Friday, August 7, 2020
MASS VIOLATIONS BY US POLICE OF PROTESTER’S RIGHTS
By Amnesty International.
August 5, 2020
https://popularresistance.org/mass-violations-by-us-police-of-protesters-rights/
The World Is Watching.
Download the full report here.
On 25 May 2020, George Floyd was detained, tortured and extrajudicially executed by Minneapolis Police Department officers who restrained and suffocated him by holding him on the ground and kneeling on his neck for almost nine minutes. His death sparked widespread protests across the USA and the world and a long-overdue conversation about systemic racism and policing. Recent events have also raised longstanding concerns about violations of human rights, including the rights to life, to security of the person, to equal protection of the law, to freedom from discrimination and to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. 1
More than 1,000 people are killed each year by police in the USA; because the US government does not collect data on these deaths, the exact number of people killed by police annually is unknown. The data that does exist shows that Black people are disproportionately impacted by police killings. While Black people represent 13.2% of the US population, they represent 24.2% of deaths from police use of firearms. The use of lethal force against people of colour in the USA should be understood as part of the wider pattern of racially discriminatory treatment by law enforcement officers, including unjustified stops and searches, excessive use of force and racial profiling. Such treatment violates international human rights law which strictly prohibits all forms of discrimination.
One of a state’s most fundamental duties is to protect life and police officers, as agents of the state, have a responsibility to uphold this in carrying out their law enforcement duties. International law allows police officers to use lethal force only as a last resort to protect themselves or others from death or serious injury.
Furthermore, international law enforcement standards require that force of any kind be used only when no other means are available that are likely to achieve the legitimate objective. If the use of force is unavoidable it must be no more than is necessary and proportionate to achieve the objective and law enforcement must use it in a manner designed to minimize damage or injury and must respect and preserve human life. 2
Amnesty International has previously documented serious and egregious violations of human rights in the use of lethal force by law enforcement in the USA. Following the killing of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old Black teenager, by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, on 9 August 2014, Amnesty International issued a report on the laws governing use of lethal force by police, Deadly force: Police use of lethal force in the United States. This research found that:
• All 50 states and Washington, D.C. fail to comply with international law and standards on the use of lethal force by law enforcement officers.
• None of the state statutes require that the use of lethal force be used only as a last resort and that non-violent and less harmful means be tried first.
• No state limits the use of lethal force to only those situations where there is an imminent threat to life or serious injury to the officer or to others.
This report shows that there has been a disturbing lack of progress over the past five years in ensuring that police officers use lethal force only when there is an imminent risk of death or serious injury to themselves or others. Just three states – California, Washington and Missouri – have taken important but incremental steps, such as by bringing their state laws on lethal force into compliance with US constitutional standards.
In the context of the policing of the protests sparked by the killing of George Floyd, Amnesty International has documented serious human rights concerns in relation to the use of excessive force. On 23 June 2020, Amnesty International launched an interactive digital project, “Black Lives Matter Protests: Mapping Police Violence Across the USA”. This found that police forces across the USA committed widespread and egregious human rights violations in response to largely peaceful assemblies protesting systemic racism and police violence.
Amnesty International documented 125 separate incidents of police violence against protesters in 40 states and the District of Columbia between 26 May and 5 June 2020. These acts of excessive force were committed by members of state and local police departments, as well as by National Guard troops and security force personnel from several federal agencies.
Among the abuses documented were beatings, the misuse of tear gas and pepper spray, and the inappropriate and at times indiscriminate firing of “less lethal” projectiles, such as sponge rounds and rubber bullets.
In city after city, Amnesty International documented incidents of unnecessary and excessive use of force by law enforcement agencies while policing Black Lives Matter protests. The unnecessary and excessive use of specific weapons, such as chemical irritants and kinetic impact projectiles, is ultimately a symptom of the very issue that started these protests: unaccountable police violence.
In many cities law enforcement confronted protesters while wearing riot gear as a first level of response, rather than in response to any particular acts of violence. Again, and again, law enforcement used physical force, chemical irritants, kinetic impact projectiles, and arbitrary arrest and detention as a first resort against largely peaceful demonstrations.
In several cities, law enforcement resorted to physical force against largely peaceful protesters to enforce hastily rolled out curfews. Between 26 May and 5 June 2020, Amnesty International documented at least six incidents of police using batons and 13 instances of the unnecessary use of kinetic impact projectiles in 13 cities across the country.
Amnesty International documented the use of tear gas and pepper spray in dozens of incidents across the country. In many cases, these were used against people non-violently protesting, rather than as a necessary and proportionate response to widespread violence or a perceived threat. Between 25 May and 5 June, Amnesty International documented 89 specific instances of the unnecessary use of tear gas in cities in 34 states and 21 incidents of the unlawful use of pepper spray in 15 states and Washington, DC. In many of the documented incidents, chemical irritants were used as a first resort to disperse a peacefully assembled crowd or in response to non-compliance with some specific order.
In some instances, the use of chemical irritants can constitute torture or other ill-treatment. Furthermore, their widespread, unnecessary and excessive use against largely peaceful protesters raises additional concerns during a pandemic involving a respiratory illness such as COVID-19. The natural response by people when exposed to these chemicals is to remove their masks in order to flush their eyes, noses and mouths and expectorate the chemicals from their mouths and lungs, potentially spreading the virus.
In numerous incidents across the USA, law enforcement personnel targeted media representatives with chemical irritants, kinetic impact projectiles and arrest and detention. Amnesty International has documented cases in several states where journalists sustained serious injuries resulting from kinetic impact projectiles and/or were detained and arrested without proper access to medical care. Amnesty International has also documented the use of excessive force against and arbitrary arrests of legal observers as they monitored protests.
Street medics were also targeted. In some cases, law enforcement destroyed clearly identified medic stations and subjected clearly identified street medics to excessive force, such as physical assault, pepper spray and rubber projectiles, and arrest.
This report draws on more than 50 interviews conducted by Amnesty International over several weeks in June 2020 about people’s experiences in the context of the protests sparked by the killing of George Floyd. It highlights the shocking failure to limit the use of force by law enforcement to situations where it is necessary and proportionate to an actual threat and details how protesters, journalists, legal observers and street medics were met with police violence. The report ends with a series of recommendations to federal, state and local authorities to ensure accountability for these violations and to address the urgent need for police reform, including the policing of protests, in the USA.
Key Recommendations
Amnesty International is calling on federal, state and local officials to enact systemic reform that protect and respect Black lives, the development of national guidelines on respecting and facilitating the right to peaceful protest and for all law enforcement agencies to review their policies and the equipment used in the policing of demonstrations.
Limit the use of deadly force by law enforcement
• Federal, state and local authorities must urgently take decisive action to address systemic racism and systemic misuse of force in the US policing and criminal justice system, including by launching independent investigations and ensuring accountability in all cases of unlawful lethal use of force by police.
• All state legislatures should introduce or amend statutes that authorize the use of lethal force to ensure that they are in line with international law and standards by limiting the use of lethal force by law enforcement officials to those instances in which it is necessary and proportional to protect against an imminent threat of death or serious injury.
• The US Congress should pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020 (HR 7120), including the Police Exercising Absolute Care with Everyone (“PEACE Act”) which would bar federal law enforcement from using deadly force unless necessary as a last resort to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury and prevent states from receiving federal funding unless they enact a similarly restrictive state use of force law.
Policing of protests
• Federal, state and local authorities must ensure that everyone under their jurisdiction can enjoy their human rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression.
• All law enforcements agencies must revise their policies and practices for the policing of protests. Law enforcement agencies must comply at all times with international human rights standards, including the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials which must be the guiding principles underpinning all operations before, during and after demonstrations.
• The Department of Justice and all state Attorney Generals should investigate, effectively, impartially and promptly, all allegations of human rights violations by police officials during public assemblies, including unlawful use of force, and bring all those found responsible, including commanding officers, to account through criminal or disciplinary proceedings as appropriate, and provide full redress to victims.
End Notes:
1 The USA signed and ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1992 and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1994.
2 UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials
https://popularresistance.org/mass-violations-by-us-police-of-protesters-rights/
The World Is Watching.
Download the full report here.
On 25 May 2020, George Floyd was detained, tortured and extrajudicially executed by Minneapolis Police Department officers who restrained and suffocated him by holding him on the ground and kneeling on his neck for almost nine minutes. His death sparked widespread protests across the USA and the world and a long-overdue conversation about systemic racism and policing. Recent events have also raised longstanding concerns about violations of human rights, including the rights to life, to security of the person, to equal protection of the law, to freedom from discrimination and to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. 1
More than 1,000 people are killed each year by police in the USA; because the US government does not collect data on these deaths, the exact number of people killed by police annually is unknown. The data that does exist shows that Black people are disproportionately impacted by police killings. While Black people represent 13.2% of the US population, they represent 24.2% of deaths from police use of firearms. The use of lethal force against people of colour in the USA should be understood as part of the wider pattern of racially discriminatory treatment by law enforcement officers, including unjustified stops and searches, excessive use of force and racial profiling. Such treatment violates international human rights law which strictly prohibits all forms of discrimination.
One of a state’s most fundamental duties is to protect life and police officers, as agents of the state, have a responsibility to uphold this in carrying out their law enforcement duties. International law allows police officers to use lethal force only as a last resort to protect themselves or others from death or serious injury.
Furthermore, international law enforcement standards require that force of any kind be used only when no other means are available that are likely to achieve the legitimate objective. If the use of force is unavoidable it must be no more than is necessary and proportionate to achieve the objective and law enforcement must use it in a manner designed to minimize damage or injury and must respect and preserve human life. 2
Amnesty International has previously documented serious and egregious violations of human rights in the use of lethal force by law enforcement in the USA. Following the killing of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old Black teenager, by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, on 9 August 2014, Amnesty International issued a report on the laws governing use of lethal force by police, Deadly force: Police use of lethal force in the United States. This research found that:
• All 50 states and Washington, D.C. fail to comply with international law and standards on the use of lethal force by law enforcement officers.
• None of the state statutes require that the use of lethal force be used only as a last resort and that non-violent and less harmful means be tried first.
• No state limits the use of lethal force to only those situations where there is an imminent threat to life or serious injury to the officer or to others.
This report shows that there has been a disturbing lack of progress over the past five years in ensuring that police officers use lethal force only when there is an imminent risk of death or serious injury to themselves or others. Just three states – California, Washington and Missouri – have taken important but incremental steps, such as by bringing their state laws on lethal force into compliance with US constitutional standards.
In the context of the policing of the protests sparked by the killing of George Floyd, Amnesty International has documented serious human rights concerns in relation to the use of excessive force. On 23 June 2020, Amnesty International launched an interactive digital project, “Black Lives Matter Protests: Mapping Police Violence Across the USA”. This found that police forces across the USA committed widespread and egregious human rights violations in response to largely peaceful assemblies protesting systemic racism and police violence.
Amnesty International documented 125 separate incidents of police violence against protesters in 40 states and the District of Columbia between 26 May and 5 June 2020. These acts of excessive force were committed by members of state and local police departments, as well as by National Guard troops and security force personnel from several federal agencies.
Among the abuses documented were beatings, the misuse of tear gas and pepper spray, and the inappropriate and at times indiscriminate firing of “less lethal” projectiles, such as sponge rounds and rubber bullets.
In city after city, Amnesty International documented incidents of unnecessary and excessive use of force by law enforcement agencies while policing Black Lives Matter protests. The unnecessary and excessive use of specific weapons, such as chemical irritants and kinetic impact projectiles, is ultimately a symptom of the very issue that started these protests: unaccountable police violence.
In many cities law enforcement confronted protesters while wearing riot gear as a first level of response, rather than in response to any particular acts of violence. Again, and again, law enforcement used physical force, chemical irritants, kinetic impact projectiles, and arbitrary arrest and detention as a first resort against largely peaceful demonstrations.
In several cities, law enforcement resorted to physical force against largely peaceful protesters to enforce hastily rolled out curfews. Between 26 May and 5 June 2020, Amnesty International documented at least six incidents of police using batons and 13 instances of the unnecessary use of kinetic impact projectiles in 13 cities across the country.
Amnesty International documented the use of tear gas and pepper spray in dozens of incidents across the country. In many cases, these were used against people non-violently protesting, rather than as a necessary and proportionate response to widespread violence or a perceived threat. Between 25 May and 5 June, Amnesty International documented 89 specific instances of the unnecessary use of tear gas in cities in 34 states and 21 incidents of the unlawful use of pepper spray in 15 states and Washington, DC. In many of the documented incidents, chemical irritants were used as a first resort to disperse a peacefully assembled crowd or in response to non-compliance with some specific order.
In some instances, the use of chemical irritants can constitute torture or other ill-treatment. Furthermore, their widespread, unnecessary and excessive use against largely peaceful protesters raises additional concerns during a pandemic involving a respiratory illness such as COVID-19. The natural response by people when exposed to these chemicals is to remove their masks in order to flush their eyes, noses and mouths and expectorate the chemicals from their mouths and lungs, potentially spreading the virus.
In numerous incidents across the USA, law enforcement personnel targeted media representatives with chemical irritants, kinetic impact projectiles and arrest and detention. Amnesty International has documented cases in several states where journalists sustained serious injuries resulting from kinetic impact projectiles and/or were detained and arrested without proper access to medical care. Amnesty International has also documented the use of excessive force against and arbitrary arrests of legal observers as they monitored protests.
Street medics were also targeted. In some cases, law enforcement destroyed clearly identified medic stations and subjected clearly identified street medics to excessive force, such as physical assault, pepper spray and rubber projectiles, and arrest.
This report draws on more than 50 interviews conducted by Amnesty International over several weeks in June 2020 about people’s experiences in the context of the protests sparked by the killing of George Floyd. It highlights the shocking failure to limit the use of force by law enforcement to situations where it is necessary and proportionate to an actual threat and details how protesters, journalists, legal observers and street medics were met with police violence. The report ends with a series of recommendations to federal, state and local authorities to ensure accountability for these violations and to address the urgent need for police reform, including the policing of protests, in the USA.
Key Recommendations
Amnesty International is calling on federal, state and local officials to enact systemic reform that protect and respect Black lives, the development of national guidelines on respecting and facilitating the right to peaceful protest and for all law enforcement agencies to review their policies and the equipment used in the policing of demonstrations.
Limit the use of deadly force by law enforcement
• Federal, state and local authorities must urgently take decisive action to address systemic racism and systemic misuse of force in the US policing and criminal justice system, including by launching independent investigations and ensuring accountability in all cases of unlawful lethal use of force by police.
• All state legislatures should introduce or amend statutes that authorize the use of lethal force to ensure that they are in line with international law and standards by limiting the use of lethal force by law enforcement officials to those instances in which it is necessary and proportional to protect against an imminent threat of death or serious injury.
• The US Congress should pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020 (HR 7120), including the Police Exercising Absolute Care with Everyone (“PEACE Act”) which would bar federal law enforcement from using deadly force unless necessary as a last resort to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury and prevent states from receiving federal funding unless they enact a similarly restrictive state use of force law.
Policing of protests
• Federal, state and local authorities must ensure that everyone under their jurisdiction can enjoy their human rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression.
• All law enforcements agencies must revise their policies and practices for the policing of protests. Law enforcement agencies must comply at all times with international human rights standards, including the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials which must be the guiding principles underpinning all operations before, during and after demonstrations.
• The Department of Justice and all state Attorney Generals should investigate, effectively, impartially and promptly, all allegations of human rights violations by police officials during public assemblies, including unlawful use of force, and bring all those found responsible, including commanding officers, to account through criminal or disciplinary proceedings as appropriate, and provide full redress to victims.
End Notes:
1 The USA signed and ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1992 and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1994.
2 UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials
PARENTS STAND WITH EDUCATORS ON SAFETY BEFORE REOPENING SCHOOLS
By Brenda Álvarez, NEA Today.
August 5, 2020
https://popularresistance.org/parents-stand-with-educators-on-safety-before-reopening-schools/
Many parents nationwide are questioning whether it’s safe to send their kids back to a brick and mortar school this fall. With varied life circumstances, and different districts and schools choosing different options, it’s a daunting decision to make.
For Florida’s Raquel Pantoja Lias, a mom of a rising fourth grader in Broward County, it’s a hard “no.”
Under an emergency order from the state education commissioner, most schools are scheduled to reopen on August 19 for in-person learning, five days a week, a plan supported by Gov. Ron DeSantis. Along with educators and parents, the Florida Education Association filed suit against state officials to safeguard the health and welfare of public school students, educators, and the community at large. The lawsuit intends to stop the reckless and unsafe reopening of public school campuses as coronavirus infections surge statewide.
The Florida governor has latched on to the claim that students have a lower likelihood of catching the virus and therefore schoolteachers must return to work. President Donald Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos have made similar statements and have threatened to withhold federal funds from K-12 schools that don’t open for in-person learning.
“I don’t care what they say,” says Lias. “Is Donald Trump’s son going to school? No, but he wants to send everybody else’s kid back and risk their lives. Our kids are not experiments to see if reopening is going to work. So no, my daughter is not going into a school building to potentially die.”
This sentiment is a real concern for many Floridians. The state is now the new hot spot, given a surge of new coronavirus cases and hospitalizations. Between July 16 and 24, the number of new cases increased by 34 percent, from 23,170 to 31,150. Within the same eight-day period, the number of children hospitalized with coronavirus went from 246 to 303, a 23 percent increase.
And…kids are dying. As reported by several news outlets, on July 17, Kimora “Kimmie” Lynum, 9, died from Covid-19 complications. Kimmie became the fifth minor and the youngest in the state to die from the virus. Her family has said she had no underlying health conditions.
Lias wants to keep her daughter safe through distance learning, and recent national polls from The Navigator, Axios and Quinnipiac show other parents want the same. According to The Navigator, “a majority of Americans, and parents, oppose reopening schools in the fall because of the risks, and nearly two in three parents say schools should be among the last things to reopen.”
How best to reopen schools—whether it’s in-person, hybrid, or virtual—is a much more complicated issue that’s going to require leaving behind the idea of going back to the “old normal.”
“We’re in the midst of a paradigm shift,” says Courtney Fox, a mom of a rising tenth grader in Arlington, Va. “It’s not one anybody chose. Covid chose it for us, and instead of fighting over trying to retain as much of the old normal as possible, we need to embrace this opportunity to reinvent schools and create a better future.”
‘Disrupt The Thinking’
The coronavirus has magnified inequities that have existed in schools across the country for decades, hurting students along the way: lack of devices or no home internet, inadequate access to specialized support services (special education and mental health), food deficits, housing instability, and more.
Courtney Fox saw some of these inequities within Arlington Public Schools (APS) when her youngest daughter couldn’t adequately access special education services, resulting in her transfer to a private school. When it came to exploring reopening options for her eldest daughter today, Fox realized now is the time to reimagine public schools so it’s better for every student.
“If we do online learning right, our kids will be learning,” Fox says, “and I’m not just talking about teaching them history and math. This is about community building , social-emotional [development], and equity.”
Many school districts around the nation have taken a slow approach to reopening school buildings, starting with distance learning first, while allowing only some students with special needs to enter school buildings, and then reevaluating later in the year.
In Arlington, Va., the approach is a yearlong, two-tiered system, with each tier starting the year online. This bifurcated system, Fox worries, would be separate, unequal, and inequitable.
In mid-July, APS announced its two-model approach: 1) full-time distance learning or 2) a hybrid model in which two groups of students would each attend school two days per week, wear masks, and practice social distancing.
Fox found this split would create two master schedules and run two separate school systems, carrying the potential to fracture the Arlington school community. “Imagine the kids who are virtual who come back to their home schools a year from now and feel like outsiders, [and] the hybrid kids who are going to get less instruction,” she told WUSA-TV. “To me, it just didn’t make sense.”
So, she started an online petition, called “#OneAPS.”
“If we were all online as one—retaining original master schedules for each school and keeping collaborative learning teams together—it would be a game changer and would include a greater chance of succeeding with online learning,” she explains.
Fox says she’s “pro-reality,” and by no means thinks the petition carries all the answers. Part of her goal was to help “disrupt the thinking…to refocus on the values of unity, science, and equity,” as well as gather support for the “#OneAPS” plan that encourages the district to start the school year with distance learning for all students so they could be educated under one model: together and equally.
Additionally, according to the petition, the district’s split model comes with other glitches. Students who choose the hybrid model would not be guaranteed their own teachers; and teachers would not necessarily return to their own schools and may be required to teach classes they’ve never taught before. More so, the plan mandates educators return to school under the hybrid model, or they may be forced to take leave without pay, retire, or quit.
Under the virtual model, students would have fewer guarantees, including being enrolled in classes operated by third party vendors instead of APS educators.
“This is not stick your finger in the leak and try to hold the dam. This is about protecting this system so it’s here for us when we get through this and using this as an opportunity to do what’s right to make things more equitable for everyone.”
The “#OneAPS” plan would keep the district as one united school system; would protect the health and safety of students, teachers and staff; would not force teachers into school buildings; and would support the most vulnerable learners, such as special education students and English language learners.
Fox is one of thousands of parents nationwide that has taken to online platforms to weigh in on the reopening debate. In Pennsylvania, for example, a Facebook group with nearly seven thousand members of parents, educators, students, and supporters are refusing to return to schools until counties report no new cases of COVID-19 for at least 14 days.
A group of parents, educators, school staff, concerned community members, and health officials in Hawaii have expressed strong opposition to the state’s reopening plan: “The current plan is unacceptable; it does not follow CDC guidelines on safe school reopenings, was designed and promulgated without adequate public input or transparency, and needlessly puts the lives of our community at great risk. It is nothing less than a recipe for a public health disaster.”
Parents are welcome and needed in these conversations, said NEA President Lily Eskelsen Garcia.
“The partnership between parents and educators is so important, especially in this time of crisis. Educators’ number-one concern is the safety, well-being and success of our students,” she said. “Parents and educators are standing together because we cannot wait. Our nation’s students cannot pay the price in this crisis.”
NEA Guidance And Action
The NEA believes that any reopening model has to not only ensure the health and safety of students and staff, but also prioritize long term strategies on student learning and educational equity.
To assist states and school districts in this effort, this week NEA released “All Hands on Deck: Initial Guidance Regarding Reopening School Buildings.” Built around four basic principles—health expertise, educator voice, access to protection, and leading with equity—the document lays out what schools need to do to prepare for reopening, and how they can make their reopening succeed far beyond the first few weeks of the new school year.
On May 15, the House passed the HEROES Act to help schools and campuses reopen safely and save educators’ jobs. Now, it’s up to the Senate. Budget cuts loom even as schools struggle to make the costly changes necessary to reopen safely.
Unless the Senate acts soon, those budget cuts could lead to the loss of nearly 2 million education jobs at every level from kindergarten to postsecondary, adding to the complications of reopening school buildings.
Everyone agrees the road to recovery runs through our schools. But they cannot reopen safely if school budgets are slashed and students do not have what they need to be safe, learn, and succeed—especially the students of color, students with disabilities, and students living in poverty who have suffered most during this crisis.
https://popularresistance.org/parents-stand-with-educators-on-safety-before-reopening-schools/
Many parents nationwide are questioning whether it’s safe to send their kids back to a brick and mortar school this fall. With varied life circumstances, and different districts and schools choosing different options, it’s a daunting decision to make.
For Florida’s Raquel Pantoja Lias, a mom of a rising fourth grader in Broward County, it’s a hard “no.”
Under an emergency order from the state education commissioner, most schools are scheduled to reopen on August 19 for in-person learning, five days a week, a plan supported by Gov. Ron DeSantis. Along with educators and parents, the Florida Education Association filed suit against state officials to safeguard the health and welfare of public school students, educators, and the community at large. The lawsuit intends to stop the reckless and unsafe reopening of public school campuses as coronavirus infections surge statewide.
The Florida governor has latched on to the claim that students have a lower likelihood of catching the virus and therefore schoolteachers must return to work. President Donald Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos have made similar statements and have threatened to withhold federal funds from K-12 schools that don’t open for in-person learning.
“I don’t care what they say,” says Lias. “Is Donald Trump’s son going to school? No, but he wants to send everybody else’s kid back and risk their lives. Our kids are not experiments to see if reopening is going to work. So no, my daughter is not going into a school building to potentially die.”
This sentiment is a real concern for many Floridians. The state is now the new hot spot, given a surge of new coronavirus cases and hospitalizations. Between July 16 and 24, the number of new cases increased by 34 percent, from 23,170 to 31,150. Within the same eight-day period, the number of children hospitalized with coronavirus went from 246 to 303, a 23 percent increase.
And…kids are dying. As reported by several news outlets, on July 17, Kimora “Kimmie” Lynum, 9, died from Covid-19 complications. Kimmie became the fifth minor and the youngest in the state to die from the virus. Her family has said she had no underlying health conditions.
Lias wants to keep her daughter safe through distance learning, and recent national polls from The Navigator, Axios and Quinnipiac show other parents want the same. According to The Navigator, “a majority of Americans, and parents, oppose reopening schools in the fall because of the risks, and nearly two in three parents say schools should be among the last things to reopen.”
How best to reopen schools—whether it’s in-person, hybrid, or virtual—is a much more complicated issue that’s going to require leaving behind the idea of going back to the “old normal.”
“We’re in the midst of a paradigm shift,” says Courtney Fox, a mom of a rising tenth grader in Arlington, Va. “It’s not one anybody chose. Covid chose it for us, and instead of fighting over trying to retain as much of the old normal as possible, we need to embrace this opportunity to reinvent schools and create a better future.”
‘Disrupt The Thinking’
The coronavirus has magnified inequities that have existed in schools across the country for decades, hurting students along the way: lack of devices or no home internet, inadequate access to specialized support services (special education and mental health), food deficits, housing instability, and more.
Courtney Fox saw some of these inequities within Arlington Public Schools (APS) when her youngest daughter couldn’t adequately access special education services, resulting in her transfer to a private school. When it came to exploring reopening options for her eldest daughter today, Fox realized now is the time to reimagine public schools so it’s better for every student.
“If we do online learning right, our kids will be learning,” Fox says, “and I’m not just talking about teaching them history and math. This is about community building , social-emotional [development], and equity.”
Many school districts around the nation have taken a slow approach to reopening school buildings, starting with distance learning first, while allowing only some students with special needs to enter school buildings, and then reevaluating later in the year.
In Arlington, Va., the approach is a yearlong, two-tiered system, with each tier starting the year online. This bifurcated system, Fox worries, would be separate, unequal, and inequitable.
In mid-July, APS announced its two-model approach: 1) full-time distance learning or 2) a hybrid model in which two groups of students would each attend school two days per week, wear masks, and practice social distancing.
Fox found this split would create two master schedules and run two separate school systems, carrying the potential to fracture the Arlington school community. “Imagine the kids who are virtual who come back to their home schools a year from now and feel like outsiders, [and] the hybrid kids who are going to get less instruction,” she told WUSA-TV. “To me, it just didn’t make sense.”
So, she started an online petition, called “#OneAPS.”
“If we were all online as one—retaining original master schedules for each school and keeping collaborative learning teams together—it would be a game changer and would include a greater chance of succeeding with online learning,” she explains.
Fox says she’s “pro-reality,” and by no means thinks the petition carries all the answers. Part of her goal was to help “disrupt the thinking…to refocus on the values of unity, science, and equity,” as well as gather support for the “#OneAPS” plan that encourages the district to start the school year with distance learning for all students so they could be educated under one model: together and equally.
Additionally, according to the petition, the district’s split model comes with other glitches. Students who choose the hybrid model would not be guaranteed their own teachers; and teachers would not necessarily return to their own schools and may be required to teach classes they’ve never taught before. More so, the plan mandates educators return to school under the hybrid model, or they may be forced to take leave without pay, retire, or quit.
Under the virtual model, students would have fewer guarantees, including being enrolled in classes operated by third party vendors instead of APS educators.
“This is not stick your finger in the leak and try to hold the dam. This is about protecting this system so it’s here for us when we get through this and using this as an opportunity to do what’s right to make things more equitable for everyone.”
The “#OneAPS” plan would keep the district as one united school system; would protect the health and safety of students, teachers and staff; would not force teachers into school buildings; and would support the most vulnerable learners, such as special education students and English language learners.
Fox is one of thousands of parents nationwide that has taken to online platforms to weigh in on the reopening debate. In Pennsylvania, for example, a Facebook group with nearly seven thousand members of parents, educators, students, and supporters are refusing to return to schools until counties report no new cases of COVID-19 for at least 14 days.
A group of parents, educators, school staff, concerned community members, and health officials in Hawaii have expressed strong opposition to the state’s reopening plan: “The current plan is unacceptable; it does not follow CDC guidelines on safe school reopenings, was designed and promulgated without adequate public input or transparency, and needlessly puts the lives of our community at great risk. It is nothing less than a recipe for a public health disaster.”
Parents are welcome and needed in these conversations, said NEA President Lily Eskelsen Garcia.
“The partnership between parents and educators is so important, especially in this time of crisis. Educators’ number-one concern is the safety, well-being and success of our students,” she said. “Parents and educators are standing together because we cannot wait. Our nation’s students cannot pay the price in this crisis.”
NEA Guidance And Action
The NEA believes that any reopening model has to not only ensure the health and safety of students and staff, but also prioritize long term strategies on student learning and educational equity.
To assist states and school districts in this effort, this week NEA released “All Hands on Deck: Initial Guidance Regarding Reopening School Buildings.” Built around four basic principles—health expertise, educator voice, access to protection, and leading with equity—the document lays out what schools need to do to prepare for reopening, and how they can make their reopening succeed far beyond the first few weeks of the new school year.
On May 15, the House passed the HEROES Act to help schools and campuses reopen safely and save educators’ jobs. Now, it’s up to the Senate. Budget cuts loom even as schools struggle to make the costly changes necessary to reopen safely.
Unless the Senate acts soon, those budget cuts could lead to the loss of nearly 2 million education jobs at every level from kindergarten to postsecondary, adding to the complications of reopening school buildings.
Everyone agrees the road to recovery runs through our schools. But they cannot reopen safely if school budgets are slashed and students do not have what they need to be safe, learn, and succeed—especially the students of color, students with disabilities, and students living in poverty who have suffered most during this crisis.
BRUTE FORCE APPROACH TO REOPEN BENEFITS RECKLESS CEOs, ENDANGERS WORKERS
By Sarah Anderson, Inequality.org.
August 5, 2020
https://popularresistance.org/brute-force-approach-to-reopen-benefits-reckless-ceos-endangers-workers/
A GOP Proposal Would Give Corporate CEOs A Five Year “Get Out Of Jail Free” Card For Jeopardizing The Health And Safety Of Their Workers While Threatening The Overall Economic Recovery.
In late April, poultry processor Pilgrim’s Pride transferred Maria Hernandez from her usual job to another department at its plant in Lufkin, Texas. Her sons say Hernandez’s bosses didn’t give her proper protective gear. And they didn’t warn the 63-year-old that she would be working in a hot spot where other workers had already fallen ill from COVID-19.
When Hernandez, who worked at the plant for 30 years, started feeling sick, she continued to show up for her shift for fear of being fired. On May 8, she was found dead in her home — one of more than 90 meat and poultry plant workers who’ve succumbed to the virus. More than 17,000 have already been infected.
Hernandez’s sons are now suing Pilgrim’s Pride for putting their mother in harm’s way. But if Senate Republicans get their way, that check on corporate misbehavior may prove yet another victim of the pandemic.
Having failed to control the outbreak, Republicans are now trying to make it easier for companies to get away with putting their employees at greater risk. In the current stimulus package negotiations, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in mid-July that he would not budge on his demand that employers receive a shield against lawsuits over COVID-19. And he hasn’t.
“The American people will not see their historic recovery gobbled up by trial lawyers who are itching to follow the pandemic with a second epidemic of frivolous lawsuits,” the Kentucky Republican said recently on the Senate floor.
Everyone is eager to see a strong economic recovery. But letting corporate executives cut corners on employee safety will only prolong the public health and economic crisis. Infections and deaths for ordinary employees will increase.
There is nothing frivolous about that.
Democratic leaders have opposed this exemption for employer liability. They are pushing for tighter workplace health and safety standards and say the best way for companies to protect themselves against potential COVID-19-related lawsuits is to closely follow those guidelines.
Workers need the right to pursue legal recourse against employers that engage in life-threatening recklessness. They would still need to prove their cases in court, where the legal burden for plaintiffs is already too high.
Without the right to sue, the playing field between bosses and workers would be even more tilted. The fact that Maria Hernandez, a faithful 30-year employee, was afraid she’d be fired if she stayed home speaks volumes about the inequities that already exist. She risked her life in order to work, and lost, while her boss, outgoing Pilgrim’s Pride CEO William Lovette, got a $15 million golden parachute.
If Republicans get their way, the company’s current top executives wouldn’t have to worry anymore about being held accountable for Hernandez’s death. Under McConnell’s proposal, corporate immunity for nearly all COVID-19-related cases would be retroactive to December 2019 and last through 2024.
For corporate CEOs, that’s like a five-year “get out of jail free card” for jeopardizing the health and safety of their workers while threatening the overall economic recovery.
https://popularresistance.org/brute-force-approach-to-reopen-benefits-reckless-ceos-endangers-workers/
A GOP Proposal Would Give Corporate CEOs A Five Year “Get Out Of Jail Free” Card For Jeopardizing The Health And Safety Of Their Workers While Threatening The Overall Economic Recovery.
In late April, poultry processor Pilgrim’s Pride transferred Maria Hernandez from her usual job to another department at its plant in Lufkin, Texas. Her sons say Hernandez’s bosses didn’t give her proper protective gear. And they didn’t warn the 63-year-old that she would be working in a hot spot where other workers had already fallen ill from COVID-19.
When Hernandez, who worked at the plant for 30 years, started feeling sick, she continued to show up for her shift for fear of being fired. On May 8, she was found dead in her home — one of more than 90 meat and poultry plant workers who’ve succumbed to the virus. More than 17,000 have already been infected.
Hernandez’s sons are now suing Pilgrim’s Pride for putting their mother in harm’s way. But if Senate Republicans get their way, that check on corporate misbehavior may prove yet another victim of the pandemic.
Having failed to control the outbreak, Republicans are now trying to make it easier for companies to get away with putting their employees at greater risk. In the current stimulus package negotiations, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in mid-July that he would not budge on his demand that employers receive a shield against lawsuits over COVID-19. And he hasn’t.
“The American people will not see their historic recovery gobbled up by trial lawyers who are itching to follow the pandemic with a second epidemic of frivolous lawsuits,” the Kentucky Republican said recently on the Senate floor.
Everyone is eager to see a strong economic recovery. But letting corporate executives cut corners on employee safety will only prolong the public health and economic crisis. Infections and deaths for ordinary employees will increase.
There is nothing frivolous about that.
Democratic leaders have opposed this exemption for employer liability. They are pushing for tighter workplace health and safety standards and say the best way for companies to protect themselves against potential COVID-19-related lawsuits is to closely follow those guidelines.
Workers need the right to pursue legal recourse against employers that engage in life-threatening recklessness. They would still need to prove their cases in court, where the legal burden for plaintiffs is already too high.
Without the right to sue, the playing field between bosses and workers would be even more tilted. The fact that Maria Hernandez, a faithful 30-year employee, was afraid she’d be fired if she stayed home speaks volumes about the inequities that already exist. She risked her life in order to work, and lost, while her boss, outgoing Pilgrim’s Pride CEO William Lovette, got a $15 million golden parachute.
If Republicans get their way, the company’s current top executives wouldn’t have to worry anymore about being held accountable for Hernandez’s death. Under McConnell’s proposal, corporate immunity for nearly all COVID-19-related cases would be retroactive to December 2019 and last through 2024.
For corporate CEOs, that’s like a five-year “get out of jail free card” for jeopardizing the health and safety of their workers while threatening the overall economic recovery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)