May, 18 2015, 01:30pm EDT
WTO Orders U.S. to Gut U.S. Consumer Country-of-Origin Meat Labeling Policy
Final WTO Ruling Orders Rollback of Popular Consumer Law; Vilsack Says Congress Must Act
WASHINGTON
Today 's final ruling by the World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body against popular U.S. country - of - origin meat labeling (COOL) polic y spotlights how trade agreements can undermine domestic public interest policies , Public Citizen said today .
The WTO decision is likely to further fuel opposition to Fast Track authority for controversial "trade" pacts that would expose U.S. consumer and environmental protections to more such challenges .
(A list of so me of the past public interest policies undermined by trade pacts is below.)
COOL requires labeling of pork and beef sold in the United States to inform consumers the country in which the animals were born, raised and slaughtered.
"The president says 'we're making stuff up,' about trade deals undermining our consumer and environmental policies but today, we have the latest WTO ruling against a popular U.S. consumer policy. Last week , Canadian officials announced that our financial regulations violate trade rules , and earlier this year , the Obama administration , in response to another trade agreement ruling, open ed all U.S. roads to Mexico - domiciled trucks that threaten hig hway safety and the environment ," said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch.
In a May 1, 2015, letter, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack informed Congress that it will need to repeal the COOL law or else change it if the final WTO ruling were to go against the United States. In contrast, in his recent speech at Nike, President Barack Obama said, "Critics warn that parts of this deal would undermine American regulation - food safety, worker safety, even financial regulations. They're making this stuff up. This is just not true. No trade agreement is going to force us to change our laws."
"Today's WTO ruling, which effectively orders the U.S. government to stop providing consumers basic information about where their food comes from, offers a clear example of why so many Americans and members of Congress oppose the Fast Tracking of more so-called 'trade' pacts that threaten commonsense consumer safeguards," said Wallach. "The corporations lobbying to Fast Track the TPP must be groaning right now, as this ruling against a popular consumer protection in the name of 'free trade' spotlights exactly why there is unprecedented opposition to more of these deals."
Today's decision on the final U.S. appeal of a 2012 initial ruling against the COOL policy paves the way for Canada and Mexico, which challenged COOL at the WTO, to impose indefinite trade sanctions against the United States unless or until it weakens or eliminates COOL , which is supported by nine in 10 Americans. Last year, consumer groups wrote to the administration requesting it use the ongoing Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations as leverage to demand that Canada and Mexico drop the case instead of rolling back the policy. But they received no response.
Today, the WTO Appellate Body upheld a 2014 compliance panel ruling, which said that changes made in May 2013 to the original U.S . COOL policy, in an effort to make it comply with a 2012 WTO ruling against the law, were not acceptable. The Appellate Body decided that the modified U.S. COOL policy still constitutes a "technical barrier to trade." It decided that the strengthened COOL policy afforded less favorable treatment to cattle and hog imports from Canada and Mexico, despite a 53 percent increase in U.S. imports of cattle from Canada under the modified policy. The Appellate Body upheld the earlier panel ruling that the alleged difference in treatment did not "stem exclusively from legitimate regulatory distinctions."
Today's ruling is not subject to further appeal.
The decision initiates a WTO process to determine the level of trade sanctions that Canada and Mexico are authorized to impose on the United States as retaliation for COOL.
Today's ruling follows a string of recent WTO rulings against popular U.S. consumer and environmental policies. In May 2012, the WTO ruled a gainst voluntary "dolphin - safe" tuna labels that, by allowing consumers to choose to buy tuna caught without dolphin-killing fishing practices, have helped to dramatically reduce dolphin deaths. Changes made last year to comply with the WTO's decision are now being challenged in WTO compliance proceedings.
This comes after the U.S. revoked a long - standing ban on tuna caught using dolphin-deadly nets following an earlier WTO ruling. In January 2015, the Obama administrat ion announced it would allow Mexic o - domiciled long haul trucks on all U.S. highways after losing a N orth American Free Trade Agreement challenge and being threatened with sanctions on more than two billion in U.S. trade flows. Consumer groups warn that the trucks pose significant safety threats , while environmental groups warn that they do not meet U.S. emissions standards.
In response to previous WTO rulings, t he United States has rolled back U.S. Clean Air Act regulations on gasoline cleanliness standards successfully challenged by Venezuela and Mexico ; Endangered Species Act rules relating to shrimping techniques that kill sea turtles after a successful challenge by Malaysia and other nations; and altered auto fuel efficiency ( Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards that were successfully challenged by the European Union.
The Fast Tracked legislation that implemented the WTO enacted a patent extension sought by pharmaceutical interests that consumer groups had successfully defeated for decades. The Uruguay Round Agreements Act amended the U.S. patent law to provide a 20 - year monopoly - replacing the 17 - year term in U.S. law and increas ing medicine prices by billions by extending the period during which generic competition w ould be prohibited. The bill also watered down the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act both of which required only poultry and meat that actually met U.S. safety and inspection standards could be imported and sold here and allowed imports that meet "equivalent" standards with foreign nations certify their own plants for export.
Background
The COOL policy was created when Congress enacted mandatory country - of - origin labeling for meat - supported by 92 percent of the U.S. public in a recent poll - in the 2008 farm bill. This occurred after 50 years of U.S. government experimentation with voluntar y labeling and efforts by U.S. consumer groups to institute a mandatory program.
In their successful challenge of COOL at the WTO, Canada and Mexico claimed that the program violated WTO limits on what sorts of product - related "technical regulations" sig natory countries are permitted to enact. The initial WTO ruling was issued in November 2011. Canada and Mexico demanded that the United States drop its mandatory labels in favor of a return to a voluntary program or standards set by an international food s tandards body in which numerous international food companies play a central role. Neither option would offer U.S. consumers the same level of information as the current labels. The United States appealed. In a June 2012 ruling against COOL, the WTO Appellate Body sided with Mexico and Canada.
The U.S. government responded to the final WTO ruling by altering the policy in a way that fixed the problems identified by the WTO tribunal. However, instead of watering down the popular program as Mexico and Canada sought, the U.S. Department of Agriculture responded with a rule change in May 2013 that strengthened the labeling regime. The new policy provided more country-of-origin information to consumers, which satisfied the issues raised in the WTO's ruling. However, Mexico and Canada then challenged the new U.S. policy. With today's ruling, the WTO has announced its support for the Mexican and Canadian contention that the U.S. law is still not consistent with the WTO rules.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
Disgust Greets White House Correspondents' Dinner as Israel Kills Journalists in Gaza
"To sit and schmooze with the president while he sends billions of dollars in weapons to Israel to kill their colleagues in Gaza is unethical and immoral."
Apr 27, 2024
On Saturday night, U.S. reporters and government officials—including President Joe Biden—will gather at the Washington Hilton Hotel for the annual White House Correspondents' Dinner, a glitzy, humor-filled affair that has faced mounting boycott calls in recent weeks as Palestinian journalists in Gaza are targeted and killed by the Israeli military in appalling numbers.
Earlier this month, dozens of Palestinian journalists urged their American colleagues to spurn the invite-only event "as an act of solidarity with us—your fellow journalists—as well as with the millions of Palestinians currently being starved in Gaza due to the Biden administration's continued political, financial, and military backing of Israel."
One journalist, Mehdi Hasan of Zeteo, has heeded the call.
"I have attended the White House Correspondents' Dinner for the past two years," Hasan, a former MSNBC host, wrote on social media Saturday, hours before the event. "I decided not to attend today's dinner (which, to be clear, is hosted by D.C. journalists not the White House) in solidarity with under-fire Palestinian journalists in Gaza who have called for a boycott."
According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, at least 97 media workers—92 of them Palestinian—have been killed in Gaza, Israel, and Lebanon since October 7. The Palestinian Journalist Syndicate puts the number higher at 125.
"Israel has killed over 10% of our colleagues," said Shuruq As'ad, director of the Palestine Journalism Hub and supporter of calls to boycott the White House Correspondents' Dinner, which is hosted by the White House Correspondents' Association.
The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), an organization representing more than 600,000 media workers across 146 countries, endorsed the boycott push on Saturday, as did the National Writers Union (NWU).
"More than 100 journalists and media workers have been killed in the past six months of Israel's war on Gaza, backed by the United States government," NWU said in a statement. "As a union of journalists and media workers who strive for truth, we refuse to normalize genocide. Stand with journalists in Gaza and amplify the call for a boycott."
Israel's assault on Gaza, which has been fueled by U.S. weapons and diplomatic support, is the deadliest conflict for journalists in decades. Last year, roughly 75% of the journalists killed globally were killed by Israeli forces.
Al Jazeera's Gaza bureau chief, Wael Dahdouh, has lost five family members to Israeli airstrikes, including his 27-year-old son Hamza, who was also a journalist.
"To dine with him as he allows Palestinians to die of starvation by cutting off funding to critical humanitarian aid is despicable."
Press freedom groups have accused the Biden White House of failing to do enough to stop the Israeli military from targeting members of the media, who continue to risk their lives to show the world the devastation Israel is inflicting in Gaza.
"The Biden administration has been all talk when it comes to journalists killed by the Israel Defense Forces," Seth Stern, director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said earlier this year. "The Biden administration says it cares deeply about journalists' freedom to cover the war but has failed to demand Israel ensure journalists' safety or hold it accountable when it doesn't."
The New York Timesreported that in addition to the jokes, Biden is "expected to issue a more serious warning at a time when journalists around the world are being jailed or detained more frequently for doing their job."
But it remains to be seen whether the president will mention Gaza journalists specifically.
President Biden will address the White House Correspondents Dinner tonight. It’s expected that’ll he’ll mention threats to journalists around the world. Will he mention Israel’s murder of Shireen Abu Aqlah & the scores of Palestinian journalists murdered in Gaza? Probably not. pic.twitter.com/nA6M2t9nK9
— James J. Zogby (@jjz1600) April 27, 2024
Protests are expected outside the dinner's venue, but as NBC Newsreported, "protests inside the event itself are much less common and perhaps unprecedented, given the tight security."
"People involved in organizing the protests said they knew of no plans to try to infiltrate the exclusive invite-only dinner," the outlet added. (Kelly O'Donnell, NBC's senior White House correspondent, is presiding over this year's dinner.)
Sandra Tamari, executive director of the Adalah Justice Project, which helped organize the letter calling for a boycott of Saturday's dinner, said it's grotesque for reporters who claim to be committed to a free press to pal around with members of an administration that is aiding deadly attacks on journalists in Gaza.
"To sit and schmooze with the president while he sends billions of dollars in weapons to Israel to kill their colleagues in Gaza is unethical and immoral," said Sandra Tamari, executive director of Adalah Justice Project, which helped organize the letter calling for a boycott of Saturday's dinner. "To dine with him as he allows Palestinians to die of starvation by cutting off funding to critical humanitarian aid is despicable."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Columbia Climate School Alumni Slam 'Violent Repression' of Gaza Solidarity Protests
"As Columbia moves in lockstep with authoritarian assaults on democracy by unilaterally crushing dissent, it pours fuel on the flames of a burning planet."
Apr 27, 2024
Alumni of Columbia's Climate School published an open letter on Friday condemning the university's leadership for sanctioning a violent crackdown on campus Gaza protests, arguing that attempts to repress dissent against Israel's assault resemble and fuel "the irredeemable rising repression and surveillance against climate activists worldwide."
"We are beyond alarmed that Columbia is fomenting the same rising fascism that obstructs multilateral climate negotiations," reads the letter, which was directed at Columbia president Minouche Shafik and Barnard College president Laura Rosenbury.
"As Columbia moves in lockstep with authoritarian assaults on democracy by unilaterally crushing dissent, it pours fuel on the flames of a burning planet," continues the letter, which can be read in full below.
The letter was released as a campus oversight panel criticized Shafik's administration over its decision to send in New York City Police Department officers last week to arrest more than 100 peaceful pro-Palestinian demonstrators.
"After a two-hour meeting on Friday," Reutersreported, "the Columbia University Senate approved a resolution that Shafik's administration had undermined academic freedom and disregarded the privacy and due process rights of students and faculty members by calling in the police and shutting down the protest."
Alumni of Columbia's graduate Climate School join in protest over calling the police on demonstrators, arguing that "Columbia is fomenting the same rising fascism that obstructs multilateral climate negotiations." https://t.co/5XU0ywJb2O
— Bill McKibben (@billmckibben) April 27, 2024
The Columbia Climate School alumni joined university faculty members, civil liberties groups, prominent human rights organizations, and the United Nations in condemning police attacks on student demonstrators who are taking action across the U.S. to demand that their schools divest from companies profiting off Israel's devastating war on the Gaza Strip—including weapons manufacturers and tech companies like Google, which has a major cloud contract with Israel.
"Columbia claims divestment, protest, and student discipline fall outside the Climate School's mandate," the alumni wrote in their letter. "Science proves otherwise, that environmental justice requires divestment from war and apartheid, and that civil disobedience is integral to overcoming the climate emergency. The Climate School's mission thus mandates it defend students' right to dissent and support the cause of apartheid divestment."
Read the letter in full:
To President Shafik, President Rosenbury, Dean Shaman, and the Trustees of Columbia University,
We, alumni of Columbia University's Climate School, SUMA, and The Earth Institute, stand in full solidarity with the brave students of the Gaza Solidarity Encampment, as well as with the faculty, staff, and community supporters protesting for Columbia's total divestment and full dissociation from institutions profiting off or engaging in Israel's acts of occupation, apartheid, and genocide in Palestine. Doing so is fundamentally essential to environmental justice and overcoming the climate emergency.
We affirm the protests' core belief that Palestinian liberation and safety for Jewish people are the same goal: to end genocide and ethnic cleansing everywhere and in all forms. We completely condemn antisemitism, Islamophobia, xenophobia, and violence—verbal and physical—and maintain that all students must be guaranteed safety. We reject the weaponization of Jewish identity and steadfastly support anti-zionism. We observe that the encampment has nurtured student safety through interfaith solidarity and community building. In alignment with Columbia Professor Kimberlé Crenshaw's teachings on feminist intersectionality, we recognize there can be no climate justice without peace and no peace without the liberation of Palestinian people.
We reaffirm the letters by our fellow alumni, especially those of the Muslim, Jewish, Indigenous, Christian, Latinx, South Asian, and Black communities, of Barnard and Columbia Colleges, and of Columbia's Journalism, SIPA, MSPH, Teachers College, Social Work, General Studies, and Law Schools. We applaud the encampments springing up on campuses globally, demonstrating that while the University may repress individuals, this movement will not be silenced. The over 100 students arrested at Columbia's orders remind us of the land defenders who risk their bodies daily for climate justice and intersectional liberation. They remind us: "You can kill 100 roses, but you cannot stop the coming of spring." This dedication to freeing Palestine in our lifetime is embodied by students' chants: "Disclose! Divest! No more suspensions, no more arrests! We will not stop! We will not rest!"
Columbia's Crackdown Endangers Climate Justice Activists
Columbia's crackdown mirrors and contributes to the irredeemable rising repression and surveillance against climate activists worldwide. As charges of racketeering and domestic terrorism are leveled at nonviolent environmental activists, the fundamental human right to protest is being criminalized. This is especially grave for Black, People of Color, and Indigenous people. The 2023 murder of Indigenous gender-queer land defender Manuel "Tortuguita" Teran—whose death marks the first recorded instance in U.S. history of police killing a climate activist—as well as the National Guard's 1970 massacre of anti-war students at Kent State, demonstrate the logical conclusion of Columbia's actions.
We are appalled by reported threats from Columbia and Congress to unleash the National Guard on students and given the history of rampant police brutality against BIPOC people, we wholly reject President Shafik's claim that NYPD in any way serves the safety of the community. As reports of brutal police repression on campuses proliferate, of students of color tear-gassed, tasered, shot at with rubber bullets and a professor assaulted by police at Emory University, of a police sniper possibly deployed to Indiana University, and of blood staining Emerson College's cobblestones, we remind you that Columbia started this crackdown. We are disgusted that Columbia, which preaches free speech, is instead normalizing the violent repression of activists and the criminalization of dissent.
Columbia and President Shafik have undermined democratic governance by acting without University Senate approval to authorize violent police force against students, in violation of Statutes Section 444, and by breaching student’s Title VI civil rights. We are beyond alarmed that Columbia is fomenting the same rising fascism that obstructs multilateral climate negotiations. As Columbia moves in lockstep with authoritarian assaults on democracy by unilaterally crushing dissent, it pours fuel on the flames of a burning planet.
The Climate School's Mandate
As home to the world's first Climate School, the University understands the facts of this letter yet has proven too morally abject to stand behind the very science it teaches. The call to action by Climate School students and alumni in November 2023 on demanding a ceasefire over environmental injustices was inhumanely ignored by the School’s administrators. By suppressing activists and investing in war, Columbia contravenes its Climate School’s mission and cannot pretend to be a climate leader.
The University argues against apartheid divestment by citing a need for “broad consensus” and “aversion to using divestment for political purposes.” All investments are inherently political. Moreover, amidst the 99.9% peer-reviewed scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change found with “high confidence” that colonialism, like Israel’s, drives the climate emergency. In addition, the UN Stockholm Declaration on Human Environment observes that protecting ecosystems necessitates decolonization, and the end to all apartheid. International and Israeli human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and B'Tselem, have all declared Israel an apartheid state. Broad scientific and political consensus thus supports the need for apartheid divestment to overcome the climate emergency.
The Climate School community's responsibility inarguably includes these matters of divestment and protest, especially as our School’s 2024 Graduation Student Speaker has been unjustly arrested and suspended, and as the Advisory Committee on Socially Responsible Investing's (ACSRI) entire voting faculty membership and its Chair are Climate School affiliates.
Columbia claims divestment, protest, and student discipline fall outside the Climate School’s mandate. Science proves otherwise, that environmental justice requires divestment from war and apartheid, and that civil disobedience is integral to overcoming the climate emergency. The Climate School’s mission thus mandates it defend students' right to dissent and support the cause of apartheid divestment.
Militarism and Climate Justice are Inextricably Linked and Fundamentally Incompatible
The climate crisis and the global military-industrial complex are deeply intertwined. War's devastation does not stop at human injury and death but also wreaks havoc on ecosystems and the climate via massive emissions, pollution of water and air, and environmental devastation felt for generations. Columbia's own Center for Global Energy Policy Director Jason Bordoff recently acknowledged this deep link at a recent panel discussing Israel. Alumni activists with Climate Defiance disrupted the discussion to protest the University’s platforming of BlackRock, a top investor in war profiteers and fossil fuels firms, highlighting Columbia’s unethical research funding from such firms. These financial relationships corrupt its research, undermine academic freedom, and make the University complicit in unconscionable harms, as do repression of activists and ties to war profiteers. Divestment and full dissociation are therefore plainly necessary.
The environmental injustice of Israel’s decades-long siege on Palestine, compounded by climate change, includes water shortages, ecocide, agricultural damage, and infrastructural collapse, caused by embargo, bombing, and humanitarian aid obstruction. Along with disease and death among Palestinians, this drives waste-water system failures, rendering 97% of Palestine’s water undrinkable since at least 2018 and causing sewage to poison coastal ecosystems and harm marine wildlife. We uphold the Palestinian people's inalienable rights to self-determination and governance which include environmentally just access to clean air, clean water, landback, and the right of return—all upheld by international human rights law.
War and a stable climate are irreconcilable. The U.S. military is the single largest institutional emitter of greenhouse gasses, outstripping 140 nations, and the first two months of Israel's 2023 siege on Gaza alone outburned the annual emissions of "over 20 of the most climate-vulnerable" countries. The climate emergency clearly demands the abolition of the military-industrial complex. Thus, we find the University's investments morally reprehensible and scientifically objectionable and demand full divestment from such firms, including fossil fuel companies that profit off genocide, apartheid, and war—in recognition that these investments are incompatible with the biodiversity, public health, human life, human rights, and a stable climate.
Columbia's History Demands Divestment
Israel's ecocide and war crimes in Palestine echo the U.S.' in Vietnam—which, alongside Columbia's segregationist gentrification of Harlem, sparked the University's1968 protests. Columbia's use of eminent domain to gentrify Harlem mimics the settler-colonial violence ongoing in both Israel and the U.S., where its campus stands, built off profits from stolen bodies and on the stolen lands of Lenni-Lenape and Wappinger peoples. With its massive endowment and as the largest private landowner in New York City, Columbia can plainly afford divestment. However, this is not ultimately an issue of affordability but rather one of clear moral obligation to reject genocide.
Divesting from genocide and defending the fundamental right of civil disobedience are moral obligations crucial to climate justice. We therefore insist the Climate School and University enact the student and alumni demands, including yet not limited to:
- Divest financially, including the endowment and research funding, and fully dissociate from entities profiting off of or complicit in Israel’s apartheid, occupation, and genocide against Palestine
- EnactColumbia University Apartheid Divest's proposal to the Advisory Committee on Socially Responsible Investing, and the Gaza Solidarity Encampment students’ demands to the University
- Ensure complete transparency for all Columbia's investments, research funding, and financial ties
- Grant amnesty from legal action and discipline for all students, faculty, and staff facing repression
- Reinstate the suspended students and the Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace groups, including with class participation, housing, healthcare, and on-campus food access
- End Columbia’s repression against activists, including NYPD's immediate and sustained withdrawal from campus and surrounding areas, as well as ceasing of surveillance against activists
- Boycott academically, by canceling the opening of the Tel Aviv Global Center and the Tel Aviv University Dual Degree Program, because they are currently exclusionary and function as a military laboratory while affirming that discourse and education are ultimately a bridge to peace
- Uphold academic freedom, free expression, shared governance, and the right to protest
- The Climate School must secure amnesty for the current C+S Student Speaker who was arrested and suspended, and ensure they are allowed to speak at Graduation/Class Day
- The Climate School must publically callfor an end to the genocide and declare support for student anti-war activists
Until these demands are met, we as Climate School Alumni will not accept any new staff or faculty positions, speaking engagements at, or advisory roles with the School, nor will we donate to, organizationally support, culturally contribute to, or promote the University.
We must also agree with the American Association of University Professors' Barnard and Columbia Chapter statement on the loss of confidence in Columbia's administration for violating shared governance and academic freedom. While we reject Congress' attempts to scapegoat President Shafik, we simultaneously condemn the University administration for capitulating to state repression at the expense of academic independence. Similarly, we find Columbia's authorization of militarized police with a history of brutality towards people of color and which carry the explicit threat of deadly force, against nonviolent anti-war activists led by BIPOC women, to be a morally reprehensible, implicitly racist, and dangerously irresponsible dereliction of duty. Therefore, we have lost all confidence in President Shafik and Columbia's administration.
Finally, we affirm that this activism does not ultimately center Columbia. Its focus is realizing a free Palestine and an end to both genocide and ethnic cleansing, everywhere and in all forms. As Columbia hypocritically invokes “student safety” to repress this nonviolent interfaith anti-war movement, we find clarity in the words, "There isn't a single safe campus left in Gaza," and in reporting that, in fact, there are no universities left in Gaza at all.
Without universities, there can be no climate science—and without a free Palestine, there can be no climate justice.
In Solidarity,
Alumni of Columbia University's Climate School
Keep ReadingShow Less
Portland State University Pauses Ties With Boeing as Campus Protests Spread
Amnesty International has documented several cases in which Israeli forces used Boeing-made weaponry to commit atrocities in Gaza.
Apr 27, 2024
The president of Portland State University announced Friday that the school would suspend its connections to the military contractor Boeing as campus protests against U.S. colleges' complicity in Israel's war on Gaza intensified.
In an email to students and faculty, PSU president Ann Cudd wrote that while the university has no investments in Boeing, it "accepts philanthropic gifts from the company."
"In consideration of the strong feelings that have been expressed, PSU will pause seeking or accepting any further gifts or grants from the Boeing Company until we have had a chance to engage in this debate and come to conclusions about a reasonable course of action," Cudd wrote.
The announcement came amid an upsurge of campus protests nationwide, with students and faculty walking out of classrooms and setting up encampments in solidarity with Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The demonstrations have continued spreading in the face of violent police crackdowns and right-wing attempts to discredit them as antisemitic; one tally shows that protests have taken place on at least 75 U.S. campuses over the past week.
Oregon Public Broadcastingnoted Friday that PSU students and faculty have been pushing the university to cut ties with Boeing for months, citing its connections to Israel. Cudd said at a press conference last month that Boeing donated $150,000 to PSU to name a classroom and that a Boeing executive sits on the advisory board of PSU's business school.
On Thursday night, OPB reported, "a small group of pro-Palestinian protesters, some of whom were holding anti-Boeing signs, set up tents and barricades on Portland State University's South Park Blocks."
"Demonstrators had planned to hold a protest on the PSU campus Monday, but it was not immediately clear if the university's pause on relations to Boeing would change those plans," the outlet observed. One student told OPB that "the funding from Boeing has already been received by PSU for the year, so putting a pause on it doesn't actually do anything."
"It doesn't change anything about the way things are being conducted," the student added.
Boeing is one of the largest military contractors in the world, and Amnesty International has documented at least three cases in which Israeli forces used weaponry made by the company to commit atrocities in Gaza.
In one instance earlier this year, the Israeli military used a GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb manufactured by Boeing to attack a family building in Rafah, killing 18 civilians and wounding eight others. In October, Israel used Boeing-made Joint Direct Attack Munitions to conduct a pair of airstrikes in Deir al-Balah, killing more than 43 people from two families—including 19 children.
Students across the country have called on their universities to divest from arms manufacturers like Boeing that are profiting from Israel's U.S.-backed war on Gaza, where the entire population is facing the possibility of famine as Israeli forces impede aid deliveries and prepare for a ground invasion of Rafah.
The Associated Pressreported Friday that Columbia University students who inspired campus demonstrations across the country said they have "reached an impasse with administrators and intend to continue their encampment until their demands are met."
"We will not rest until Columbia divests," said doctoral student Jonathan Ben-Menachem.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular