#organizing

by George Joseph

March 4th in Albany felt like a massive field trip gone wrong. On the same day that New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio rallied over a thousand students, parents, and labor activists to the capital in support of his signature campaign promise - universal pre-school - about seven thousand school kids, parents, and teachers, bussed in by Success Academy charter school CEO Eva Moskowitz, marched in opposition protesting De Blasio’s decision to charge affluent charter schoolsrent for the spaces they collocate from public schools and for his administration’s decision to approve “only” five of Moskowitz’s eight proposed colocations for next school year.

A disturbing trademark of “education reform” protests is that the corporations who fund and manage them cannot even entertain the notion that political rallies ought to be democratic. Not only were thousands of charter students pushed out of school to promote Moskowitz’ expansion agenda, Success Academy parents likewise, as has beendocumented in pastrallies, were told that such rallies were “mandatory” - an order that would obviously be illegal if these charter schools were public institutions as they so often claim. Nonetheless, given that hundreds of parents did choose to leave work and were actively taking part in the protest, it would be dishonest to write the whole spectacle off as coerced.

Though some writers have stressed the rally’s use of students and parents aslobbying props, the reality apparent to those present was much more complicated. Many students and parents seemed excited to be there, chanting, carrying signs, and speaking out. Thus, for public school advocates, interested in building a truly grassroots movement to reinvigorate community schools, the hundreds of city parents who made the trip up to Albany, cannot simply be written off as victims of “false consciousness.” It is only by taking their actions and words seriously that we can understand these parents’ attitude towards charter schools, which undoubtedly represent the views of a significant percentage of the city’s working class parents. In fact, according to a recent Quinnipiac University poll, 40% of New Yorkers supported charter school expansion while only 11% favored a decrease in the number of charters schools.

Within the charter ranks at Albany, there was a clear ideological distinction between parents and the officials who had summoned them. According to Izzy Kopis, a Success Academy math curriculum director, the key to her school’s popularity is its union-free campus, “We’re independently run and free from a lot of union rules, so we have a lot of flexibility to choose our curriculum, our school hours, and our quality teachers.” Following the Waiting for Superman template, Kopis attributed her school’s popularity with parents to its ability to bypass teachers’ unions, neoliberalism’s boogeyman for every failure in the public education.      

On the other hand, parents, who were willing to speak off the record, commended their kids’ charter schools, though for altogether different reasons. Their comments were not focused on charter schools’ ability to break off from union contracts or freedom to dip into some mystical source of market efficiency; instead, their praise was focused on the extra attention their children received, the smaller class sizes, the higher funding per pupil, the refurbished facilities, and the cutting-edge classroom technology - all needs which policy makers consistently exacerbate in public schools. As Brian Jones, a former teacher and public school advocate explained:

“Parents are doing what they’re supposed to do, fighting for what they think is best for their own kids and who can blame them? We’ve been fighting for these school quality issues for decades, yet today policy makers force parents with the Faustian bargain, ‘Oh, you want arts programing, classroom technology, smaller class sizes? Well then you have to go to charters.’”

Hence, it makes perfect sense that parents seek “choices” to help their kids escape schools with impossible learning environments. What public school advocates must make clear, then, is that the forces behind charter schools are not a response to “failing public schools,” but rather the very cause of them.

“During Bloomberg’s years, our schools faced constant cuts not only to funding but also to space from other public and charter schools,” said parent Miriam Aristy-Farer at the rally. “Our school in Washington Heights went from an A to C rating after getting two colocations we didn’t want. Of course when you gut public schools, people are going to look for alternatives.” Indeed, as Diane Ravitch and Leonie Haimson, founder of Class Size Matters, outline in The Nation, the Bloomberg era was devastating to school quality:

“the size of classes in the early grades are now the largest in fourteen years, and about half of middle and high school students are in classes of thirty or more. Many teachers have 150 students, making it all but impossible for them to look students ‘in the eye’ and give them the individual attention they need—especially students who are disadvantaged.”

It is no coincidence that charter advocates like former New York City Mayor Bloomberg, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, and education secretary Arne Duncan have gone significant lengths to destroy the public school system, cynically promoting rapid charter expansion in the wake of massive school closings or natural disasters. As Jones noted, “Charters don’t have a market if public schools aren’t failing. If public schools can provide the same resources and funding, who’s going to wait for a lottery? Their whole model is to feed off the destruction of the public school system.”

Charter schools cannot be neutral. Their very existence is antithetical to the public school system. Charters cannot expand their market share without creating demand; their growth model directly depends on the liquidation of the public school system. Consequently, as Diane Ravitch explained in an email, parents’ demands for quality schools would be “better served by fighting to improve their neighborhood schools rather than promoting academic apartheid.”

Yet as supporters of public education, we must take the concerns of parents considering charter schools seriously, making a good faith effort to provide a positive alternative vision. The 2012 Chicago Teachers Union strike and last year’s community mobilization on the part of the Portland Association of Teachers prove that when the connections between inadequate public services and “education reform” are unabashedlyarticulated entire communities can band together in defense of their students, teachers, and schools. But as the confusing rally in Albany demonstrates, as long as parents remain divided, clashing over issues as basic as universal pre-K, the struggle to save our community schools will remain at a standstill.

“We have been waiting for Napolitano to come… and finally she is here, but she is hiding, she remains in one building and does not leave…where she says she is doing her “listening and learning tour” behind doors with only a certain number of students, but you know this is bullshit because she is hiding and for what? What does she have to hide from us? We must ask ourselves this because if she is hiding she is not hiding alone… the regents are behind her… they are not innocent either… they continue to violate student rights like Napolitano continues to violate human rights because even if she is not the head of homeland security department anymore what she has done continues to impact our lives today and this is something we will not forget no matter how hard Napolitano and the regents try…” –S. R.

