a p u bl icat ion f rom Ou r A m e r ica n Ge n e r at ion
The Takeover Spring 2011
Issue III
Inside this issue:
4
Think twice before speaking out against US involvement in Libya
10
Why Sodexho doesn’t seserve the University of Washington’s business
oag.org
12
@supwithoag
Pink slips for good teachers.
2
August 26, 2011
Contents: What Does US Military Involvement in Libya Mean for Our Generation? No US Military Intervention in Libya and the Middle East
Pete
Jane
Kim
Gallagher
p.4 p.6
Out With Sodexo, In With You(th) UW USAS p.10 Your School’s Best Teachers, the Next Budget Cut?
Maggie
The Story We Should Have Been Outraged About
David
Wilkens
p.12
Lambert
p.14
WHO WE ARE: Our American Generation is a youth powered think tank for social justice. OAG helps you(th) get serious and get organized about social justice issues you care about. We strive to engage youth in critical research and discussion about all social justice issues, in hopes to create a strong and diverse community of young Americans – a community that will not be reluctant to take on our nation’s most challenging problems. Today OAG facilitates research by youth in the Seattle metropolitan area, and accepts blog articles from youth anywhere! OAG incorporated as a non profit in the state of Washington in October of 2009. In March of 2011 OAG was recognized as a 501c(3) Non Profit organization. OAG was first founded in March of 2009 as a registered student organization at the University of Washington. The Takeover is a quarterly ‘zine produced by members of Our American Generation. Hard copies are avaliable on University of Washington’s campus and at Seattle University, as well as various locations throughout Seattle. It is also published online at OAG.org. The Takeover is created in Adobe InDesign by Sarah Hiraki. She can be reached at sarah.hiraki@gmail.com
oag.org
@supwithoag
3
The Takeover
EditoriaL:
An Invitation People just do not live forever and, by and large, older people are going to die sooner. American youth will have no choice but to take over the governing of our country. There is no autopilot for politics; our generation will have control. So, let us take the time now to discuss the problems this nation faces and how we might approach them differently.
[
Let this be an invitation for all young people out there to write for The Takeover. Bring your ideas, passions, fears and curiosities about the future of America to the table. Personal knowledge cannot create progress until it is shared with the community. We can build the world we want once we all know what we want.
When writing for the Takeover you can address issues of all shapes and colors; your challenge is to tie it into the context of justice (or injustice). Additionally, once a quarter OAG will publish a paper-copy of our most relevant and critical articles. What you have in your hands is the third in the Takeover series.
The Our American Generation editorial board is composed of name, name, name, name, name. Signed articles and opinions represent the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or of Our American Generation.
]
4
August 26, 2011
What Does U.S. Military Involvement in
Libya
Mean for Our Generation? Jane Kim | Our American Generation
America should make wise decisions concerning military intervention, but listen when nations ask for it. 2011 has been a tremendous year for the Arab world, but also for American foreign policy. Up to a month ago, the pleasantly surprising aspect of the contagious revolutions was that there was no foreign (okay; American) involvement, the people of Tunisia and Egypt peacefully stood up for their rights and toppled dictatorships spanning longer than many of our lifetimes, surprising themselves and the world. Even an ocean away in Seattle, I felt a fairy-tale like quality to the narrative: educated youth mobilizing through technology, peaceful protests for an agenda cutting across social, gender, and religious boundaries. The protests throughout the Arab landscape also shattered the everbountiful theories that we come across explaining why the Middle East is the way it is: there is no history of democracy in the region, Islam does not support women’s rights, Arabs are lazy, Muslims do not feel compelled to stand up for change because they are waiting for the afterlife (seriously, one of my professors actually cited this as a reason for political inaction in the Arab world). If these reasons sound familiar, it’s probably because these are the same racist imperialist arguments that predicted free markets and democracy could never thrive in Asia or Latin America, or that Africans
had lower IQs because of the shape of their craniums. Today, we see that democracy has brought female presidents to numerous Latin American countries, the capitalist market has allowed Asian nations to become leaders in the auto and cell phone technology sectors, and here in the U.S. we happen to have an African-American president whom I would wildly guess has a pretty high IQ. So now that the enormous arguments about Arabs not wanting democracy have been proved false by the thousands of people, young and old, that have courageously risked their lives protesting- what is going to be our response to the mass atrocities committed by Colonel Muammar Ghaddafi, the longest standing dictator in the region? For a while, the international community was reluctant to become involved in Libya, citing the lack of leadership as a potential for instability or a worse regime. But the “stability” in the Middle East that America has supported for so long, such as providing 1.5 billion dollars annually to the Egyptian military, was a chilled peace that came at the cost of democracy for the Egyptian people. What kind of candidate in Egypt, where the average citizen lives on less than two dollars a day, can hope to compete against a leader who receives that much money from the U.S. without having to raise a finger? Relating back to Ghaddafi, who in Libya can fight against an oil tyrant who has not only amassed ridiculous wealth in his 41 years of leadership, but also called back his Af-
rican mercenaries who have no kinship to Libyans and only loyalty to Ghaddafi? Is inaction really an option when a leader publicly promises he will fight to the end and “look in every closet”? Indeed, America’s involvement in Libya has the verisimilitude of a lose-lose situation. We lose if we become the face of yet another military operation in a Muslim country, but we also lose if we once again hypocritically say “never again” in the face of yet another massacre, like the Clinton administration regarding Rwanda, willfully condoning Ghaddafi’s actions in Libya. In addition, there is an increasing domestic sentiment that too many taxpayer dollars are being spent abroad. All of this is depressingly true from an American perspective. But from an international perspective, here’s what I think positively distinguishes Libya from other acts of American foreign policy thus far. While I recognize that the concerns about the no-fly zone and Libya’s future are by no means trivial, the current U.S. involvement is the best possible scenario out of any option available. For the first time, the Arab League has been proactive in the ousting of a delusional leader, instead of being too afraid to get their hands dirty. The UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973 that authorized any action necessary to stop crimes against humanity, and the U.S. for the first time in a long time is one piece of a very multilateral agenda. I am proud of President Obama’s ac-
“I am not someone who supported the war in Iraq or Afghanistan. So I find it unfair when people liken those wars to Libya- Iraqis did not ask us for help.”
5
The Takeover
“What is the cost of inaction beyond the lives lost?”
via Abode of Silence | Creative Commons, Flickr A graffitti portrait of Momar Ghaddafi, who ruled over Libya from 1969 until 2011. tions- for a president whom we often criticize for inaction, he was remarkably firm in his response that this would not be a U.S. operation, that there would be no American boots on Libyan soil, and that regional bodies such as the Arab League must be consulted and represented in our quest for human rights and international security. Although some would argue that we should have waited longer, Benghazi was about to be destroyed by Ghaddafi’s forces even if the decision was made one day later. We’re talking about armored brigades and a mercenary air force killing thousands of protesters who tried to replicate the peaceful protests of Egypt and Tunisia. A no-fly zone had the unique poten-
tial to prevent the loss of lives and even the playing field for Libyan rebels to even have a chance. I honestly believe this has saved many lives and shown Libyans that Americans actually care about human rights. Two prominent UW professors are currently in Libya, including the head of my department. He has been in Benghazi with his family for the past few months, and is one of hundreds of Libyan-Americans who have returned to their homeland despite the obvious dangers. What is the cost of inaction beyond the lives lost? Already in Syria we see that one monarchial “president” Bashar al-Assad, whose father was president for 29 years be-
fore him, has learned something from Ghaddafi: if they commit atrocities against peaceful protesters by gunning them down rather than warning them first with tepid rubber bullets and tear gas, it will create more reluctant protesters, and the world will turn a blind eye, citing “sovereignty.” After all, Syria does not have oil or gas resources to dramatically affect the world economy or catch the interest of the United States. Even worse, such despots will work even harder than before to oppress their people and amass weapons of mass destruction; we already know that the governments of Syria and North Korea are BFFs. They will have learned from Ghaddafi’s mistake and realize that nuclear weapons are a better alternative to good governance or diplomacy. I am not someone who supported the war in Iraq or Afghanistan. So I find it unfair when people liken those wars to Libya- Iraqis did not ask us for help. The United Nations Security Council never approved military action in Iraq. Regional leaders were neither asked to participate nor provide input regarding the Iraq invasion. Iraqis never asked America to oust Saddam Hussein. I see American guidance of the no-fly zone in Libya as not only a way to redeem ourselves within the Muslim community, but also the best type of American military action- one that actually represents American ideals of freedom and liberty for all, and one that is sensitive to what the population actually wants.
Jane can be reached at oag.org
“What is the cost of inaction beyond the lives lost?”
6
August 26, 2011
No U.S. Military Intervention in Libya and the Middle East Pete Gallagher | Our American Generation This morning, as I participated in a vigil at the Federal Building in Los Angeles to protest continued war in the Middle East, a horrible realization dawned on me: the United States is now actively participating in three wars in the Middle East. Three wars! The peace so many of us hoped might be on the horizon remains as shrouded and distant as ever. Those Obama bumperstickers with a peace sign replacing the “O” in Obama are beginning to reflect at best a harsh irony, at worst a cruel mockery of our present predicament. A month ago, who could have predicted that the United States would be in yet another war, dropping bombs over yet another country? I certainly could not have. I never doubted that the sweeping spirit of revolution and democracy in the Middle East and North Africa would make our government nervous, but I did not expect that military intervention would come down so fast and so hard. Part of what has prompted me to write this blog post is that I’ve heard precious little resis-
tance voices among friends, colleagues, and trusted political voices in regards to America’s third war. Why is this? Where are those voices that demand a different approach to foreign policy, one not based on military might but on service and solidarity? It may be that the immensely complicated and emotionally gripping nature of the massacre in Libya is cause for some trepidation, trepidation borne out of instances where the West has turned a blind eye to genocide, trepidation that I too experience. But I see crafting my argument as to why military intervention is wrong as an opportunity to shore up conviction in the presence of all sorts of internally conflicted arguments and emotions: to give reason to the faith I have in non-violence as the avenue to justice. The narrative surrounding this war, as with so many wars the United States has chosen to engage in, is that this is a war of necessity: a last resort to protect the interests of a people that are being slaughtered by their government as they
struggle for democracy. My goal in writing this is to argue that the United States should immediately cease all military presence in Libya. We cannot “bring” democracy to Libya; we can only co-opt the fervor for democracy and justice that comes from a people’s oppression. Furthermore, though the Gaddhafi government is slaughtering its own people and the pretext of the war is to protect the people of Libya, an understanding of historical parallels and the functioning and motivations of the United States gives reason to believe that our motivations are in practice anything but unselfish and humanitarian. Largescale military intervention in Libya by the United States and other European countries will result in the reinforcement of Euro-American imperialism in the Middle East/North Africa, in the midst of organic political idealism that could lead to meaningful reform of these engrained hegemonic structures. My argument against military intervention in Libya is grounded in a critical understanding of U.S. foreign policy
throughout the 20th century. In broad strokes, U.S. foreign policy has always amounted to maintaining, asserting or strengthening its own interests-economic or political-in a country or region, whether through covert politicking or military operations outside of the gaze of the media, or through full-blown war. The United States has a steady history of favoring moldable dictators over courageous leaders that stand up for their people, and has consistently had an active role in working to violently usurp democratic or populist leaders and installing non-democratic regimes. At times, such as in Chile, this took place through covert CIA operations and is something most Americans know nothing about, and at other times, in the case of Vietnam, it resulted in the most terrible military campaign the world has ever seen. This history is relevant inasmuch as it helps us see how the American attitude towards Gaddafhi and his dictatorshipcomplacent until the beginning of the unrest-is consistent with our modus operandi
“In broad strokes, U.S. foreign policy has always amounted to maintaining, asserting or strengthening its own interests-economic or political-in a country or region, whether through covert politicking or military operations outside of the gaze of the media, or through full-blown war.”
7
The Takeover
“What about past travesties like the genocide in Rwanda, or the Holocaust? How do we avoid turning a blind eye to impending genocide without suppressing the oppressors?” concerning dictators that do not challenge American hegemony in the Middle East/North Africa. In the latter half of the 20th century, as economic power has come to mean more than political might, this has manifested itself through the struggle to control the most valuable resource in the world: oil. Though in most cases politicians do not explicitly acknowledge the influence that oil has in determining foreign policy, in a world where money is power and controlling oil production is the surest way to make money, we have seen how tremendously influential the desire for oil really is in global politics. Though Obama would never admit it, the fact that Libya has such vast oil reserves cannot be seen as insignificant. Oppressive regimes murder their civilians all over the globe, but a broad coalition of Western Countries does not always organize a military presence over a matter of days
in these instances where valuable resources are not at stake. The decision to go to war always seems to be lubricated by the presence of oil: the Iraq wars are, of course, a prime example of this. This point
is perhaps indicative of what repercussions Western military intervention in Libya may entail. The reason I bring in all this history is to make this point: the U.S.-led bombing campaign of Libya fits both of these historical criteria for a military intervention principally motivated by the preservation of economic and political interests. Western countries were perfectly happy to let Gaddafhi reign as he pleased until the people brought on democratic unrest, and the region’s political status quo-and oil reserves-became uncertain. The developments and repercussions of war throughout history paint a clear picture of what forces shape a superpower’s decision to engage in war, and they are
never purely humanitarian. This fact should determine our understanding of this present war. Unfortunately, what is formulating the discourse around the war in Libya is not an educated understanding of past and present military endeavors, but rather the narrative of the mass media, which is consistent with a nationalist narrative that has accompanied all unconscionable American wars. The mainstream media is and always will be subject to some of the most deplorable and unethical forces in society: the unfailingly selfish motivations of the State,
Libya
8
August 26, 2011
No U.S. Military Intervention in Libya and the Middle East, Continued: the most morbid and sensationalist human impulses that get amplified on a mass scale and, increasingly, through the consolidation of news outlets into media conglomerates, the logic and agenda of large corporations. As such, the media has been faithfully broadcasting the narrative put forth by politicians: that the United States has joined NATO in a bombing campaign in Libya
based on our concern for that country’s citizens, and that we can be a beacon of hope and democracy for countries that live under the tyranny of dictators. This assertion begs the question of why the United States has not yet intervened in countries such as Syria, Bahrain, or Yemen (among countless other countries) that have either been confirmed to or are suspected of murdering innocent civilians as
well. The argument that posits that the United States and other Western countries intervene as a humanitarian and selfless presence is inconsistent with not only its present prerogatives but also the lessons of history: the exact opposite has been, and continues to be, the case. The mere presence of the United States in a country whose subordinance is politically valuable to it is a step back
“It is easy to extol the virtues of non-violence and peace, but it is much harder to maintain that conviction when presented with these types of complicated and morally ambiguous situations.”
via KalakutaCitizen | Creative Commons, Flickr Demonstrators in solidarity with the Libyan people in Geneva, Switzerland
from democracy: from true democracy, a democracy not just as idealistically outlined in an irrelevant constitution, but as a consequence of a society that is organized such where people have agency over their lives and autonomy in their relationship to their government. Thus, while the Allied deposition of Hitler through military force was a clear step towards democracy and freedom for Germany, the same cannot be said in this context, given the hegemonic nature of relations between the West and the Middle East. The main point I want to make is the following: an imperial power like the United States cannot “bring” democracy or freedom to anyone, not least of which through military means. It’s as fundamental as any basic
9
The Takeover
mathematical contradiction: institutions that rule through force and might simply cannot instill values of agency, freedom and democracy to another country’s peoples that are differently situated in that hegemonic field of relationships. It has never happened and it never will. Now I feel I should address the profound doubt that I grapple with, and maybe you(th) do as well. What about past travesties like the genocide in Rwanda, or the Holocaust? How do we avoid turning a blind eye to impending genocide without suppressing the oppressors? I can’t give a simple or easy answer to this question; I don’t think there is one. At the very least, it would require foresight and ingenuity that are beyond me. But when our “foreign policy”
and solidarity with the people of Libya takes the form of bombs that fall only when unrest has begun to foment, I know that something is fundamentally wrong with the system at large, even if I may not know specifically what a concrete solution to the present situation may entail. That could be an entirely separate blog post in and of itself. What’s so hard about this situation is that it tugs at deep universal humanitarian sentiments: the people of Libya are being massacred by their government, and we want to help. But in spite of this impulse, and the media messaging that panders to it in isolation of a broader political understanding, I fully believe that the United States and other European countries’ military investment in Libya remains an
impediment to the freedom and autonomy that the Libyan people are fighting for. We can see history reflected in the present if we look deeply, in order to see what insidious forces are at work. It is easy to extol the virtues of non-violence and peace, but it is much harder to maintain that conviction when presented with these types of complicated and morally ambiguous situations. I experience tremendous doubt around this question as well: it’s not easy to advocate for a non-violent approach when violence is so indiscriminately wielded against those fighting for freedom. It is these kinds of situations that test one’s commitment to peaceful means, as the nature of the circumstances seem to support a praxis of “an eye for an eye” and a path to
peace that necessitates violence and begets even more suffering. So, as much as I’ve tried to stress a nuanced and contextualized understanding of the present situation in Libya, I also believe that a reaction to this situation is most safely grounded in our innate propensity towards compassion. War is wrong. Bombs are not agents of peace and freedom. All people are sisters and brothers, and a nation as oppressive and violent as our own cannot foster brotherhood and sisterhood in another nation. I am still a pacifist, in spite of all the doubts I hold. If you(th) are too, now would be an excellent time to show it.
Pete can be reached at oag.org
via KalakutaCitizen | Creative Commons, Flickr Demonstrators in solidarity with the Libyan people in Geneva, Switzerland
10
August 26, 2011
Out with Sodexo! In with You(th)! UW United Students Against Sweatshops | from University of Washington Multinational company Sodexho uses unethical tactics to grow their business; paying poverty level wages, preventing formation of unions, and violating contracts with its partners. Over the past two years, university students across the nation affiliated with United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS) have been running a campaign to kick out Sodexo—an infamous multinational food service provider—from our campuses. Here in Seattle at the University of Washington, Sodexo has a multi-million dollar contract to provide concessions at Husky Stadium and other athletic venues. Currently, UW USAS and students across campus are calling on our high-
est university official, President Phyllis Wise, to cut the UW’s contract with Sodexo. Our point is simple: Sodexo is a toxic company that does not deserve to do business with our university. In this post, we will make the case against Sodexo and explain why university contract cuts are the most effective means for students to bring about meaningful change in companies like Sodexo. We hope this post inspires many of you to join the USAS movement against Sodexo that’s bringing students and workers across the globe together in a struggle for a better world.
