Christopher E. Renner
Originally Read on 15 March 2007
This week we learnt for the mainstream news something those of us who have questioned the Bush administration’s policies concerning civil rights had been award of for some time. The Justice Department reported rampant FBI abuses of the Patriot Act’s National Security Letter (NSL) provision that gives agents sweeping powers to demand sensitive personal records without court approval - that means you bank records, who you talk to on the phone, what e-mails you received, etc.
The Justice Department report reveals that from 2003 to 2005, the government issued a staggering 143,000 National Security Letters, in some cases barring recipients from even reporting they’ve received a letter. How much more proof does Congress need that this dangerous provision defies democratic values? How many more of us will be investigated and gagged before the FBI is reined in?
There’s only one course of action. It is time for Congress to repeal the expanded Patriot Act powers that opened the door to these abuses. This un-American, anti-democratic piece of legislation was designed to gut the constitution of our most fundamental rights and allow those who control the political process to control your personal choices. It is time it stopped!
I hope you will let Rep. Boyda and those two cow-toeing Senators we have, Pat Roberts and Sam Brownback, that you want the Patriotic Act repealed. Rep. Boyda might actually listen to you, I doubt of the other two will. All I ever get from Sentors Roberts and Brownback are the computer-generated replies to my almost weekly letters or faxes concerning the direction the Republicans have take our country that never address a single issue I raise, but simply parrot their mindless rhetoric.
Monday marks the anniversary of the Bush’s effort to bankrupt our nation or the so-called War in Iraq. To date 3,194 US men and women serving in the armed services have died in a war that is immoral, that was begun by lies, and has done nothing but demonstrate how the values we claim we hold dear have no real value. At the same time 23,417 have been wounded. I think it is interesting to point out that many of those aren’t actually labeled “wounded” but rather are listed as suffering from some “disease,” which is another way the corrupt Bush administration lies to the American public about the truth of the War in Iraq. I hope people take advantage of this anniversary to express your disapproval of Bush’s war by joining with other like-minded people on Saturday and march in opposition to this policy of destruction.
Moreover, Stacy Bannerman in Foreign Policy in Focus reports that “at least 30 percent of Iraq or Afghanistan [veterans] are diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), up from 16 percent to 18 percent in 2004,” (data reported Stratton VA Medical Center). “The number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans getting treatment for PTSD at VA hospitals and counseling centers increased 87 percent from September 2005 to June 2006, and they have a backlog of 400,000 cases, including veterans from previous wars. The most conservative estimates project that roughly 250,000 Iraq war veterans will struggle with PTSD.”
“These figures are particularly significant for citizen soldiers when considering that: A 2004 analysis of Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans who received VA health care revealed that 58 percent of the veterans seeking treatment were members of the Army Reserve/National Guard and 71 percent of Operation Enduring Freedom vets who utilized VA services were citizen soldiers. A 2006 report detailing VA healthcare utilization by Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans revealed that, of those who sought care for PTSD, 18 percent were formerly active duty personnel, and 30 percent were National Guard soldiers and Army reservists. Even at their highest rates of deployment, National Guard soldiers and Army reservists represented no more than 44 percent of deployed forces; and, many studies conducted at Walter Reed Military Hospital don't include National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers.”
“National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers have less training and preparation for deployment, less cohesive units, and most never expected to see combat, factors that put them at significantly higher risk for stress-related disorders than active-duty military.” For the complete article visit: http://www.alternet.org/story/49226/
We have to ask what are the long-term effects of this “War on Terror” going to be on our society and nation? How many people will be adversely affected psychologically and how will those people be cared for? What will their PSTD do to our communities? To their families? Who will bear the financial burned? How many will end up homeless?
And why aren’t more people asking why the hell are we are still stuck in a quagmire of a civil war we have no hope of ending or resolving?
We - the American citizenry - are responsible for allowing ourselves to be lead as a nation by irrational fear instead of our core values of democracy and civil rights. We are responsible for allow corrupt politicians to destroy our most sacred values as a nation and replace them with theocratic falsehoods the founders of this nation made sure to marginalize.
It is time we got our priorities right for a change. As long as we disrespect the human and civil rights of others, we put every man, woman and child in our country at risk of being another victim of mindless hate -- hate cause by our own very actions.
Only by respecting the rule of law, respecting national and international conventions on torture and imprisonment, controlling our irrational fears with knowledge and understanding, and, above all making sure that we obey the golden rule, will we be able to overcome to damage done to our nation and our history by those who are driven by arrogance, greed and pessimism.
18 March 2007
08 March 2007
What Women Want…
Originally read on 8 March 2007 - International Women's Day
by Christopher E. Renner
In the rhetoric of the social conservatives they often belittle women who want such things as equal pay for equal work. Such groups as Concerned Women of America of the Eagle Forum rail against single mothers, fought the Equal Rights Amendment, and promoted a punitive Welfare reform package during the Clinton Administration that negatively impacts women most. They have kept the debate on reproductive rights limited to oversimplifications of an extraordinarily complex issue.
On this International Women’s Day, I would like for us to reflect on how far we haven’t come as a nation when it comes to the issue of equality between the sexes. While there is much to talk about on this topic, I will keep my comments to the issue of intimate partner violence against women.
Patriarchy - the male dominance of society - is set up to see women as nothing more than property. When we look at the national statistics on domestic violence, rape, and child abuse, it would seem that as a nation we are no better than many less developed nations.
∑ Estimates range from 960,000 incidents of violence against a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend per year (1) to three million women who are physically abused by their husband or boyfriend per year. (2)
∑ Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime. (3)
∑ Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives. (4)
∑ Nearly 25 percent of American women report being raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or date at some time in their lifetime. (5)
∑ Thirty percent of Americans say they know a woman who has been physically abused by her husband or boyfriend in the past year. (6)
∑ In 2001, more than half a million American women (588,490 women) were victims of nonfatal violence committed by an intimate partner. (7)
∑ Intimate partner violence is primarily a crime against women. In 2001, women accounted for 85 percent of the victims of intimate partner violence (588,490 total). (8)
∑ While women are less likely than men to be victims of violent crimes overall, women are five to eight times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner. (9)
∑ In 2001, intimate partner violence made up 20 percent of violent crime against women. (10)
∑ As many as 324,000 women each year experience intimate partner violence during their pregnancy. (11)
∑ Women of all races are about equally vulnerable to violence by an intimate. (12)
∑ Male violence against women does much more damage than female violence against men; women are much more likely to be injured than men. (13)
∑ The most rapid growth in domestic relations caseloads is occurring in domestic violence filings. (14)
∑ Women are seven to 14 times more likely than men to report suffering severe physical assaults from an intimate partner. (15)
In Sexual Assault as Spectator Sport, Mariah Burton Nelson reports that the Senate Judiciary Committee found that in only two percent of cases are the men ever caught, tried, or jailed, for rape. 80 percent of all rape trails end with the men being found not guilty - example - the recent Duke University LaCrosse team scandal in which the players were made out my the media to be innocent and the victim a whore. In such cases as gang rape as the Duke University case typifies, what is her word against his, becomes her word against theirs which usually convinces the jury, the grand jury, or the DA that the victim isn’t telling the truth.
But we have to ask as a nation what is the root cause of this reality? According to Peggy Reeves Sandury, rape-prone societies are strongly associated with militarism, male dominance, high male status, sex-role diffentiation, an ideology of male roughness, distant father-child relationships, general interpersonal violence, and separate spheres for men and women. Sounds pretty close to contemporary US society and especially when we consider our national obsession with “manly” sports - football, TV wrestling, hockey, basketball.
