Plus special access to select articles and other premium content with your account – free of charge.
By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive.
Please enter a valid email address.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Editor’s note: The following column first appeared on the author’s blog, Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks.
Advertisement
There is a controversy in Oregon over a proposed change in the ethics rule from the Oregon Medical Board. At issue is the use of “microaggressions” to discipline doctors and to make reporting such transgressions mandatory for all doctors. It seems before you can give stitches, you have to join snitches under one of the most ambiguous categories of prescribed speech.
I have been a critic of microaggression rules on college campuses and discuss this trend in my book out this week, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” In past debates over this category of offensive speech, I have objected that it is hopelessly vague and highly controversial.
That ambiguity creates a threat to free speech through a chilling effect on speakers who are unsure of what will be considered microaggressive. Terms ranging from “melting pot” to phrases like “pulling oneself up by your own bootstraps” have been declared racist. Some of those have been identified by Columbia professor Derald Wing Sue, cited by Oregon’s state government as a “microaggressions expert.”
THINK TWICE? BAR GROUP TELLS MEMBERS IT’S OK TO CRITICIZE, BUT DON’T DARE CALL TRUMP CONVICTION ‘PARTISAN’
The Hippocratic oath is based on the pledge that doctors will ‘first do no harm.’ Unfortunately, that pledge does not appear to apply to free speech in Oregon.
Advertisement
Professor Sue considers statements like “Everyone can succeed if they just work hard enough!” as an example of a microaggression. Sue’s work on “microassaults,” “microinsults,” and “microinvalidations” are being effectively adopted by the Board.
Notably, when I have objected to this category, advocates have insisted that they are merely voluntary and instructive, not mandatory. I have long argued that they are used in a mandatory fashion by triggering investigations of professors and would inevitably be made mandatory.
That appears to be happening in Oregon. A couple of conservative sites have covered the controversy.
The incorporation of microaggressions under the new ethics rules is precisely what some of us have been warning about for years. As is often the case, activists begin by insisting that language monitoring is purely instructional and optional before codifying those rules in mandatory terms.
Under the new ethics rule from the Oregon Medical Board, “unprofessional conduct” (over which a doctor can lose his or her license) will include microaggressions:
Advertisement
“In the practice of medicine, podiatry, or acupuncture, discrimination through unfair treatment by implicit and explicit bias, including microaggressions, or indirect or subtle behaviors that reflect negative attitudes or beliefs about a non-majority group.”
The new section “J” ranks microaggressions with fraud, sexual assault, and ordering unnecessary or harmful surgeries.
The Oregon Medical Board states that:
“The proposed rule amendments update the definition of “unprofessional conduct” to include discrimination in the practice of medicine, podiatry, and acupuncture, which would make discrimination a ground for discipline. The proposed rule may favorably impact racial equity by making discrimination a ground for discipline for OMB licensees. It is not known how the other proposed rule amendments will impact racial equity in the state.”
The incorporation of microaggressions under the new ethics rules is precisely what some of us have been warning about for years. As is often the case, activists begin by insisting that language monitoring is purely instructional and optional before codifying those rules in mandatory terms.
Advertisement
We have seen the same trajectory in other areas like land acknowledgments where the line between the optimal and the mandatory is hard to discern. As discussed in my book:
“What began as voluntary statements have become either expressly or implicitly mandatory…George Brown College in Toronto requires faculty and students alike to agree to a land acknowledgment statement to even gain access to virtual classrooms. While such statements are portrayed as optional, they are often enforced as compulsory. The University of Washington encouraged faculty to add a prewritten ‘Indigenous land acknowledgment’ statement to their syllabi. The recommended statement states that ‘The University of Washington acknowledges the Coast Salish peoples of this land, the land which touches the shared waters of all tribes and bands within the Suquamish, Tulalip and Muckleshoot nations.’
Computer science professor Stuart Reges decided to write his own statement. He declared…’I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.’ … He was told that, while the university statement is optional, his statement was unacceptable because it questioned the indigenous land claim of the Coast Salish people. Reges’s dissenting statement was removed, and the university emailed his students offering an apology for their professor’s ‘offensive’ opinion and advising them on ‘three ways students could file complaints against’ him.”
