July, 19 2017, 03:15pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Rich Stahler-Sholk, Eastern Michigan University, Michigan
rsholk@gmail.com
734-660-1647
Steven Osuna, California State University, Long Beach, California
Steven.osuna@csulb.edu
213-247-6821
Suyapa Portillo, Pitzer College, California
Suyapa_portillo@pitzer.edu
323-637-7812
132 Academics and Researchers Call for a Dialogue Between Authorities at the Autonomous University of Honduras-UNAH Campuses and Protesting Students
132 academics and researchers, specialists in Latin American Studies and Latino/a Studies, signed on to a letter in support of the 27 students who are currently facing charges for student activism at the Autonomous University of Honduras-UNAH campuses. Three of those students have been convicted and await sentencing for non-violent protest. Academics are asking for University to drop charges against all students, especially 3 of the students already convicted: Moises David Caceres Velasquez, Sergio Luis Ulloa Rivera, and Cesario Alejandro Felix Padilla.
WASHINGTON
132 academics and researchers, specialists in Latin American Studies and Latino/a Studies, signed on to a letter in support of the 27 students who are currently facing charges for student activism at the Autonomous University of Honduras-UNAH campuses. Three of those students have been convicted and await sentencing for non-violent protest. Academics are asking for University to drop charges against all students, especially 3 of the students already convicted: Moises David Caceres Velasquez, Sergio Luis Ulloa Rivera, and Cesario Alejandro Felix Padilla.
Students have been protesting the UNAH authorities since last year, 2016, seeking a voice on their campus reforms, which should include free and open student elections. Students seek to build a participatory and democratic system of shared governance to oversee changes to their curriculum and grading practices, as well as student elections, improvements to their major curriculums as well transparency in local campus reforms. Their non violent form of protest has involved marches and building take-overs, unarmed, for which they have been tear gassed, persecuted, held in constant surveillance, and have had direct intimidation from military units, such as the Cobra Unit, military police, anti-riot police and private security systems linked to the state, who have physically assaulted students.
The UNAH is the largest University in Honduras boasting 80,000 students, with regional satellite campuses throughout the nation and serving mostly working poor students, but open to students of all economic brackets. It is a public and an autonomous institution of higher learning, which claims to have shared-governance and lead itself without state or military intervention.
The full letter follows:
TO: Lic. Julieta Castellanos
Rector of the Autonomous University of Honduras, UNAH
Blvd. Suyapa, Ciudad Universitaria, Tegucigalpa, MDC, Honduras
We, the undersigned faculty members urge you and the administration of UNAH to drop the charges against student protestors: Moises David Caceres Velasquez, Sergio Luis Ulloa Rivera y Cesario Alejandro Felix Padilla, who were engaged in non-violent civil disobedience to call attention to needed reforms that include student voice and participation on campuses across the nation.
We call for solidarity with students on a hunger strike, among their demands the following: to end criminalization and judicial processes against students and to conduct legitimate and fair student elections in the UNAH. We also understand that students are dissatisfied with the university leadership and are seeking a recall of the administration because of their failure to dialogue and for their top-down politics of criminalizing their own student body. Recently, the father of Andres Gomez was killed after attending his son's judicial hearing. We call for a full investigation and prosecution of those culpable for this murder.
Students are not our enemies, they are our future. The rising politics of terror facing student protestors in Honduras, where militarization of the various UNAH campuses throughout the nation is becoming a standard response by administration under your leadership, harkens back to the 1980s violence. Students are receiving death threats, persecution and surveillance for standing up for their rights. Your very own intellectual work on the 1980s argues against militarization because it is not an avenue for progress. We would add that militarization and criminalization of our youth are not fruitful to building participatory democracy.
As educators we see the value of protest in helping students develop their own identity and voice and helping them develop into productive members of our society that seeks to build a participatory democracy, an aim for which Hondurans have been working since the 1980s.
Students' rights to protest should be a protected form of expression, a rite of passage, a form of building an active citizenship and a voice around national and even world affairs. In and out of the classrooms, we must encourage students to be critical and dialogical members of society and not just passive receptacles of knowledge.
We hope that a fruitful dialogue can take place among you, University authorities and students, so that an effective, constructive and collaborative University reform, which includes student voices, may be achieved.
We urge you to drop the charges against the 27 students, including those named above, to dialogue and reach an agreement that can open up the classrooms, where all students feel reflected.
Sincerely the undersigned,
Richard Stahler-Sholk, PhD Eastern Michigan University
Piya Chatterjee PhD Scripps College
Mario Pecheny PhD Universidad de Buenos Aires
Paul Espinosa PhD Arizona State University
Leisy Abrego PhD UCLA
Kency Cornejo PhD University of New Mexico
Pablo Gonzalez PhD University of California Berkeley
Michelle Watts PhD University of Southern Mississippi
Aaron Pollack PhD Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropologia Social (CIESAS)-Sureste
Richard Grossman PhD Northeastern Illinois University
Marc Zimerman PhD Emeritus, U. of Houston, U. of Illinois at Chicago
Maria Mendez PhD University of Minnesota
Rodolfo Rosales PhD Retired from University of Texas of San Antonio
Suyapa Portillo PhD Pitzer College
Alfonso Gonzales PhD University of California Riverside
Leece Lee Oliver PhD California State University Fresno
Kimberly Drake PhD Scripps College
Jorge Ramon Gonzalez Ponciano PhD Stanford University
Katy Pinto PhD California State University Dominguez Hills
Aurelia Lorena Murga PhD The University of Texas at El Paso
Estela Ballon PhD California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Javier Arbona PhD University of California, Davis
Katherine Hoyt PhD Alliance for Global Justice
Victoria Sanford PhD Lehman College, City University of New York
Samantha Fox PhD Binghamton University
Elena Shih PhD Brown University
Lilian Davila PhD University of California Merced
Joanna Perez PhD California State University Dominguez Hills
Claudia Arteaga PhD Scripps College
Rosalyn Negron PhD UMass Boston
X. Banales PhD California State University
Jih-Fei Cheng PhD Scripps College
Harry E. Vanden PhD University of South Florida
Laura J Enriquez PhD University of California at Berkeley
Eric Vazquez PhD Dickinson College
Holmfridur Gardarsdottir PhD Universidad de Islandia
Maria Socorro Tabuenca PhD-C The University of Texas at El Paso
Carla Gomes PhD-C Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
Ariana Stickel PhD-C University of Arizona
Mara Aubel PhD University of Kansas
Molly Todd PhD Montana State University
Raquel I. Drovetta PhD CONICET-Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas
Ellie Walsh PhD GOVERNORS STATE UNIVERSITY
David Close PhD Memorial University of Newfoundland
Christopher Perreira PhD University of Kansas
Matthew J Countryman PhD University of Michigan
Edward Murphy PhD Michigan State University
Pite Rebekah PhD Lafayette College
Christopher Loperena MS University of San Francisco (USA)
Jose Rubio-Zepeda PhD University of Texas at Austin
Gloria Chacon PhD University of California San Diego
Sandra Haley PhD Brown University
Steven Osuna PhD California State University, Long Beach
Christine Wade PhD Washington College
Patricia Ornelas-Moya Otro California State University of Los Angeles
Griselda Martinez Otro California State University, Northridge
Dalesy Casasola PhD California State University Los Angeles
Joo Ok Kim MA University of Kansas
Bernabe Rodriguez PhD California State University Long Beach
Alicia Estrada PhD California State University, Northridge
Brenda Cruz MA California State University, Los Angeles
Olivia Jaffe-Pachuilo Otro San Diego State University
Tamara Favors PhD University of California Merced
Thelma Jimenez-Anglada PhD Lawrence University
Vernor Arguedas PhD Universidad de Costa Rica
K. Myers PhD C University of California, Mercer
Beezer de Martelly PhD University of California, Berkeley
Carmen Caamano PhD Universidad de Costa Rica
Rosemary L Lee Otro Retired
Emelyne Camacho Otro California State University Long Beach
Hector Fuentes MPA California State University, Northridge
Walter Abrego PhD Texas Tech University
Jorge Moraga MA California State University, Bakersfield
Rodolfo Rodriguez PhD University of California, Merced
Shannon Speed PhD UCLA
Adrienne Pine JD American University
Joseph Berra PhD University of California Los Angeles School of Law
Arely Zimmerman PhD Mills College
Ashley Lucas Otro University of Michigan
Christina Acosta PhD C University of California Merced
Amrah Salomon J. PhD C University of California, San Diego
Nalya Rodriguez PhD University of California Irvine
Guadalupe Bacio PhD Pomona College
Chris Zepeda-Millan MA University of California Berkeley
Fanny Garcia PhD Columbia University
Mita Banerjee MA Pitzer College
Esmeralda Garcia PhD University of California Irvine
Munia Bhaumik PhD Emory University
Salvador Vidal-Ortiz MA American University
Tricia Morgan PhD Pitzer College
Genevieve Carpio PhD UCLA
Sylvanna Falcon PhD University of California, Santa Cruz
Patricia Zavella PhD University of California
Beatriz Cruz Sotomayor Otro Universidad del Turabo
Alessandra Alvares PhD University of California Santa Cruz
Amalia Pallares PhD University of Illinois at Chicago
Mary Delgado Garcia PhD Scripps College
Ernesto Martinez Otro University of Oregon
Alvaro Huerta PhD California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Cristina Serna PhD Colgate University
Shannon Gleeson Otro Cornell University
Kim YuneHie PhD UC Berkeley
Ralph Armbruster-Sandoval MS UC Santa Barbara
Clara E. Irazabal-Zurita, PhD University of Missouri - Kansas City
Genevieve Negron-Gonzales, PhD, University of San Francisco
Enrique Ochoa, PhD California State University, Los Angeles
Karma R. Chavez PhD University of Texas at Austin
Victor Silverman PhD Pomona College
Maria Cristina Morales PhD-C University of Texas at El Paso
Gabriela Arguedas Otro Universidad de Costa Rica
Andrea Gonzalez Otro California State University Long Beach
Hao Huang PhD Scripps College
Marta Bustillo PhD Universidad de Puerto Rico
Adriana Garriga-Lopez PhD Kalamazoo College
Monica Moreno Figueroa PhD University of Cambridge
Joan Simalchik PhD University of Toronto Mississauga
Kemy Oyarzun PhD Universidad de Chile
Joel Mercado-Diaz PhD The University of Chicago
Stacey Schlau PhD West Chester University
Elizabeth Maier PhD Colegio de la Frontera Norte
Maria Amelia Viteri PhD USFQ
Jack Spence PhD University of Massachusetts Boston
Karina Oliva Alvarado PhD UCLA
Heather Vrana PhD University of Florida
Emilie Bergmann PhD University of California, Berkeley
Liv Sovik PhD Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
Hillary Hiner PhD Universidad Diego Portales
Rosalind Bresnahan PhD California State University
Miguel Tinker Salas PhD Pomona College
Sonia Ticas PhD Linfield College
Dan Beeton Otro Center for Economic and Policy Research
LATEST NEWS
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular