact by a prosecutor and the physicians with whom they consult, and when guessing wrong will result in a penalty of up to life in prison.

The court’s message was that physicians were the problem. They had misunderstood what the court portrayed as a perfectly clear law. Doctors were the ones who had refused to act reasonably and denied help to the patients that the court thought were deserving, like Amanda Zurawski herself. Texas had stressed the same argument throughout litigation in the case.

Republicans may well borrow the same strategy. If Americans don’t like the new reality that Dobbs has brought on, the party will argue, the GOP is not to blame. It is all the doctors’ fault. This allows conservatives to have it both ways: They frighten—or, in the case of Kate Cox’s doctor, block—physicians who might be willing to offer “reasonable” care, then blame the physicians for failing to care for their patients.

The court’s interpretation of the state constitution was just as revealing. The plaintiffs had argued that Texas’ ban discriminated on the basis of sex because only some persons are capable of pregnancy. The court rejected this argument, drawing both on Dobbs and on claims that have emerged in cases about transgender youth. Regulating abortion, the court reasoned, was no different from regulating gender-affirming care—it was a rule governing a specific medical procedure, not discrimination on the basis of sex.

What about the right to life? The Dobbs case held that U.S. citizens have 14 th Amendment rights only when that liberty was deeply rooted in history and tradition. Is there a federal or state right to access abortion to avoid death or serious bodily harm? As Reva Siegel and I have written elsewhere , there seems to be historical evidence to support this argument. And the political case for such a right is strong too. If courts say that there is no constitutional limit on state abortion bans—even if patients bleed to death—that will raise yet more grave questions about what Dobbs permits.

The Texas Supreme Court did not rule out the idea that the state constitution recognizes a right to life for the patient—or deny that high courts in other conservative states had identified a right to lifesaving abortions. But if there was such a right, the court noted, it would account for “the lives of pregnant women experiencing life-threatening complications while also valuing and protecting unborn life.” In other words, the court suggested, fetuses too have rights to life, and that means that the state has every right to deny treatment to pregnant patients in an effort to prioritize the well-being of unborn ones. Texas may not yet have written fetal personhood—the idea that fetuses are rights-holding people—into its constitutional law in clear terms, but the idea of fetal rights has already affected the lives of pregnant patients in the state.

Voters don’t seem to like the idea that fetal rights trump patients’ rights. The Texas Supreme Court has suggested that judges, not voters, may be the ones who decide the question.

But even in dictating what happens to pregnant patients across the state, other Republicans will join the court in pointing the finger at the doctors charged with implementing draconian bans. “The law entrusts physicians,” the court explained, “with the profound weight of the recommendation to end the life of a child.”

The U.S. Supreme Court is likely to make things worse for pregnant patients later this month, when it hands down a ruling on whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act preempts an Idaho ban with very narrow emergency exceptions . None of this makes Zurawski a waste. It may not have changed the reality on the ground for patients in Texas, but it did tell an important story about the kind of America Dobbs has created—and it delivered voters a reminder that they still have the power to change it.

The Federalist No. 1: Annotated

Alexander Hamilton’s anonymous essay challenged the voting citizens of New York to hold fast to the truth when deciding to ratify (or not) the US Constitution.

In May 1788, the second volume of what would come to be called The Federalist Papers , a collection of both new and previously printed essays written to sell the ratification of the US Constitution to “The People of  the State of New York,” was published. Originally printed in newspapers in New York and elsewhere, The Federalist Papers are now foundational documents of American history and political thought.

Federalist No. 1, written by Alexander Hamilton using the pseudonym “Publius” , began as a response to two earlier essays written against the ratification (by “Cato” and “Brutus” respectively.) Hamilton proposed a series of writings “to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.” He was joined by James Madison and John Jay , ultimately producing eighty-five essays that are to this day used by scholars and Supreme Court justices alike to make their cases for the intent of the Constitution’s framers and its meanings.

Below is Hamilton’s opening salvo in the debate about the future of America: would it remain a confederation of states (as it had been under the Articles of Confederation ) or a new type of federalism, inspired by the Scottish Enlightenment, Montesquieu, and “Publius”? We have annotated the essay below, with scholarship on Constitutional history, the role The Federalist Papers continues to play in American legal and political life, and the style and rhetoric of the author(s). As always, these linked resources are free to read and download.

General Introduction

For the Independent Journal .

Author: Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York:

AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government , you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world . It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force . If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.

This idea will add the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism, to heighten the solicitude which all considerate and good men must feel for the event. Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected. The plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth.

Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government .

It is not, however, my design to dwell upon observations of this nature. I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable—the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears . So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society . This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion . A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty ; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

Weekly Newsletter

Get your fix of JSTOR Daily’s best stories in your inbox each Thursday.

Privacy Policy   Contact Us You may unsubscribe at any time by clicking on the provided link on any marketing message.

In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth. You will, no doubt, at the same time, have collected from the general scope of them, that they proceed from a source not unfriendly to the new Constitution. Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt it. I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I affect not reserves which I do not feel. I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth.

I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars:

• THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO YOUR POLITICAL PROSPERITY
• THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THAT UNION
• THE NECESSITY OF A GOVERNMENT AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT
• THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT
• ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION and lastly,
• THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATION OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY.

In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.

It may perhaps be thought superfluous to offer arguments to prove the utility of the UNION, a point, no doubt, deeply engraved on the hearts of the great body of the people in every State , and one, which it may be imagined, has no adversaries. But the fact is, that we already hear it whispered in the private circles of those who oppose the new Constitution, that the thirteen States are of too great extent for any general system , and that we must of necessity resort to separate confederacies of distinct portions of the whole. *   This doctrine will, in all probability, be gradually propagated, till it has votaries enough to countenance an open avowal of it. For nothing can be more evident, to those who are able to take an enlarged view of the subject, than the alternative of an adoption of the new Constitution or a dismemberment of the Union. It will therefore be of use to begin by examining the advantages of that Union, the certain evils, and the probable dangers, to which every State will be exposed from its dissolution. This shall accordingly constitute the subject of my next address.

*The same idea, tracing the arguments to their consequences, is held out in several of the late publications against the new Constitution. [ Editor’s Note: this note appeared in the margins of the original source. ]

[Text taken from the US Library of Congress: https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text ]

Support JSTOR Daily! Join our membership program on Patreon today.

JSTOR is a digital library for scholars, researchers, and students. JSTOR Daily readers can access the original research behind our articles for free on JSTOR.

Get Our Newsletter

More stories.

• Why Call for Divestment?

• The Uneven Costs of Cross-Country Connectivity

A Potash Primer

Lessons for American Zionism from the “Free Ireland” Cause

Recent posts.

• Aurorae and the Green of the Night Sky
• Heritage Bilinguals and the Second-Language Classroom
• IceCube Detector Confirms Deep-Space “Ghost Particle” Phenomenon

Support JSTOR Daily

Sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Trump called ‘Apprentice’ contestant a racist slur, former producer says

Bill Pruitt, who served as a producer on the reality show, said in an online essay that Trump used the slur when discussing who would win the show’s first season. “‘Yeah,’ he says to no one in particular, ‘but, I mean, would America buy a [n-word] winning?’” Pruitt wrote.

Former president Donald Trump used a racist slur while discussing a contestant on “The Apprentice” during a recorded conversation two decades ago, a former producer for the show wrote in a new essay .

The producer, Bill Pruitt, said Trump made the comment while deciding between a Black finalist, Kwame Jackson, and a White finalist, Bill Rancic, in the finale of the show’s first season, which aired in 2004. As Trump adviser Carolyn Kepcher, who served as a judge on the show, began advocating for Jackson, Trump winced multiple times and questioned Jackson’s performance on the show, Pruitt wrote.

“I mean, would America buy a [n-word] winning?” Trump asked, according to Pruitt in his essay that Slate published Thursday.

Trump ultimately picked Rancic and awarded him a job at the Trump Organization. The reality competition series ran for 15 seasons, helping make Trump a household name before his first presidential campaign in 2016. Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee in 2024, again running against President Biden after losing to him in 2020.

Trump’s campaign said Pruitt’s account was a “completely fabricated … story that was already peddled in 2016.”

“Nobody took it seriously then, and they won’t now, because it’s fake news,” Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said in a statement to The Post. “Now that Crooked Joe Biden and the Democrats are losing the election and Black voters are rejecting their policies, they are bringing up old fake stories from the past because they are desperate.”

Trump has a long history of espousing antagonistic views toward African Americans. He declined to apologize in 2019 for taking out ads in 1989 that targeted the Central Park Five, a group of Black and Latino men who were wrongly convicted of raping a jogger in New York City. And Trump gained political notoriety during Barack Obama’s presidency by embracing the false claim that Obama — the nation’s first Black president — was ineligible to be president because he was not a natural-born citizen.

During the first year of his presidency, Trump drew widespread condemnation when he said there were “ very fine people on both sides ” of a 2017 white nationalist and supremacist rally in Charlottesville that turned violent.

Despite his history, Trump has been making increasing appeals to Black voters in his race against Biden, including during a South Bronx rally last week .

Pruitt, one of four producers who worked on the show in its first two seasons, said he was bound by an “expansive nondisclosure agreement” that expired this year. He would have faced a $5 million fine or possibly jail time if he violated the agreement, he said.

Pruitt said the conversation was recorded as part of the show’s efforts to ensure such off-air deliberations did not run afoul of federal regulations for game shows.

Jackson, the contestant Pruitt says Trump described using the slur, said in a 2016 interview with Salon that at the time he was on the show, he did not think race played a role in his loss to Rancic. But Jackson said he later came to believe race factored into the outcome.