Federal courts have ruled in favor of academics in disputes over microaggression rules, but the movement is expanding beyond campuses, as shown in Oregon.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
Advertisement
I have no objection to the sharing of views of others on how certain phrases are received. I have dropped certain terms or phrases even though I did not see why a term or phrase is insulting. It was enough that others find certain language to be insulting and I do not want to make them feel uncomfortable. Yet, this category of speech was created to encompass a broad, ill-defined range of speech that falls below outright discriminatory or harassing language. That makes for a dangerously vague standard for a mandatory reporting rule.
The free speech concern is how such microaggressive terms can be used to curtail or punish speech, including supporting complaints for formal investigations. Disciplinary actions often seem based on how language is received rather than intended. Schools need to be clear as to whether microaggressive language can be the basis for bias complaints and actions.
Consider again the language from the Oregon Medical Board. It would encompass any “indirect or subtle behaviors that reflect negative attitudes or beliefs about a non-majority group.” The standard is heavily laden with subjectivity. (Notably, it does not include making such comments about any majority group, presumably whites or males).
The board then amplifies the standard by making it mandatory for other doctors to report colleagues. Under the proposed rule,
“A licensee must report within 10 business days to the Board any information that appears to show that a licensee is or may be medically incompetent or is or may be guilty of unprofessional or dishonorable conduct or is or may be a licensee with a physical incapacity.”
Advertisement
So, doctors will have to police any “indirect or subtle behaviors” that “reflect negative attitudes or beliefs”… or face discipline themselves.
The Hippocratic oath is based on the pledge that doctors will “first do no harm.” Unfortunately, that pledge does not appear to apply to free speech in Oregon. Rather than merely publish opinions on phrases or practices that can be seen as microaggressive, the Oregon Medical Board is about to impose an ambiguous speech regulation that is likely viewed by some doctors as turning them into social-warrior snitches.
The Oregon Medical Board should remove the microaggressive provision. Sometimes the best treatment is the least intrusive.
VIDEO: Hundreds of loved ones and first responders gathered Saturday to celebrate the life of Nicholas Hutcherson, an Arizona wildland firefighter killed late last month while battling a wildfire in Colorado.
Hutcherson was part of a Helitack crew trained to respond to remote areas and contain wildfires before they spread.
He was one of three wildland firefighters killed June 27.
His father, Ron Hutcherson, said his son sent him a text message the morning he died, saying he was on his way to a fire and would try to call that evening.
Advertisement
“The text included a picture from inside his Helitack helicopter,” Ron Hutcherson said. “One of his crew members had a Snoopy on their helmet — he knew how much me and my wife loved Snoopy.”
That evening, a call came — but not from Nicholas.
Saturday, Ron Hutcherson read a letter addressed to his son, recounting their shared memories — including the moment a young Nicholas fell in love with the fire department.
Widening income inequality and a growing number of U.S. billionaires is supercharging the political debate around wealth taxes, at both the national and local level. Democratic lawmakers and candidates, including some from the party’s energized democratic socialist wing, are promising to impose new levies on the über-wealthy should they win control of Congress, citing both fiscal and moral imperatives. Many blue states and cities are exploring similar measures, even as critics warn of high-income residents fleeing to lower-tax red states.
A key test will come this fall in California, where voters will decide whether to impose a one-time 5% tax on the state’s billionaires. The Golden State has a history of pioneering policy ideas via ballot initiatives.
Supporters say the ballot measure, sponsored by a healthcare workers union, would generate needed funds to cover rising healthcare costs for low-income people. Critics – including Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom – say it could decimate the state’s tax base by driving wealthy people away. Opposition groups, funded in large part by Google co-founder Sergey Brin, have spent over $100 million to try to defeat the initiative. They are backing two counterinitiatives that would undercut the billionaire tax and that will also appear on this November’s ballot.
Why We Wrote This
With the top 1% holding nearly one-third of household wealth in the United States, efforts to impose new levies on the wealthy have been gaining traction. A key test will come this fall in California, where voters will decide whether to impose a one-time 5% tax on the state’s billionaires.
Advertisement
“What happens in California is going to determine the course of what happens in this country on this issue,” said California Rep. Ro Khanna, who supports the billionaire tax, on a call with reporters last month. “This fight is defining, for what type of Democratic Party we’re going to be.”
Taxing the rich has long been a familiar refrain among Democrats. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has been calling for wealth taxes for decades, and President Joe Biden proposed a billionaire tax in 2024. With the top 1% holding nearly one-third of household wealth in the United States, efforts to impose new levies on high-net-worth individuals have been gaining traction.
Katie Godowski/MediaPunch /IPX/AP
Advertisement
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders holds a “Tax the Rich” Rally at Lehman College in New York City, March 29, 2026.
In Washington state, which historically has not had an income tax, legislators this spring passed a 9.9% tax on incomes over $1 million. Opponents there are mobilizing behind a referendum to repeal the measure, which appears headed for the November ballot. Maine’s governor this spring signed into law a new income tax surcharge on incomes exceeding $1 million, and legislatures in Minnesota and Rhode Island have passed similar measures.
Advertisement
In New York, Mayor Zohran Mamdani won a historic victory last fall with a campaign that promised to impose new taxes on the wealthy while making life more affordable for ordinary New Yorkers. While New York legislators have not moved ahead on Mr. Mamdani’s biggest tax proposals, in May they passed a tax on second homes worth more than $1 million.
California’s wealth tax, known as Proposition 40, would apply to all billionaires who were living in the state at the start of 2026. Proposed by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, 90% of revenue from the tax will be earmarked to cover funding gaps caused by federal cuts to Medicaid; the other 10% would go to food assistance and public education from kindergarten through two years of community college.
New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani (third from left) holds a forum with economists at CUNY Graduate Center in New York to discuss the increasing gap in incomes between the very rich and the rest of the population, April 15, 2026.
Advertisement
Hours after the measure officially qualified for the November ballot, Mr. Newsom, who is term-limited and thought to be eyeing a White House run, announced his support for a federal wealth tax instead. Mr. Khanna and Mr. Sanders, who also support the California tax, introduced a bill in March for a 5% annual wealth tax on billionaires, which they say would raise $4.4 trillion in revenue over 10 years.
When congressional Republicans passed President Donald Trump’s tax and spending plan last summer, they approved tax cuts for wealthier Americans and funding cuts to food benefits and healthcare. With the cost of living rising and gas prices up since the start of the Iran war, voters are concerned about affordability and disapprove of Mr. Trump’s handling of the economy, according to polls.
Surveys show slightly higher public support for raising income taxes on top earners than for a wealth tax. A majority of Americans support higher taxes on the wealthy, and more than 80% say they’re bothered by the feeling that wealthy people don’t pay their fair share.
“We think this is about values, we think this is about fairness, we think this is about equity,” said Dave Regan, president of SEIU-UHW, on a press call with Mr. Khanna. “We believe that Californians are willing to say that the most fortunate and the wealthiest people among us can put forth a modest, one-time 5% tax so that millions and millions and millions of people will continue to have at least a stable health insurance system.”
Advertisement
California – which has a progressive tax system that relies heavily on high earners as a source of revenue – is home to more than 200 billionaires, though some have relocated in recent years. Elon Musk, who recently became the world’s first trillionaire, moved his family and some of his business operations from California to Texas. Mr. Brin reportedly moved to the Nevada coast of Lake Tahoe early in 2026. Others – like Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, and Bill Gates – own homes in other states as well as in California.
The proposed tax, if approved by voters, would raise about $100 billion, according to its architects. But critics say in the long run it could actually result in decreased revenue for the state. Even though the ballot measure is only a one-time tax, they predict many billionaires will anticipate that more such taxes will likely follow, and move out of state in response.
“[California gets] the one-time windfall of taxing the wealth, but then if [rich] people leave after that, they’re missing out on all of the income and capital gains taxes that would come for all of the future years they would have lived in California,” says Adam Michel, director of tax studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, shown at the Obama Presidential Center June 18, 2026, in Chicago, does not support the proposed billionaire tax in his state but says he favors a federal tax instead.
Advertisement
California’s dependence on tax revenue from high-income people, Dr. Michel says, makes it especially vulnerable to shocks like a downturn in the stock market – or people and businesses moving away.
Supporters of the wealth tax say those concerns are overblown.
“It is a total fallacy that this is going to mean that investment leaves California,” said Mr. Khanna, who represents a district in the Bay Area, on a press call. “There’s more capital infusion into California than ever before. No one thinks that the AI revolution is happening in Miami, Florida. It’s happening in Silicon Valley.”
Advertisement
In countries like Spain, where there might be three different wealth taxes in a 50-kilometer radius, studies have shown that wealthy people don’t tend to move in response, says Brian Galle, a law professor at University of California, Berkeley, and one of the authors of the California measure.
“The overwhelming evidence is that very few people move in response to wealth taxes,” says Professor Galle. “People are pretty embedded in their work and social lives.”
