Legal & Law

Bill Leumer

In December 2009, eleven student activists at San Francisco State University (SFSU) occupied the business building on campus, preventing classes from being held for one day. Such occupations have occurred on other campuses, including U.C. Berkeley and U.C. Santa Cruz, as a result of students protesting cuts to public education throughout the state of California and rising tuition fees on the university level. While The New York Times typically ignores peaceful antiwar demonstrations comprised of over 100,000 participants, it nevertheless covered this occupation by a small handful of students, which can only serve to encourage these kinds of tactics as opposed to peaceful mass demonstrations.

While sit-ins, occupations, and other similar actions are important tactics, as a general rule they should only be adopted when the majority of the people in a particular movement are prepared to engage in them. One should aim at uniting as many members of the working class as possible who want to stand up and fight to defend what they already have or to demand more. In this way the struggle is conducted on a class basis. Moreover, all those who participate have the potential to learn from the experience so that their consciousness is raised. And by maximizing the number of people who participate, the chances of winning rise correspondingly.

However, the fight to defend public education in California is only at the beginning stage, and most participants are only prepared to join demonstrations that are entirely legal. Consequently, instead of uniting those who want to defend public education, the tactic of occupations or blockage of freeways has divided the movement and thereby to some degree weakened it. Occupations of campus buildings alienate university faculty and staff because they risk losing their jobs by participating. And because these occupations prevent classes from being held, students and faculty who support the movement to defend education were nevertheless angry and alienated because they lost valuable class time without having been given the opportunity to participate in the decision to stage the occupation.

At SFSU, the decision to occupy the Business Building was conducted by a small minority of the activists involved in the movement in defense of education because they were convinced that if the decision became public, the campus administration could take steps to protect the building and foil the occupation. Other student activists complained that the decision was made behind their backs, and so ill feelings were immediately engendered.

Yet with all these criticisms of the tactic, when the administration proceeded to impose punishment on the students, we find ourselves steadfastly in support of the students. The administration stumbled every step of the way.

It began by demanding the eleven students each meet with administration representatives. The students were told by the representatives to sign an agreement indicating they would pay for any property damages they caused. These damages were described as “scuffs” on the floor and “chipped paint,” totaling somewhere in the range of $50, but the administrator added that he did not have the exact amount at that time. The students were also told that if they did not sign the statement where they admitted guilt, agreed to pay restitution, and forego their right to a hearing, they would then be liable to much more serious punishment, including suspension from school. In other words, there was intense pressure to sign.

Accordingly, all but one student signed the agreement. However, when the students received the bill, instead of the total falling into the $50 range, it amounted to exactly $744.25 each. The students were now being told — in contradiction to the oral agreement — they would have to pay for expenses involved in bringing police from other campuses to SFSU. Amazingly, the San Francisco Chronicle (April 24, 2010) later reported that the administrator “now remembered that he had discussed such a deal [of only paying $50] with them [the students] after all.”

Even worse, the one student who did demand a hearing was not only required to pay the same fine, but was suspended from the university for a year, even though he did nothing different than the other students. In other words, he was punished for exercising his democratic right to a hearing.

Of course, when administrations act in bad faith, make an oral agreement with students and then break it, and also impose disparate punishment on students who commit exactly the same acts, then administrations are either wittingly or unwittingly encouraging even more disruptive tactics by students who are outraged by the injustice. Moreover, by suspending a student for a year, the administration ironically undermines the goal that it supposedly is dedicated to upholding: the moral value of an education. It appears instead to be promoting the value of ignorance.

While the occupation of a campus building at SFSU might not have been the best of tactics, nevertheless the students were motivated by the highest ideals. They wanted to defend public education. In contrast, the administration, which exhibits a top-down structure — since campus presidents have almost absolute power — seemed to display the worst of motives. Little regard was given to the fact that the administration broke its own oral agreement regarding the amount students would be fined, as if the administration was not bound by basic rules of fairness. And when one student had the courage to exercise his right to a hearing, he was brutally punished for doing so.

In relation to the administration, we give our full support to the students.

Read more

The corporate media is brutally honest on rare occasions. Take for example a recent article in The New York Times Magazine, titled The Teachers’ Union’s Last Stand.

The title itself is surprisingly sincere, since it admits that the nation’s teachers are being targeted for attack by the Obama Administration, through his “Race to the Top” education reform. And although the article has an inherently corporate bias, it contains many revelations that have been otherwise ignored in the mainstream media.

The article outlines the two contending forces behind the national education “debate”: the corporate “reformers” and the “anti-change” teacher unions. Who are the reformers? The New York Times answers:

“…high-powered foundations, like the [Bill] Gates Foundation… and wealthy entrepreneurs, who have poured seed money into charter schools.”

Other reformers include: “… a new crop of Democratic politicians across the country — including President Obama — who seem willing to challenge the teachers’ unions.”

Top on the list of objectives for the reformers — Democrats and corporate groups — is the creation of charter schools, which stand in total opposition to public education. The New York Times article speaks at length about the biggest obstacle to the charter school “movement” — the teachers’ unions.

Examples are given on a state-by-state level where teachers’ unions have stalled or defeated attempts of the corporate-backed “reformers” to shift public funding towards private charter schools.

But the article also mentions instances where teachers’ unions have made shameful concessions to the reformers, such as in Washington, D.C., Tennessee, and Rhode Island. The main concession is the job security of teachers. How is the job security of teachers and the creation of charter schools related?

Because teachers’ unions are the biggest obstacle to the creation of private charter schools, unions must be undermined. Unions are powerful because union members cannot be fired for engaging in political activity. Union workers are thus able to help organize their workforce and communities to pursue political objectives — such as saving public education — without fear of being fired.

Destroying teacher seniority is thus the primary goal of the corporate education reformers. This is the hidden motive behind all the media attention towards “firing bad teachers.” The reformers want the ability to fire any teacher at any time, consequently undermining teachers’ unions.

Thus, teachers are supposed to be rewarded — by keeping their jobs or with raises — based on their students’ abilities to achieve high test scores, regardless of the number of children in the classroom, or the poverty level of the students, or whether or not enough classroom materials exist to do the job.

Sadly, the President of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), Randy Weingarten, has agreed to abandon teacher job security in recent bargaining negotiations. The New York Times reports:

“ [The Washington, D.C.] contract…now makes it possible… to fire any teacher with tenure…if the teacher is evaluated as “ineffective” for one year or “minimally effective” for two years. The criteria used to define “ineffective” or “minimally effective” are, according to another clause, “a nonnegotiable item” determined solely by [school administrators].”

Language like this will be used to destroy teachers’ unions. School administrators will determine that union activist teachers are “ineffective,” those teachers that criticize work conditions will be labeled “minimally effective,” etc.

If Weingarten thinks that making this kind of concession will quiet the demands of the “reformers,” she will need to think again. Giving sharks tidbits merely sends them into a feeding frenzy.

Indeed, the frenzied demands of the corporate groups to privatize public education is more than Weingarten can keep up with. The other, larger national teacher union, the National Education Association, has yet to make the large concessions Weingarten’s AFT has.

The Democrats demanding these concessions are creating conflicts between the unions to an unheard of degree. If a complete break happens between the unions and Democrats — as it should — the repercussions would be enormous. The New York Times explains:

“If unions are the Democratic Party’s base, then teachers’ unions are the base of the base. The two national teachers’ unions — the American Federation of Teachers and the larger National Education Association — together have more than 4.6 million members. That is roughly a quarter of all the union members in the country. Teachers are the best field troops in local elections…. In the last 30 years, the teachers’ unions have contributed nearly $57.4 million to federal campaigns… and they have typically contributed many times more to state and local candidates. About 95 percent of it has gone to Democrats.”

Teachers’ unions cannot continue to support a political party that aims to destroy them.

Even Weingarten was forced to admit “deliberately or not, President Obama, whom I supported, has shifted the focus from resources and innovation and collaboration to blaming it all on dedicated teachers.”

The Democratic Party is dismantling public education on a state and municipal level, picking each target at different times to hide the enormity of the attack, while confusing teachers, parents, students, and community members about the overall agenda.

Only an organized and aggressive response can stop the privatization of public education.

Both national teachers unions — along with regional teacher’s unions — must adopt common positions on the total defense of fully funded public education, while also demanding that teachers’ job security be protected. A campaign that involves rank and file teachers, students, parents, other public workers, the labor movement as a whole and the larger community can be united around the slogan: fully fund public education by taxing the rich and corporations!

Read more

It’s best to quickly recognize the red flags in any failing relationship. This way, ties can be severed rather than allow things to linger forever in dysfunction. For Democrats and teachers’ unions, the writing is on the wall. The two are simply going in opposite directions.
The Democrats continue on the road to corporate-inspired charter schools, using the tried and true method of “stronger teacher evaluations” to undermine “underperforming” schools and teachers — thus opening the door wide to private charter schools with their non-union workforce.

Obama’s Race to the Top education “reform” has enshrined these odious goals into government policy, and the once love-struck teachers’ unions have hastily exited the honeymoon stage with the Obama administration, heading toward a quick divorce.

Rank and file teachers have already quit the Obama administration, and by extension the Democrats as a whole. Evidence of this was on display during the national conventions of the two largest teacher unions, the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT).

The NEA convention voted in favor of a resolution of “no confidence” in Obama’s Race to the Top program, essentially voting “no confidence” in the Obama administration. The AFT convention was not allowed to vote on a similar resolution, but the rank and file applauded loudest when the AFT President, Randi Weingarten, spoke about the betrayal of the Obama administration. The NEA did not invite Obama administration officials to the convention, because, according to The New York Times, “…union officials feared that [Obama] administration speakers would face heckling.” (July 4, 2010).

The president of the NEA, Dennis Van Roekel, summarized teacher’s experience with the Obama administration:

“Today our members face the most anti-educator, anti-union, anti-student environment I have ever experienced.” This is an extraordinary statement. Not only is it true, but it highlights that President Obama is more anti-teacher than was President Bush, who introduced the anti-teacher No Child Left Behind.

In fact, the situation for teachers is worse than either union president is willing to say. State budget crises are destroying the funding for public education and teachers are being laid-off by the thousands, while others accept wage freezes, larger classes, and other concessions.

On top of this, a flood of new state laws around the country is being implemented by Democrats and Republicans “working together” in accordance with Obama’s Race to the Top campaign. The New York Times explains:

“…with states across the nation facing huge budget shortfalls, governors, legislators, mayors and educators in about three dozen states have been working to win Race to the Top money by bringing their school policies in line with President Obama’s education agenda.” (May 31, 2010).

The barrage of new state laws makes it easier for states to create private charter schools — at the expense of public education — and to fire union teachers (based on their students’ test scores). Job security and public education are both under massive attack.

On July 23rd, 241 teachers were fired in Washington D.C., based on their student’s test scores. Examples like this are now becoming common. If unions cannot prevent these mass firings from happening, their power becomes decimated.

But this frontal assault is not being labeled as such by many teacher union officials. Some union leaders are minimizing the destruction caused by the Obama administration, simply referring to his policies as “misguided” or “flawed,” rather than condemning the Democrats as “blatantly anti-union” or “destructive to public education.”

This is because many union leaders are deathly afraid of ending their co-dependent relationship with the Democrats, no matter what level of domestic violence occurs. These union officials make excuses for the Democrats, or justify their cooperation with the politicians, by claiming that the union needs “a seat at the table.” But at this table teachers are on the menu, and the Democrats are only willing to listen to union advice as to how the teachers are best served — grilled, roasted, skewered.

A big test will come this November, when mid-term elections will take place all over the country. Will teachers’ unions use funds and resources to help elect Democrats, after tens of millions were wasted to elect Obama and his Race to the Top cohorts in Congress?

Some union leaders will argue, “Yes, we will support good Democrats.” Fair enough, but a good Democrat is not someone that simply says, “I support unions and teachers.” A necessary condition for teachers’ unions to support politicians must be that they condemn Obama’s Race to the Top, while declaring allegiance to the job security of teachers, and thus they must refuse to cooperate with the corporate-inspired scheme to make teachers’ evaluations based on students test scores, so as to create more charter schools.

Also, politicians who are given union support must have a plan to fully fund public education and reject the current trend of cutting funds to education and social services, using budget deficits as an excuse. Raising taxes on the rich and corporations — as Oregon did — is one way for teachers to survive the state budget crises.

Ultimately, teachers’ unions need to officially declare their defunct relationship with the Democrats is “over” and work with politically independent labor candidates, with a future eye towards creating a union-led political party that would represent the interests of all working people.

Read more