Nearly one month ago, on February 13th 2014, upwards of two hundred and fifty people congregated at Sproul Plaza to protest Janet Napolitano’s appointment as UC President. News of the last campus visit on her “listening and learning” tour brought us together to mobilize weeks in advance. Leading up to the day of her visit, we circulated a letter demanding her immediate resignation and the democratization of the UC President and UC Regents selection processes. A multitude of student and staff organizations endorsed the letter and committed to participate in the day of action.

There is a great deal of speculation and misinformation concerning the day of action organized by the Student of Color Solidarity Coalition. Although this is not the first action we have taken–our first action protesting Janet Napolitano’s appointment took place in the Fall semester, on the day of Chancellor Dirks’ inauguration, at which Napolitano spoke–we feel that it is necessary to bring clarity to the events of this day. We are taking this opportunity to connect to the local and the statewide UC community and beyond, to those who were watching closely, sending us their support from a distance. We are issuing this statement in order to share what happened during the day of action and the takeover of the Blum Center so we can reflect and formulate future strategies.

At the end of this post, we provide a link to personal statements written by participants from the day of action. Since each person experienced the day of action differently, we believe that these narratives are absolutely essential to understanding that day.

The Rally

The action kicked off with the rally in Sproul Plaza, facilitated by student organizers from the SCSC and was attended by hundreds of students from different communities. On the speakers’ list were Roberto Lovato from Presente.org, the Bay Area historian Gray Brechin, and youth from 67Sueños that performed a song about deportations and violence at the border. Not long after the speakers’ list closed, students began to march to Sutardja Hall. When the march reached Memorial Glade, UAW grad students spoke and led chants outside of Doe Library. Shortly after, the march continued on to the building in which Napolitano was meeting with twenty students behind closed doors. As we reached the area we gathered outside of the Blum center, where students had just successfully executed a building take-over and reclaimed the space outside as our own, making speeches, talking about next steps, and most importantly waiting for those in the meeting to walkout.

Why Students Walked Out

On the last stop on her “listening and learning tour”, Napolitano chose to meet with only twenty undergraduate students in a small conference room on the 6th floor of Sutardja Dai Hall. Fifteen of those students decided to make Napolitano listen to them, organizing a plan to subvert her tour. Napolitano’s office required the list of students that she would meet with weeks in advance. Leading up to the meeting, however, Napolitano changed her schedule multiple times. Moreover, students were lied to about who would be checking ID’s at the door–they didn’t realize it would be so highly policed. It was clear that Napolitano was prepared to meet resistance.

Within the meeting, students spoke from lived experiences, forcing Napolitano to sit, witness, and endure their truths, not giving her an opportunity to justify her actions. Students took turns reading their personal statements to her: student narratives of being undocumented, Muslim, queer, sexual violence survivors, low income, first generation college students. They explicated why her presence on campus is a threat to their communities and an insult to the entire student population. After everyone around the table spoke their piece, they walked out to drive home the message that we are not interested in engaging in conversation with an individual who has caused so much pain to our communities, we were not there to negotiate or work with a human rights violator nor with any of the individuals who impel the privatization and militarization of our campuses. We are fighting to reclaim our university and we want them out.

The Take-Over

The Blum Center take-over on February 13th marked the first successful building reclamation on the UC Berkeley campus since the struggles against the fee hikes of 2009 and 2010. Janet Napolitano spent her entire visit at the private labs of  Sutardja Dai Hall–so why didn’t we take over that building instead? In order to gain strategic advantage, we felt that attempting to take the massive and highly securitized Sutardja Dai would be futile and thus should be avoided. Instead, we chose to exert social power by reclaiming a more strategic building. We chose the Blum Center because of its symbolic significance: it embodies corporate interests and forces of global imperialism (“The Center for Developing Economies”, seriously?) and it was funded by the UC Regent Richard Blum, one of the main profiteers of the UCs investments on construction projects. Blum was a key player in the selection of Janet Napolitano as candidate for UC President, and in her eventual appointment.

Why We Chose the Blum Center

Opened in April of 2009, the Blum Center For Developing Economies was made possible by the $15 million donation of the San Francisco based financier Richard Blum. No regent, or private businessman has ever before had private offices on UC campuses. His private equity firm, the $7 billion Blum Capital Partners, owns the largest real estate firm in the world, BC Richard Ellis, of which Blum is chairman of the board. He is also a major shareholder of one of the largest for profit education companies, Career Education Corporation. There is very strong evidence indicating that he owns border-town maquiladoras that build weapons components for the US military.

Blum is one of a number of UC Regents who specialize in leveraged buyouts and privatization of publicly traded companies. They have long practiced this same basic business philosophy on the university. The Regents have effectively pledged student fee increases to the capital bond market, thereby creating a financial incentive for the Regents to continue raising fees, in a scheme that raises money for campus construction projects and contributes to the profitability of for-profit education companies. URS Corporation–a company that Blum partially owns and that made $1.5 billion on contracts awarded by Feinstein’s Senate military construction committee–has been the main contractor for the largest university capital projects in recent years: UCLA’s $150 million reconstruction of Santa Monica Hospital, UC Berkeley’s $48 million nanotechnology laboratory, and Berkeley’s $200 mil­lion Southeast Campus Integrated Project, which includes a seismic retrofit of Memorial Stadium and an expansion of the Haas School of Business — the building that was originally slated to house the Blum Center for Developing Economies.

It must be emphasized that Richard Blum was the driving force in choosing Janet Napolitano as the new UC president. In fact, Blum and a very small number of Regents, including Monica Lozano, a board member of Bank of America, and Russell Gould, the former vice-chairman of the 2008 crisis connected Wachovia Bank, are those responsible for the central decisions of the University. These associates–or cronies–of Blum have the most to gain from the gradual death of public education, since their banks will continue to lend to the UC and their construction companies will continue to get priority bids for new projects. Who better to facilitate the continuation of this process than someone who spent the last few years heading one of the largest institutions of social control in the country?

Why We Chose to Leave

We held the Blum Center for 25 hours–the longest building take-over in decades. How could we just get up and leave? What would make staying worth it? What would make leaving worth it? We never expected to stay so long. We were prepared to be arrested by the police within a mere few hours.

Still, making the choice to leave was not easy. Throughout the time the Blum 11 spent inside of the building, the ASUC President and the Dean of Students tried convincing us to leave the building. Our choices were not influenced by promises of amnesty, although organizers did demand amnesty for all participants in the direct action. Each decision we made was informed by care for each other and a consciousness of our group’s capacity both inside and outside the building. We knew that what we were doing needed to be seen within a long term strategy, and that at this moment our demands needed to be clear and widely circulated. We also came to recognize the limits of our capacity. After dusk, the police made dispersal orders on a speaker every hour, notifying protesters that they were trespassing. All night, police in riot gear were shining lights into the Blum center from the next building, making their presence seem bigger than it actually was and causing panic among protesters. Those on the outside were forced to stay vigilant due to police activity and to their commitment to put their bodies on the line to protect those of us inside. On top of that, it rained all night long. Enduring 25 hours of uncertainty, of endless panic, was emotionally and physically exhausting to people both on the inside and the outside–especially on the outside, where the care work was carried out.

Although there were disagreements on how much longer we should hold the building, after intense deliberation we decided as a group that the best next step was to exit the building on February 14th at 5:00pm. Coming to a consensus doesn’t mean that everyone feels the same way–it means that everyone listens to each other and compromises according to the group’s needs. So what had we accomplished? Indeed, we sent a powerful message: we are here, we are growing and we are pushing the limits of what resistance on university campuses looks like. We hope that we set an example of what it will take to change the UC. Holding space was necessary to gain visibility for our movement and prolong our resistance, but it was also strategic in that we were able to critically engage with students and community members who previously had no knowledge of Napolitano’s despicable record, nor of the collusion of the UC regents with private interests.

What We Learned From Our Experience

We learned a great deal from our mistakes, as well as from our accomplishments. One rookie journalist attributed the organization of the action to the ASUC, completely erasing the extensive energy and dedication the SCSC put into planning and executing this action as a student of color led coalition not associated with the university. We received criticisms that we were in the wrong building, as if our intent was to chase down Napolitano and engage her. We have stated that we refuse to negotiate with her. It was on our terms, not Napolitano’s, that the UC administration would be forced to hear us. Students from the SCSC infiltrated the meeting with Napolitano and walked out in a swift, symbolic move to show that we were not interested in speaking with her–speaking with Janet Napolitano on her terms would only legitimize her position. It was unnecessary to be in the same building as Napolitano, to make an attempt to resist under such controlled conditions. The real student power and democracy manifested outside, not behind closed doors in an exclusive meeting.

There were certainly moments when unexpected problems arose. Our responses to them brought to us many lessons that made our experience richer. Now we are creating ways to strategically move forward, adjusting our strategies to focus on how best to achieve the structural changes necessary, in ways that will allow student, faculty, staff and community participation in the decision-making processes of the Public University. As our numbers continue to increase, we know that we have to us the potential of student power to build a base and be able to accomplish what it will take to make that happen.

Ultimately, we realize that there was nothing the university could have done to make us fail. We have succeeded. We accomplished more than we expected. We set a new standard for direct action. From here, things will only escalate until our demands are met.

The Aftermath

The SCSC continues to organize against Napolitano and unveil this so-called “public” and “progressive” education system’s inner workings. We are now in a period of coalition building in order to sustain the momentum created on the day of action. This requires a great deal of collective self care so that we don’t burn out. The UC Berkeley organizing community is not alone in this fight against Napolitano and the Regents. All across the state, even the nation, people are beginning to see what steps will be necessary to make the university safe and accessible for all communities. We know that the fight will be difficult, but it is not impossible. It’s a matter of holding steadfast to our principles, and continuing to challenge the increasing injustices being done in our educational system.

This post was originally published by The Student of Color Solidarity Coalition on February 11th, 2014

by Sandra Khalifa

Geneva, Switzerland – Yesterday, multiple members of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UN HRC) found Florida’s Stand Your Ground law and similar laws around the country to be “incompatible” with the “inherent right to life” - Article Six of the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR). ICCPR is an international human rights treaty that the U.S. ratified in 1992. Long considered customary international law, the treaty includes protections such as the right to life, freedom from discrimination, freedom of speech, and many other civil and political rights. 

This week, Dream Defenders’ Legal & Policy Director Ahmad Abuznaid joined hundreds of United States human rights groups and advocates to present to the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UN HRC), as well as the Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, statements on how implementation of Stand Your Ground laws is rife with racial bias, and how policies like it endanger the right to life and communities of color across the country. This has been especially apparent with the Jordan Davis and Trayvon Martin cases in Florida, among others.

The issue of Stand Your Ground laws was among the few, if not the only issue raised by three different UN HRC members, all questioning the law’s compatibility with international human rights principles. The U.S. delegation, present to respond to questioning by UN HRC members, completely neglected to respond to criticisms regarding Stand Your Ground in their written report. We await their response Friday.

Meanwhile, Florida legislators have been swiftly moving on a Stand Your Ground expansion bill, SB /HB89. The bill has passed out of the House and passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee on the first day of Florida’s legislative session. It would extend immunity under Stand Your Ground to those who fire warning shots at another individual based on subjective fears or perceptions.  The bill is ill-conceived and should be reconsidered in light of national, and now international, concerns regarding Florida-type Stand Your Ground laws.

Visit www.dreamdefenders.org/DDATTheUN for resources on the Dream Defenders’ trip to the Geneva, including daily blog posts; Ahmad Abuznaid’s statement to the Deputy High Commissioner; and the Dream Defenders’ shadow report submitted to the United Nations on Stand Your Ground.

by Emily Joveski

Sandra Diaz of the Canadian Women’s Foundation speaks on a panel at Ryerson, Mar. 4. (Photo courtesy Emily Joveski)

Stephanie Guthrie is well aware that the pen is oft mightier than the sword.

“I’m going to tell you something you may not know,” the bespectacled feminist advocate said to a room of mostly Ryerson University journalism students in Toronto, Canada. “Words are political. Your job as journalists is a political one.”

Guthrie was one of five speakers at a panel called Media Coverage of Sexual Violence on Campus, held at Ryerson last week. The panel discussed ways journalists can responsibly report on sexual violence. Much of the discussion was centred on driving home the fact that rape culture exists everywhere, including Canadian university campuses.

Last year, both Saint Mary’s University in Nova Scotia and the University of British Columbia(UBC) made headlines for having freshmen sing pro-rape chants during orientation activities. Meanwhile, UBC’s Sauder School of Business performed a sexualized and racist “Pocahontas” chant at their frosh week. The chant went something like this: “Pocah, Pocah, Pocah, Pocahontas – white man took our land, Pocahontas, ass, ass, ass.”

This isn’t just happening during frosh week. You may have heard about the University of Ottawa student union leader, Anne-Marie Roy, who was recently the subject of a sexually violent Facebook conversation between male members of the student leadership. They said, “Someone needs to punish her with their shaft.” You may not have heard that the same week Anne-Marie Roy went public about the graphic Facebook conversation, the U of O’s men’s hockey team was suspended amid a sexual assault investigation involving several of the players. An assistant coach said the incident has been blown out of proportion.

In 2012, there was a string of sexual assaults across several Toronto neighborhoods, including an incident around Ryerson. In the span of two weeks, six incidents of sexual assault were reported on Ryerson campus. Toronto Police and Ryerson’s emergency and security services encouraged women to be vigilant about their surroundings. This attitude, that places the responsibility on women to avoid sexual assault, is what prompted Stephanie Guthrie to organize block parties where women and men could come together to reclaim our neighbourhoods as safe spaces. Guthrie says, however, that the same night she hosted a party in Ryerson’s Pitman Quad, a woman was assaulted at another party on campus.

Cindy Baskin, a professor at Ryerson’s School of Social Work points to the over-sexualized Pocahontas—or “Pocahottie”—Halloween costume as further evidence of persistent sexist and racist stereotypes on campus. Last year, “Eskimo cutie” and “sexy Indian” costumes were for sale at the campus bookstore of McMaster University. Aboriginal women in particular are vastly overrepresented in terms of racialized and sexualized violence, and shamefully underrepresented in the media. “Aboriginal women are seen as disposable, often stereotyped in the media as prostitutes, welfare recipients, and sluts,” says Baskin, who is of Mi’kmaq and Irish descent. She calls for Ryerson’s Journalism School to take the lead in developing a course that focuses on reporting Aboriginal issues.

The media is a crucial player in how sexual violence is perceived. News stories may over-report what the victim was wearing or how they were behaving, or how the perpetrator was such an upstanding member of the community. This perpetuates victim blaming. Sandra Diaz of the Canadian Women’s Foundation cites a recent poll that says 19 per cent of Canadians—both men and women—believe that a woman encourages sexual assault when she is drunk. Eleven per cent of Canadians believe that a woman who wears a short skirt is provoking assault. “Rape predates miniskirts,” says Diaz.  “Everyday, women are raped at home, sober, wearing a baggy tracksuit.”

Yet even when reporters take pains to accurately and respectfully report on sexual assault cases, on the next page we have journalists like Barbara Kay and Margaret Wente insisting that rape culture doesn’t exist, that feminists are delusional and that college girls just need to stop drinking so much.  Excuse me, Ms. Wente, but this is rape culture. And that type of word vomit needs to end.

When sexual assault happens on campus, it’s not because of student drinking or girls wearing short skirts. It’s because we live in a culture that encourages male sexual aggression and the use of physical and emotional violence against women. Rape culture says that sexual violence is a fact of life and that the best women can do is try not to encourage men to rape them. The fact is that men are almost always the perpetrators of sexual violence, and men need to be part of the solution. “At the core of rape culture on campus is how we raise men and boys,” says Ron Couchman, a spokesman for the White Ribbon Campaign, which is aimed at engaging men and boys in conversations about stopping violence against women. “It’s important to include and engage men,” says Couchman, “but also for men not to dominate the conversation, and to provide space for women’s voices.”

It’s important for everyone to be engaging their friends, family, classmates and coworkers in conversations about rape culture. But it’s up to journalists to provide space for the stories of women—especially stories that often go unheard, like those of trans people and First Nations women.

When journalists report responsibly on sexual violence, we’ll talk less about preventing rape, and more about stopping it.

For more information, visit the Toronto-based Femifesto for a toolkit for journalists writing about sexual assault. And if you’re still unsure about what rape culture is, check out this great post by feminist blogger Melissa McEwan titled “Rape Culture 101.”

This post was originally published by RyersonFolio.

The decision reflects the unfair treatment pro-Palestinian campus activists face across the country

by George Joseph

This Monday, to kick off End Israeli Apartheid Week, the Barnard-Columbia chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine hung up a banner in front of Barnard Hall, featuring a map of historical Palestine. In response, students and parents from campus organizations like Lion PAC and Columbia Barnard Hillel immediately began a concerted email campaign, demanding the sign be removed because of its “anti-Semitic” content. And so, despite the fact that SJP obtained official permission to put up the banner, even explaining the message of their sign beforehand, Barnard President Debora Spar made the decision to tear down the banner the next morning.

The banner, as shown below, depicts a map of historic Palestine to affirm “the connection that Palestinians living in the diaspora, the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and as citizens inside of Israel, feel for one another, despite their fragmentation across time and space,” said SJP organizer Feride Eralp. Nonetheless, Columbia Barnard Hillel President Hannah Spellman claimed that such a display was “offensive and threatening” because it did not include Israeli territorial markings. Yet, despite the obviously contestable meaning of the sign among the student body, Barnard’s administration promptly decided to rip off the banner, effectively violating their own space policies in order to favor the demands, and artistic interpretations, of pro-Israeli campus organizations. Did the banner, which had already been approved, become “anti-Semitic” and “threatening” in the eyes of administrators over night?

“It has been a long-standing tradition to allow any recognized Barnard or Columbia student group to reserve a space and hang a banner promoting their event,” acknowledged Barnard President Deborah Spar in an internal email to Lion PAC (SJP received no such personal email). But nonetheless, she declared, after thanking students for their demands, “We are removing the banner from Barnard Hall at this time and will be reexamining our policy for student banners going forward.” Such a response came as a shock to SJP activists, who were not even informed until campus media picked up on the story.

“People have suggested its not fair to have something so politically charged next to a Barnard logo, but if so, then there needs to be consistency,” said SJP activist and Barnard sophomore Shezza Dallal. “Feminism, Pro-life-these are all very politically charged topics, why were their banners kept up, but ours is brought down now?  You cannot just accord freedom of speech until it makes certain people feel uncomfortable.”

Another student, who wanted to go by Khan, complained that both the Columbia and Barnard administrations consistently privilege the needs and beliefs of some student groups over others. “Barnard’s conduct on this was extremely swift. We went to bed having put them up, and in the morning they were gone,” she said. “When we want to get something done, we are not considered a priority. For the Muslim Students Association it has taken two years for us to get a regular religious life advisor, but when one individual, former Hillel president or not, made a Facebook status, all of a sudden this blows up into immediate action.”

Many students felt that the censorship is symptomatic of larger structural disparities and institutional dominance. Columbia and Barnard’s Hillel Center for Jewish Student Life, for example, has its own enormous building on campus, from which it regularly hosts organizations and events explicitly justifying Israel’s occupation of Palestine and arranges hundreds of students’ free trips to Israel as part of the “Taglit Birthright” program. The program has received much criticism for the unapologetically propagandistic image it presents of the Israeli occupation, not too mention its clearly offensive premise that any Jewish American has a right to visit and live in Israel, while millions of dispossessed Palestinians continue to languish in refugee camps across the region. Yet Columbia and Barnard continue to actively support these programs and institutions every year. 

In her email to Lion PAC, Barnard president Deborah Spar claimed that the censorship was necessary because her administration’s approval of one hand-painted sign, depicting a map of historical Palestine, gives “the impression that the College sanctions and supports” SJP activities. What impression then do the multimillion dollar Birthright trips, officially associated with Barnard, give in comparison? While one student organization can’t even put up a map of many students’ homeland, another is encouraged to promote and expand programs, which normalize the oppression of the Palestinian people and strive to create a new generation of Zionist apologists.

The decision is part of a national crack down on Students for Justice in Palestine. Today, for example, Max Blumenthal reported in Mondoweiss that the Northeastern University administration suspended their SJP chapter for the year and is threatening two activists with expulsion and NYPD style interrogations for the high crime of leafleting mock eviction notices, drawing attention to the Israeli practice of placing demolition notices on Palestinians’ homes about to be bulldozed. Surprisingly, the Northeastern Hillel chapter railed against these flyers because they “alarmed and intimidated students,” but did not release a follow up statement condemning the state of Israel for the alarm and intimidation stemming from actual Palestinian evictions every day.

In his report on the administrative crackdown at Northeastern, Blumenthal explains, “The suspension of Northeastern SJP is the culmination of a long-running crusade against the group led by powerful pro-Israel outfits based in Boston,” including Charles Jacobs, the founder of the anti-Muslim non-profit Americans for Peace and Tolerance. In the past, Jacobs has claimed that Students for Justice in Palestine are “anti-Semites, Israel haters” attempting to “justify a second Holocaust, the mass murder of Jews” and possessed with “an irrational, seething animus against the Jew of nations, Israel.”

“I stand with the SJP students at Northeastern,” said Columbia sophomore Ferial Massoud. “This is a part of a larger agenda on the part of universities to crack down on pro-Palestinian activists, which is preposterous not only because of the unjust bias of the administration, but more importantly because the university is one of the only places today where students are supposed to have freedom of expression.”

At Barnard and Northeastern, SJP activists were disappointed by this absurd rationale for their censorship, but nonetheless refused to be silent. In the last few days alone, Northeastern SJP students have raised thousands of signatures to drop the absurd charges against the two targeted students, and at Barnard students have decided to go out onto campus everyday to share their experiences with the larger community. “As long as injustice exists we’ll continuing speaking out, because we refuse to be censored,” declared Barnard first year and SJP organizer Jannine Massoud. “It is our duty to speak out because so many Palestinians cannot still to this day.”

 Follow George on Twitter @GeorgeJoseph94!

by Shane Nelson 

In a letter delivered on Thursday, March 6, Western Washington University’s Student Labor Action Project asked President Bruce Shepard to publicly disclose all agreements Western has with any bank.

Western junior Kelly Pride is a member of SLAP and wants to know if companies are profiting from student debt in any way. 

“Students have the right to know which banks are profiting off of us, and this info should be really visible on the Western website,” Pride said. “There are banks that profit off of student debt. Wells Fargo does a lot of student loans, and they definitely make a profit off of [those loans].” 

The Western Front attempted to reach President Shepard for comment Saturday, March 8. However, Shepard was unable to meet for an interview until Wednesday, March 12.

Pride believes Western’s affiliation with banks could potentially affect choices made by the administration, in regard to the school, and students have the right to know what might be influencing Western’s decisions, she said. 

SLAP is a joint initiative of Jobs with Justice and the United States Student Association, which allows students to fight social and economic injustice and aims to improve student power and workers’ rights, on campus and in the Bellingham community.

“The letter we put together was to call on the university to publicly disclose any agreements they have with private banks or financial institutions,” said Western senior Patrick Stickney, chair of SLAP. 

On Friday, Dec. 17, 2013, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) told all national banks to publicly disclose agreements with colleges and universities to market credit, debit and prepaid cards offered to students, according to the CFPB website.

“It is critical that these agreements are disclosed, as urged by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,” Stickney said. “Students deserve to know if any agreements exist between the university and companies that profit from student debt.”

Before the CFPB statement, colleges and universities only had to disclose agreements with financial institutions regarding college credit cards, not debit or prepaid cards, preferred private student loans, deposit accounts, financial aid disbursement and other products for students, according to the CFPB website.

In 2008, Congress passed a law requiring schools to disclose preferred lender arrangements with student loan providers and establish a code of conduct for school financial aid officials, according to the CFPB website.

Western’s Higher One, a financial firm, holds 57 percent of national college card agreements, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report.

This report, “College Debit Card: Actions Needed to Address ATM Access, Student Choice and Transparency” was released Thursday, Feb. 13 and showed most college cards had fees similar to comparable products provided by banks.

Higher One users average $47 in annual fees compared to the average $180 for prepaid card users, $197 for national bank users and $350 for regional bank users, according to a Higher One study. 

Stickney was unable to find any information regarding agreements between Western and Higher One, and he hopes this information will soon be on the front page of Western’s website.

“If Western isn’t willing to publish this information, they can expect students to push back until they publicly disclose agreements,” Stickney said. 

Most college debit card agreements are available to the public, but many are very difficult to find and require a formal request with the state, according to a survey submitted to the CFPB in 2012 by The National Association of College and University of Business Officers.

“Western’s Student Labor Action Project has six to seven active members, but this is an issue students across campus [and the nation] support,” Stickney said. 

This is article was originally published by The Western Front.

Students march to the SDSU president’s office. (Credit: Nadir Bouhmouch)

(This post which was edited by Youngist contributor James Cersonsky, was originally published by The Nation and is republished here with permission.)

Contact [email protected] with any questions, tips or proposals. Edited by James Cersonsky (@cersonsky).

1. As Napolitano Sits, Campus Occupations Spread

On March 5, as UCLA students died-in against deportations, #not1more continued to growand students at the largely working class Community College of San Francisco prepared further action against a potential shutdown, students at the University of California–Santa Cruz took up Berkeley’s call for escalating action against UC President and former Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. Fresh off major wins for strike-ready UC service workers and Santa Cruz teaching assistants, students and workers rallied to make clear that these developments are part of a larger struggle to reclaim the university. After marching to McHenry Library, students entered the Hahn Student Services building and subsequently occupied it for eighteen hours. There, we called for Napolitano’s resignation and for workers’ ongoing demands—safer staffing, smaller classes and work for undocumented graduate students—to be met. Through daybreak on March 6, Hahn, normally a space of loans, fees and student-judicial affairs, became a site for students to strategize resistance to the dual challenges of racism and privatization.

—Autonomous Students

2. As Cal State Tuition Skyrockets, Students Mass Across the State

California State University’s new tactic of adding “student success” fees on a campus-by-campus basis, a fee hike by any other name, is drawing criticism from students, faculty andeditorial boards on campus and off. For a week, students at San Diego State University have been trying to meet with their president—who gained statewide notoriety in 2011 when he was awarded a 30 percent raise at the same time that a fee hike was implemented—after arubber-stamp committee recommended fees be raised in fall 2014. Students have staged multiple sit-ins, marches and rallies on campus against the hike, decrying undemocratic decision-making and demanding a meeting with the president, who has yet to even respond to letters or e-mail via intermediaries. Leading up to the CSU Board of Trustees meeting on March 26, students at SDSU, Fullerton and Dominguez Hills, all affected by the fees, will continue building pressure.

—Bo Elder

3. High Schoolers Rally Over Shutdown

In February, LA’s Roosevelt High School Academy of Environmental & Social Policy received a letter from Superintendent John Deasy directing this small and notably successful school to join a larger campus in a new neighborhood or close down. Despite four hours of protest by parents and students outside LAUSD headquarters on February 25, nine speakers who addressed the school board this week and questionable claims of fiscal unsustainability, the community has not been able to convince the district to reconsider this decision—made without any input from students, parents or staff. We are fighting for our school because it is safe, a place where we are involved and, most importantly, to assert the importance of student voice—which the district is quick to ignore.

—Gabriela Castaneda

4. Trans* Students Win—Again

On February 24, the California Secretary of State confirmed that right-wing efforts to repeal the School Success and Opportunity Act, AB 1266, failed to qualify for the ballot. The law provides important guidance for schools to ensure that all students, including transgender students, have equal access to facilities and services. Youth, LGBT, racial justice and statewide teacher and parent organizations formed the Support All Students coalition after the law’s passage last summer, working together to educate Californians on the experiences transgender youth face in schools and how districts can support all students. The law went into effect January 1; now, youth activists are focused on local implementation. Students can start an implementation campaign in their district or support other Gay-Straight Alliance activists’ campaigns through the GSA Network Unite! campaign platform, which is also available to youth outside California.

—GSA Network of California

5. Title IX Deck Gets Stacked

On February 19, thirty-one current and former UC-Berkeley students filed two federal complaints, under Title IX and the Clery Act, citing gross administrative inaction and conductin preventing rape, supporting survivors and punishing those who commit such acts. This follows nine months after an initial federal complaint, representing nine students, was filed. The public survivors are committed to holding the administration responsible for allowing an environment that is unsafe for survivors and fails to sanction appropriately those who commit acts of sexual violence. The movement to end sexual violence on college campuses is a nationwide issue, with several other universities, including the University of North Carolina, USC and Swarthmore, also facing potential investigations, and Northwestern studentssitting-in this week.

—Aryle Butler, Iman Stenson, Sofie Karasek, Meghan Warner, Shannon Thomas and Nicoletta Commins

6. NAFTA Returns—to Silence

On March 6, the International Relations and Pacific Studies department at the University of California–San Diego held a conference titled “Mexico Moving Forward”—a convening of economists, industrial capitalists and artists, opening with a speech by Janet Napolitano, celebrating the “benefits” of the North American Free Trade Agreement. In fact, NAFTA has decimated the lives of millions in Mexico—while also sparking the rise of the Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional. In protest of the UC system for perpetuating neoliberal policies, and in solidarity with those who have resisted or lost their lives under NAFTA,students and community groups staged a silent march with ski masks and red and black bandanas to the building where the conference was held. The march was modeled after an action in December 2012, where Zapatistas marched in perfect silence to the center of San Cristóbal de las Casas to show that they are still present and resisting.

—San Diego Student and Community Groups Against NAFTA

7. #VisitFL

On March 4, the first day of Florida’s 2014 legislative session, the Dream Defenders, alongside community allies, hosted our own State of the State address, #VisitFL, to discuss the disproportionate incarceration of youth of color; privatization of the state’s juvenile prison system; and the impact of laws that encourage violence against black and brown youth like Stand Your Ground. After the address, we marched to the fourth floor of the Florida capitol outside the doors where Governor Rick Scott was supposed to deliver his own annual address. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement demanded that we leave, but we refused. As our chants were heard in both the House and Senate chambers, a recess was called, and, for the first time in history, the governor took a secret entrance into the room. Meanwhile, some legislators offered their support. On that same morning, the Florida Senate Judiciary Committee quietly and swiftly passed CS/HB89, a so-called “warning shot” bill that would expand the Stand Your Ground defense by allowing individuals to fire warning shots when they perceive a threat, without the obligation to retreat. HB89 passed overwhelmingly less than one week after a jury in Jacksonville chose not to convict Michael Dunn for the murder of unarmed 17-year-old Jordan Davis.

—Dream Defenders

8. #Fight4aFuture

Over the weekend of February 21 to 23, Generation Progress brought together young people from across the country for a first-of-its-kind #Fight4AFuture National Gun Violence Prevention Summit. Summit attendees had a range of backgrounds, from a former gang member, to a 16-year-old man who has had twenty-eight friends and family die as a result of gun violence, to the brother of a victim from Sandy Hook Elementary, to the editor-in-chief ofGlobal Grind and representatives from the White House. Participants included Million Hoodies Movement for Justice, Jr. Newtown Action Alliance and the Georgia Gun Sense Coalition. Attendees engaged in small group discussions to develop local plans of action—and hatched plans as well for a national activist network to be announced soon.

—Sarah Clements

9. When Will Obama Get It?

On March 2, 398 students, among a group of more than 1,000 protesters, were arrested in front of the White House following a two-mile march from Georgetown University. Amid chants of “We love you” and “Arrest my friends,” the students, 250 of whom were zip-tied to the White House fence, awaited arrest under freezing rain and wind—a process that lasted more than six hours. Our reason for this act of civil disobedience was simple: to make it clear to President Obama that we did not vote him into office to have environmental disaster exacerbated by the Keystone XL Pipeline, and to stress the environmental, climatic, economic, political and social consequences that would arise if the pipeline were to be approved. As we await President Obama’s decision over the coming months, activists across the country will be delivering comment cards and petitions to Washington, pressuring elected officials and ramping up direct action.

—Erin Fagan

10. Who Speaks for Mass Incarceration?

This winter in West Philadelphia, FAAN Mail, a collective of young women of color, organized a screening and discussion of Orange Is the New Black, the Netflix series set in a women’s prison. Community members concerned about—and personally affected by—mass incarceration shared dialogue about the portrayal and realities of prison. Activists talked about local organizing efforts after exploring the following questions: What value, if any, doesOITNB offer in the movement to end mass incarceration? What aspects of the show are realistic or fantasy? What do OITNB audiences need to know about mass incarceration?

—FAAN Mail

by Regina Joseph

Today I woke up and my mind rested on Jordan Davis. My body shook with anger and my blood boiled with discontent towards a prison-industrial-complex that continues to make excuses for the execution of Black and Brown youth by law enforcement and racist vigilantes.

Oh, mama don’t you see the empty field of flowers that now cover all your children’s graves?

I woke up and my tears watered the graves of the 26 children (we know there are many more), whose deaths were justified in Stand Your Ground cases.

I woke up and I realized my tears could not bring back the sense of self worth and self esteem stolen from my brothers and sisters who were pushed through a pipeline directly into an unwelcoming jail cell. 

Black children make up only 20 percent of Florida youth, but 46 percent of school arrests. The principals and security guards told our brothers and sisters they were criminals when they were just good kids in mad cities. In Florida, 67 percent of these kids were arrested for minor violations and fights. We are carrying the weight of the world because our fathers cannot get jobs when Black unemployment in Florida is 16.8 percent. We are carrying the weight of the world with no food in our stomachs and with holes in our too-small shoes.

My cries would not console the mothers of Trayvon Martin, Israel Reefa and Renisha McBride.

So My Soul marched that morning side by side with Dreamers, Queer Folks and the multinational Working Class bound together in the struggle to force the hand of Merciless Lady Justice to correct the scales that weighed heavily on the side of the 12,000 children arrested that year.

We will not rest until the neglect of Black men, Brown mothers, sons is as important as the justice of white men, white mother, son.

We who believe in freedom, knew we can not rest until the justice of brothers and sisters are won.

Yet Lady Justice turned her cheek as Youth Services International lined her pockets with 183 million dollars. James Slattery, the CEO of YSI and his wife donated over 400,000 dollars to politicians to be plantation overseers of Black and Brown children.

But the power of the people will never stop. The collective will continue to fight the nightmare that is the Florida prison state.

We March because we want our children to have dreams that hoodies are not a tenant of character, loud music is not an excuse to spray bullets, and skittles are not a weapon.

Our children will awake from their dreams and ask if little bloodied girls really laid in the street when the church bomb went off in Alabama.

The children will continue and they will ask “how did we save the children?” 

And we’ll respond proudly:
That we woke up many mornings ago with small Brown faces in our memories
And we decided enough was enough and children caskets would no longer be walked down in the funeral procession of dreams deferred. 

We marched on Tuesday March 4th, 2014 to demand that are dreams were no longer deferred.

We demanded enough was enough , and birthdays would not be celebrated in cemetery.

We screamed enough is enough And that proms would not not spent in jails.
And when we marched, we sowed the seeds of revolution so we could water a field of flowers so strong and beautiful that it will uproot the oppressive systems that be.
The dream would longer be deferred but defended and we will achieve liberation in our lifetimes.

Dream Defenders calls for a massive action of Black and Brown peoples, allies, men, women, non-gender conforming people, citizens and non-citizens to gather at Florida Capitol where we Dream Defenders will give the real State of the State of the Address to tell Rick Scott to listen to the beckoning rumbles of the people.

This article was originally published by FSU News. 

Regina Joseph is the Vice-President of the Dream Defenders FSU.

2015 Application

http://www.onlinecpi.org/sej_application

Who will be the next class of organizers in San Diego? SEJ Fellows are the current and future leaders in the fight for social and economic justice.

Help spread the word to passionate college students interested in fighting for social and economic justice!

Overview

The Students for Economic Justice (SEJ) summer fellowship will be an intensive 6-week program that will give committed student activists organizing experience in a current campaign for economic justice.  College students will receive organizing skills training and will be engaged in educational discussions on various topics.  The goal of this program is to build the next generation of young leaders and community organizers who will effectively push forward social change and economic justice in San Diego. Students receive trainings from various community and labor leaders throughout San Diego and will finish the program with a better understanding of the social and political landscape of the region. These are some of the trainings and hands-on experience that will be provided during the summer internship program:

Organizing Skills

Doorknocking, Phonebanking, and Turnout 101

Understanding Power / Choosing Your Strategy

Coalition Building

Communications and Using the Media

Organizing and Taking Action to Win Change

Political Education

Accumulated Struggles: A History of Economic and Social Movements

Understanding San Diego’s Regional and Political Landscape

Current campaigns for economic & social justice in San Diego

Ideal candidates
First, second, and third year college students are encouraged to apply. If you are a graduating senior, we highly recommend for you to apply for the SEJ Assistant Coordinator part-time position.

Commitment
The SEJ fellowship is an intensive full-time program. It is not recommended that fellows hold other jobs or attend summer school at the same time. Exceptions may be negotiated. Fellows are also expected to stay involved after the program is over and to hold SEJ info sessions at their respective schools.

Dates of Program
Monday, June 29, 2015 - Friday, August 7, 2015 (six weeks). It will be up to 40 hours a week. Some evenings and weekends may be required but not mandatory.

COMPENSATION

This is a paid fellowship at a living wage ($14/hr). CPI makes the effort to ensure that interns are compensated fairly for their time and that financial challenges do not inhibit students from participating in the program.

Requirements
All applicants are required to fully complete this application form and also submit (1) a separate page with answers to two essay questions, (2) a resume, and (3) one letter of recommendation.

Applications Due Date
5:00 pm, Friday, February 27, 2015. Applications should be submitted via email to [email protected].

QUESTIONS
If you have any questions, contact Trinh Le: 619-584-5744 ext. 24 or [email protected].  

The Center on Policy Initiatives is proud to be an affirmative action employer. People of color are strongly encouraged to apply.

boffin-in-training:

boffin-in-training:

Just a reminder the IWW organizes full service sex workers, and all other sex workers

Contact Us

You can drop us a line here. The most secure options for contact if you’re worried are our riseup email [email protected] or our PO Box (PO Box 77 Altamont NY)

FINALLY got a little rack* for storage in the laundry room! This area has annoyed me since we moved in last July/August. My back doesn’t like reaching that high and that far away to get things off the shelf, and I don’t want to overload it. And, I actually swept and mopped the floor before putting it in. Even wiped down the washer and dryer.

Took about an hour to put the rack together and then clean and reorganize. Break time!

*The rack is a bathroom 3-shelf space saver but who says I can’t use it anywhere I want!

bed making

x-x-x|x-x-x|x-x-x

tell me more about your Saturday breakfast routine