The Ever-Mounting Evidence Against Sodexo
How to help:
In recent years, Sodexo has become embroiled in an international controversy for its business practices. The charges against the company are expansive, and range from racial discrimination and union busting, to poverty wage rates and price gouging. Meanwhile, in 2008, Sodexo reported revenues of more than $20 billion and reaped operating profits of over $1 billion. In the first half of fiscal year 2009, Sodexo reported that its operating profits grew by 7.1% at a time when many employers are struggling to stay above water. Today, Sodexo is the world’s 22nd-largest employer, with 355,000 employees in 80 countries world-wide and 120,000 employees in North America. Sodexo has the ability—and the responsibility—to pro-
• Sign the petition, telling Phyllis Wise to support the students and cut the contract with Sodexo. • Send President Wise an email (pres@uw.edu), call and leave a message (206-543-5010), or even drop a message on the UW Facebook page. • Have a USAS member come to your student group’s meeting to ask if they will join the UW Kick Out Sodexo Coalition. Let us know if there’s any way USAS can support your group as well. • Come to a UW USAS meeting in Parrington Hall 206 on Tuesdays at 7:00pm. • Tell your friends. This is an issue that everyone on campus should be aware of. Spread the word about Sodexo’s abuses and inspire your fellow students to take actioN
11
The Takeover
“Our point is simple: Sodexo is a toxic company that does not deserve to do business with our university.” vide decent jobs that can support a family and treat their workers with dignity. In addition to paying its workers poverty wages, Sodexo commits blatant acts of racial discrimination in the workplace. In 2005, Sodexo was forced to pay $80 million to thousands of its African-American employees to settle a class action lawsuit charging the company with racial segregation and racial bias in promotions. The case was one of the largest class action racial discrimination suits in U.S. history. Sodexo has attempted to downplay the lawsuit as much as possible and claim that it has reformed its internal diversity advancement policies. Unfortunately, the company has remained unwilling to provide any semblance of evidence that it’s making a serious commitment to treating people of color employees with respect. Sodexo also has a record of attacking unions and worker organizing efforts in order to prevent workers from securing living wages and decent working conditions. In September 2010, Human Rights Watch, a reputable NGO watchdog, published a report in which they cite Sodexo as one of the nine worst violators of international standards protecting workers’ rights to form unions and freely assemble. In HRW’s words, “despite claims of adherence to international standards on workers’ freedom of association, Sodexo has launched aggressive campaigns against some of its U.S. employees’ efforts to form unions and bargain collectively.” For example, USAS Students at Emory College recently discovered that Sodexo managers were holding mandatory “captive audience” meetings with workers to prevent them from forming unions. These meetings included presentations with a “Top 10” list of reasons why a worker might not want to join a union and thinly veiled threats against employees who attempted to organize their co-workers.
Currently, Sodexo is being investigated by the federal government in at least ten separate cases that charge the company with illegal interrogation, coercion and intimidation of workers speaking out against dismal working conditions and poverty wages across the United States. Just this January, TransAfrica Forum, a prominent international human rights organization, published a report finding that Sodexo engages in rampant human rights violations worldwide. These violations include discrimination, poor safety conditions, inhibition of the right of workers to organize and extremely low wages at Sodexo workplaces in Guinea, Colombia, the Dominican Republic and Morocco. The report found that Sodexo workers in these countries were receiving wages as low as 33 cents an hour, while others were subjected to mandatory pregnancy tests as a precondition for employment. Not only does Sodexo’s pursuit of profit at any cost hurt workers, it also means a raw deal for client universities and their students. A New York State investigation confirmed that Sodexo was illegally shortchanging public institutions, resulting in Sodexo paying out a $20 million settlement. Attorney General Cuomo found that Sodexo “cut sweetheart deals with suppliers and then denied taxpayer-supported schools the benefits … in violation of the contracts, as well as state and federal laws.” The investigation revealed that it is common practice nationally for Sodexo to seek out these supplier discounts, called “rebates,” rather than finding the best deal for its clients. This means inf lated meal plan costs for students and, when Sodexo fails to properly report and return the rebates, can mean violations of its contracts with public institutions. Students across the country are calling on their universities to investigate how their institutions are affected
by this widespread dishonest practice.