It’s possible to structure a tax so it doesn’t distort behavior, says Kyle Pomerleau, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Ideally, the tax would be retroactive, only applying to economic activity that already took place. It’s also better if the tax kicks in at the same time that it’s announced. And it needs to be one-time, he says.
Reassuring people on that last point may be hard in this case, though. While the architects of the billionaire tax say it is only a one-time levy, “if voters are willing to pass this one-time tax, it’s possible they’re willing to pass another,” says Mr. Pomerleau.
Mr. Regan, the president of the union, calls the state-level tax an imperfect solution. In a perfect world, the tax would be federal, he said in a press briefing the night the measure officially qualified for the California ballot. But that would require Democratic control of Congress. For now, the union views this as the next-best step.
Advertisement
Billionaire Tax Now, the coalition backed by the union to campaign for the measure, has far fewer resources than Building a Better California, the billionaire-backed coalition supporting the countermeasures.
There’s some concern voters might get confused among the three different ballot initiatives pertaining to the billionaire tax, two of which are designed to effectively neutralize it. One countermeasure would prohibit new taxes on retirement accounts and other assets, and includes a provision prohibiting retroactive taxes. The other requires audits of any state program funded by special taxes before funds are received. It would also prohibit California from creating or collecting new taxes that bypass the state’s appropriations limit, which caps the growth of tax-funded spending.
Wealth tax proponents note that California’s billionaires have seen their assets grow substantially just in the past six months.
“The estimates I’ve seen say that already this year their wealth has grown by 6% or 7%,” says Professor Galle, who also helped to author former President Biden’s proposed billionaire minimum income tax. “Even after they pay this tax, they’ll be richer at the end of the year than when they started.”
Colorado’s housing market wrapped up the spring season with more inventory than in previous years, setting up an active summer for buyers — even as economic and political uncertainty continues to drive up prices.
Colorado continued its momentum toward a “balanced and sustainable environment” in May, according to a Colorado Association of Realtors’ market trends report released in June.
Demand remained steady statewide, but buyers gained more choices thanks to higher overall inventory. New listings dropped nearly 14% in May compared to the same month last year, but pending sales increased 7%. This indicates spring buyers were more active than they were in 2025 despite affordability challenges.
“Summer visitors are beginning to arrive, and buyers and sellers are testing the waters for what many expect to be a busy season,” said Dana Cottrell, president of the Altitude Realtors Association, in the report.
Advertisement
Median and average sales prices rose across the state, up 2.7% and 3.3%, respectively, for the month. The median sales price for single-family homes sat at $565,000 — up $15,000 year over year — and $400,000 for condos and townhomes, which saw a modest 1.7% drop. Sellers are, for the most part, receiving close to 99% of a home’s list price, down a feeble -0.1% year over year.
Accompanying May’s higher prices was an increase in the average time a home spent on the market, jumping to 56 days from 53 in 2025.
Although sales were down slightly across the state, inventory remains significantly healthier than the historically low levels of recent years, with 4.3 months of supply statewide.
A balanced real estate market is traditionally indicated by four to six months of supply, measuring the time it would take to sell the current inventory of homes at the existing pace of sales. Anything less than four months would be a seller’s market (demand outpaces supply), while anything more than six would benefit buyers (supply outpaces demand).
Advertisement
While a useful indicator, it can often be unreliable on its own for determining market health in rural Colorado counties due to low sales volume and fragmented property types. Months supply is often over the six-month threshold in ski towns because homes take longer to sell, and don’t automatically point to a buyer’s market.
Rural counties on the Western Slope recorded a larger supply of homes in May for the most part — ranging from 5.5 months supply in Summit County for single-family homes to 10.5 and 8.4 months supply in Pitkin and Grand counties, respectively, according to May 2026 data from the Colorado Association of Realtors.
“Sellers are facing more competition and must price strategically, while buyers see benefit from selection and negotiating power,” the report states. “Overall, the market reflects normalization, with stable pricing, improving affordability and steady buyer activity providing a more sustainable housing environment across the state.”
On the Western Slope, higher inventory brings more negotiation power for buyers, who are becoming more active compared to this time last year. Many buyers are still moving forward despite the combination of rising prices, rising mortgage rates and economic uncertainty.
Western Slope counties see rise in buyer activity
Similar to statewide trends, some mountain towns in Colorado’s western rural counties are seeing higher inventory compared to past years, offering more options for potential buyers.
Advertisement
Grand County, for example, saw sidelined buyers begin re-entering the market after a year of waiting for opportunities to improve, according to Monica Graves, a realtor in the area. These buyers returned to the market with more negotiating power than they’ve had during the last few years.
Sellers in Grand County, on the other hand, are facing increasing competition. As more housing projects pop up around mountain towns, buyers have more inventory to choose from compared to recent spring and summer seasons. The result is steadying demand and a return to a balanced mountain real estate market, according to the Colorado Association of Realtors report.
“May 2026 felt like the market finally woke up from winter,” Graves said in the report. “Resort buyers are still attracted to the area’s year-round recreation and proximity to Denver, but they are taking longer to make decisions.”
Steamboat Springs saw a similar trend in May, with higher year-over-year inventory despite entering 2026 with fewer new listings across all property types. Single-family inventory was down 4.5% and multi-family inventory was down 21.9% compared to last year, the report states.
Sales for single-family homes were stronger to end the spring season, but homes took longer to sell, averaging 90 days on the market year-to-date.
Advertisement
Summit County’s spring inventory also remained above the “extremely limited levels” seen during the pandemic years, according to Cottrell, giving buyers more options and negotiating power. Single-family home sales were up 27% with a 20% bump in listings in May 2026 compared to 2025, while multi-family homes saw a 32% drop in sales and a 15% decline in new listings.
Listings were mostly down for counties across other parts of the north-central mountains, with Eagle, Garfield and Pitkin counties seeing fewer new listings for single-family homes. All except Pitkin County saw a rise in inventory compared to last May, accompanied by a lengthening of days on market to over 100 days. Pitkin County properties spent the longest on the market before selling, rising 10% to 228 days, according to data from the Colorado Association of Realtors.
Interest is high, but what about pricing?
A single-family home is built on Boulder Ridge Road in Steamboat Springs in 2017.Matt Stensland/Steamboat Pilot
Whether Western Slope counties saw housing prices rise or drop varied significantly from town to town. However, more expensive price tags don’t seem to be slowing buyers down heading into the summer selling season — for now.
The median price for single-family homes dropped to $965,000 in Grand County from $990,000, while the median list price in Winter Park hit $1.2 million.
“Well-priced properties moved, while homes that missed the mark on pricing tended to sit longer,” Graves said. Homes in Winter Park averaged around 51 days on market in May — lower than the statewide average — while those in Granby averaged 78 days despite significantly lower pricing. Graves added that, in places like Granby, homes offering updated finishes, views or short-term rental potential generated the strongest interest.
Advertisement
Prices across Summit County went up compared to last spring. The average price for single-family homes rose 6% to $2.68 million in May 2026, while multi-family home prices saw a larger 19% jump, hitting $1.07 million.
The most expensive home sold in the county was a $13 million home in Breckenridge. This continued strength in pricing demonstrates that demand for mountain living remains firmly intact, with many buyers still moving forward despite economic uncertainty, Cottrell said.
In Steamboat Springs, multi-family homes — which matched last year’s May closings at 26 — saw median and average sales prices increase to $1.96 million and $2.24 million, respectively. Across Routt County, median sales prices jumped 62% for single-family homes and 156% for townhomes and condos, more than doubling from their May 2025 median price of $640,000 to hit $1.64 million.
Across Eagle, Garfield and Pitkin counties, changes in pricing differed by property type. All three counties recorded a drop in the median sales price for single-family homes, with the greatest drop coming from Pitkin County: 58.5% for a median price of $5.5 million in May 2026. The average sales price also dropped from $12.9 to $12.6 million, while townhomes and condos saw a 50% increase in average sales price, bumping up the cost from $2.99 million to $4.5 million.
Could rising mortgage rates scare away potential buyers?
A major market element that could influence buyer activity heading deeper into the summer season is rising mortgage rates.
Advertisement
In February, Western Slope housing markets were reporting an uptick in buyer inquiries due to sinking mortgage rates. Rates had trended downward throughout the first few months of 2026, after home loan rates hit their lowest point in three years in early January.
As of July 2, 30-year mortgage rates have climbed to 6.51%, reversing what had once improved the sentiments of buyers who had been sidelined by affordability concerns.
Rates began increasing following the start of the war in Iran and the closing of the Strait of Hormuz. Rising inflation has only further elevated mortgage rates, though they’ve managed to remain below the 7% reached in early 2025, according to reporting by the Wall Street Journal.
With recent rate fluctuations, it remains to be seen whether rates will dampen buyer enthusiasm during Colorado’s peak season for buyers.
