Reports in ReviewThe Public Eye Magazine - Fall 2006
Report of the Month
No College for You
Resilient and Reaching for More: Challenges and Benefits of Higher Education for Welfare Participants and Their Children.
By Avis A. Jones-DeWeever and Barbara Gault, Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Washington, D.C., April 2006.
This report is particularly welcome since the Bush Administration
is starting to force the few states still supporting college
study for women on welfare to drop the program.
Resilient and Reaching for More provides moving evidence
that higher education helps raise welfare recipients out of poverty.
A joint report by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research and
LIFETIME, a California welfare rights group that supports
higher education for those receiving public assistance, it documents
the strength and persistence of these "student/parents" in the face
of huge odds.
Women who attend college and receive welfare benefits confront
obstacle after obstacle, from bureaucratic hassles in both
welfare and college administrator offices, lack of adequate child
care, and the need to juggle schedules to carve out study time. Plus
they are racing against the clock created by a five-year lifetime limit
on assistance. One woman interviewed was actively discouraged
by a caseworker from entering college using benefits; she didn’t
know it was even possible until she joined LIFETIME.
Despite these impediments, the report demonstrates that
women who obtain a degree have better job opportunities, earn
more than their counterparts who are still in school, and are more
successful at obtaining economic self sufficiency and increased self
esteem. Sixty-eight percent said they had more financial resources,
and 83 percent said they had better job opportunities. Ironically,
officials are discouraging the very strategy -- promoting education --
that has proven the most successful in reducing welfare
recipients’ reliance on government assistance.
-- Pam Chamberlain
Other Reports in Review
The Jungle, Cajun Style
Risk Amid Recovery: Occupational
Health and Safety of Latino Immigrant
Workers in the Aftermath of the Gulf
Coast Hurricanes
By Tomás Aguilar with Laura Podolsky, UCLA
Labor Occupational Safety and Health Program
and the National Day Laborer Organizing
Network, June 2006.
After hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the
federal Occupational Safety and Health
Administration suspended its safety enforcement
regulations in parts of four southern
states to allow "faster and more flexible
responses to hazards facing workers involved
in the cleanup and recovery." The result:
deadly health and safety hazards for those
doing the massive cleanup and reconstruction.
The most threatened are the largely undocumented
Latino workers who are doing the fundamental
demolition and clean up work.
Risk Amid Recovery presents the shocking
working conditions of these day laborers
through their own voices. Hired by contractors
on behalf of the huge corporations that
get the clean up contracts, they strip buildings
saturated with mold and toxic mud without
protective gear and clothing. This mold can
trigger infections. They pay $300 a month to
pitch tents in the city park, are spurned payment
by bosses, and are harassed by police and
employers. Employers often ignore hard-won
health and safety regulations that are on the
books; but in New Orleans these same regs are
simply waived by the government.
The authors recommend educating the
workers about their rights, providing necessary
protective equipment, and establishing
permanent workers rights centers as direct
responses to the immediate problems. But they
also demand that both the contractors hiring
these workers and the government agencies
overseeing the process be held accountable.
-- Pam Chamberlain
Not Just a Few Bad Cops
Stonewalled: Police Abuse and Misconduct
against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and
Transgender People in the United States
By Amnesty International USA, September 2005,
New York. http://www.amnestyusa.org/outfront/
stonewalled/report.pdf
Amnesty International’s two-year investigation
of police misconduct and abuse of
gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals
concludes the problem is so severe that
it constitutes abuse and torture. Government
agencies should thus be held accountable
under international agreements on human
rights and the prohibition of torture, the
organization says in its report Stonewalled:
Police Abuse and Misconduct against Lesbian,
Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People in the US.
It documents two major forms of misconduct:
Hostile police single out LGBT
individuals for abuse, and complacent police
and other agencies ignore hate crimes targeting
them. Police assault them, arrest them
without grounds, and issue insults. This is true
even in cities with LGBT police liaisons and
officer sensitivity training.
Amnesty USA argues that anti-gay policing
is the result not of isolated rogue police but
of systemic homophobia in the culture.
Stonewalled particularly highlights the criminalization
and profiling of LGBT youth by
the police, and documents that "within the
LGBT community, transgender individuals,
people from ethnic or racial minorities, young
people, homeless people and sex workers are
at most risk of police abuse and misconduct."
While necessary, working with police
departments and civilian review boards is not
sufficient. "The issue of police brutality cannot
be tackled without addressing both the
pervasive discrimination that LGBT face,
and the social, economic, and cultural
marginalization of many within the LGBT
community."
-- Pam Chamberlain
The Campus Right
Turning the Tide: Challenging the Right
on Campus: An analysis of the right
wing and corporate influences in higher
education
By Anuradha Mittal with Felicia Gustin, The
Institute for Democratic Education and
Culture/Speak Out (Emeryville, Calif.) and
The Oakland Institute (Oakland, Calif.), May
2006.
http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/pdfs/TurningtheTide_1.pdf
Although student activism is traditionally
a liberal landscape, this report documents
the growing role of national conservative
organizations in promoting campus action.
They make major investments: in 2002-2003, Young America’s Foundation dedicated
$10.4 million, Intercollegiate Studies
Institute spent $6.9 million, and the Leadership
Institute spent $6.2 million on campus
activities. The total spent by all conservative
groups in that year was $36.7 million.
These national groups help spread conservative
ideas, including the claim that
conservatives are oppressed. They provide
speakers, funding for conservative publications,
and outside leadership training, while
also suggesting tactics like mobilizing alumni.
However, the report doesn’t analyze
whether this collegiate conservative insurgence
is a wave or a hiccup. Nor does the report
include student perspectives or many examples
of student-instigated action. This means
they miss both key aspects of current student
activism and possible recourse. For instance,
nowhere do they consider how new technology,
especially the internet, has shaped new
conservative strategies, or its potential for
supporting an effective response.
Instead, they propose creating large-scale
national initiatives that mimic those of the conservative
groups. Yet is this appropriate given
their destructive use by the Right? Above all,
the report sounds a call for a war on the Right
to block their advance on campuses. Ironically,
this approach, along with similar ones from
the Right, may itself be creating a new trend:
students who utterly reject partisanship outright
and strive for a better world through
cooperation and perseverance.
-- Sean Lewis-Faupel
The New Spymasters
The State of Surveillance: Government
Monitoring of Political Activity in
Northern and Central California
Mark Schlesinger, ACLU of Northern California,
July 2006.
Since 9/11, this report shows, state and
federal agencies have blurred the line between
terrorism and dissent, and dropped protective
regulations, while the federal government
has invested millions in building up local and
state surveillance structures. This has led to
intensified surveillance on California activists,
with governments infiltrating groups, criminalizing
legal protest, videotaping, and otherwise
monitoring peaceful organizations,
particularly those in support of animal rights
and against the war.
For instance, during a nonviolent demonstration,
police assaulted Direct Action to Stop
the War and the International Longshoreworkers
Union in Oakland with wooden
bullets, after the department had spied on
them. Local police in Fresno placed an undercover
operative at a student animal rights
event.
A new State Terrorism Threat Assessment
Center is a central state outpost, and according
to the Los Angeles Times, monitored an animal
rights rally protesting seal hunting and an
anti-war demonstration in Walnut Creek
addressed by a Congressman, among other
events and groups. The FBI’s anti-terrorism
database tracks anti-war groups including
ones on the UC Santa Cruz and Berkeley campuses.
After Sen. Diane Feinstein lodged a
protest, the feds agreed the information was
inappropriate.
Much of the information in the report
came from news reports, some triggered by
whistleblowers, while Freedom of Information
requests seemed almost useless. The list of
offenses goes on, as do the ACLU’s proposed
solutions. Whether the state and federal governments
will issue regulations and laws reigning
themselves in -- a key demand -- seems
unlikely.
-- Abby Scher
|
|