A Path for Change: Students Demand Contract Cuts USAS students have expressed their concerns to Sodexo directly on a local, national, and international level. In fact, one UW USAS member recently participated in a delegation to the Dominican Republic to speak with Sodexo managers at their Barrick Gold Mine operation about their company’s global and local human rights abuses. We find it disappointing that Sodexo has not made any serious attempts to change their business practices as a result of these direct efforts. That’s why UW USAS is joining students at over twenty college campuses across the country in demanding that our universities cut Sodexo contracts and hold the next contractor accountable to a higher ethical standard. Past experience shows us that contract cuts are the most effective means of sending a clear message to Sodexo that students won’t tolerate the kinds of human rights abuses that have become the company’s trademark. From 1999-2001, several public schools, including the Evergreen State College in Washington State, terminated their contracts with Sodexo in response to the company’s dismal business record managing private prisons. Following these cuts, Sodexo swiftly withdrew its ownership stakes in U.S. prisons. In taking up leadership roles, these universities brought about positive change. The University of Washington is in a position to take up a similar mantle and terminate Sodexo’s contract in order to create meaningful change in the company’s practices.
UW USAS can be reached at uwseattle.usas.org/
10
August 26, 2011
Your School’s Best Teachers: The Next Budget Cut? Maggie Wilkens | Our American Generation We have all been hearing that Washington has some budget problems we have to resolve. With a 4+ billion dollar deficit, statewide funding for public schools is going to decrease, again. What do these budget cuts actually look like for our local high schools? A school district might choose to offsets cuts to their operating budgets by laying off teachers. In the education world, this is called a RIF (Reduction in Force). Many districts across the state may be forced to resort to layoffs as early as the end of the 2011 school year. Potentially hundreds of teachers across the state will be faced with pink slips in the next 3 months. Not only are teachers let go to balance budgets, but the layoff process has raised many questions. Currently because of the way union contracts are written, all 295 school districts in Washington (and most of our country), lay teachers off based on seniority alone.
Currently, only seven states mandate that teacher lay-offs require an assessment of a teacher’s performance. The last teachers in the building are the first ones out. This article on Education Week helps outline school policies and the economics behind seniority-based layoffs. In light of recent legislation in Wisconsin, it is important to note that the issue at stake is not about busting unions. Unions have served, and currently serve, really important functions in the public school system and the public sector as a whole. However, RIF policies pose a threat to student learning. The prevailing argument against switching up seniority-based layoffs is founded on the notion that our newest teachers, because of their lack of experience, can’t be as effective as their more experienced peers. For teachers currently teaching who have been in their job for a while, this is a no-brainer. They’ve
“Potentially hundreds of teachers across the state will be faced with pink slips in the next 3 months.”
seen their personal growth and understand that time in the classroom helped improve their own teaching ability. However, we who have hope for the future of public schools in America have to believe that some new teachers enter the field better equipped to teach than those currently holding their teaching jobs. In fact, we know this is true in some instances and our policies ought to ref lect what we already know to be true. There are also intangible benefits to having new teachers in the building that we don’t discuss as often. Whenever you ask a high school student about their new-to-teaching teachers, you hear that newest teachers tend to be the youngest teachers. They are the often freshest out of college, which means they have read the most up to date articles and studied the newest teaching materials. Their curriculum is fresh and sometimes more culturally relevant. They may be closer in age to the students they are teaching and can relate/build trust/strengthen relationships easier. Of course, these scenarios aren’t true for every teacher all of the time and there are great teachers currently teaching that continue to develop and grow over the
The Takeover
11
“Whenever you ask a high school student about their newto-teaching teachers, you hear that newest teachers tend to be the youngest teachers. They are the often freshest out of college, which means they have read the most up to date articles and studied the newest teaching materials.” years. A change in RIF policy wouldn’t affect seasoned teachers who have proven they can teach well. The current policy reads that a first year teacher (or second, or third, etc.) could win awards, be loved by everyone and get the best out of their students and still be laid off because they were the newest at their job. Seniority makes sense for a lot of professions. I don’t think it makes sense for teaching. If you’re focused on what’s best for student-learning, then you cannot base teacher layoffs on seniority alone, you have to consider more than one factor in determining who gets RIFed. In Ann Arbor, Michigan, if two teachers are tied for seniority they randomize the last four digits of their social security numbers to determine who gets laid off, regardless of how effective the teachers are (or aren’t). That is not a policy that is kid-focused. Washington is one of nine states where our opportunity gap is still growing. To turn this trend around, we’ve got
a whole lot of work ahead of us and it involves reforming multiple aspects of our public school system. RIF is one tangible example of a policy we can change to ensure that we’re keeping the highest quality teachers in our classrooms.
Maggie can be reached at oag.org
14
August 26, 2011
The Story We Should Have Been Outraged About David Lambert | Our American Generation News stories come and go. Some may stick with us longer than others, but the vast majority quickly fade into the past, becoming nothing more than vague memories that we may or may not recall someday. They also vacillate greatly in how much we as a society choose to care, and far too often the most pressing issues are marginalized to make room for political quibbles or the latest celebrity gossip (which are increasingly becoming one and the same). One important story that came without much interest, and left without much lingering memory, is the case of Judges Mark A. Ciavarella Jr and Michael T. Conahan. Both of whom were discovered in 2009 to have received $2.6 million in kickbacks by private prison companies for sentencing children to long sentences in their facilities. Last month Ciaviarelle was finally convicted and faces a minimum of 12 to 15 years in prison— sparking my own recollection of the case. Some of the more egregious sentences, in an already shocking display of heartlessness, include: • A 12 year old sentenced to 2 years for joy riding in his mother’s car. • A middle school student sentenced to jail for posting a MySpace page taunting her school administrator. • A 14 year old sentenced to a year for a minor first fight with her friend, which caused no serious injuries. • A child convicted and sent to jail for “conspiracy to shoplift” by being around a friend who stole a $4 bottle of nutmeg. Prison is a traumatizing experience for anyone, and for children it can be absolutely devastating. One of Ciavarelle’s victims committed suicide after being sentenced to four months imprisonment and
“it should come as no surprise that America has the most prisoners in the world, beating notoriously authoritarian countries such as Russia and China.” boot camp for possession of drug paraphernalia. He had no previous criminal record and was a state champion wrestler. Though this case is intrinsically disturbing, it underscores the growing threat of for profit prisons in America. The massive push to hand the prison system over to private companies to run at a profit started in the 1980s, and in 2009—the year Ciavarelle and Conahan were exposed—264 of these facilities had been built, receiving revenues of over 1.4 billion in tax payer dollars. Both numbers have grown ever since. We have reached a point where almost anyone who pays the least bit of attention to American politics can agree that money plays a key role in policy creation. When this sort of profit is involved in locking people up, it should come as no surprise that America has the most prisoners in the world, beating notoriously authoritarian countries such as Russia and China. Nearly 1 out of every 100 Americans is now behind bars.
In her book Anarchism and Other Essays, 19th century activist Emma Goldman states, ”Every society has the criminals it deserves.” She meant this in the sense that as we marginalize people, denying whole populations basic standards of living, education, and a better hope for the future, pervasive crime becomes a natural condition. Though this was supposed to be a warning to those in power to work towards a more equal society, avoiding the burden of housing millions of people in jails, in the 20th century corporations have instead found a way to turn crime into a profit. This not only guarantees the continuation of the structures which give us the criminals we deserve, but also the motivation to create criminals we don’t deserve. The 5,000 children sentenced by Ciavarelle and Conahan being of course the undeserving criminals.
David can be reached at oag..org
“in 2009—the year Ciavarelle and Conahan were exposed—264 of these facilities had been built, receiving revenues of over 1.4 billion in tax payer dollars.”
15
The Takeover
oag.org/think
oag.org/Speak
oag.org/Create
Think critically about a social justice issue of your choice through research supported and published by OAG.
Speak up about issues, solutions, & events related to social justice at the Takeover.
Create tangible connections & solutions through OAG’s collaborative events & actions.
Oag.org | @supwithoag
The Takeover
Inside this issue:
6
Libya can succeed without military support by the US
14
16
Children don’t belong in prison, but some lawmakers are imprisioning them for a profit.