Hartford; Middletown, CT—Two days ago during rush hour, activists with the climate justice network Connecticut Rising Tide dropped two large banners off of the Portland Bridge in Middletown and over Interstate 91-North in Hartford, to highlight the irreparable destruction in the Gulf of Mexico on the 3-month anniversary of the oil disaster, and to demand an end to our oil addiction.

“The Deepwater Horizon explosion has caused the worst ecological disaster in history,” said Mica Taliaferro, a Hartford resident and a member of CT Rising Tide.  “Eleven rig workers have been killed, fishery economies have been bankrupt, and precious coastal ecosystems have been damaged beyond repair. Three months later, it is time to critically analyze our consumption of oil.  We need to be sure a catastrophe like this never happens again.”

The large banners were in full display for the morning rush hour, stating “Put a Cap on Big Oil” and “End Oil Drilling: Bikes and Buses!”  The banners conveyed the demand for an end to massive oil drilling, and a shift towards sustainability through measures such as increased public transportation and safer bike lanes.

Since the start of the leak three months ago, well over 100 million gallons of oil have poured into the Gulf.  Activists say that the sheer size and devastation of the spill is enough to warrant the total abolition of offshore drilling. We need to shift away from fossil fuels towards renewable sources of energy. “It has become abundantly clear that our dependence on oil is destructive and unsustainable, and must soon end for the health of the planet and those living on it,” said Kevin Hayes, a student in Middletown and member of CT Rising Tide.

The leak was finally contained on July 15^th, after oil spewed into the Gulf at a rate of 35,000 barrels per day since the initial explosion on April 20^th.  Considering the extent of this damage, the moratorium placed on offshore drilling by the Obama Administration does not go nearly far enough; a permanent ban on offshore drilling is the only acceptable measure to take to prevent another catastrophe.

Activists emphasize that the oil disaster is not an isolated problem, but one which stems from America’s addiction to oil and other dirty energy sources.  Our lifestyle of over-consumption has lead to an unhealthy dependence on environmentally destructive fossil fuels, polluting our water and air systems, and contributing heavily to global climate change.  “We need a massive energy shift away from fossil fuels and into locally generated energy systems in order to begin to repair  the damage that has already been done and build towards a more ecologically sound future,” said Kevin Hayes.

For more information, go to:

http://www.actagainstoil.com/

Rising Tide is a grassroots network of groups and individuals who take direct action to confront the root causes of climate change and promote local, community-based solutions to the climate crisis.  We are an international network born out of the conviction that corporate-friendly and state-sponsored solutions to climate change will not save us. As a matter of survival, we must decrease our dependence on the industries and institutions that are destroying the planet and work toward community autonomy and sustainable living.

Most of the council were not impressed by the scare tactics employed by Corporation Council John Rose and Councilman Torres, that lifting the ban would open the flood gates for lawsuits and increased liability to the city and it’s taxpayers. In fact, some members saw this strawman argument as a ploy by the business district to further encourage a “pedestrian only” downtown.

Councilman Luis Cotto, who has lead the charge to lift the ban, argued that skateboarding is a legitimate form of transportation and  an excellent way for Hartford’s youth to stay in shape. Councilman Cotto is also responsible for creating a task-force consisting of Hartford residents, artists, skateboarders, and business leaders to look into the the viability of building a skate/bmx park and mixed-use arts area at New Ross County, Wexford Park, affectionately known as “Heaven” by local skateboarders.

The council has recently approved the initial recommendations of the Task-Force which include building a poured-concrete style park, urban arts wall, and a stage for performances.

To date, $747.3 billion have been appropriated for the U.S. war in Iraq and $299 billion for the war in Afghanistan.

The pending supplemental making its way through Congress will add an estimated $37 billion to the current $136.8 billion total spending for the current fiscal year, ending September 30.

What Can You Get For $1 Trillion?

Federal Funding For Higher Education — $1 trillion would give the maximum Pell Grant award ($5,500) to all 19 million U.S. college and university students for the next 9 years.

For $1 trillion, you could provide:

294,734,961 people with health care for one year, or

21,598,789 public safety officers for one year, or

17,149,392 music and arts teachers for one year, or

7,779,092 affordable housing units, or

440,762,472 children with health care for one year, or

137,233,969 head start places for children for one year, or

16,427,497 elementary school teachers for one year, or

1,035,282,468 homes with renewable electricity for one year

WHAT DOES $1 TRILLION LOOK LIKE?

$1,000,000,000,000 (“1” and twelve zeros)

If you earned $1 million a year, it would take you 1 million years to earn $1 trillion.

In Dollar Bills:

If you converted $1 trillion into one dollar bills, and laid them end to end, it would reach 98 million miles. That’s 4,000 times around the Earth. Its 205 trips to the Moon. And back. It’s more than the distance to the Sun.

In Silver Dollars:

If someone handed you a silver dollar every second, it would take almost 32,000 years for them to hand you $1 trillion. Not that you could hold them – they’d weigh nearly 9 million tons.

About NPP’s Cost of War Counters

NPP’s Cost of War counters provide information on the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for each of the 50 states.

The counters also provide cost amounts and “trade-off” data for hundreds of U.S. cities and towns.

To see NPP’s Cost of War counters and our Notes & Sources, visit http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

The National Priorities Project (NPP) is a 501(c)(3) research organization that analyzes and clarifies federal data so that people can understand and influence how their tax dollars are spent.  Located in Northampton, MA, since 1983, NPP focuses on the impact of federal spending and other policies at the national, state, congressional district and local levels.  For more information, visit http://www.nationalpriorities.org.

Contact: Christopher Hellman, Communications Liaison, 413.584.9556 (o); 703.945.3950, or

Jo Comerford, Executive Director, 413.584.9556 (o); 413.559.1649 (c)

National Priorities Project office located at:
243 King Street
Suite 109
Northampton, MA, 01060
United States

21 Arrested as Community Leaders Block Scabs to Support Strike

Visit www.seiu1199ne.org or call 860-549-1199
More photos: http://www.homestead.com/homefront

photos courtesy of Steve Thornton

Stephen Ostertag, Ph.D.

Department of Sociology

Tulane University

New Orleans, LA 70118

New Orleans currently lays claim to having the highest murder rate in the U.S. While New Orleans frequently runs among the most violent cities in the U.S., murder and other forms of physical violence are found in urban centers across the country. With local elections on the near horizon we are beginning to hear talk about crime and violence in New Orleans.  Yet, one thing that is frequently absent is what the research on crime has to offer.  Focused on trying to understand a variety of social issues, including crime, criminologists and sociologists, can provide a holistic picture of what are often very complicated social problems that span a number of areas.  While understanding the collective causes and consequences of human behavior is tricky, over the past several decades, criminologists have compiled a sizable amount of data on the causes of and solutions to crime.  Their suggestions may not be politically popular, however, they do pose the most promising suggestions for those who are serious about crime.  Given the upcoming elections, and the heightened awareness of crime and violence in the city, citizens of New Orleans may benefit from learning about this research.  Let me highlight some of the generally agreed upon points gleamed from the past 30-40 years of research from across the country.

Before anything though, we must recognize some important factors that have grown to be largely accepted as truisms among criminologists.  First, and most importantly, urban violent crime in most cities across the country is mostly concentrated in a small number of particularly impoverished and isolated communities.  Second, most residents of these communities are similar to residents in communities anywhere. They are law abiding, hard working people who want nothing other than to be able to make a living, provide for their families, and live in peace.  Third, a growing body of research has shown that the traditional approach to handing crime over the past 40 years (that of deterrence and incapacitation) has been largely ineffective, though very expensive.  In fact, this belief is now almost unanimously accepted among criminologists.  Finally, any serious effort to reduce crime and violence must approach the issue by focusing most heavily on the communities over individuals.

Cause of Crime:

Predicting crime, like predicting trends in any human behavior is difficult, but years of research have lead to some general conclusions about fundamental community needs.  These are important because they provide and foster a number of benefits of which many of us unknowingly take advantage, but that are largely absent or diminished among the impoverished and isolated communities in which must violent crime occurs.  Any serious discussion of crime must tackle these head on if we truly want to reduce crime.

First, many community residents suffer from a lack of personal resources, such as education, job skills, and general know-how, that people bring with them to the social, political, and economic marketplace.  Those who are endowed with these are more capable of using them to further their personal interests, such as finding and keeping a job upon which to raise a family, or moving to neighborhoods low in crime.  When these folks move out (presuming they had to live there in the first place) they take with them the skills and education that could have been taught to others.  The result is even greater marginalization and isolation in the community they left, and greater organization and inclusion in the community the now reside.

Related to this are our social networks, or the numerous social relationships, both intimate (e.g., family and close friends), but also less intimate (acquaintances, co-workers, friends of friends, etc.) that we draw on for different reasons in our everyday lives.  Our social networks matter because they serve as important resources upon which we call to learn about different opportunities and further our interests and needs (family, food, child care, health care, money, transportation, etc.).   Residents in marginalized and detached neighborhoods have weak social networks.   Many are left fending for themselves in a constant struggle to get by.  After experiencing years of this we should not be surprised that some grow apathetic, resentful, and disenchanted.

Third involves collective efficacy, or the community members’ ability to come together to solve problems or take actions that affect their neighborhoods.  Collective efficacy refers to both the knowledge of how to organize, and the awareness that community organizing is a viable and realistic option to solve problems.  For this to happen, residents have to communicate with each other on a frequent basis.  In neighborhoods that are socially isolated, neighbor interaction is minimal, and few have the personal resources to organize their communities, let alone the recognition that organizing will do anything to help.  The few networks that may develop go unrealized, as do the changes that might emerge from within the communities (i.e. from the community members themselves).

Fourth, and perhaps the most important factor, involves informal social controls.  Informal social controls speak to the power of families, friends, and community level social groups (e.g., churches, schools, employers, voluntary organizations, etc.) that provide the context for learning and internalizing social norms and attitudes.  They are particularly important for adolescents since they are at the age in which may begin to separate from the tightness of immediate family.  It is vital that other social groups that share similar norms are available and active in offering continued social supports.  Informal social controls are very different from formal social controls, such as lawmakers and law enforcers.  Formal social controls seldom enjoy the same level of trust and respect as do these other groups, and therefore are less effective at motivating desired behavior and preventing unwanted behavior.

Together, resources, networks, efficacy and informal controls are common characteristics of any community.  The extent to which a community is socially isolated and disconnected from other communities and larger social spheres will speak rather directly to the strength of these fundamental characteristics, and therefore, also to crime.   Communities that enjoy low levels of violent crime are much more tightly organized, integrated and involved in the larger society. Communities that suffer from high rates of crime and violence are almost universally marginalized and isolated.  Any serious effort to reduce crime and violence, and the fear, pain and suffering that accompanies it will need to address these issues head-on, in a community level approach.   Based on years of research among cities all across the U.S., we should expect little from common (and often politically popular and safe) solutions to hold people (e.g., police chiefs) “accountable” or to increase the number of police patrolling the streets.  In fact, the latest research on these widespread ‘tough on crime’ solutions is beginning to show that they actually lead to greater crime and violence, namely because they result in the further eroding of personal resources, social networks, collective efficacy, and informal social controls that are so necessary for a community to run smoothly.  That’s right, we’re finding that “tough on crime” actually breeds more of it!

Solutions:

The research on solutions to crime is less developed than that on the causes mainly because it’s more difficult to fund.  Yet, there are indeed some common sense solutions, though implementing them requires serious and sustained effort, constant monitoring (so that changes can be made as needed), and most importantly, the political courage to sponsor and support such programs, without which we’d be setting ourselves up to fail.  If done properly, however, we could not only expect a reduction in crime, fear, pain and suffering, but also to save money since these programs tends to be much less costly than jail or prison.

There are three primary areas to focus our efforts at prevention.  They are: child abuse and neglect, cognitive development, and adolescents and youth already engaged in delinquency.

Child Abuse and Neglect:

It is certainly true that many who were physically, sexually and mentally abused when they were children do not grow up to be violent criminals.  But, those who tend to be the most violent also tend to have been severely abused as children.  The most promising programs that are designed to reduce child abuse and neglect are home visiting programs.  With these programs, a skilled nurse or similar person visits the homes of at-risk infants and toddlers once or twice a week, not with the goal of removing the child (though this may be necessary at times), but of providing parenting skills and linking families with community resources that they may need.  This is important because stressors that arise due to peripheral issues (such as health care, income, transportation, child care, and other violent relationships) all increase the chances of child abuse and neglect. The programs that are the most successful are holistic, they seek to treat the entire family and help solve a variety of problems as they arise.  Children are nurtured in a caring and warm family environment that is absent the caustic effects of heightened stress.  As children grow so do their ties to family and the pro-social attitudes that strengthen the informal social controls that play such a huge role in reducing unwanted behavior.  These programs also have a likely side-benefit in that they help strengthen the family’s resources and social networks that are also key to reducing crime.

Cognitive Development:

While focusing on early childhood is the most promising, studies show programs geared toward pre-school and kindergarten-age children are also promising.  At this age we begin to see the early signs of behavioral problems, and many are comfortable with concluding that these children are destined for crime and to leave it at that.  However, this is far from true.  One successful example is the Perry Preschool Program.  This program enrolled 3 and 4 year old children of single mothers into a short, daily preschool program with a low five to one pupil/teacher ratio.  Children were not only taught by their teacher, but were also encouraged to plan and explore with their teachers. Teachers also visited children and their mothers at home once a week.  While most children stayed in the program for only two years, follow-up interviews years later showed that they were less likely to be living on welfare, and more likely to be literate, working and earning a living wage than their comparison group.  Much as with the home-visiting programs to address child abuse and neglect, the programs that treat the entire family and its array of needs (e.g., transportation, food, child care, employment, and housing issues), tend to be the most promising and still less expensive than jail or prison.  There are many other such programs, but since they are usually experiments rather than policy, they are often short lived, and as would be expected, their successes diminish as time goes on.

Adolescents and Youth Already Engaged in Delinquency:

It is easy to claim that as kids reach middle-school and high-school age that whatever path they are on is set for life.  While early prevention programs would reduce the need for later programs, there remains evidence that adolescents do indeed change their ways.  Again, the programs that work treat the whole child and try to address the larger problems.  These programs may be of particular interest because it is at this age that problem behavior turns violent.  Successful approaches such as “multisystemic therapy” (MST) are ecological and understand that individuals are nested within interconnected systems of family, peers, school, and community, and treating them successfully requires dealing with issues that arise across these systems.   If our social system is not functioning properly (such as an abusive family, of negative school environment) then it will manifest itself in the individual’s behavior (often repeating itself in the next generation).  Isolating the individual will do nothing to address the system.  Instead what is required is engaging the individual, finding out what problems exist, how to address them and finding other sources that may serve as an outlet to vent frustrations.  Consider how many adults in New Orleans would attribute their learning an instrument, playing a sport, chess, or some other activity to keeping them off the streets.

Preventing crime and criminal development with these approaches can be very challenging because they require us to recognize the power of external forces on our psychological and social development, attitudes, and behavior.   Yet, it is nonetheless true that we must make a serious effort to keep this in mind as we engage with those who display problem behavior.

While these areas highlight the most promising focal points of effective crime reduction efforts, we must remember that addressing them still leave us swimming against a constant tide.  What ultimately matters, however, and thus dissolves personal resources, social networks, collective efficacy, and informal social control is the marginalization and social isolation of these communities and their residents.  While, if properly done, these solutions will reduce crime and save money, without addressing these larger issues with similarly courageous policies addressing housing, employment, health care, and schooling we can only expect so much.

If New Orleans is serious about reducing the amount of violent crime in the city, we’d be wise to learn from what the sociological and criminological research offers, and to invest our monies in policies and programs that will yield real, long-term effects and improve the quality of life for all of us.

Well, there are a couple things that concern me.

First, what’s the goals of the law and is it designed to achieve these goals. From the bill, “The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.” To enforce any law through the philosophy of deterrence is a fundamental problem because it ignores the original motivation (in this case probably rooted in the Mexican economy). I’ve see this philosophy at work all over the U.S. and it a lot of effort for a little pay off (this is a whole discussion in itself). So, the initial design, independent of anything else, I think will be ineffective and overly expensive (should a a tax concern here).

Second, deals with the concern over jobs. This is a classic issue (and a legitimate one) that bubbles up every once in a while. If you looked at the processes of legalizing a bunch of the drugs we have illegal today (pot, opium, cocaine, at one point alcohol), you’d find at the heart a political battle over a group of more ‘natural’ citizens, and a group of minorities (usually immigrants, though not necessarily). Criminalizing the drug becomes a way of scapegoating things like poor economic policies that lead to a recession or loss of wages, or poor benefits, etc.). It’s hard not to see this bill as falling nicely in this history of law making and conflict since the conditions today are ripe for similar legal practices.

Third, has to do with who the bill is designed to address which I think we’d all agree are mexican illegal immigrants or undocumented workers, or whatever term you prefer. As opposed to say, eastern Europeans, who also constitute a large, though not nearly as visible illegal immigration group (look at your local strip club for this example), or people from Southeast Asia (e.g., vietnam, laos, etc.). And since we can’t notice whether someone is in the country legally or not upon simply seeing them, how one looks then invites suspicion and from a law enforcement perspective, a shift from innocent until proven guilty to guilty until proven innocent. (this happens all the time to young black men in the city).

Fourth, and to go along with the need to prove one’s innocence over guilt, involved the related issue of legal discourse. Here, loosely defined words like ‘reasonable suspicion’ are used to essentially justify almost any stop and search. In theory we’d likely say that that’d represent a violation of once civil liberties and perhaps due process, but those things only become significant issues if one has the power to fight against a municipality, county, or state, which is rare and not to be expected among a minority population.

I think we also have to really listen to the mostly brown people who are most fearful of this bill. There might be something to their concerns. You have to be a little cautious here because lots of times we’re dealing with a socially constructed ideology that doesn’t gel with the reality of the situation, but in this case we’re talking about people who already know what it’s like to have darker skin and live in Arizona. That knowledge isn’t based off of television depictions and all that, but a real, material reality and so I think needs to be considered as well.

Remember the Noam Chomsky link I put up a while ago comparing the social, economic, political climate of today with that of the years before the rise of Nazism. He had some important points in justifying people’s anger. Jobs are tough to get, real wages have not kept up with inflation, benefits are hard to get and more expensive, our political system has been purchased by dominant economic powers. This reality will be experienced and have consequences. Chomsky, and myself, are concerned with the way this reality manifests itself. Is it more an example of scapegoating to a group seen as different and therefore threatening, or is it focused on the real policies and practices that deep-down, create the frustration in the first place.

At the end of the day I think you have a law with problems related to effectiveness, practicality, and discrimination, and really won’t be all that effective at addressing the concern over jobs, crime or whatever. It’s reactionary nature; in code is really designed to address mexican immigration and will place law enforcement in a tough position to enforce this law while likely ignoring or downplaying other criminal violations; it’s loosely worded which will allow for its easy exploitation (something already inherent in the differential power relationship between law enforcement and citizen/everyday person) and added difficulty in resisting or protecting one’s rights; that will end up costing the tax payers lots of money in the court proceedings and other (often disguised and absent the conversation) legal services (jail, deportation, immigration detention centers, etc.); and looks a little to similar to other laws that when we look back on now were pretty clearly designed to control one segment of the population that was construed as a scapegoat for a host of social issues with causes located elsewhere.

An Expen$ive Way to Make Bad People Worse:

An Essay on Prison Reform from an Insider’s Perspective

By Jens Soering

2004: Lantern Books

Reviewed by Stephen Ostertag, Ph.D.

Department of Sociology

Tulane University

Originally posted on Political Media Review: http://www.politicalmediareview.org/2009/06/an-expenive-way-to-make-bad-people-worse/

In this short book, author Jens Soering outlines several prison myths that he says obscure our ability to take a rational, informed, and effective approach to incarceration in the U.S.  Using the introductory chapter to highlight recent trends in crime, incarceration, recidivism, and prison expenditures (data from 2001 were the most recently available during the time of this writing) Soering dedicates the remaining chapters to discuss six prison myths that he argues cloud our understanding, judgment, and ultimately practices of incarceration.  He hopes that by offering an insider’s perspective (Soering is currently housed in the Brunswick Correctional Center in Virginia) he may help spark a public discussion on the uses, costs, and also effectiveness of existing incarceration practices, especially on reducing and preventing violent and dangerous behaviors.

Soering targets the economic demands of the U.S. prison system (hovering around $55 billion annually) and questions whether U.S. tax payers receive social benefits above and beyond those that would come from investments in other areas, such as education.  By focusing on the financial costs to tax-payers Soering downplays the moral arguments on incarceration and instead openly appeals to fiscal conservatives.  He believes fiscal conservatives may be convinced that current incarceration practices are too costly and yield too little in the form of crime prevention, and so, are those most likely to challenge existing practices.

The bulk of Soering’s book focuses on critiquing six prison myths that he claims dominate public discussions on incarceration in the U.S.  He dedicates one chapter to each myth.  They are, 1) the myth that there is no problem regarding the cost and sustainability of current incarceration practices, 2) that prisons may be expensive but they prevent crime, 3) crime prevention does not work, 4) rehabilitation behind bars does not work, 5) there are no alternatives to prison, and 6) that there are no incentives to mislead people about prison.  As he critiques these myths Soering draws on both international data (against which he compares U.S. crime rates and incarceration practices and expenses), and the insight he has accumulated from his 18+ years of experience as a prison inmate.  Soering concludes the book with a chapter in which he predicts considerable challenges to incarceration practices to arise in the near future due to budget crises and once “law and order” conservative politicians changing their positions on incarceration.  He then offers suggestions that citizens can do right now to work towards prison reforms.

I found Soering’s book particularly useful for two primary reasons.  The first involves his unique insider’s perspective that allows him to talk as a participant observer, and the second involves the solutions he poses to cut the financial burden that prisons exert on tax payers.

Throughout the book, Soering draws on his insight as a prisoner in a maximum security prison to discuss other prisoners, prison guards, wardens, prison programs, and overall life in prison.  His experience also informs the suggestions he offers in chapter 5, as he critiques the myth of no alternative to prison, and provides several useful substitutes.  Here, Soering suggests investing in drug treatment programs rather than incarcerating drug offenders (p. 50-1), creating mental health courts (similar to drug courts) and mental health units instead of mixing the mentally ill in with the general prison population, where, he says, many are sexually and physically abused (p. 52-3), and refraining from housing juveniles in adult populations where they are often exploited and abused (p. 56-7).  Soering also reflects on the power of even menial jobs at reducing tension and conflict inside the prison by giving prisoners a sense of purpose and rules they willfully obey.  Further, as someone who’s found strength and answers in prayer, Soering notes the positive effects of faith-based programs on both presently incarcerated persons and their subsequent recidivism.  These are just a number of the alternatives Soering offers the reader, they are rooted in his experience as a prisoner, and they are intended to appeal to both liberal and conservative audiences.

In the concluding chapter Soering offers some valuable suggestions for activists who wish to take direct action.  Again, he intends to appeal to both liberals and conservatives.  First, he suggests liberals use state courts (rather than legislatures) to argue that all prisoners be tested and treated for HIV/AIDS which are considerably higher among prisoners (e.g., 8.5% in New York State prisons compared to 0.3% among the U.S. civilian population).  Soering believes the rationale should “not be that prisoners need medical attention…but that the general public must be protected from the spread of lethal diseases through inmates.” (p. 90).  Second, and to appeal to conservatives, he argues for greater expansion of faith-based programs in state and the U.S. prison systems.  Soering notes the Prison Fellowship Ministry’s TOP Program (p. 91) in particular.

Jens Soering’s 2004 book An Expen$ive Way to Make Bad People Worse: An Essay on Prison Reform (New York: Lantern Books), is insightful and well researched (he cites frequently from noted criminologists, peer-reviewed journals, and research centers).  I believe it would be useful reading for prison activists and reformers of all political persuasions.  It’d also be useful as a supplementary reader for criminology and criminal justice courses, especially those that cover recent scholarship on mass incarceration and its effects on disadvantaged neighborhoods.

On Thursday March 4th, students, faculty, staff and parents on campuses throughout Connecticut and the nation rallied as part of the National Day of Action to Defend Education.  Wesley Strong, a graduate student at UCONN, is one of the national organizers for the Defend Education campaign.  In the first half of this split interview, conducted before the March 4^th actions, he outlines the state of the modern education system today (K – post graduate university), and from what forces that system needs defending.

How did you become involved with organizing for March 4th?

I have been an organizer for Connecticut Students Against the War. CTSAW was invited to participate in the initial calls to assemble a nationally organized call for March 4th as a day of action to defend education.

Describe from your perspective the state of the education system as you see it.  How has this changed during your time as a student?  How do your answers change when looking at things from a national scope vs. a local one?

The education system here in CT has yet to feel the full brunt of the crisis. While California faced a 32% tuition hike last semester and while other states face hikes far larger, CT faces an average of around 6%. This is by no means an indicator that we are avoiding the crisis. Rumors coming out of UConn are suggesting they will reach for a 20% hike next year. This compounds years of consecutive tuition hikes, resulting in a cumulative hike of 50% from 2003 to 2011 (based on next years approved hikes) in the CT state University system. K-12 schools across the country are facing similar attacks. While many in CT are aware of the state of schools in Hartford, they are not aware that these schools are in this state because of a collective desire from business and government to push for privatization as a solution. To achieve this, they provided tax breaks to the rich over the past 30 years, continually cut funding for education and other social service programs, privatized schools altogether (an achievement that Education Secretary Arne Duncan is known for achieving during his stay as the Chicago CEO of schools), attacked teachers’ unions with reforms in attempts to force them into competition with each other (merit pay) in order to create a wedge to dismantle unions altogether – which are a strong barrier in the path towards privatization. In the K-12 system, government and business succeeded so well in dismantling and under funding the public system, that some private schools appear to function better, even though that is achieved mostly by skimming the smartest students from the public system. We are not seeing any significant signs of change either as Obama and Duncan push the “Race to the Top” program offering grant based aid only to schools [that] make privatization reforms. While CT may be quiet right now in comparison with other states in the US, I would expect the outrage to grow as the public education system begins to be dismantled through financial means.

Can you expand on how education is under attack and on who is attacking it?

Education is under attack from the same social forces that have redesigned our social system since Regan. Regan began a process of redesigning the economy, promoting privatization, giving business more access and mobility, dismantling the social support systems, and outright attacks on workers and unions. The purpose is to increase the amount of profit the private sector makes. This is colloquially known as “free trade” or globalization that workers across the world have been fighting back against since the 1980s. The current crisis has opened the door for privatization in education, decreasing the state’s responsibility to provide equal and accessible education, and redesigning the system to best fit the needs of the private sector (education in biotechnology, finance, etc. but not in liberal arts). This process is happening right now as charter (private) schools are promoted as the solution to the troubles in public education. The truth is that the success of private charter schools is because of massive reductions in funding for public ed along with charter schools skimming the talent from the public system. As education becomes more and more privatized, we have less and less democratic control over it. This push towards privatization is an attack democracy and will forever change the face of education if we do not stand up and fight back against it now.

What do you see as the objective of March 4th?  What are the larger goals, beyond the demos themselves?  How will these actions serve to impact the state of the education system as it currently exists?

March 4th will culminate a national student and worker movement to fight for education rights and could be a starting point for people to come together around economic issues. It has the possibility to unite students and workers, and bring the energy and direction of students into longer term struggles. I can predict with almost complete certainty that there will be a national education rights conference sometime this summer, given the amount of developments w have seen on the ground and the expected desire from students and workers to codify these actions with greater collaborations.  Different states have different issues and I…expect that these actions will begin to show the power elite the power that we can hold on a grassroots level. I would expect small changes to occur, but without a radical shift in macro-level economic policy, more significant changes are suspect. Free market capitalism has driven many of these changes and can be connected to almost all of the problems that people are addressing on the 4th. I am currently exploring this point further in a pamphlet set t be released soon called Neoliberalism and Education which will be posted on the national website <defendeducation.org>

Sadly, struggles for educational rights are not new.  Where do you seek inspiration that can aid you in the current struggle?  Are there any groups, individuals or historic moments that resonate deeply with you in your work today?  What lessons do you take from these peoples/struggles, and how does this inform your present work?

Berkeley in the 1960’s, California last semester, labor struggles of the 30’s and 40’s. Plant occupations in France. Plant occupations here in the states during Vietnam. There are endless numbers of actions and historical events from which to draw inspiration. It is best informed by labor movement struggles, as schools are also points of production – cultural and intellectual production.

As a grad student now, how has your perspective of student activism changed since your days as an undergrad?

My perspective has changed to focus more on longer term movements and issues. The education rights struggle is deeply tied to 30 years of outright attacks on unions and workers, many in the same push towards greater privatization designed to increase “financial efficiency” (increase profit, decrease overhead costs – mostly by combating and eliminating contracts that protect worker’s rights).

In the second part of this interview, conducted two weeks later, Wes discusses the successes of the March 4^th actions, the future of the movement to defend education, and issues an urgent call to students, faculty, and parents to get involved.

What event did you take part in on March 4th and how did that event go?

I spoke at a gathering of about 10 students at Southern CT State University and at a gather of students at Middlesex Community College. Both went fairly well and represent some significant opportunities to organize a fight back. SCSU is currently one of the major points of organizing in the state.

What other events happened in CT and what were they like?  What were events like nationally?

There were a few other actions in CT. Graduate Employee Student Organization @ Yale held an event with decent turnout, UCONN students had good turnout for their event as well. Nationally, there were major demonstrations throughout California, NYC, and several other locations.

Describe for us your analysis and impressions of the March 4th day of action.  How was it a success?   What tangible victories have come out of M4 organizing work thus far?

The best victories are local victories. We have begun a struggle here in CT, and in each local area, the struggle is growing. Building this power is absolutely crucial to future victories and will build a stronger movement based in grassroots organizing.  March 4^th…represents a serious kickoff of longer term work in many areas throughout the country. In this sense it was a success. National organizing is weak at best in the aftermath as the focus is still on building local power. It is clear that those who organized around March 4th do not represent the growing movement by any means, but we have shown that national organizing can happen and is very successful around this issue.

Now that M4 has passed, where does the movement go from here? Locally?  Nationally?

The focus of most of the energy is still in local organizing. A few people who built for the 4th will host a workshop at the US Social Forum, but it is clear that this does not represent everyone that organized for the 4th or everyone that is building around this issue. National organizing is very weak at this point, with little grassroots involvement since local campaigns are in beginning stages in many places throughout the country.Here in CT, we are focusing on supporting local organizing that is already happening. This includes support of K-12 organizing, support of the campaigns at UCONN and SCSU, and hopefully to expand the fight onto the campuses of CCSU, ECSU and WCSU. All of this is being done in a realistic scope, something that some organizers lacked going into the organizing.

If you could say something to students, parents, and faculty that would convince them to join the struggle to defend education in CT, what would you say to them?

Now, more than ever is the time to stand up and fight back. If we sit by, we will only lose more and more. Parents, teachers, and students at K-12 systems throughout the state have already begun this struggle. Students in higher education are soon to follow. Here in Connecticut, the state is on the full offensive attacking our public education system in order to qualify for a portion of the 4.3 billion dollars in grant based education funding allotted under the Obama bailout. If we don’t fight back against a system and a government pushing to privatize everything, we will loose the few democratic controls we have left.  Folks should check out ct.defendeducation.org to get involved with CT work, which is behind many other states, but coming together and expected to grow when we face the conditions expected next year.

RALLY!

FOR 1199 SPECTRUM STRIKERS

SATURDAY, APRIL 24
11:00 AM TO 12:00 NOON
PARK PLACE HEALTH CENTER

5 Greenwood Street, Hartford
(off Park St.  Parking on Amity, Madison, Grace, and nearby streets)

On the 10th day of the strike, join nursing home workers who are fighting unfair labor practices and the threat of permanent replacements.  The Spectrum Corporation has intimidated, suspended and fired dozens of workers at four nursing homes over the past year while workers have been trying to negotiate a fair contract.

Show your support!  Contact Steve Thornton for more information, 860-251-6013