Friday, April 9, 2021

Warrior Met coal miners in Alabama denounce UMW president, say they will reject sellout deal





https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/04/08/coal-a08.html?pk_campaign=newsletter&pk_kwd=wsws




Jerry White
11 hours ago







A meeting of striking coal miners in Alabama erupted in anger Wednesday afternoon after United Mine Workers (UMWA) officials presented the details of their tentative agreement with Warrior Met Coal. The miners denounced UMWA President Cecil Roberts and stormed out of the meeting, declaring that they would reject the contract when they vote on Friday because it did nothing to restore wage cuts accepted by the UMWA five years ago.

The 1,100 coal miners walked out April 1 at Warrior Met’s mines and processing facilities in Brookwood, Alabama, about 45 miles southwest of Birmingham. The striking miners are determined to recoup lost wages and abolish the company’s hated “four-strike” disciplinary program, which is used to terminate long-standing miners and replace them with low-wage contractors.
Warrior Met Coal mine in Alabama (Photo: Warriormetcoal.com)



“Everybody began cussing Cecil Roberts and walking out after we heard all the union got was a $1.50 raise and a $500 signing bonus,” one miner with more than a decade at the mine told the World Socialist Web Site. “It got hostile up there. Roberts gave his song and dance about how “democratic” the union was, and we could vote it down and stay on strike if we wanted to.

“They began the meeting with a prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance to try to get us calm but then they presented a video on the contract. The base pay for a miner, with the $1.50 an hour raise, will be $25. In 2016, we took a $6 an hour pay cut to get the company out of bankruptcy and it has gotten record production and big profits over the last few years. We expected a $5 or $6 raise and a signing bonus of $10,000. Instead, we got a quarter of what we lost back. This is a slap in the face,” he declared.
Part of the contract summary handed out at Wednesday's meeting

According to the summary of the five-year deal passed out at the meeting, new hires would get a dollar raise to $23.77 by 2026, while grades 1 and 2 would get a $2 increase to $25.90 by the end of the contract. By contrast, coal miners in 1982 were earning $11.83 an hour, the equivalent to $32.24 in today’s dollars.

“The contract includes the same crappy health insurance—they just modified the deductibles,” another miner added. “It’s still an 80-20 co-pay plan when we used to have 100 percent employer-paid insurance.

“The bonuses for record production went to the supervisors, not the workers,” he continued. “Half of the workers who helped get the company out of bankruptcy and broke the records have been fired. The company deliberately targets higher seniority workers and they set them up with the ‘four-strike’ policy. It’s so bad that the supervisors set up money pools to bet on who will get fired next.

“They supposedly upgraded the four-strike policy in the new contract to missing six days before they can fire you. But it’s the same thing. I’ve known guys who the company has had to take to the hospital after getting hurt and they still got a strike against them. They said, ‘You were off the premises.’ Yeah, but you took him to the hospital, that’s why he was off the premises! You can get hurt in an accident and they can airlift you to the hospital and you will still get a strike against you. They don’t accept doctor’s excuses, nothing.

“I’ve lost a lot of good union brothers because of that policy. Even if your car breaks down on the way to work, they’ll give you a strike. If you are late, they won’t say anything and will send you underground. But when you come back up you got a strike.”

Another worker described this system as “almost a military occupation in the mine. They plan on how to fire this or that guy, especially the workers with more than 10 years’ seniority, so they can replace them with contractors making $18 or $20 an hour.”

He went on to describe the other brutal conditions at the Warrior mines, which the UMWA helps the coal operator enforce. “We’ve been on a mandatory six-day week. At the end of the week, they can come up to you and say, ‘We need you to work another day.’ You tell them you’ll need another day off next week and they’ll tell you, ‘Sorry, we can’t do that day because we don’t have enough workers.’ You end up working 9, 10 or 11 days in row, with no rest. You have to work for years and years to accumulate paid time off.”

None of this will be improved in the new contract, he said. It will still take one to five years to get 120 hours off, six to 10 years to get 160 hours, and 11 years or more to get 200 hours. The long hours go hand-in-hand with unsafe and potentially deadly working conditions.

“They talk good about safety above ground, but when you are underground, safety goes out the window. We have one of the gassiest mines in the country. We have methane everywhere. Stuff falls on you. There is acid water and miners get Black Lung. In 2001, 13 miners were killed at the No. 5 mine when a methane explosion caused a cave-in. A month or two ago, workers found out that the methane sniffer devices were shut off. They probably did it deliberately to run as much coal as possible. If you complain to a supervisor about safety, they write you up.

“Our struggle is to get back what we lost and to gain respect. They don’t want to pay us fairly. It’s been a couple of years since they have been out of bankruptcy and they have been making record profits. Instead of paying us, management sends its dogs after us. We are struggling to be treated fairly, but none of that is in the contract.”

Another worker added, “We are looking for a good raise and signing bonuses, but they came up with nothing but more harassment. They’ve got a lot of miners working seven days a week. The supervisors got $30,000 to $50,000 bonuses for record production and we got nothing. Underground, the supervisors show off the new homes they’ve bought with their bonuses. It’s humiliating.

“With all the harassment, we couldn’t wait to get on the picket lines. When you cuss them as they head into the mines—it is therapeutic.”

The strike by miners occurs as graduate students at Columbia University, nurses in Worcester, Massachusetts and ATI steelworkers in Pennsylvania are also striking. The rebellion against the UMWA is part of the growing mood of resistance among workers after a year in which millions have suffered from the pandemic and the economic catastrophe while the billionaires have gotten even richer.

Workers throughout the area, including a US Steel’s Fairfield Works, face the same attack on jobs and working conditions as the Warrior miners. Non-union workers at Amazon’s Bessemer warehouse, 25 miles from the Warrior mines, and autoworkers at the nearby Mercedes Benz plant in Vance, Alabama, are also looking for a way to fight against unsafe conditions imposed by companies that have made huge profits during the pandemic.

But the UMWA, the United Steelworkers and other unions have deliberately isolated the strike by central Alabama coal miners. At the same time, the UMWA is seeking to starve the miners into submission by paying them only $300 a week in strike benefits. While miners’ families suffer and many strikers are considering getting other jobs, including at the Amazon warehouse, Roberts pocketed $210,693 in compensation from the UMWA last year, according to the union’s filing with the US Labor Department. In 2020, the UMWA paid out $0 in strike benefits, according to the report, even though it controls assets valued at $164.28 million, in addition to the multibillion-dollar UMWA Health and Retirement Funds.

The UMWA controls this vast wealth in spite of the fact that decades of betrayals have reduced it to an empty shell, from 160,000 active coal miners in 1978 to fewer than 8,000 today.

The UMWA is employing the same “selective strike” policy that led to the disastrous defeats of miners in the AT Massey and Pittston strikes in the 1980s. This is paving the way for mine bosses, including the executives at Warrior Met’s predecessor company, Walter Energy, to use the bankruptcy courts to wipe out tens of thousands of jobs and the hard-won wages, pensions and working conditions of miners.
A school bus of strikebreakers with darkened, fortified windows drives through miners' pickets. (Source: Friends of Coal-Alabama)

This underscores the needs for the Warrior miners to form a rank-and-file strike committee, independent of the UMWA and other corporatist unions, to break the isolation of their struggle and fight for common action by steelworkers, autoworkers, Amazon workers and others.

Biden and other corporate-controlled politicians have backed the union drive at the nearby Amazon Bessemer warehouse not to advance their interests of workers but to install a labor police force, similar to the UMWA, to contain the growing opposition of the working class. Whether the union campaign is successful or not, Amazon workers will need independent organizations to fight.

“When I first got here, it seemed like the UMWA was strong and we had old-school guys teaching us the ropes,” the miner, with more than a decade of experience, told the WSWS. “But they have all retired or died. The UMWA is weak. We need a change. We have to unite with the teachers, the Amazon workers, the steelworkers to make us stronger. But the unions won’t do that. We need a different avenue.

“We need to unite around a different view from the Republicans and the Democrats. When our strike started, they sent 140 cops out to the docks to protect the company. The government uses the money for the companies, not to take care of the needs of the workers.

“We need a real socialist party for workers. The Democrats and Republicans put on this dog-and-pony show for the public, but behind closed doors they’re working together. They don’t stay in power this long without working together. They push this black vs. white thing to divide workers and try to keep us ignorant by working us all the time and with all the TV shows, basketball, and other distractions. But people are starting to wake up. All this wealth comes out of working people and we have to take it back.”




Taiwan threatens to shoot down Chinese drones amid mounting US-China conflict





https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/04/08/usch-a08.html?pk_campaign=newsletter&pk_kwd=wsws




Peter Symonds
10 hours ago







As the Biden administration has deliberately intensified the US confrontation with China, Taiwan has rapidly come into focus as the spark that could trigger a war between the two nuclear-armed powers. Biden, following on from Trump, is questioning and undermining the diplomatic framework that has maintained an uneasy and precarious peace across the Taiwan Strait for decades.

By strengthening ties with Taiwan, the US is calling into question the One China policy that was the basis for establishing diplomatic relations between Beijing and Washington in 1979. It is also encouraging Taipei to take a far more aggressive stance towards China adding to the danger of conflict, and fueling fears in Beijing that Taiwan’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party, which advocates greater autonomy from China, could declare full independence—a red line for Beijing.
Multiple aircraft fly in formation over the USS Ronald Reagan, a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier. (Kaila V. Peters/U.S. Navy)



Speaking to reporters on Monday, Taiwan’s foreign minister, Joseph Wu, took note that “American decision makers” were warning of the danger of China launching an attack on Taiwan. He bluntly declared that Taiwan would throw everything into a conflict with China “We will fight the war if we need to fight the war. And if we need to defend ourselves to the very last day we will defend ourselves to the very last day,” he declared.

Wu’s comments were followed on Wednesday by threats from Lee Chung-wei, who heads Taiwan’s Ocean Affairs Council, that Taiwan would shoot down Chinese drones that came too close to the Pratas Islands controlled by Taipei in the South China Sea. Lee claimed that Chinese drones had been spotted but acknowledged that none entered the restricted waters and airspace extending 6 km from the islets. But if they had entered, he said, “it will be handled under the rules. If we need to open fire, we open fire.”

These statements are testimony to the extraordinary tensions that the US is stoking in the Indo-Pacific. Denunciations of “Chinese aggression” and “Chinese expansionism” from Washington, parroted by US allies and partners around the globe, stand reality on its head. US imperialism has over the past decade carried out a huge military build-up throughout the region and deliberately inflamed potential flashpoints, including the South China Sea and the Korean Peninsula.

On Wednesday, the US Navy sent another warship through the sensitive Taiwan Strait between Taiwan and the Chinese mainland which is just 130 km wide at its narrowest point. The guided missile destroyer USS John S. McCain became the fourth naval vessel to make the “transit” since Biden took office. If the tempo is maintained, the Biden administration will eclipse the record of 13 transits set by the Trump administration last year.

On the same day, the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, and its associated strike group, carried out military exercises in the South China Sea, including fixed- and rotary-wing flight operations, maritime strike exercises and anti-submarine operations. It is the second time this year that the huge nuclear-powered carrier and its armada have carried out war games close to the Chinese mainland and key naval bases in southern China. “[Our] war-fighting prowess is unmatched,” the commanding officer Captain Eric Anduze boasted.

The US Navy has also carried out at least two so-called Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOP) in the South China Sea since Biden came to office. US warships directly challenge Chinese maritime claims by sailing close to Chinese-controlled islets—provocative manoeuvres that have the potential to trigger a military clash either by accident or design.

On the pretext of “freedom of navigation,” Washington declares that these military exercises close to the Chinese coast line are legitimate. But when it comes to the operations of Chinese military aircraft and naval vessels, these are always portrayed in the most sinister light. Yesterday, Taiwan scrambled fighter jets in response to an “incursion” by 15 Chinese aircraft into Taiwan’s self-declared air defence identification zone—broad airspace restrictions that have no standing in international law.

At the same time, the US and international media played up the exercises in the Pacific involving China’s aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, and five escort ships which passed through the Miyako Strait in the Japanese Ryukyu Islands on Sunday. The strait is wide enough that the waters are international and no Chinese violation of Japanese sovereignty was involved.

Two top US military figures—the former head of the Indo Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson and the incoming head Admiral John Aquilino—both warned of the heightened danger of US war with China over Taiwan in the near future. Davidson declared that “the threat is manifest during this decade—in fact, in the next six years,” while Aquilino, when asked at his congressional confirmation hearing, said “this problem is much closer to us than most think.”

Since 1979, the US has adhered to the One China policy, in effect recognising Beijing as the legitimate ruler of all China, including Taiwan. As a result, the US has no formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan and any contact has been low key. At the same time, under the Taiwan Relation Act, the US has continued to supply defensive arms to Taiwan and offer an assurance that it would come to Taiwan’s defence in the event of a Chinese attack.

By elevating the levels of contact with Taiwan, including a visit last year by a US cabinet lofficial, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, the Trump administration effectively undermined the previous diplomatic protocols associated with the One China policy. Trump’s Secretary of State Mike Pompeo early this year went a step further ending all restrictions on contact between US and Taiwanese civilian and military officials—a policy that Biden, who declared his commitment to Taiwan as “rock solid,” is continuing.

Under the Biden administration, the Pentagon is considering stationing offensive intermediate range missiles on what is known as the first island chain ringing the Chinese mainland—including on Taiwan. The US is also assisting in the expansion of Taiwan's submarine fleet. Taiwan is also developing its own indigenous offensive missiles to strike deep within China.

The US is recklessly playing with fire. As part of establishing diplomatic relations with Beijing in 1979, the US broke relations with Taiwan and withdrew its military forces. Any attempt by the US to station its troops or military hardware on Taiwan would draw a hostile response from China and threaten to precipitate military conflict.

A great deal is at stake. Taiwan is both strategically and economically significant. As part of the first island chain, it would be a key element in an attempt by the US either to impose an economic blockade on China or to launch a full-scale war. At the same time, it is home to the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, which accounts for some 90 percent of the production of the most advanced computer chips that are required for a wide range of both commercial and military applications.

The warnings by US admirals of war with China in the near term have far more to do with fears in Washington that China is overtaking the US economically and strategically, than with “Chinese aggression.” The heightened discussion in Washington over the need for strong ties with Taiwan makes clear that this strategic island is a major component of the Pentagon’s planning for war with China. US imperialism is prepared to use military means to shore up its global dominance—even if it leads to a calamitous nuclear conflagration.

Facing a rapidly emerging class struggle at home, the US ruling class is also seeking to turn these immense social tensions outward against an external enemy. Workers and youth should reject the rising tide of propaganda demonising China in increasingly racist terms and turn to the Chinese working class which faces the same forms of capitalist exploitation. The only means for ending the danger of war is to build an international antiwar movement of the working class on a socialist basis to put an end to capitalism—the root cause of war.




The true toll of the coronavirus pandemic





https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/04/08/pers-a08.html?pk_campaign=newsletter&pk_kwd=wsws




Bryan Dyne
11 hours ago







The official death toll of the coronavirus pandemic continues to spiral to staggering heights. In the United States, more than 570,000 lives have been lost to the disease. Worldwide, the number exceeds 2,890,000. Daily case and death counts are rising internationally as the continued spread of new and more infectious variants threatens to exceed last year’s fall surge.

Moreover, the actual number of deaths attributed to the disease and its consequences is in reality far higher. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently revealed that the number of “excess deaths” in 2020, those deaths above what was expected based on averages from previous years, exceeded 503,000, 42 percent more than the officially recorded coronavirus deaths from last year.
COVID-19 patient Efrain Molina, center, gets a fist bump from nurse leader Edgar Ramirez at Providence Holy Cross Medical Center in the Mission Hills section of Los Angeles, Tuesday, Dec. 22, 2020. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)



But even this massive death toll is only one reflection of the reality of the pandemic. Just as millions of people have died, tens of millions more have and continue to suffer from what, in a rational society, would be a preventable disease.

Among them are the many children who have lost a parent to the coronavirus. An article in JAMA Pediatrics written by Rachel Kidman and her colleagues published Monday reveals that “an estimated 37,300 to 43,000” children in the US now suffer from parental bereavement as a result of the pandemic, three-quarters of whom are adolescents. In contrast, about 20,000 American children lost a parent as a result of the Vietnam War.

And as Kidman notes, these are only children who have lost a parent, not another relative or person who is their primary caregiver, nor did they look at the impact of the many thousands of parents who have lost children, or the broader circle of friends, co-workers and family that knew those who died.

Kidman and her coauthors also note the dangers of failing to contain the disease. If left unchecked, her team estimated that there will be a total of 1.5 million pandemic-related deaths in the US, leaving behind “116,900 parentally bereaved children.” In other words, if society is to “live with the disease,” as is now being promoted by the political, corporate and media officialdom, at least 75,000 to 80,000 more youth must grow up having lost at least one parent to the coronavirus.

It is this arithmetic, however, that is being pushed by the Biden administration as it calls for the full reopening of in-person learning at schools, while at the same time steadily abandoning safety guidelines. Schools have been shown to be among the chief way the pandemic spreads, through both teachers and students, and are especially dangerous now that, according to CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, “the [more contagious and deadly] B.1.1.7 variant is now the most common lineage circulating in the United States.”

Moreover, whatever the cynical claims by the Biden administration of the costs on the childrens’ education and mental health, that cost is already enormous. New findings published in The Lancet Psychiatry journal found that, among more than 236,000 COVID-19 patients in the US, 34 percent were diagnosed with a neurological or psychiatric condition within six months of their initial infection. Common symptoms included anxiety and mood disorders, while seven percent had a stroke and another seven percent developed substance abuse disorders. For thirteen percent of those in the study, this was their first recorded neurological or psychiatric diagnosis.

Generalizing to all those who had the coronavirus, these results suggest that more than 45 million people have or will acquire a neurological or mental health problem as a result of COVID-19.

Research has also documented further long-term effects caused by the coronavirus well after patients have “recovered.” Physicians at Danderyd Hospital and Karolinska Institutet in Sweden recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that 11 percent of people who had just mild cases of COVID-19 still suffer from loss of smell, loss of taste or fatigue eight months after contracting the disease, significantly impairing their ongoing health and quality of life.

Other reports have documented different aspects of what is being termed post-viral or Long COVID syndrome. Last summer, more than 87 percent of patients released from hospitals in Italy reported having at least one of the following—fatigue, shortness of breath, joint pain and chest pain—more than two months after symptoms of the coronavirus itself began. A study in China found similar conditions for at least six months after COVID-19 patients were discharged. Even those who contracted the disease but were asymptomatic have developed these health problems.

Such studies paint a grim picture beyond the 133 million people that have contracted a potentially deadly illness. They reveal tens of millions of survivors that live daily with the possibility of chronic and extraordinary health problems for months, and tens of millions more wonder if they were unknowingly exposed and will contract, or perhaps have already contracted a debilitating symptom that will be with them for months.

It is also unclear when, or even if, such long-term symptoms will end. This virus is at best estimates only 18 months old, which means no one knows what the long-term effects will be after 10, 20 or 30 years. The physical and mental health of millions have been potentially permanently ruined, with devastating and limitless costs.

In the calculation of the financial oligarchy and the government that serves it, such considerations are of no consequence. The deaths and long-term illnesses are just statistics. But these were in fact hundreds of thousands of living, breathing human beings, murdered by criminal policies of Republican and Democratic administrations, and millions more are now forced to languish.

The argument put forward by every capitalist government in Europe and the United States—that society must “live with” the virus—comes at an unacceptable cost in lives, in health, and in heartache. No, humanity cannot “live with” this virus, and it cannot “live with” the capitalist social order that refuses to contain it.




VETERAN INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS FOR SANITY ON AVOIDING WAR IN UKRAINE




By Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, AntiWar.com.

April 7, 2021




https://popularresistance.org/veteran-intelligence-professionals-for-sanity-on-avoiding-war-in-ukraine/




Dear President Biden,

We last communicated with you on December 20, 2020, when you were President-elect.

At that time, we alerted you to the dangers inherent in formulating a policy toward Russia built on a foundation of Russia-bashing. While we continue to support the analysis contained in that memorandum, this new memo serves a far more pressing purpose. We wish to draw your attention to the dangerous situation that exists in Ukraine today, where there is growing risk of war unless you take steps to forestall such a conflict.

At this juncture, we call to mind two basic realities that need particular emphasis amid growing tension between Ukraine and Russia.

First, since Ukraine is not a member of NATO, Article 5 of the NATO Treaty of course would not apply in the case of an armed conflict between Ukraine and Russia.

Second, Ukraine’s current military flexing, if allowed to transition into actual military action, could lead to hostilities with Russia.

We think it crucial that your administration immediately seek to remove from the table, so to speak, any “solution” to the current impasse that has a military component. In short, there is, and can never be, a military solution to this problem.

Your interim national security strategy guidance indicated that your administration would “make smart and disciplined choices regarding our national defense and the responsible use of our military, while elevating diplomacy as our tool of first resort.” Right now is the perfect time to put these words into action for all to see.

We strongly believe:

1. It must be made clear to Ukrainian President Zelensky that there will be no military assistance from either the US or NATO if he does not restrain Ukrainian hawks itching to give Russia a bloody nose — hawks who may well expect the West to come to Ukraine’s aid in any conflict with Russia. (There must be no repeat of the fiasco of August 2008, when the Republic of Georgia initiated offensive military operations against South Ossetia in the mistaken belief that the US would come to its assistance if Russia responded militarily.)

2. We recommend that you quickly get back in touch with Zelensky and insist that Kiev halt its current military buildup in eastern Ukraine. Russian forces have been lining up at the border ready to react if Zelensky’s loose talk of war becomes more than bravado. Washington should also put on hold all military training activity involving US and NATO troops in the region. This would lessen the chance that Ukraine would misinterpret these training missions as a de facto sign of support for Ukrainian military operations to regain control of either the Donbas or Crimea.

3. It is equally imperative that the U.S. engage in high-level diplomatic talks with Russia to reduce tensions in the region and de-escalate the current rush toward military conflict. Untangling the complex web of issues that currently burden U.S.-Russia relations is a formidable task that will not be accomplished overnight. This would be an opportune time to work toward a joint goal of preventing armed hostilities in Ukraine and wider war.

There is opportunity as well as risk in the current friction over Ukraine. This crisis offers your administration the opportunity to elevate the moral authority of the United States in the eyes of the international community. Leading with diplomacy will greatly enhance the stature of America in the world.

For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Marshall Carter-Tripp, Foreign Service Officer & former Division Director in the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (ret.)
Bogdan Dzakovic, former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Graham E. Fuller,Vice-Chair, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Robert M. Furukawa, Captain, Civil Engineer Corps, USNR (ret.)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
John Kiriakou, former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
Edward Loomis, NSA Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA presidential briefer (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East & CIA political analyst (ret.)
Pedro Israel Orta, CIA Operations Officer & Analyst; Inspector with IG for the Intelligence Community (ret.)
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Scott Ritter, former MAJ., USMC, former UN Weapon Inspector, Iraq
Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)
Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
Sarah G. Wilton, CDR, USNR, (ret.); Defense Intelligence Agency (ret.)
Robert Wing, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (former) (associate VIPS)
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat who resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq War

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPs) is made up of former intelligence officers, diplomats, military officers and congressional staffers. The organization, founded in 2002, was among the first critics of Washington’s justifications for launching a war against Iraq. VIPS advocates a US foreign and national security policy based on genuine national interests rather than contrived threats promoted for largely political reasons. An archive of VIPS memoranda is available at Consortiumnews.com.




DEREK CHAUVIN AND THE MYTH OF THE IMPARTIAL JUROR




By Sonali Chakravarti, Black Agenda Report.

April 7, 2021




https://popularresistance.org/derek-chauvin-and-the-myth-of-the-impartial-juror/



As A Space For Democratic Deliberation And Decision-Making, The Jury Box Still Has The Potential To Shift The Criminal Legal System – But First We Must Change Who Is Able To Serve On A Jury.


“The legitimacy of the criminal legal system is in tatters, and rightfully so.”

Did you, or someone close to you, participate in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis after George Floyd’s death?. . . If you participated, did you carry a sign? What did it say?

These questions were part of the questionnaire given to those summoned to serve as jurors in the trial of Derek Chauvin, the Minneapolis police officer accused of killing George Floyd. Provided that judges and attorneys are willing to take these questions up, they could hold the key for beginning more nuanced conversations about race and the criminal legal system.

As is well known, the jury selection process is one of the most consequential and contentious phases of the criminal trial. Attorneys from both sides attempt to empanel a jury sympathetic to their “side” and, thus, more likely to decide in their interest. However, the battle is just as much a defensive one as it is an offensive one: attorneys can exercise considerable discretion in rooting out jurors who might be disinclined to decide in their favor for reasons of personal prejudice or distrust of law enforcement. Jury consultants, who specialize in this process, represent a multi-million-dollar-a-year cottage industry.

One of the key tools in these consultants’ arsenals is the questionnaire. It is used to gauge biases and predispositions in a more candid way than is possible during voir dire, the questioning process conducted by judges and attorneys in the courtroom, usually in front of the other jurors. The recently released questionnaire for the Chauvin trial represents a notable development in the jury selection process, and also an opportunity. It suggests an evolution in the way that the court perceives supporters of Black Lives Matter (BLM) and a possibility for incorporating jurors who can bring knowledge of systemic racism into the legal system. These changes will not come easily—jury selection is compromised by some of the same structural forces of racism that led to the killings that necessitated BLM in the first place. Black jurors are less likely to be called for jury duty, less likely to be seen as qualified jurors, and more likely than their white peers to be dismissed. The legitimacy of the criminal legal system is in tatters, and rightfully so. The best path forward may be changing who is able to serve on a jury through a contextual understanding of impartiality—that is, shifting our notion of what an “impartial” juror should mean in a historically unequal criminal legal system.


“It suggests a possibility for incorporating jurors who can bring knowledge of systemic racism into the legal system.”

The questions posed to the Chauvin jury suggest that the norm of dismissing jurors who are critical of patterns of racism and police brutality might be shifting. Yet this can only be the case if judges and attorneys change their understanding of BLM, shifting their view that supporting BLM is an extreme position at odds with the responsibilities of being a juror. This view was put on display most recently in the case of Crishala Reed.

When Crishala Reed (then known as Juror 725) was called for jury duty in Contra Costa County in California in 2016, she was ready to serve. She was given a questionnaire, in which she stated that she was in support of BLM. Attorneys took the issue up, asking her if she agreed with the destruction of property (though the three defendants were charged with murder). She said she did not. Reed remained in the pool after questioning, but the prosecution used one of their peremptory strikes to dismiss her. They later defended her dismissal by saying that BLM was a fringe organization that condoned the destruction of property, thus making it impossible for her to apply the law as a juror. They also claimed that their dismissal was not racially motivated—they would have dismissed a white juror who expressed the same views.

Reed’s dismissal was not only a loss for the three Black defendants, but also a personal insult to Reed—the court effectively told her that she was not qualified to participate in the process of deciding justice because she supported BLM. She told the Marshall Project, “I felt targeted. It was a life-changing experience for me, personally. And I still talk about it to this day. I tell my kids about it. Not to scare them but to make them aware.” Her dismissal represented a check on her ability to participate in democratic life. Sure, she could vote, but the state did not trust her to help decide the fate of another person, supposedly solely because of her affiliation with BLM.

In an amicus brief filed at the California Court of Appeals, lawyers from the MacArthur Justice Center, the ACLU, and other civil rights organizations argued that Reed’s dismissal was in violation of the Constitution. They contended that her support for BLM could be considered a proxy for race, given that many more Black people than jurors of other races supported the movement at that time. Consistent with the precedent set in Batson v. Kentucky (1986) and affirmed in Flowers v. Mississippi (2019), it is unconstitutional to dismiss jurors on the basis of race. While the authors of the amicus brief framed their argument in racial terms to form the basis for a successful appeal, this angle ignores a critical issue: beyond race, there is value in including BLM supporters on juries—more broadly, there is value in including jurors who are critical of the criminal legal system and aware of its too often unequal and racist applications.


“The court effectively told Reed that she was not qualified to participate in the process of deciding justice because she supported BLM.”

After the summer of 2020, BLM can no longer be considered a fringe organization—a large and diverse group of people supports the movement. A Pew Research poll taken in September 2020 found that 55 percent of Americans supported the movement, including 16 percent of white people who considered themselves Republicans or Republican leaning. Protests occurred in all fifty states after the death of George Floyd, and the issue of police violence against Black citizens has been chronicled and supported in a variety of ways around the globe. A potential juror mentioning the documented unequal pattern of racial violence at the hands of police should not automatically lead to their dismissal. Rather, it should be understood as affirmation of just the type of civic awareness and attention to law that jurors should have.

The founders instituted a jury system for criminal cases not only to check the tyrannical power of the state in prosecuting political enemies, but also to ensure that democratically sanctioned laws were enforced fairly. Today, as then, this is a mandate that requires lived experiences with law enforcement in particular communities. As countless civilian review board decisions have shown, it is impossible for law enforcement to monitor themselves, just as it is for representatives of law enforcement to determine what constitutes entrapment—they are too enmeshed in the process and invested in guilty verdicts.

For this reason a distinctive part of the jury system’s function is to bring in knowledge of the way laws are enforced in the lives of ordinary people. But this role is being undermined by what legal scholar Rachel Barkow calls the rise of the administrative state . In the administrative state, courts, instead of encouraging debate over different values and interpretations of justice, increasingly enforce regulatory decisions. Juries are the antithesis of this bureaucratic and regulatory vision of law—the variability of having twelve randomly selected people decide a case is the jury’s virtue as well as its shortcoming. Jury decisions are neither predictable nor consistent, but they are a laboratory for democratic deliberation. The jury should serve as a place where different communities reckon with what the guidelines for law enforcement should be. This means including individuals who understand the patterns of racism that BLM has brought to light.


“The jury should serve as a place where different communities reckon with what the guidelines for law enforcement should be.”

It is time to shift our collective understanding of who constitutes an “impartial” juror. The concept of impartiality is notoriously difficult to define, in part because it implies that a juror must be equally fair to the prosecution and defense, when in reality their task is to hold the prosecution to a high standard and presume innocence on the part of the defendant. Impartiality is also difficult to understand because it contradicts everything we know about human nature. Past experiences, political ideologies, and cultural priming shape how we understand events—no one can be truly impartial when asked to judge acts of intense violence and emotion.

In its distilled form, however, the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury can be understood as the defendant’s right to jurors who have not already determined guilt. Just as attorneys and judges can ask questions to determine a juror’s qualification, it is also significant that jurors understand the safeguards of the trial system for the defendant. It is here, between the poles of BLM and the constitutional ideals of the trial, that a new way of thinking about justice will emerge.

The questionnaire sent to potential jurors in the Chauvin case included questions pertaining to these safeguards, for example: “Under our system of justice, the prosecution has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Would you have any difficulty following this principle of law?” While the statement may seem to dissuade jurors from convicting Chauvin, it is a critical aspect of the process that jurors cannot ignore. Of course a juror who supports BLM will not automatically find every member of law enforcement guilty; it is worth being explicit about this during voir dire and in broader discussions of the scope of the movement. A juror takes on a highly particular role, distinct from that of an activist, protester, Twitter agitator, or bystander. Serving on a jury requires interrogating one’s own biases, being open to the evidence presented, and understanding the jury’s role as a check on state power.


“No one can be truly impartial when asked to judge acts of intense violence and emotion.”

In the past defense attorneys have been disappointed that vocalizing support for BLM also occasioned a refusal on the part of a potential juror to acknowledge the responsibilities of serving on a jury, including openness to a consideration of the evidence. As the movement expands, there is an opportunity to articulate an ideological space for potential jurors to support BLM and critique the racialized patterns of law enforcement, while simultaneously remaining committed to the expectations of the trial and the protections for the defendant. Better questions from the court during voir dire are certainly necessary, but so are opportunities for different answers from potential jurors. The set of questions about BLM coupled with the more common questions about the trial process in the questionnaire for the Chauvin case are important—they demonstrate the need for a prolonged conversation about justice that holds the ideals of the law and the flawed reality of their application in delicate balance. Indeed, as these questions show, one does not need to maintain complete faith in the legitimacy of the criminal legal system to be a competent juror. In fact many judges and lawyers do not, electing to work in the system for that very reason.

A change in our understanding of impartiality may also have implications for grand jury trials in police brutality. The recent grand jury decisions declining to indict officers in Rochester and Cleveland reveal that the recent nationwide protests after the death of George Floyd will not change how police brutality cases are adjudicated. Even in situations where the prosecutor does want to go forward with the charge, the formulation of the law—with its emphasis on the officer’s subjective interpretation of threat—favors the officer. A change in an understanding of impartiality might lead jurors to show less deference to an officer’s subjective experiences of threat based on race, owing to jurors own lived experiences and understandings of how systemic bias might impact the events in question.

A juror in the trial of George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin said that the jurors did not consider race at all during their deliberations, revealing what may have been seen as the epitome of impartiality then but has a different resonance today. In 2014 ignoring race was arguably the ideal when considering the “stand your ground” law in Florida. Today, however, understanding how racism persists despite racially neutral laws and purported claims to fairness is crucial to legal judgment. We are now painfully aware of how police target Black people in a way fatally different from the treatment they afford their white counterparts. In this climate we want jurors to be aware of race and the role that it plays in the legal system. Legal scholar Cynthia Lee has found that presenting jurors with “race-switching jury instructions,” where they consider how their thinking might change if the victim were another race, is one example of how we can uncover bias and aid deliberation.


“We want jurors to be aware of race and the role that it plays in the legal system.”

Judges may now be more inclined to include jurors who recognize the tension between acknowledging racism in the legal system and adhering to the system’s ideals of protections for the defendant. Indeed, judges are being asked to do the same thing. Recognizing bias is currently a pressing issue for judges, who are having to confront evidence of their own implicit biases despite their professional obligations to combat partiality. For example, federal district judge Mark W. Bennett recently took the Harvard Implicit Association Test (IAT), one of the most well-known psychological experiments for identifying implicit bias. He reports finding the experience “deeply unnerving,” stating, “I knew I would ‘pass’ with flying colors. I didn’t.” Judge Bennett, however, used this knowledge of his own biases for good—he advocated for an end to peremptory strikes (which are often the result of implicit biases), as well as training for attorneys and jurors about the ubiquity of these biases and what might be done in the decision-making process to offset their effects. Unfortunately, his suggestions have not yet been widely implemented.

While there are many reasons for BLM supporters to experience legal estrangement, a sense of detachment, and skepticism toward legal institutions and their capacity to achieve justice, serving on a jury may cultivate a different aspect of legal consciousness. As the most democratic institution in the legal system, it is the only one that respects the capacity of laypeople to make difficult decisions about punishment and forgiveness and respects those decisions as final, an ideal that is important to preserve even if many other aspects of the legal system are overhauled in the service of racial equity and a turn away from retributive punishment.

In 2014, after the grand jury in St. Louis declined to indict Officer Darren Wilson for the killing of Michael Brown, local organizers and community members led by a group called the International People’s Democratic Uhuru Movement in Ferguson convened “The Black People’s Grand Jury” (BPGJ). The BPGJ examined the evidence and witness statements from the case in a mock version of the formal process. A small number of community members were also asked to recall their experiences with the Ferguson police, supplementing the testimony of Dorian Johnson, Michael Brown’s friend who was him at the time of his death. The leaders of the Uhuru Movement, which is grounded in the ideals of African internationalism and the need for the self-governance of Black communities, saw a chance for the BPGJ to manifest these aspirations. The formal grand jury was, from the Uhuru Movement’s perspective, skewed by racist language meant to influence jurors—such as Darren Wilson stating that when he placed a hand on Brown’s arm he felt like a five-year-old trying to hold onto the Incredible Hulk. But the concept of a deliberative body convened to adjudicate decisions about guilt and punishment remained an aspiration to the community. The BPGJ reflects that, even in light of community disappointment and deep skepticism about the legal system, community members still want to participate in a meaningful legal process and help change the way that future crimes are understood.

Even though the BPGJ’s 11-1 jury decision to indict could not be enforced, going through the process of the trial was a critical part of the local reckoning that happened in the aftermath of violence. It engaged community members while gathering information in a central location, akin to a rudimentary truth commission. While the law is fundamentally linked to racist practices in this country, the idea that there could be fair procedures and democratic participation in the most important decisions of punishment lives on.


“Community members still want to participate in a meaningful legal process and help change the way that future crimes are understood.”

Indeed, “procedural justice” refers to perceptions of fairness in all the processes associated with the legal system. To cooperate with the system, citizens want reassurance that defendants will be treated fairly and able to access all the protections to which they are entitled. Innumerable studies have shown that people have an easier time accepting a decision that is not in their favor if they feel they were treated fairly in the process. Revitalizing the jury as a critical node of procedural justice through changing the way Black jurors and jurors who support BLM are included could open a path to civic trust.

For many people serving on a jury is the most demanding form of civic participation that they will engage in. It also reflects an ambitious version of enfranchisement where citizens have the capacity to determine the course of justice. In an era where consensus about shared facts is hard to come by, the jury process demands that an individual set aside preconceived notions and do their best to listen and contribute to a verdict that all can endorse. Despite the very real ways racial discrimination has marred the jury process, it remains one of our best hopes for a democratic society that takes the participation of all people, randomly selected, as central to the administration of justice.

Black leaders from William F. Butler to Frederick Douglass have understood the right to be on a jury as a significant part of enfranchisement . As Butler, the Kentucky-born political leader, said in 1867, “First we had the cartridge box, now we want the ballot box, and soon we will get the jury box.” Just as the tens of thousands of new voters in Georgia and elsewhere were able to shape the election of 2020, we are in the middle of a period of notable legal changes that could expand the number of jurors called for service and those allowed to serve. This may even affect whether or not defendants choose to go to trial—they may opt to more frequently if they can be confident that they will have jurors who represent a fair cross section of the population, especially in racial and ethnic terms. Changing our expectations of who should be allowed to serve on a jury shows us that the march for freedom does not tarry at the ballot box, but rather proceeds forward into the heart of the justice system and to the jury box itself.




REFORMING AN UPRISING, BUT NOT THE POLICE




By Adnan Ahmed, Cliff Willmeng, Theresa Berrell Stets and Merrily Mazza, Left Voice.

April 7, 2021




https://popularresistance.org/reforming-an-uprising-but-not-the-police/



“Yes 4 Minneapolis.”

Minneapolis voters now may have a few different police-reform options to consider in the upcoming city elections in November. Despite promises to dismantle the Police Department, the proposals on the table will do nothing to stop police violence.

As the Derek Chauvin trial continues, Minneapolis residents witness the militarization of their city. Fearful of another uprising, terrified lawmakers have erected barricades and razor wire fences around the Government Center, City Hall, and police stations. The fortification is estimated to cost $645,000. Additionally, law enforcement has been using surveillance planes to look for signs of unrest. After backlash from community members, Minneapolis officials dropped their plan to hire social media influencers to share state-sanctioned messaging about the Chauvin trial.

On March 12, 2021 — as the jury selection was underway — the City of Minneapolis agreed to pay $27 million to George Floyd’s family to settle a wrongful death lawsuit, raising concerns from Judge Cahill and Chauvin’s defense attorney that the jury might be swayed against Chauvin.

Immediately after Floyd’s murder, the Minneapolis City Council publicly vowed to dismantle the Police Department, a pledge from which it later backed out.

Minneapolis voters now may have a few different police-reform options to consider in the upcoming city elections in November.

The City Council and Yes 4 Minneapolis (a coalition of advocacy groups) are each proposing separate but very similar plans to establish a Department of Public Safety, which would replace the Police Department. Meanwhile, Twin Cities Coalition for Justice 4 Jamar (TCC4J — an anti-police-brutality community group formed after the police killing of Jamar Clark) is proposing a Civilian Police Accountability Council, which will have oversight over the Police Department.

The three proposals have slightly different paths to the November ballot. Under the city charter, there are three ways to get an amendment on the ballot: through the Charter Commission (an unelected body of 15 members appointed by the Chief District Court Judge), through the City Council, or through a citizen petition. The City Council proposal would have to go through the Charter Commission and then the mayor before being submitted to voters. Both the Yes 4 Minneapolis and CPAC proposals would require 5 percent of registered voters to physically sign a petition by May 1. These options would go before the City Council and then the mayor before getting on the ballot. Organizers for CPAC, however, do not think they will meet the deadline and are exploring the possibility of qualifying for a special election.

All three proposals will eventually have to be either accepted or vetoed by the mayor before being put on the ballot. The mayor’s decision, however, can be overruled by a vote of nine out of 13 City Council members.
Community Control Proposal

The most radical of the three options is to establish community control of the Police Department. Proposed by TCC4J, this option would elect a 13-member Civilian Police Accountability Commission (CPAC), which would control the police. It would have the power to hire the chief of police and take disciplinary actions in cases of police misconduct. It would also be able to determine the police budget.

Qualifications to be on the CPAC include having work experience in civil rights or being a survivor of police brutality or a family member of someone who was killed by police or subjected to police brutality. CPAC eligibility criteria bar people with a law-enforcement background or people with family members in law enforcement.

Community control of the police is not a new idea. It was first proposed in the 1970s by the Black Panther Party as a response to police violence toward Black people. It is rooted in the principle of giving power over police to the community members most affected by police violence. Proponents of CPAC claim that under civilian control, it would be ultimately up to them (the community) to determine the police budget and to dismantle the police.
City Council Proposal

Then there is the City Council proposal put forth by three City Council members, to create a Department of Public Safety, which would include a law-enforcement division responsible for hiring police. This option would remove the mayor’s complete authority over policing and make it a shared role with the City Council. The City Council option would also remove the current requirement to keep a minimum number of police based on the population.
Yes 4 Minneapolis (City Council Lite) Proposal

The Yes 4 Minneapolis proposal is a milquetoast version of the City Council proposal with a few tweaks that one would certainly miss if not looking closely. It is almost exactly like the City Council proposal — except more vague. The only key difference between the Yes 4 Minneapolis and the City Council proposal is that instead of having a separate law-enforcement division under the Department of Public Safety (City Council proposal), the Yes 4 Minneapolis proposal would integrate officers throughout the Department of Public Safety, which would share the Minneapolis Police Department budget.

Yes 4 Minneapolis is proposed by a new group that goes by the same name. Little information is available as to what exactly the proposal hopes to accomplish besides changing the name of the proposed new entity. Both the City and Yes 4 Minneapolis have responded to requests for the full amendment legal language by directing people to the Yes 4 Minneapolis website, which does not say much.
Philanthropy Will Not Dismantle The Police

Yes 4 Minneapolis calls its petition “The People’s Petition,” but based on its philanthropic roots and lack of transparency, it seems anything but.

Not much is known about the origins of Yes 4 Minneapolis. At the bottom of its website, it says in small print, “Made in [solidarity fist sign] with Color of Change.” Color of Change has a history of running counter-campaigns and using email blasts and social media to gauge and tweak their messaging. It is a powerful racial justice nonprofit founded by Van Jones and James Rucker. In 2016, it also received a five-year $9.25 million grant from the Ford Foundation, which has a history of cooperating with the CIA to suppress radical movements1. Color of Change also received grants from Open Philanthropy Project and Open Society Foundation.

Recently, Yes 4 Minneapolis reported a single donation of $500,000 from George Soros’s Open Society Policy Center. This is more than twice the amount of money Mayor Jacob Frey (an opponent of replacing police with a Department of Public Safety) has on hand for his reelection campaign.

Yes 4 Minneapolis presents a nonthreatening, palatable option of changing something about policing. Given the distrust Minneapolis residents have voiced in the City Council after that body backtracked on the promise to eliminate the Police Department, Yes 4 Minneapolis aims to get more legitimacy than its nearly identical twin, the City Council proposal. It may even be a backup plan in case the City Council proposal is not adopted. Yes 4 Minneapolis also serves to head off support for the more detailed CPAC proposal.

Curiously, despite the vagueness, Yes 4 Minneapolis has garnered support from prominent groups such as Reclaim the Block, ACLU MN, Minneapolis Federation of Teachers and Educational Support Professionals (MFT 59), and Twin Cities DSA. Many people from these organizations have been at the forefront of social justice and abolition work. To understand how a multiracial uprising turned into a philanthropic petition, we need only look at Ronald Duchin’s tested formula to divide and conquer movements: isolate the radicals, cultivate the idealists, educate them into being realists, and then finally co-opt the realists.

In the book The Revolution Will Not Be Funded,2 Tiffany Lethabo King and Ewuare Osayande discuss philanthropy’s use of people of color to its advantage in maintaining the status quo. The Grassroots Institute for Fundraising Training (GIFT) model teaches that most funds come from individual donors rather than foundations, which have limited funds. While advising activists to raise money from their communities, the GIFT model also encourages activists to develop relationships with wealthy individuals. As a result, these activists become beholden to the interests of the donor class.

Grant money from the ruling class will not dismantle or even substantively reform the racist institution of police. Rather, it is a recipe to keep things as they are. A year into the pandemic, as the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer, the ruling class is afraid of any semblance of police defunding or dismantling taking place in Minneapolis — the birthplace of the George Floyd uprising — and spreading like a pandemic across the globe.

The movement for defunding or abolishing police seems to have fallen victim to elite capture, the ruling-class influence on well-intentioned activists through propaganda and public-private partnerships.
Public-Private Partnerships And Policing

An often-overlooked function of public-private partnerships is their policing work. A recent example of this is the emergence of groups like Minnesota Safe Streets. Safe Streets is a coalition of nonprofits that are partnering with the YMCA to provide “boots on the ground” (including, during the Chauvin trial, “creation of Critical Incident Response Teams for rapid deployment following the eruption of violence in the metro area”) and coordination with law enforcement.

Safe Streets is only one example of how the state delegates policing to other institutions. A more sinister and well-funded example is the Target Corporation. With its state-of-the-art forensics labs in Minneapolis and Las Vegas, Target has collaborated with law enforcement to surveil and incarcerate young Black people. Using facial recognition technology and collaborating with other stores and across state lines, Target also lets shoplifters steal from them until there is cumulative evidence to charge someone with a felony shoplifting crime. Notably, Jim Rowader, the Minneapolis City Attorney, also happens to be a former Target executive.
No Peaceful Way To Police

Police, whether or not they are under community control, will act exactly as they do now (and as they always have) when it comes to protecting capital. The police are the descendants of slave catchers and have not strayed from their roots. They suppress rebellions just like they did in their slave patrol days. Slave patrols terrorized and disciplined runaway slaves, eventually returning them to plantations. Today their descendants, the police, spread racial terror by arresting and brutalizing Black and Brown people to fill up the prison industrial complex.

The problems of racist policing we face today are inseparable from capitalism. Racist cops or lack of antiracism training are not what make the police racist. The institution of police — true to its origin — is a living example of maintaining a racialized capitalist system. The police or public safety officers will not hesitate to brutalize or kill workers taking over a factory. There is no peaceful way to evict unhoused people from an encampment or to deport undocumented immigrants seeking refuge or to bust a union of predominantly Black and Brown Amazon workers. More “good cops” or cops in T-shirts will not stop “illegal acts” that result directly from capitalism’s exploitation of us for profit.

People often feel compelled to choose an option on the table in the interest of wanting to “do something.” But we must be mindful that capitalism will not solve the problems it has created. The call for police reform is a prime opportunity for the Democratic Party, one of the two parties of capital, to co-opt and infiltrate activist work through nonprofits and philanthropy.

The solutions on the table, all too often, cater to the interests of the capitalist ruling class rather than the people most affected by these problems. A fight against violent racist policing cannot be had without an understanding of the police’s fundamental capital-protecting function and how it cannot fulfil that function without being racist. Our abolition work must be centered around organizing the working class and oppressed people to rise up against the injustices of racialized capitalism and imperialism everywhere.

Left Voice welcomes discourse around these ideas and welcomes people from the Twin Cities to reach out.

Notes

Who Paid the Piper: The CIA and the Cultural Cold War (London: Granta, 2000), 134–35, 139

INCITE!, The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex (Durham: Duke University Press, 2017), 79–87, 85.







How not to protect free speech


Judd Legum
and Tesnim Zekeria
Apr 8





On Monday, Popular Information broke the news that Facebook, Google, AT&T, and other prominent corporations that issued statements in support of voting rights had recently donated tens of thousands of dollars to the RSLC, a GOP group pushing voter suppression bills. On Tuesday, Andrew Ross Sorkin, citing Popular Information's reporting, covered the story in the New York Times:


Still, statements by companies about their social priorities deserve a healthy dose of skepticism.

Indeed, some of the same companies taking part in the stampede of statements critiquing voting laws, like Facebook, Google and AT&T, also recently donated money to the Republican State Leadership Committee, a group that supports many of the voting initiatives. Judd Legum, a journalist, pointed out this hypocrisy in his Popular Information newsletter, noting that Republicans have introduced bills to restrict voting in 47 states.

You can support independent journalism that exposes corporate hypocrisy by becoming a paid subscriber.

Support Accountability Journalism

Popular Information is fiercely independent and does not accept advertising. This newsletter only exists because of the support of readers like you.

How not to protect free speech

Judd Legum and Tesnim Zekeria
Apr 8






The free expression of ideas is a bedrock principle for any democratic society. And that is particularly true on college campuses, where many young people are still developing their core beliefs. Students need the freedom to explore new ideas, challenge opinions they disagree with, and change their minds.

Many conservatives believe that higher education in America is indoctrinating students with progressive views, shielding them from controversial viewpoints, and discouraging free speech. If that is true, it would be a problem. But what is the solution?

In Florida, lawmakers are advancing legislation (HB 233) to "solve" the alleged lack of "intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity" at the state's public universities. Many of the policy measures in the bill, however, are dystopian and would likely chill free speech on campus.

The bill "would require public colleges and universities to survey students, faculty and staff about their beliefs and viewpoints," the Tampa Bay Times reports. But it "offers no assurances that the survey’s answers will be anonymous, and there is no clarity on who will use the data and for what purpose."

As a result, critics believe the survey could be abused. "Don’t you think it is dangerous for us to have all the data on personal opinions of university faculty and students?" Florida Senator Lori Berman (D) asked. Specifically, the data could be used as a tool for Florida's Republican-controlled legislature to "meddle in, monitor and regulate speech on campus" — rewarding institutions that promote their favored viewpoints and punishing those with less politically popular views. Florida Representative Spencer Roach (R), one of the bill's sponsors, said the survey data could be used "as the basis to make policy decisions."

"I see the potential for the climate survey to be used to withhold appropriations from public universities that in the legislator's opinion do not promote a marketplace of ideas,” Clay Calvert, a law professor at the University of Florida, told Popular Information. Calvert believes that institutions where professors have a perceived "liberal bias" will be targeted.

The legislation was drafted with a certain outcome in mind. Another of the bill's sponsors, Florida Senator Ray Rodrigues (R) says "students have told him they fear being ostracized for expressing conservatives views on campus." The purpose of the survey is to "ascertain" why conservative students feel that way.

Lobbyist Barney Bishop, who is advocating for the bill on behalf of undisclosed clients, said "the cards are stacked in the education system...toward the left and toward the liberal ideology and also secularism — and those were not the values that our country was founded on." The purpose of the bill is to "get our country back" to conservative values.

The survey would be designed by the Florida State Board of Education, which is populated with political appointees of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) that have an ideological agenda. The current chair of the Board, Andy Tuck, opposes the teaching of evolution as a fact. "I strongly oppose any study of evolution as fact at all. I’m purely in favor of it staying a theory and only a theory," Tuck said in 2008. Asked about his statements in 2019, Tuck did not indicate his views had changed.
Campus free speech advocates oppose Florida bill

As originally drafted, the Florida bill would have allowed students to record class lectures for any purpose. The current version allows recording without a professor’s consent for a student's "personal educational use, in connection with a complaint to the public institution of higher education where the recording was made, or as evidence in, or in preparation for, a criminal or civil proceeding." Although public postings of these recordings would be prohibited, the only recourse that professors would have is to sue the student who posted the video.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), an organization dedicated to defending free speech on campus, opposes the bill, specifically citing the recording provision. "[T]he consequences of giving a statutory green light to recordings and litigation around [classroom recordings] is fraught with the potential to wreak havoc with classroom instruction, chilling faculty and student speech," FIRE argues.

FIRE says that the provision of the bill that allows the videos to be used "in connection with a complaint to the public institution of higher education where the recording was made," opens the possibility that students and faculty of all political persuasions could be reported to administrators for expressing unpopular views.
Public universities as public forums

Under the bill, universities and colleges would be prohibited from “shielding students, faculty, or staff from certain speech.” The sponsors of the bill go on to clarify that to “shield” means “to limit...access to, or observation of, ideas and opinions that they may find uncomfortable, unwelcome, disagreeable, or offensive.” This provision stems from the false perception that controversial speakers are discriminated against on public campuses and need speech protections.

But under the First Amendment, public colleges and universities cannot restrict campus speech. Unlike a private institution, which can choose to exclude certain speakers, public colleges and universities have little leeway. These entities, viewed as “public forums,” have virtually no ability to restrict speech regardless of the content.

The University of Florida, where Calvert teaches, has hosted numerous controversial speakers. In 2017, amid outrage, the University hosted white nationalist leader Richard Spencer. This was just a few months after Spencer was implicated for his participation in the “Unite The Right” rally in Charlottesville. In 2019, the University drew intense scrutiny after Donald Trump Jr. and Kimberly Guilfoyle spoke at the university. In both instances, the University did not discriminate against the speakers.

“The University of Florida already must comply with the terms of the first amendment because we are a state university. When it comes to controversial speakers, it has proved itself,” Calvert told Popular Information. “So, you have to ask yourself: why do we even need [HB 233]? Why adopt this?”






The Colorado experience

In 2014, the University of Colorado commissioned a study of "ideological diversity" at the institution's four campuses. The study found that "9 percent of faculty members and 17 percent of students report Republican Party affiliation, compared to 42 percent of professors and 29 percent of students who identify as Democrats." But nearly all students (96%) believed that "their instructors promote respectful classroom environments."

Nevertheless, the University "created a visiting scholar program that brought decidedly conservative thought leaders to campus for stints." While some of the right-wing professors have proven popular, the program has run into issues. In January, the University of Colorado stripped visiting conservative scholar John Eastman of his public duties after Eastman spread "conspiracy theories about voter fraud at the Trump rally in Washington, D.C., that preceded the storming of the U.S. Capitol." Chancellor Phil DiStefano called Eastman's behavior "repugnant" but did not fire him. Eastman's contract expires in May.