Jackson spoke out against Trump’s 2016 candidacy in the interview , saying he has “no interest in supporting someone who I think is, at his core, racist.”

The essay also described multiple instances in which Trump made sexist remarks about the appearance of women working on the show. Trump once told a female camera operator to get off an elevator because she was “too heavy,” Pruitt recalled. Trump also told other people on the set that another female camera operator was a “beautiful woman” who is “all I want to look at,” according to the former producer.

There has been intrigue for years surrounding possible unreleased tapes from “The Apprentice,” especially after the 2016 campaign. Weeks before that election, a recording surfaced from a 2005 hot-mic conversation with “Access Hollywood” co-anchor Billy Bush in which Trump boasted about kissing, groping and trying to have sex with women.

The creator of “The Apprentice,” celebrity producer Mark Burnett, said at the time that he “does not have the ability nor the right to release footage or other material from ‘The Apprentice.’ ”

Trump said in a 2018 social media post that Burnett told him there were “NO TAPES of the Apprentice” where he used the same racist slur that Pruitt attributed to him. Trump called it a “terrible and disgusting word.” At the time, Trump was responding to claims by former White House aide Omarosa Manigault-Newman — once a contestant on the show — that there was a tape of him using the slur during the show’s filming.

Efforts to reach Burnett for comment Thursday through multiple publicly listed points of contact were unsuccessful.

Pruitt’s account comes as Biden is working to shore up his support among Black voters against Trump in their November election rematch. Biden and Vice President Harris, who is Black, visited Philadelphia on Wednesday to launch an initiative called “Black Voters for Biden-Harris.”

Responding to Pruitt’s essay, Biden’s campaign said it was more proof that Trump is a “textbook racist who disrespects and attacks the Black community every chance he gets, and the most ignorant man to ever run for president.”

“No one is surprised that Donald Trump, who entered public life by falsely accusing Black men of murder and entered political life spreading lies about the first Black president, reportedly used the N-word to casually denigrate a successful Black man,” Biden campaign spokesperson Jasmine Harris said in a statement. “Anyone notice a pattern?”

Election 2024

Get the latest news on the 2024 election from our reporters on the campaign trail and in Washington.

Who is running?: President Biden and Donald Trump secured their parties’ nominations for the presidency . Here’s how we ended up with a Trump-Biden rematch .

Presidential debates: Biden and Trump agreed to a June 27 debate on CNN and a Sept. 10 debate broadcast by ABC News.

Key dates and events: From January to June, voters in all states and U.S. territories will pick their party’s nominee for president ahead of the summer conventions. Here are key dates and events on the 2024 election calendar .

Abortion and the election: Voters in about a dozen states could decide the fate of abortion rights with constitutional amendments on the ballot in a pivotal election year. Biden supports legal access to abortion , and he has encouraged Congress to pass a law that would codify abortion rights nationwide. After months of mixed signals about his position, Trump said the issue should be left to states . Here’s how Biden’s and Trump’s abortion stances have shifted over the years.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Harvard Should Say Less. Maybe All Schools Should.

By Noah Feldman and Alison Simmons

Dr. Feldman is a law professor and Dr. Simmons is a professor of philosophy, both at Harvard.

Last fall, Harvard University’s leadership found itself at the center of a highly public, highly charged fight about taking an official institutional position in connection with the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel and the war in Gaza.

First, critics denounced the school for being too slow to issue a statement on the matter. Then, after a statement was released by Harvard’s president, Claudine Gay, and 17 other senior Harvard officials, some critics attacked it for being insufficiently forceful in condemning the Hamas attack, while others criticized it for being insufficiently forceful in condemning Israel’s retaliation.

One of the many sources of confusion at the time was that Harvard, like many other universities, did not have a formal policy on when and whether to issue official statements. In the absence of a policy, Harvard not only had to figure out what to say or not say; it also had to deal with the perception that not issuing a statement, or not issuing one fast enough, would in effect be a statement, too.

Fortunately, Harvard now does have official guidance for a policy on university statements, in the form of a report issued on Tuesday by a faculty working group on which we served together as chairs, and endorsed by the president, provost and deans. The report recommends a policy based on both principle and pragmatism, one that we hope can enable Harvard — and any other school that might consider adopting a similar policy — to flourish in our highly polarized political era.

In brief, the report says that university leaders can and should speak out publicly to promote and protect the core function of the university, which is to create an environment suitable for pursuing truth through research, scholarship and teaching. If, for example, Donald Trump presses forward with his announced plan to take “billions and billions of dollars” from large university endowments to create an “American Academy” — a free, online school that would provide an “alternative” to current institutions — Harvard’s leadership can and should express its objections to this terrible idea.

It makes sense for university leaders to speak out on matters concerning the core function of the institution: That is their area of expertise as presidents, provosts and deans. But they should not, the report says, take official stands on other matters. They should not, for instance, issue statements of solidarity with Ukraine after Russia’s invasion, no matter how morally attractive or even correct that sentiment might be.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .