Archiv für Februar 2010

LATE JANUARY 2002: Noam Chomsky, one of the intellectual leaders of the broadly named Anti-Globalization movement, is addressing a cheering crowd of 3000 at the World Social Forum in Puero Allegre, Brazil. ‘[The Forum] offers,” announced the ecstatic Professor, “the real possibility of building a new international.” The title of the Forum, ‘Another World is Possible,’ underscored the real purpose of the event: to build the burgeoning Left-wing movement from a protest to a party. While the forum is getting underway, another facet of the Leftist critique was at work at the University of Minnesota: a group called the Earth Liberation Front claimed responsibility for a fire that caused well over $250,000 worth of damage. The message: protest against Genetically Engineered crop research.

The contrast between the well-heeled World Economic Forum at New York and the Puerto Allegre Forum drew the headlines, but the contrast between Puerto Allegre and the University of Minnesota may be the more lasting one. It highlights the divergence inside a movement that isn’t sure where it wants to go, but can’t stay where it is.

ELF and its sister group, the Animal Liberation Front, are one of the earliest expressions of the anti-Corporation, far-Left division known collectively as the Anti-Globalization movement. Their websites’ ‘Diary of Actions’ chronicles almost all ELF activities back to its founding in 1992. A typical entry is from late 1996, ‘Hwy. 99 and Garfield McDonald’s locks glued and spray painted.’ They describe themselves as an ‘international underground organization that uses direct action in the form of economic sabotage to stop the exploitation and destruction of the natural environment.’ No humans have been harmed in a Direct Action, but as Representative Betty McCollum remarked at a recent hearing, “It’s only a matter of time before somebody gets hurt,” ELF and ALF took anti-corporate feeling and made it into an ideology, and did all of it well before the Anti-Globalization movement burst forth in 1999. ‘lets dance as we make ruins of the corporate money system,’ wrote an ELF member in 1997.

More recently, a collective known as the Anti-Globalization movement has garnered headlines. Along with mainstream environmentalists, the Sweatshop and Fair Trade activists, and a renewed interest in Anarchy as a political ideal on college campuses, the Anti-Globalization movement gradually coalesced . It’s been spotted wherever the World Bank or IMF holds meetings, protesting the ‘domination of World Capitalism,’ among a laundry list of generally Left-wing demands. Their message in all points is very similar to ELFs and ALFs. A typical Anti-Globalization flyer proclaims ‘we are people who protest the power multinational corporations, faceless international financial institutions and inaccessible governments have over their lives’ Their members number in the tens of thousands, and have held highly publicized, and sometimes violent, protests at Quebec, New York City, and overseas.

Before September 11th, there was good reason to expect the two movements to blend into each other, as the Anti-Globalization movement became split between violent demonstrators and the more moderate faction. The protests in Genoa showed this potential, as rioters overshadowed the more numerous peaceful demonstrators. It seemed reasonable to expect a smaller but much more intense group of anti-Capitalist activists to emerge. They would use the same tactics as ALF/ELF but towards a larger range of targets.

Yet there have always been crucial differences between the wider Anti-Globalization movement and the ALF/ELF movement. A crucial one is structure: the necessary secrecy of the movement prevents it from changing in any meaningful sense. The Anti-Globalization movement is capable of discussing new ideologies and creating leaders to promote changes. None in ALF or ELF have the authority to change the basic precepts already laid down. The two have separate methods; the infamous McDonalds and Starbucks smashings aside, the Anti-Globalization movement has always been a primarily non-violent one. The Nation reported one thoughtful Anti-Globo remarking ‘we need to speak up and say clearly that violence, as a political tactic, just doesn’t work either in the United States or in Europe.” ALF/ELF couldn’t change their tactics; doing so would reveal who the members are. Finally, the two have very different Big Brothers to look up to. Across the pond the Americans have an example to follow: the well-developed and mature European Social Democracy model. Indeed, the attendance at the Puerto Allegre was heavily skewed towards Europeans and their fellow Social Democrats in Latin America. ALF/ELF don’t have the same model of evolution to follow. James Jarboe, of the FBI’s counterterrorism division said, “Over the years splinter groups have continued to emerge which have been dissatisfied with more conventional protest methods and have escalated the intensity of their protests.”

Now the two groups are separating. The Anti-Globalization movement towards, not a mainstream position, but to a respectable and potentially electable alternative. ALF/ELF, on the other hand, remain much the same. Not only have the two movements changed, but the way the world reacts to them has changed as well. The Anti-Globalization movement has sought to harness what exists of the opposition to Bush’s war policies. ALF/ELF has seen its own notoriety grown, and not to their benefit. More and more newspapers and Congressmen are condemning them as terrorists.

The Anti-Globalization movement’s ability to follow the Social Democratic model in Europe is the key to their efforts. It has many attractive elements, and the similarities in ideology are striking. The manifesto for Germany’s Green Party calls for rectifying ‘growing global injustice,’ ending environmental exploitation, and other themes of the Anti-Globalization movement. And unlike in the US, Social Democratic positions are electorally powerful. The more respectful parties have significant representation in European parliaments, while their radical fringes can produce hundreds of thousands of protestors at selected venues. They’ve also shown the way to maintain a successful ‘Green-Blue’ partnership between Environmentalists and Unions, something the Anti-Globalization movement is struggling to establish.

Which makes the closest American equivalent to the Social Democratic movement– Nader’s Green Party– a major player in the struggle to establish a political force. The Green Party is “tapping something among a younger progressive environmental crowd worried about globalization,” said UC Professor Bruce Cain to the SF Chronicle. Green Party registration rose 57% nationwide between 2000 and 2001. Nader has made no bones about his intention to build the Green Party as a long-term player and alternative to the Democratic party. So far, 200 candidates have run for office from the Green Party, with eight victories.

While the Anti-Globalization movement tries to move to respectability, the extreme environmentalists are finding themselves consigned more and more to the fringes. This is mostly because of greatly heightened scrutiny and pressure from the FBI and Congress, which have focused on the environmentalist movement as the sole identifiable domestic terrorist movement. The FBI prominently highlights its efforts against ELF and ALF, boasting that ‘Currently, more than 26 FBI field offices have pending investigations associated with ALF or ELF activities.’ The FBI is also establishing 56 new ‘Joint Terrorism Task Forces’ across the Nation, with a special focus on Ecoterrorism.

Several members of Congress have taken up the pursuit of Ecoterrorism as a cause. Most are Republicans from the developing West and Southwest, areas that see heavy ELF/ALF action. Representative Scott McInnis, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, has held several inquiries into the nature of ELF and ALF. In a widely publicized appearance before McInnis’ subcommittee, ELF leader Craig Rosebraugh repeatedly took the fifth amendment. Legislation to attack Ecoterrorism is also in the works. The ‘Agroterrorism Prevention Act’ is currently before a Senate Committee, although the wider USA PATRIOT act has much to do with the FBI’s pursuit of ALF/ELF as well.

The divergence of the two groups is hardly set in stone. The Anti-Globalization movement’s ideology of a corporate controlled media and government is conducive to a wholescale rejection of ‘The System,’ which many of its members still do. In a movement populated by large and unwieldy alliances between mainstream environmentalists, Anarchists, Socialists, and many others, building an electoral machine is difficult. Also, the Green Party’s future depends on seducing established Liberals away from the Democratic party, something its finding difficult to do. And all that is beside the problem of legitimizing a movement where a significant minority of its members believe Bush planned the September 11th attacks.

Yet the Leaders of the Anti-Globalization movement– and the members of ELF/ALF– seem to see no other path ahead of them. To score political successes and bring in new members, the Anti-Globalization movement needs to organize effectively and present a clear alternative to the National parties. ALF/ELF see their ‘Direct Actions’ as more vital than ever. There is little sign just yet of a rift in the far Left, but the cracks are growing.

Thomas Williams is a twelve year old boy. He lives in the lower income part of the city and goes to a school that is overcrowded. The classroom he sits in every morning was meant to hold 20 students when it was built in the 1950’s but now sees itself with 40. He is not able get the attention that he deserves. The teacher can only invest a few minutes of her time to him everyday. Mr. and Mrs. Williams are living just above the poverty line and survive paycheck to paycheck. They yearn to move out of their dilapidated surroundings and enroll their son in a better school, but their situation will not allow it, so they must stay. Everyday Thomas walks past a half full Catholic school on his way home. He peeks in through the rod iron bars and surveys the campus. At home he asks his mother if he can go there. Heavy-heartedly she tells him that they just can not afford the tuition and he has to keep going to his school. Thomas, with his head down, walks into his room to start his homework for the evening.

A more perfect union would be one that entails parents being given the able to decide the educational future of their children. In recent years the divisive issue of school vouchers has come to the forefront of the American public. President George W. Bush had campaigned for allowing parents to use vouchers, many states have voted on the issue via propositions, and most recently the Supreme Court has entered the fray. This should be the next civil rights issue to be tackled in America.

On February 20th 2002, opening arguments for Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, a case that had come out of a voucher program in Cleveland, Ohio. Parents in this inner-city district were given the option to use a $2,500 voucher in order to take their child out of the school district, which had been failing in every one of the state mandated educational categories. Charter schools, magnet schools, and parochial schools were all options that were open for the parents, but 96% decided to put their children in the religious schools. This is the struggle has occurred. Does this violate the separation of church and state clause in the Bill of Rights? If so, should that matter when children are trapped in failing public schools?

“CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION” – FIRST AMENDMENT

The American government currently spends millions of taxpayer dollars at religious schools. Mitchell v. Helms in 2000 validated federal aid to these schools. It dealt with the use of these monies to go towards the hiring of special education teachers, the lending computers, software, library books, and other school supplies. The issue was the Constitutionality of “Chapter 2″ which is a grant administered under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. This legislation called for all school districts to ensure that children in private schools have the opportunity to these grants, regardless of whether their schools have a religious affiliation. In a 6-3 decision, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the opinion for the majority that “It is the students and their parents-not the government-who, through their choice of school, determine who receives Chapter 2 funds. The aid follows the child.” This opinion is going to have a profound affect on the Leman v. Simmons-Harris case that is except to be decided in June of 2002.

Many groups are holding children hostage in deteriorating schools because of squabbling over if there is crucifix over the doorway. This pettiness is keeping inner-city children in some of the worst situations out of anyone in America. There are Catholic schools with decades of proven results that have classrooms that are only half full because those in the neighborhood are too poor to afford the tuition. Inner-city parents have learned that the government cannot be trusted to educate their children. This is why minority groups have started to be formed in order to spread the word to their respective communities. The Black Alliance for Educational Opportunities (BAEO) is one of these newly created groups that are meant to counteract the more well-known and older groups such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP.) The BAEO is a nationally renowned group comprising liberal and conservative African-Americans from the government and community groups who want educational options for minority families. Kenneth Blackwell, the Secretary of State for Ohio, is on the Board of Directors for this group and at a rally in support of the Cleveland voucher program said, “Too many of our kids are being held hostage because we put bureaucracy over the child. We are ready, willing, and able to continue this fight for freedom that we have inherited from the civil rights movement. We are demanding that we have some sort of choices to send all of our kids to the schools the parents think are best for them.” This group and others like it realized that the goal of school choice is to help as many children as possible, either by providing them with the means to attend a quality school or by forcing their failing or low-performing school to improve. Howard Fuller, PhD is the President of the BAEO and the Director of the Institute for the Transformation of Learning at Marquette University. In a report for the Heritage Foundation that outlined the status of public schools, he commented that: “The degree to which we achieve equity is the degree to which we are truly able to be respected, to function with dignity, to exercise influence over our lives, and in the end to determine for ourselves the course of our reality. Access, in a word, means accessible. For our purposes, we must ask whether parental choice enhances accessibility for the children with the greatest needs. I believe it does.” Some critics argue, in true Clintonian fashion, that the current education system needs to be mended and not ended. One such critic is Elliot M. Mincberg, education director for the People for the American Way. While giving testimony to the House of Representatives Committee on Education and Workforce he concluded with: “Diverting more resources into voucher and tax credit schemes, with their lack of accountability and failure to provide true, equitable options for all students, is not the answer. To ensure that no child is left behind, we need to follow the example of voters across the nation, reject voucher and tax credits schemes, and work to improve and strengthen our public schools.” Critics must be reminded that our children, when compared to other industrial nations, are some of the most poorly educated and have been for decades. Pumping money into the void that is our educational system has not worked so far. Enough is enough. We spend more than any other nation, per capita, on elementary and secondary education, its time for a change to occur. According to the Department of Education, the average public school student costs $6,662, private school costs $3,116, and Catholic school costs $2,178. It seems that the government would actually be able to save money by allowing children to attend private and religious schools. More money and lower classroom sizes seem like a great deal. Hopefully these changes would cause failing schools to able to focus more on the individual child. If there is still doubt that choice will not allow our kids to perform better, look at our higher educational system. Students are allowed to choose the college or university that they will attend and because of that, it is often regarded as the best in the world. Sadly, not all children grow up with the ability to reach that level of education if they are dependent upon a government education.

THE “AGENDA OF THE RADICAL RELIGIOUS RIGHT”

For the most liberal of liberals the “Radical Religious Right” is the proverbial boogieman of politics. They argue that a vast conspiracy is out to take school funds away from poor children and give that money to wealthy white fundamentalist schools. When the argument that they make lacks validity, names like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer, etc. are thrown around to scare the American people into thinking that they advocate for schools in which fundamentalist Christian values are espoused as much as algebra or geography. The People for the American Way, a group that monitors “the Radical Right,” has been one of the largest opponents to the fight for school choice. During the most recent vouchers court case of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, PFAW attorneys are serving as co-counselors for the prosecution. It has also played a significant role in organizing of groups to file an amicus curiae or “friend of the court” briefs. The briefs main point of contention is with the law and their claim that it violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. This is the rhetoric that has kept our children from becoming educated despite the massive amounts of funding they receive. It’s ironic that groups, that often chide conservatives for not being open-minded and willing to change, will not allow for a new way to teach our children. They are too concerned with keeping the current educational system in place so that we can have generations of Americans that are brought up in a school where religion is a hidden, seedy, and private matter. Playing politics with the future of American children is wrong and counterproductive.

SAFEGUARDING THE INVESTMENT IN OUR CHILDREN

Any money that comes from the taxpayers needs to have some safeguards to combat unscrupulous or zealous schools from taking advantage of children. There needs to be assurance that kids will not be indoctrinated or discriminated against on the governments dole. Parents must be given the choice to not have their children participate in religious classes or services. Unwanted religious education is not what should be the focus of having children in private schools, it’s the secular areas like the sciences or literature that must be taught to these children. The religious classes can be a bonus for the children if their family sees fit. All children must be allowed to enroll in a school that will receive vouchers. Religious affiliation or lack thereof must not be a part of the admission equation. Parents, most likely, will choose a religious school that is inline with their beliefs if they do not choose a charter or magnet school, but that might not always be the case.

One of the arguments against vouchers is that schools will be formed just to take voucher money and not perform. That is why these schools need to be accredited. In California all schools are accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, which insure that there is some independent oversight (WASC). What is accreditation? WASC defines it as a process, “that certifies to other educational institutions and to the general public that an institution meets established criteria or standards and is achieving its own stated objectives.” This process is an in-depth measuring of a schools academic success. It is done by a team of professionals from every level of the educational system such as: classroom teachers, administrators, college professors, school board members and others who have an intimate knowledge of educational trends and issues. Requiring schools, that receive taxpayer money, to be accredited can ensure that a proper investment in children is being made. Yes the government is going to be needed to provide some oversight, but we must remember the entire reason that we are having this discussion is because the government has been failing our children for decades. Bureaucrats, if they are allowed to take over, will that forget children are the reason for the educational system.

American children and parents have had to endure decades of lip service from politicians and teachers unions that have been promising to improve the educational system. It’s time to stop this madness. Parents deserve the option to be in a school that will perform be it through vouchers, charter schools, magnet schools, or even choosing the public school in their district that they attend. We need to let our children succeed.