A direct correlation exists with the rise of the women’s civil rights movement beginning in the 60s and the rise of a national phenomena concerning “professional” sports from grade school to professional teams.
It would seem that as a nation, we have enshrined men’s right to rape with the heart felt assistance of Concerned Women of American and their need for “manly” men.
Men’s bodies have become an instrument of power that enables him to “force others to do his bidding” (See Against Our Wills by Susan Brownmiller). In sports, a boy learns to use his body in forceful, space-occupying, even dominating ways and these behaviours become directly linked to the young male’s concept of manliness, and thus his definition of self. He carries these concepts over to his intimate encounters with women.
But also tied to this rise of the sports industry has been the rise of a related male industry: pornography.
Pornography promotes the myth that women are willing receptacles for male sexuality and aggression. Porn promotes the myth that women enjoy gang rape and it appropriates lesbian images for male excitement.
Research has shown that it is men, mostly young men, who support the porn industry. I remember a report back in the early 90s on PBS’s New Hour in which a study being conducted by Duke University amongst itself Freshman male students was discussed. The study produced the startling statistic that 90some percent of the male students had learnt about sex from the porn, not from their parents, not their religious leaders, not in sex education class in schools.
Sexual Assault as a Spectator Sport reports the following findings: (I apologize for not having the references, but the references were missing from the photocopy I have of the article.)
- In a survey of 32 college campuses, men who admitted to rape also tended to rate “very frequently” their reading of population pornographic magazines like Playboy and Penthouse.
- In another study, massive exposure to pornography was associated with a loss of compassion toward women as rape victims and toward women in general.
- A federally funded study by Surgeon General Koop found that: “Exposure to violent pornography increases punitive behavior toward women” at least in the short term.
I am not calling for banning pornography. I believe in free speech and freedom of the press, but what I am going to call for is a total separation between theocracy and our public education system.
It is obvious from the scientific studies that have been mentioned that we are failing the women of our community, state and nation by not providing a comprehensive education to our young men when it comes to sexuality.
We need to have Comprehensive Health Education starting in 1st grade that go against the culture of pornography and aggression supported by the social conservatives and their free-market principles. I am willing to give parents the option to opt their children out of such a program, but I think it is misinformed, dangerous, selfish and down right stupid because could cost their children their lives.
The social conservatives claim that Comprehensive Health Education leads to “promiscuity;” a claim that has no hard scientific evidence to support it. But what it does do is challenge their theocracy of “imposed virginity until marriage” as if we were still living in the 1300 where the daughters of royalty were locked away in convents until their parents had arranged their marriages.
As an educator it is obvious to me that a lack of comprehensive sex education has contributed to social norms which I find repulsive: a culture of crudeness, aggression and sexual violence amongst our young people. Learning about sex from Hustler isn’t a good sex education program! And that is what happens when we deny young people access to knowledge in the information age.
What I have seen first hand is the impact that curriculums like Our Whole Lives, a sexuality education curriculum developed jointly between the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist Association, have had on young people who grow up to hold healthy, honest, and scientifically sound ideas about sex and sexuality.
On this International Women’s Day I would hope that each of us realize that we have to be responsible ending the culture of domestic violence we have allowed to rise up in our nation as a direct result of the social conservatives agenda of disinformation and ignorance. We need to elect to our local school boards members who we are sure are going to support an environment that is free from religious ideology in matters of science so that our young people have the knowledge they need to protect themselves from rape, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies.
I also ask each of my listeners to download and read Planned Parenthoods “George W. Bush’s War on Women.” Go to: www.plannedparenthood.org and type in the title to the search engine. It is an enlightening reading of the social conservatives agenda to support sexual exploitation of women and deny women their sexual and reproductive as it has carried out by the Bush administration over the past seven years.
And finally, we have to fend off the social conservatives most recent attack on women: stalling the legislative impetus to require young women to be vaccinated against the human papilloma virus (HPV). By allowing the sex-phobic social conservative to win on this issue we are tolerating, no condemning, women to cervical cancer.
At any time about 20 million people in the U.S. have HPV. Between 10 and 15 million have high-risk types of the virus that are associated with cervical cancer. HPV is so common that about three out of four people have HPV at some point in their lives. But most people who have it don't know it. As a result 9,700 new U.S. cases a year of cervical cancer are reported in the US each year with 3,700 deaths. Deaths that are totally preventable through vaccination.
The HPV vaccine is given in three separate injections over the course of six months. It protects against two types of HPV that cause 90 percent of all genital warts and two types of HPV that cause 70 percent of all cervical cancer.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the use of the HPV vaccine for girls and women from age nine to 26. The vaccine has also been shown to be effective for older women and young men.
So I have to ask what will be next: preventing people from being vaccinated against small pox? The social conservatives agenda to deny women this vaccine is just another example of the blatant disregard of life for women. It is time is stopped.
I hope you celebrate IWD today. Celebrate the contributions of women to our society and the world and speak out against the violence perpetrated against them, because after all that is what women want.
References:
1. U.S. Department of Justice, Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, March 1998
2. The Commonwealth Fund, Health Concerns Across a Woman’s Lifespan: 1998 Survey of Women’s Health, May 1999
3. Heise, L., Ellsberg, M. and Gottemoeller, M. Ending Violence Against Women. Population Reports, Series L, No. 11., December 1999
4. The Commonwealth Fund, Health Concerns Across a Woman’s Lifespan: 1998 Survey of Women’s Health, May 1999
5. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and The National Institute of Justice, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence, July 2000.
6. Lieberman Research Inc., Tracking Survey conducted for The Advertising Council and the Family Violence Prevention Fund, July – October 1996
7. Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003
8. Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003
9. U.S. Department of Justice, Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, March 1998
10. Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003
11. Gazmararian JA, Petersen R, Spitz AM, Goodwin MM, Saltzman LE, Marks JS. “Violence and reproductive health; current knowledge and future research directions.” Maternal and Child Health Journal 2000;4(2):79-84.
12. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Violence Against Women: Estimates from the Redesigned Survey, August 1995
13. Murray A. Straus and Richard J. Gelles, Physical Violence in American Families, 1990
14. Examining the Work of State Courts, 1995: A National Perspective from the Court Statistics Project. National Center for the State Courts, 1996
15. National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, November 1998
by Christopher E. Renner
In the rhetoric of the social conservatives they often belittle women who want such things as equal pay for equal work. Such groups as Concerned Women of America of the Eagle Forum rail against single mothers, fought the Equal Rights Amendment, and promoted a punitive Welfare reform package during the Clinton Administration that negatively impacts women most. They have kept the debate on reproductive rights limited to oversimplifications of an extraordinarily complex issue.
On this International Women’s Day, I would like for us to reflect on how far we haven’t come as a nation when it comes to the issue of equality between the sexes. While there is much to talk about on this topic, I will keep my comments to the issue of intimate partner violence against women.
Patriarchy - the male dominance of society - is set up to see women as nothing more than property. When we look at the national statistics on domestic violence, rape, and child abuse, it would seem that as a nation we are no better than many less developed nations.
∑ Estimates range from 960,000 incidents of violence against a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend per year (1) to three million women who are physically abused by their husband or boyfriend per year. (2)
∑ Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime. (3)
∑ Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives. (4)
∑ Nearly 25 percent of American women report being raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or date at some time in their lifetime. (5)
∑ Thirty percent of Americans say they know a woman who has been physically abused by her husband or boyfriend in the past year. (6)
∑ In 2001, more than half a million American women (588,490 women) were victims of nonfatal violence committed by an intimate partner. (7)
∑ Intimate partner violence is primarily a crime against women. In 2001, women accounted for 85 percent of the victims of intimate partner violence (588,490 total). (8)
∑ While women are less likely than men to be victims of violent crimes overall, women are five to eight times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner. (9)
∑ In 2001, intimate partner violence made up 20 percent of violent crime against women. (10)
∑ As many as 324,000 women each year experience intimate partner violence during their pregnancy. (11)
∑ Women of all races are about equally vulnerable to violence by an intimate. (12)
∑ Male violence against women does much more damage than female violence against men; women are much more likely to be injured than men. (13)
∑ The most rapid growth in domestic relations caseloads is occurring in domestic violence filings. (14)
∑ Women are seven to 14 times more likely than men to report suffering severe physical assaults from an intimate partner. (15)
In Sexual Assault as Spectator Sport, Mariah Burton Nelson reports that the Senate Judiciary Committee found that in only two percent of cases are the men ever caught, tried, or jailed, for rape. 80 percent of all rape trails end with the men being found not guilty - example - the recent Duke University LaCrosse team scandal in which the players were made out my the media to be innocent and the victim a whore. In such cases as gang rape as the Duke University case typifies, what is her word against his, becomes her word against theirs which usually convinces the jury, the grand jury, or the DA that the victim isn’t telling the truth.
But we have to ask as a nation what is the root cause of this reality? According to Peggy Reeves Sandury, rape-prone societies are strongly associated with militarism, male dominance, high male status, sex-role diffentiation, an ideology of male roughness, distant father-child relationships, general interpersonal violence, and separate spheres for men and women. Sounds pretty close to contemporary US society and especially when we consider our national obsession with “manly” sports - football, TV wrestling, hockey, basketball.
A direct correlation exists with the rise of the women’s civil rights movement beginning in the 60s and the rise of a national phenomena concerning “professional” sports from grade school to professional teams.
It would seem that as a nation, we have enshrined men’s right to rape with the heart felt assistance of Concerned Women of American and their need for “manly” men.
Men’s bodies have become an instrument of power that enables him to “force others to do his bidding” (See Against Our Wills by Susan Brownmiller). In sports, a boy learns to use his body in forceful, space-occupying, even dominating ways and these behaviours become directly linked to the young male’s concept of manliness, and thus his definition of self. He carries these concepts over to his intimate encounters with women.
But also tied to this rise of the sports industry has been the rise of a related male industry: pornography.
Pornography promotes the myth that women are willing receptacles for male sexuality and aggression. Porn promotes the myth that women enjoy gang rape and it appropriates lesbian images for male excitement.
Research has shown that it is men, mostly young men, who support the porn industry. I remember a report back in the early 90s on PBS’s New Hour in which a study being conducted by Duke University amongst itself Freshman male students was discussed. The study produced the startling statistic that 90some percent of the male students had learnt about sex from the porn, not from their parents, not their religious leaders, not in sex education class in schools.
Sexual Assault as a Spectator Sport reports the following findings: (I apologize for not having the references, but the references were missing from the photocopy I have of the article.)
- In a survey of 32 college campuses, men who admitted to rape also tended to rate “very frequently” their reading of population pornographic magazines like Playboy and Penthouse.
- In another study, massive exposure to pornography was associated with a loss of compassion toward women as rape victims and toward women in general.
- A federally funded study by Surgeon General Koop found that: “Exposure to violent pornography increases punitive behavior toward women” at least in the short term.
I am not calling for banning pornography. I believe in free speech and freedom of the press, but what I am going to call for is a total separation between theocracy and our public education system.
It is obvious from the scientific studies that have been mentioned that we are failing the women of our community, state and nation by not providing a comprehensive education to our young men when it comes to sexuality.
We need to have Comprehensive Health Education starting in 1st grade that go against the culture of pornography and aggression supported by the social conservatives and their free-market principles. I am willing to give parents the option to opt their children out of such a program, but I think it is misinformed, dangerous, selfish and down right stupid because could cost their children their lives.
The social conservatives claim that Comprehensive Health Education leads to “promiscuity;” a claim that has no hard scientific evidence to support it. But what it does do is challenge their theocracy of “imposed virginity until marriage” as if we were still living in the 1300 where the daughters of royalty were locked away in convents until their parents had arranged their marriages.
As an educator it is obvious to me that a lack of comprehensive sex education has contributed to social norms which I find repulsive: a culture of crudeness, aggression and sexual violence amongst our young people. Learning about sex from Hustler isn’t a good sex education program! And that is what happens when we deny young people access to knowledge in the information age.
What I have seen first hand is the impact that curriculums like Our Whole Lives, a sexuality education curriculum developed jointly between the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist Association, have had on young people who grow up to hold healthy, honest, and scientifically sound ideas about sex and sexuality.
On this International Women’s Day I would hope that each of us realize that we have to be responsible ending the culture of domestic violence we have allowed to rise up in our nation as a direct result of the social conservatives agenda of disinformation and ignorance. We need to elect to our local school boards members who we are sure are going to support an environment that is free from religious ideology in matters of science so that our young people have the knowledge they need to protect themselves from rape, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies.
I also ask each of my listeners to download and read Planned Parenthoods “George W. Bush’s War on Women.” Go to: www.plannedparenthood.org and type in the title to the search engine. It is an enlightening reading of the social conservatives agenda to support sexual exploitation of women and deny women their sexual and reproductive as it has carried out by the Bush administration over the past seven years.
And finally, we have to fend off the social conservatives most recent attack on women: stalling the legislative impetus to require young women to be vaccinated against the human papilloma virus (HPV). By allowing the sex-phobic social conservative to win on this issue we are tolerating, no condemning, women to cervical cancer.
At any time about 20 million people in the U.S. have HPV. Between 10 and 15 million have high-risk types of the virus that are associated with cervical cancer. HPV is so common that about three out of four people have HPV at some point in their lives. But most people who have it don't know it. As a result 9,700 new U.S. cases a year of cervical cancer are reported in the US each year with 3,700 deaths. Deaths that are totally preventable through vaccination.
The HPV vaccine is given in three separate injections over the course of six months. It protects against two types of HPV that cause 90 percent of all genital warts and two types of HPV that cause 70 percent of all cervical cancer.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the use of the HPV vaccine for girls and women from age nine to 26. The vaccine has also been shown to be effective for older women and young men.
So I have to ask what will be next: preventing people from being vaccinated against small pox? The social conservatives agenda to deny women this vaccine is just another example of the blatant disregard of life for women. It is time is stopped.
I hope you celebrate IWD today. Celebrate the contributions of women to our society and the world and speak out against the violence perpetrated against them, because after all that is what women want.
References:
1. U.S. Department of Justice, Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, March 1998
2. The Commonwealth Fund, Health Concerns Across a Woman’s Lifespan: 1998 Survey of Women’s Health, May 1999
3. Heise, L., Ellsberg, M. and Gottemoeller, M. Ending Violence Against Women. Population Reports, Series L, No. 11., December 1999
4. The Commonwealth Fund, Health Concerns Across a Woman’s Lifespan: 1998 Survey of Women’s Health, May 1999
5. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and The National Institute of Justice, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence, July 2000.
6. Lieberman Research Inc., Tracking Survey conducted for The Advertising Council and the Family Violence Prevention Fund, July – October 1996
7. Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003
8. Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003
9. U.S. Department of Justice, Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, March 1998
10. Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003
11. Gazmararian JA, Petersen R, Spitz AM, Goodwin MM, Saltzman LE, Marks JS. “Violence and reproductive health; current knowledge and future research directions.” Maternal and Child Health Journal 2000;4(2):79-84.
12. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Violence Against Women: Estimates from the Redesigned Survey, August 1995
13. Murray A. Straus and Richard J. Gelles, Physical Violence in American Families, 1990
14. Examining the Work of State Courts, 1995: A National Perspective from the Court Statistics Project. National Center for the State Courts, 1996
15. National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, November 1998
07 March 2007
What is Obscenity?
Originally read on 1 March 2007
by Christopher E. Renner
This week the Kansas legislature’s right-wing darling, Rep. Lance Kinzer, Republican from Olathe, under the banner of “obscenity” lead a direct attack on free speech. Rep. Kinzer so values our basic freedoms that he wants parents to be able to sue teachers for exposing their students to ideas the parents find objectionable, which is what HB 2200 would allow.
HB 2200 would amend several criminal statutes relating to obscenity. The bill would limit the ability of elementary and secondary schools and teachers to assert the defense that the materials they used in class had literary, educational, artistic, political or scientific value to a change of obscenity. Under current law, this defense is provided to public and private schools, as well as, colleges and universities. It is called academic freedom and protects educators from being dragged from their classrooms and thrown in jail for educating children and presenting ideas that some might find offensive.
Basically, Kinzer was able to get the House Federal and State Affairs committee to approve HB 2200 which would remove all academic freedom protections in the state’s obscenity laws for K-12 teachers.
Under Kansas law, material is deemed obscene if an average person, applying community standards, would find that it “appears to the prurient interest” and involves “patently offensive” depictions of sex or nudity. Also, the material must lack “serious literary, educational, artistic, political or scientific value.”
So what “obscene” books are children being force to read in rich, white Johnson County schools that have these parents so upset?
According to Citizens for Literary Standards in Schools their poor little privileged white Christian children have to read such books as One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, The Color Purple, One Hundred Years of Solitude, Slaughterhouse Five, The Norton Anthologies of American Literature, Tony Morrisons’ Song of Solomon and Beloved, Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye, there’s also Lord of the Flies, Of Mice and Men, --- do you see any pattern here?
Maybe the parents are upset that their children have to read at all. Heaven forbid their children might be exposed to real life experiences that require rational thought and challenges their parents’ irrationality and un-American theocratic beliefs.
For those of us who believe in freedom of speech, press, and religion, we know the origins of the Blue Valley parent’s concern was really one book: Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden.
The American Library Association designated the book a "Best of the Best Books for Young Adults." The School Library Journal included the book in its list of the 100 most influential books of the 20th century. But having the book on its library shelves ended up costing another Johnson County school district - Olathe - $160,000.
Back in 1993, the LGBT organization Project 21 donated Annie on My Mind, along with Frank Mosca's All-American Boys, to forty-two high schools in the Kansas City area.
Because both books included homosexual themes, some parents objected that the books were made available to high school students.
In the ensuing controversy, opponents showed their respect for our nation’s Bill of Rights by burning copies of Annie on My Mind.
Around the time the good old-fashioned Nazi book burning took place, author Nancy Garden was at a writers' conference. When asked if she had had trouble with Annie on My Mind she answered “no.” Soon after, she learned of the burning when she received a call from Stephen Friedman, who asked, "Did you know your book has just been burned in Kansas City?"
Garden reportedly said: “Burned! I didn't think people burned books any more. Only Nazis burn books.” Good choice of a descriptive adjective to use for those trying to shove theocracy down our throats, Nancy.
Then, on December 13, 1993, superintendent Ron Wimmer, of the Olathe School District, ordered the book removed from the high school library. Wimmer said he made his decision in order to "avoid controversy," like the public book burning had produced.
The Olathe School District refused to accept other copies of the book, even removing a copy that had sat on its library shelf for over ten years. In response, the American Civil Liberties Union joined several families and a teacher to sued the school district for removing the book.
Two years later in September 1995, the case went to trial. In November 1995, U.S. District Court Justice Thomas Van Bebber ruled that while a school district is not obligated to purchase any book, it cannot remove a book from library shelves unless that book is deemed educationally unsuitable. He ruled Annie on My Mind to be educationally suitable, and called its removal an unconstitutional attempt to "prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion."
The school district announced it would not appeal the court's decision in 1999, and restored Annie on My Mind to library shelves. The entire proceeding had cost the district over $160,000. So that is why Rep. Kinzer introduced HB 2200. To provide an end-run around the rights you and I enjoy thanks to the US Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Kansas.
HB 2200 is another example of the social conservatives’ agenda to limit free speech, limit access to knowledge and portray our public education system as somehow being the cause of the moral decay of our nation they scream about at the top of their lungs. How many social conservative Christians have been exposed as frequenting prostitutes, or consuming pornography and drugs have there been now anyway? Oh, I digress….
What is even more upsetting to me is the following fact: according to the Lawrence Journal World, the only Representative on the House Federal and State Committee to vote against the bill was Ann Mah, a representative from Douglas County.
Our own representative, Tom Hawk, who sits of Federal and State Committee and is a retired teacher, voted for HB2200! Rep. Hawk reports that he voted for HB 2200 because he thought that as amended the bill would provide protections to teachers. He now regrets his affirming vote. He realizes that the parents from Blue Valley who had contacted him for his support of their censorship bill were doing an "end run" on their school board for the books they did not like in the high school curriculum. If you want to express your opinion to Rep. Hawk, his office phone number is: 785-296-7665.
But lets get back to the issue of what is obscene.
KSU took a public relations beating this past week from the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals in what is clearly an example of the obscenity that Rep. Kinzer is trying to stamp out: Total disregard for life - throwing live chickens onto the basketball court.
Gandhi once said: “The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” Surely KSU students are more creative and intelligent than thinking that throwing live animals is the best way we can show our resolve to defeat our greatest rival.
But even more “obscene” to me is the lengths that Kansas State University will go to promote homophobia and how that homophobia is tolerated by KSU officials.
In the lead up to the same great chicken toss game against KU, t-shirts appeared sporting the registered trade mark of the Power Cat and the following quote: “KU = gay.”
Now according to the “values” espoused by Kansas State University, such blatant prejudice isn’t one of the Core Community Values this institution of higher learning is supposed to be instilling in its students. Moreover, since the Power Cat is a registered trade mark, didn’t someone in the University have to approve the use of the KSU symbol to promote this irrational prejudice and bigotry? So why did the university allow this? By equating all KU students as homosexuals, just what did KSU gain?
Other than once again demonstrating for the rest of the world that we lack basic civility, respect for others, and knowledge of the complex world we live in, KSU gained nothing. The t-shirts were an insult to KSU and the state of Kansas. But I doubt if anything will be done to address this most recent example of institutional promotion of homophobia, unless people complain to university officials and in the press.
But maybe, if HB 2200 passes as amended which also removes academic freedom for university professors, KU students could sue KSU for it’s promotion of “obscenity.” The shirts obviously had no serious literary, educational, artistic, political or scientific value. Now wouldn’t that just get Rep. Kinzer’s goat? A bunch of liberal college students using his law to sue a state institution over homosexuality. I’m sure the social conservatives didn’t see that one coming.
Sources:
"Books in Trouble: Annie on My Mind", National Coalition Against Censorship, May 1996.
Miner, Barbara. "When Reading Good Books Can Get Schools In Trouble: First of Two Articles", Rethinking Schools: Online, Spring 1998.
Stang, Debra L.. "Annie on My Mind: Let Love Win!", suite101, November 1, 2000. Retrieved on 2007-02-25.
by Christopher E. Renner
This week the Kansas legislature’s right-wing darling, Rep. Lance Kinzer, Republican from Olathe, under the banner of “obscenity” lead a direct attack on free speech. Rep. Kinzer so values our basic freedoms that he wants parents to be able to sue teachers for exposing their students to ideas the parents find objectionable, which is what HB 2200 would allow.
HB 2200 would amend several criminal statutes relating to obscenity. The bill would limit the ability of elementary and secondary schools and teachers to assert the defense that the materials they used in class had literary, educational, artistic, political or scientific value to a change of obscenity. Under current law, this defense is provided to public and private schools, as well as, colleges and universities. It is called academic freedom and protects educators from being dragged from their classrooms and thrown in jail for educating children and presenting ideas that some might find offensive.
Basically, Kinzer was able to get the House Federal and State Affairs committee to approve HB 2200 which would remove all academic freedom protections in the state’s obscenity laws for K-12 teachers.
Under Kansas law, material is deemed obscene if an average person, applying community standards, would find that it “appears to the prurient interest” and involves “patently offensive” depictions of sex or nudity. Also, the material must lack “serious literary, educational, artistic, political or scientific value.”
So what “obscene” books are children being force to read in rich, white Johnson County schools that have these parents so upset?
According to Citizens for Literary Standards in Schools their poor little privileged white Christian children have to read such books as One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, The Color Purple, One Hundred Years of Solitude, Slaughterhouse Five, The Norton Anthologies of American Literature, Tony Morrisons’ Song of Solomon and Beloved, Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye, there’s also Lord of the Flies, Of Mice and Men, --- do you see any pattern here?
Maybe the parents are upset that their children have to read at all. Heaven forbid their children might be exposed to real life experiences that require rational thought and challenges their parents’ irrationality and un-American theocratic beliefs.
For those of us who believe in freedom of speech, press, and religion, we know the origins of the Blue Valley parent’s concern was really one book: Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden.
The American Library Association designated the book a "Best of the Best Books for Young Adults." The School Library Journal included the book in its list of the 100 most influential books of the 20th century. But having the book on its library shelves ended up costing another Johnson County school district - Olathe - $160,000.
Back in 1993, the LGBT organization Project 21 donated Annie on My Mind, along with Frank Mosca's All-American Boys, to forty-two high schools in the Kansas City area.
Because both books included homosexual themes, some parents objected that the books were made available to high school students.
In the ensuing controversy, opponents showed their respect for our nation’s Bill of Rights by burning copies of Annie on My Mind.
Around the time the good old-fashioned Nazi book burning took place, author Nancy Garden was at a writers' conference. When asked if she had had trouble with Annie on My Mind she answered “no.” Soon after, she learned of the burning when she received a call from Stephen Friedman, who asked, "Did you know your book has just been burned in Kansas City?"
Garden reportedly said: “Burned! I didn't think people burned books any more. Only Nazis burn books.” Good choice of a descriptive adjective to use for those trying to shove theocracy down our throats, Nancy.
Then, on December 13, 1993, superintendent Ron Wimmer, of the Olathe School District, ordered the book removed from the high school library. Wimmer said he made his decision in order to "avoid controversy," like the public book burning had produced.
The Olathe School District refused to accept other copies of the book, even removing a copy that had sat on its library shelf for over ten years. In response, the American Civil Liberties Union joined several families and a teacher to sued the school district for removing the book.
Two years later in September 1995, the case went to trial. In November 1995, U.S. District Court Justice Thomas Van Bebber ruled that while a school district is not obligated to purchase any book, it cannot remove a book from library shelves unless that book is deemed educationally unsuitable. He ruled Annie on My Mind to be educationally suitable, and called its removal an unconstitutional attempt to "prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion."
The school district announced it would not appeal the court's decision in 1999, and restored Annie on My Mind to library shelves. The entire proceeding had cost the district over $160,000. So that is why Rep. Kinzer introduced HB 2200. To provide an end-run around the rights you and I enjoy thanks to the US Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Kansas.
HB 2200 is another example of the social conservatives’ agenda to limit free speech, limit access to knowledge and portray our public education system as somehow being the cause of the moral decay of our nation they scream about at the top of their lungs. How many social conservative Christians have been exposed as frequenting prostitutes, or consuming pornography and drugs have there been now anyway? Oh, I digress….
What is even more upsetting to me is the following fact: according to the Lawrence Journal World, the only Representative on the House Federal and State Committee to vote against the bill was Ann Mah, a representative from Douglas County.
Our own representative, Tom Hawk, who sits of Federal and State Committee and is a retired teacher, voted for HB2200! Rep. Hawk reports that he voted for HB 2200 because he thought that as amended the bill would provide protections to teachers. He now regrets his affirming vote. He realizes that the parents from Blue Valley who had contacted him for his support of their censorship bill were doing an "end run" on their school board for the books they did not like in the high school curriculum. If you want to express your opinion to Rep. Hawk, his office phone number is: 785-296-7665.
But lets get back to the issue of what is obscene.
KSU took a public relations beating this past week from the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals in what is clearly an example of the obscenity that Rep. Kinzer is trying to stamp out: Total disregard for life - throwing live chickens onto the basketball court.
Gandhi once said: “The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” Surely KSU students are more creative and intelligent than thinking that throwing live animals is the best way we can show our resolve to defeat our greatest rival.
But even more “obscene” to me is the lengths that Kansas State University will go to promote homophobia and how that homophobia is tolerated by KSU officials.
In the lead up to the same great chicken toss game against KU, t-shirts appeared sporting the registered trade mark of the Power Cat and the following quote: “KU = gay.”
Now according to the “values” espoused by Kansas State University, such blatant prejudice isn’t one of the Core Community Values this institution of higher learning is supposed to be instilling in its students. Moreover, since the Power Cat is a registered trade mark, didn’t someone in the University have to approve the use of the KSU symbol to promote this irrational prejudice and bigotry? So why did the university allow this? By equating all KU students as homosexuals, just what did KSU gain?
Other than once again demonstrating for the rest of the world that we lack basic civility, respect for others, and knowledge of the complex world we live in, KSU gained nothing. The t-shirts were an insult to KSU and the state of Kansas. But I doubt if anything will be done to address this most recent example of institutional promotion of homophobia, unless people complain to university officials and in the press.
But maybe, if HB 2200 passes as amended which also removes academic freedom for university professors, KU students could sue KSU for it’s promotion of “obscenity.” The shirts obviously had no serious literary, educational, artistic, political or scientific value. Now wouldn’t that just get Rep. Kinzer’s goat? A bunch of liberal college students using his law to sue a state institution over homosexuality. I’m sure the social conservatives didn’t see that one coming.
Sources:
"Books in Trouble: Annie on My Mind", National Coalition Against Censorship, May 1996.
Miner, Barbara. "When Reading Good Books Can Get Schools In Trouble: First of Two Articles", Rethinking Schools: Online, Spring 1998.
Stang, Debra L.. "Annie on My Mind: Let Love Win!", suite101, November 1, 2000. Retrieved on 2007-02-25.
Your Civil Rights
Originally read on 22 February 2007
by Christopher E. Renner
It has been an interesting week for those of us who value our civil rights as outlined in the U. S. Constitution and in particular the Bill of Rights. President Bush and his cronies continue to do everything in their power to eliminate those rights, from the right to a fair trail to our right of privacy.
Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) introduced legislation last week that seeks to eliminate online privacy by requiring Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to maintain detailed records on each of their subscribers’ online activities. The bill would give Attorney General Alberto Gonzales broad discretion to determine what records ISPs must keep and for how long. In addition, it would require "sexually explicit" websites to post warning labels or face criminal sanctions.
Marvin Johnson, Legislative Counsel for the ACLU Washington Legislative Office said:
"Legislation like this is like swatting a fly with a bazooka. Such sweeping measures do little to stop online crime; instead, they overwhelm law enforcement agents with mountains of raw data and have a chilling effect on ISP subscribers’ First Amendment rights. There is no limit to the amount of information Attorney General Gonzales can require ISPs to keep, from instant messages to private emails to web searches, and he can require that they be kept forever. This represents an incredible invasion into our privacy and freedom to use the Internet without the government reading over our shoulders."
And that’s not all. In May 2006, USA Today revealed that since shortly after 9/11 at least two major phone companies - AT&T and Verizon - have been voluntarily granting the National Security Administration direct, mass access to their customers' calling records, and that the NSA had compiled a giant database of those records. This program extends to all Americans, not just those suspected of terrorist or criminal activity. In short, phone companies are voluntarily turning over millions of customer records to the National Security Agency.
Acting without a court order or the knowledge or consent of their customers, phone companies are providing the government with potentially intimate details about who you know and who you talk to - details that are stored in giant databases, and perhaps mined by the NSA's supercomputers to scan through each of our associations and interests for "suspicious" signs, whatever that may be.
The goal of this program, according to media reports, is to "create a database of every call ever made within the nation's borders." This information can easily be linked to determine your identity, your friends, and your interests.
I don’t know about any of you, but I lived in Europe before the fall of Stalinism, or “hard” communism in Eastern Europe. The tactics described above are the same tactics that were used by those governments to spy on their citizens, arrest them for such illegal activities as voicing their own opinions and “speaking against the state.” Is it just me, or have we completely lost all sense of the reason why our nation exists -- it’s called democracy people and once it is lost, it is very hard to get it back. The Bush administration’s desire to spy on the American people is illegal and un-American, and immoral. It is time it stopped!
Moreover, this past week it was revealed that both AT&T and Version are attempting to obstruct discussion of their collaboration with the government by appealing to the Securities and Exchange Commission for permission to block the proposed shareholder resolutions.
As owners of publicly traded corporations, shareholders have a right to vote on issues they feel are vital to preserve their company’s reputation and protect the long-term value of investments and maintain customer privacy. AT&T and Verizon customers, board members and shareholders must be aware of all the issues inherent in assisting the government with its spying. So the “free market” isn’t really free after all.
Closer to home, conservatives in the Kansas Senate gained approval of Senate Bill 169 which will require all Kansans to show photo-identification to vote as well as proof of citizenship to register to vote.
SB 169 was introduced by Senator Tim Huelskamp, R- Fowler in southwest Kansas, an area that the South Poverty Law Center has reported for several years as having KKK activities and known to openly discriminate against the Hispanic population living there.
SB 169 is nothing more than an effort to impose a poll tax on the citizens of the state and to disenfranchise poorer Kansans from the election process because the conservative agenda is to further the gap between right and poor and to allow no means for the economic disadvantaged to petition their government to alleviate their suffering.
It cost $12.00 to get a copy of your birth certificate in Kansas and the cost of a passport is now up to $97.00. For many of our listeners these are probably not expenses that seem exorbitant. However, if you are living on the Kansas Minimum Wage, or the current Federal Minimum Wage, they are.
If you earn $5.25 and work 40 hours per week, 52 weeks of the year your total annual income would be only $10,712. If you are a typical low wage earner - a single mother - $12.00 represents about three hours of work. It represents feeding you family for a day. $97.00 represents going without health care.
Why do we need SB 169?
SB 169 is yet another example of the conservative’s agenda to limit the civil rights of all citizens by placing one obstacle after another in the pathway to full participation in the democratic process. It makes a problem where there isn’t a problem and will without a doubt make things more difficult at the polling place, slow down the process, and cause people to be denied their right to vote. But after all, isn’t that what the conservative want?
And if that wasn’t enough to think about, this past week also showed how low Kansas State University will go to promote homophobia. In the lead up to the “big game” against KU, t-shirts appeared sporting the registered trade mark of the power cat and the following quote “KU = gay.”
Now according to the “values” espoused by Kansas State University, such blatant prejudice isn’t one of the Core Community Values this institution of higher learning is supposed to be instilling in its students. Moreover, since the power cat is a registered trade mark, didn’t someone in the University have to approve the use of the KSU symbol to promote this irrational prejudice and bigotry? So why did the university allow this? By equating all KU students as homosexuals, just what did KSU gain? Other than once again demonstrating for the rest of the world that we lack basic civility, respect for others, and knowledge of the complex world we live in. The t-shirts were an insult to KSU and the state of Kansas. But I doubt if anything will be done to address this most recent example of institutional promotion of homophobia unless people complain to university officials and in the press.
by Christopher E. Renner
It has been an interesting week for those of us who value our civil rights as outlined in the U. S. Constitution and in particular the Bill of Rights. President Bush and his cronies continue to do everything in their power to eliminate those rights, from the right to a fair trail to our right of privacy.
Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) introduced legislation last week that seeks to eliminate online privacy by requiring Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to maintain detailed records on each of their subscribers’ online activities. The bill would give Attorney General Alberto Gonzales broad discretion to determine what records ISPs must keep and for how long. In addition, it would require "sexually explicit" websites to post warning labels or face criminal sanctions.
Marvin Johnson, Legislative Counsel for the ACLU Washington Legislative Office said:
"Legislation like this is like swatting a fly with a bazooka. Such sweeping measures do little to stop online crime; instead, they overwhelm law enforcement agents with mountains of raw data and have a chilling effect on ISP subscribers’ First Amendment rights. There is no limit to the amount of information Attorney General Gonzales can require ISPs to keep, from instant messages to private emails to web searches, and he can require that they be kept forever. This represents an incredible invasion into our privacy and freedom to use the Internet without the government reading over our shoulders."
And that’s not all. In May 2006, USA Today revealed that since shortly after 9/11 at least two major phone companies - AT&T and Verizon - have been voluntarily granting the National Security Administration direct, mass access to their customers' calling records, and that the NSA had compiled a giant database of those records. This program extends to all Americans, not just those suspected of terrorist or criminal activity. In short, phone companies are voluntarily turning over millions of customer records to the National Security Agency.
Acting without a court order or the knowledge or consent of their customers, phone companies are providing the government with potentially intimate details about who you know and who you talk to - details that are stored in giant databases, and perhaps mined by the NSA's supercomputers to scan through each of our associations and interests for "suspicious" signs, whatever that may be.
The goal of this program, according to media reports, is to "create a database of every call ever made within the nation's borders." This information can easily be linked to determine your identity, your friends, and your interests.
I don’t know about any of you, but I lived in Europe before the fall of Stalinism, or “hard” communism in Eastern Europe. The tactics described above are the same tactics that were used by those governments to spy on their citizens, arrest them for such illegal activities as voicing their own opinions and “speaking against the state.” Is it just me, or have we completely lost all sense of the reason why our nation exists -- it’s called democracy people and once it is lost, it is very hard to get it back. The Bush administration’s desire to spy on the American people is illegal and un-American, and immoral. It is time it stopped!
Moreover, this past week it was revealed that both AT&T and Version are attempting to obstruct discussion of their collaboration with the government by appealing to the Securities and Exchange Commission for permission to block the proposed shareholder resolutions.
As owners of publicly traded corporations, shareholders have a right to vote on issues they feel are vital to preserve their company’s reputation and protect the long-term value of investments and maintain customer privacy. AT&T and Verizon customers, board members and shareholders must be aware of all the issues inherent in assisting the government with its spying. So the “free market” isn’t really free after all.
Closer to home, conservatives in the Kansas Senate gained approval of Senate Bill 169 which will require all Kansans to show photo-identification to vote as well as proof of citizenship to register to vote.
SB 169 was introduced by Senator Tim Huelskamp, R- Fowler in southwest Kansas, an area that the South Poverty Law Center has reported for several years as having KKK activities and known to openly discriminate against the Hispanic population living there.
SB 169 is nothing more than an effort to impose a poll tax on the citizens of the state and to disenfranchise poorer Kansans from the election process because the conservative agenda is to further the gap between right and poor and to allow no means for the economic disadvantaged to petition their government to alleviate their suffering.
It cost $12.00 to get a copy of your birth certificate in Kansas and the cost of a passport is now up to $97.00. For many of our listeners these are probably not expenses that seem exorbitant. However, if you are living on the Kansas Minimum Wage, or the current Federal Minimum Wage, they are.
If you earn $5.25 and work 40 hours per week, 52 weeks of the year your total annual income would be only $10,712. If you are a typical low wage earner - a single mother - $12.00 represents about three hours of work. It represents feeding you family for a day. $97.00 represents going without health care.
Why do we need SB 169?
SB 169 is yet another example of the conservative’s agenda to limit the civil rights of all citizens by placing one obstacle after another in the pathway to full participation in the democratic process. It makes a problem where there isn’t a problem and will without a doubt make things more difficult at the polling place, slow down the process, and cause people to be denied their right to vote. But after all, isn’t that what the conservative want?
And if that wasn’t enough to think about, this past week also showed how low Kansas State University will go to promote homophobia. In the lead up to the “big game” against KU, t-shirts appeared sporting the registered trade mark of the power cat and the following quote “KU = gay.”
Now according to the “values” espoused by Kansas State University, such blatant prejudice isn’t one of the Core Community Values this institution of higher learning is supposed to be instilling in its students. Moreover, since the power cat is a registered trade mark, didn’t someone in the University have to approve the use of the KSU symbol to promote this irrational prejudice and bigotry? So why did the university allow this? By equating all KU students as homosexuals, just what did KSU gain? Other than once again demonstrating for the rest of the world that we lack basic civility, respect for others, and knowledge of the complex world we live in. The t-shirts were an insult to KSU and the state of Kansas. But I doubt if anything will be done to address this most recent example of institutional promotion of homophobia unless people complain to university officials and in the press.
What's Wrong with 'English Only'
Originally read on 15 February 2007
by Christopher E. Renner
As if the Kansas legislature does not have more pressing issues, like providing health insurance to the uninsured in the state - a full 11% of the population, or approx. 300,000 people; or, maybe it is because Kansas’ Hispanic population makes up the largest single group of uninsured in the state, this week the Kansas State House of Representative took up what is probably the single most important piece of legislation, right after Rep. Kinzer’s bill to prohibit the establishment of domestic partner registries that is, -- H B 2140. Introduced by Rep. Don Myers of Derby, HB 2140 would designate English as the official language of the state of Kansas and would direct its use by state agencies and political or taxing subdivisions.
HB 2140, as amended, would designate English as the official language of the State of Kansas for all public documents and official public meetings. The bill would not diminish or expand any existing rights. No state agency or local government would be required to provide documents in a language other than English, but may use other languages at the agency or local government’s discretion. The bill authorizes the use of braille to provide signage and documents, and communication in American Sign Language to accommodate persons with disabilities. American Sign Language is a language other than English, by the way…
The bill would require the local entity (read: local school district) designated by the Kansas State Department of Education to offer English language classes, training, or other educational services for non-native speakers and to seek assistance from listed groups in expanding awareness of the available services. But HR 2140 carries no funding clause to see this requirement put into action.
The proponents of the bill as introduced included Representative Don Myers, a sponsor of the bill and Ben Piper, Director of Government Relations for ProEnglish.
Pro-English is one of the various “English Only” organizations who cloak themselves in the flag of patriotism in order to hide their xenophobia, racism and ignorance of scientific facts.
The opponents of the bill as introduced included Sandy Jacquot, Director of Law and General Counsel for the League of Kansas Municipalities; Steve Cadue, Tribal Chairman of the Kickapoo Tribe of Kansas; Anna Lambertson, citizen; Melinda Lewis, Director of Policy Advocacy and Research for El Centro, Inc.; Arthur Solis, citizen; and Chaplain Rene Tario, Executive Advisor for the Wichita Hispanic Ministerial Alliance. Written testimony in opposition of the bill was provided by Bob Halloran, City Manager of Garden City, Kansas and Richard Meza, Regional Counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
In my opinion, I can sum up HB 2140 in three words: intolerant, discriminatory, and divisive. So one has to ask who are the people that support the English Only agenda?
It is a broad variety of people:
1. Citizens who want to preserve our common language and avoid ethnic strife
2. Bigots seeking to roll back civil rights advances for language-minority groups
3. Conservatives hoping to impose a sense of national unity and civic responsibility
4. Liberals who fear that bilingual education and bilingual voting discourage assimilation
5. Nativists trying to fan animosity toward immigrants and build support for tighter quotas
6. Euro-ethnics who resent "unfair advantages" enjoyed by Hispanics and Asians today
7. Politicians attempting to exploit a national mood of isolationism and xenophobia
8. Racists who equate multiculturalism and ethnic separatism
9. Americans who feel threatened by diversity, among other unsetting changes
10. All of the above
As someone who has worked in language acquisition for over 20 years, these ill-conceived “English Only” laws do nothing to help integrate new immigrants into our society, but put up blocks which prevent the full participation of immigrants in the democratic process and allow racists to feel morally superior.
"English Only" laws, which declare English to be the state’s official language and bar government employees from providing non-English language assistance and services, are inconsistent with both the First Amendment right to communicate with or petition the government, and the right to equality. They are also unnecessary and sometimes even dangerous to both individuals and the public. Currently enforced in eighteen states, some "English Only" laws are written so broadly that they forbid non-English government services such as assistance to recipients of benefits, applications for drivers' licenses, and bilingual education.
Current "English Only" laws are based on the false premise that today's immigrants who come from Asian and Spanish-speaking countries will not learn English without government coercion. In fact, the vast majority of Asian and Latino immigrants are acquiring proficiency in English just as quickly, if not faster, than earlier generations of Italian, Russian and German immigrants. Moreover, only 4% of the U.S. population over the age of five does not speak English.
Compare this with some historical data provided by the US Census Department. From 1850 to 1930, the foreign-born population of the United States increased from 2.2 million to 14.2 million, reflecting large-scale immigration from Europe during most of this period. As a percentage of the total population, the foreign-born population rose from 9.7 percent in 1850 and fluctuated in the 13 percent to 15 percent range from 1860 to 1920 before dropping to 11.6 percent in 1930. The highest percentages foreign born were 14.4 percent in 1870, 14.8 percent in 1890 and 14.7 percent in 1910. Today, 35.3 million people are foreign born or 8.2% of the population (2005 American Community Survey). So there are fewer foreign born people in the US today than there was from 1850 through 1930.
So why do we now feel that we have to make English the official language? Why wasn’t it done 1890 or 1910 when a very real and present danger to English existed in the country?
Simple answer --- people weren’t afraid of people who didn’t speak English. If 14% of the population were speaking other languages, then everyone probably knew someone who did not speak English very well. Of the 35.3 million foreign born immigrants in the US today, only 84% speak a language other than English in their homes and of those, 40% report to speaking English “very well.”
The problem is not that immigrants are unwilling to learn English, but that there are not enough available educational resources for them. Today, many thousands of immigrants throughout the country are on the waiting lists for adult English classes. English-only laws do nothing constructive to increase English proficiency, they simply discriminate against and punish those who have not yet learned English or who weren’t fortunate enough to be born in an English speaking country to begin with.
Scientific facts:
Educational research has show that it takes 3 - 5 years for a language learner to acquire oral language proficiency and another 5 - 7+ years to acquire cognitive academic abilities in the second language.
Cognitive academic abilities are those skills needed to succeed in school - ability to summarize, take notes, analyze an academic text and determine what it is saying; be able to read technical language as in a science book or computer programming manual; write a book review or term paper, etc.
In order for native speakers of English to be ready to read, research has shown that a child will need to have an oral vocabulary of 2,500 words when they enter Kindergarten and have other skills like concepts of print (that a comic books is different from a newspaper) have letter name/sound correspondence and phonemic awareness. A kindergartener will have, on average, a receptive - recognize the words when spoken - and productive - use the word in their conversations - vocabulary of 5,000; a 4th grader 8,000 and a 6th grader 21,000. (National Reading Panel)
In contrast, language learners who are “proficient” in their spoken English only have a vocabulary of 3,000+ words and it takes as long as 3 - 5 years to get to that point. Why? Because the people wanting to dictate English as the official language do everything in their power to also cut funding from the education budget that would provide intensive English language services to immigrant populations. So, I once again ask, why is this an issue that the Kansas legislature feels we must take up? It is nothing more than the fear mongers of the right once again scapegoating
a population for ills they are unwilling to address.
Surely with the health crisis that is facing our state as our graying population retires and coupled with that Bush’s proposed cuts to Medicare and Medicade, we should be spending energy on the real crisis of health care. But once again the reactionary right is forcing us to waste time, money and energy on a “crisis” that only exists in their imaginations to enshrine another of their fears into law that diminishes the American Dream for all of us.
by Christopher E. Renner
As if the Kansas legislature does not have more pressing issues, like providing health insurance to the uninsured in the state - a full 11% of the population, or approx. 300,000 people; or, maybe it is because Kansas’ Hispanic population makes up the largest single group of uninsured in the state, this week the Kansas State House of Representative took up what is probably the single most important piece of legislation, right after Rep. Kinzer’s bill to prohibit the establishment of domestic partner registries that is, -- H B 2140. Introduced by Rep. Don Myers of Derby, HB 2140 would designate English as the official language of the state of Kansas and would direct its use by state agencies and political or taxing subdivisions.
HB 2140, as amended, would designate English as the official language of the State of Kansas for all public documents and official public meetings. The bill would not diminish or expand any existing rights. No state agency or local government would be required to provide documents in a language other than English, but may use other languages at the agency or local government’s discretion. The bill authorizes the use of braille to provide signage and documents, and communication in American Sign Language to accommodate persons with disabilities. American Sign Language is a language other than English, by the way…
The bill would require the local entity (read: local school district) designated by the Kansas State Department of Education to offer English language classes, training, or other educational services for non-native speakers and to seek assistance from listed groups in expanding awareness of the available services. But HR 2140 carries no funding clause to see this requirement put into action.
The proponents of the bill as introduced included Representative Don Myers, a sponsor of the bill and Ben Piper, Director of Government Relations for ProEnglish.
Pro-English is one of the various “English Only” organizations who cloak themselves in the flag of patriotism in order to hide their xenophobia, racism and ignorance of scientific facts.
The opponents of the bill as introduced included Sandy Jacquot, Director of Law and General Counsel for the League of Kansas Municipalities; Steve Cadue, Tribal Chairman of the Kickapoo Tribe of Kansas; Anna Lambertson, citizen; Melinda Lewis, Director of Policy Advocacy and Research for El Centro, Inc.; Arthur Solis, citizen; and Chaplain Rene Tario, Executive Advisor for the Wichita Hispanic Ministerial Alliance. Written testimony in opposition of the bill was provided by Bob Halloran, City Manager of Garden City, Kansas and Richard Meza, Regional Counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
In my opinion, I can sum up HB 2140 in three words: intolerant, discriminatory, and divisive. So one has to ask who are the people that support the English Only agenda?
It is a broad variety of people:
1. Citizens who want to preserve our common language and avoid ethnic strife
2. Bigots seeking to roll back civil rights advances for language-minority groups
3. Conservatives hoping to impose a sense of national unity and civic responsibility
4. Liberals who fear that bilingual education and bilingual voting discourage assimilation
5. Nativists trying to fan animosity toward immigrants and build support for tighter quotas
6. Euro-ethnics who resent "unfair advantages" enjoyed by Hispanics and Asians today
7. Politicians attempting to exploit a national mood of isolationism and xenophobia
8. Racists who equate multiculturalism and ethnic separatism
9. Americans who feel threatened by diversity, among other unsetting changes
10. All of the above
As someone who has worked in language acquisition for over 20 years, these ill-conceived “English Only” laws do nothing to help integrate new immigrants into our society, but put up blocks which prevent the full participation of immigrants in the democratic process and allow racists to feel morally superior.
"English Only" laws, which declare English to be the state’s official language and bar government employees from providing non-English language assistance and services, are inconsistent with both the First Amendment right to communicate with or petition the government, and the right to equality. They are also unnecessary and sometimes even dangerous to both individuals and the public. Currently enforced in eighteen states, some "English Only" laws are written so broadly that they forbid non-English government services such as assistance to recipients of benefits, applications for drivers' licenses, and bilingual education.
Current "English Only" laws are based on the false premise that today's immigrants who come from Asian and Spanish-speaking countries will not learn English without government coercion. In fact, the vast majority of Asian and Latino immigrants are acquiring proficiency in English just as quickly, if not faster, than earlier generations of Italian, Russian and German immigrants. Moreover, only 4% of the U.S. population over the age of five does not speak English.
Compare this with some historical data provided by the US Census Department. From 1850 to 1930, the foreign-born population of the United States increased from 2.2 million to 14.2 million, reflecting large-scale immigration from Europe during most of this period. As a percentage of the total population, the foreign-born population rose from 9.7 percent in 1850 and fluctuated in the 13 percent to 15 percent range from 1860 to 1920 before dropping to 11.6 percent in 1930. The highest percentages foreign born were 14.4 percent in 1870, 14.8 percent in 1890 and 14.7 percent in 1910. Today, 35.3 million people are foreign born or 8.2% of the population (2005 American Community Survey). So there are fewer foreign born people in the US today than there was from 1850 through 1930.
So why do we now feel that we have to make English the official language? Why wasn’t it done 1890 or 1910 when a very real and present danger to English existed in the country?
Simple answer --- people weren’t afraid of people who didn’t speak English. If 14% of the population were speaking other languages, then everyone probably knew someone who did not speak English very well. Of the 35.3 million foreign born immigrants in the US today, only 84% speak a language other than English in their homes and of those, 40% report to speaking English “very well.”
The problem is not that immigrants are unwilling to learn English, but that there are not enough available educational resources for them. Today, many thousands of immigrants throughout the country are on the waiting lists for adult English classes. English-only laws do nothing constructive to increase English proficiency, they simply discriminate against and punish those who have not yet learned English or who weren’t fortunate enough to be born in an English speaking country to begin with.
Scientific facts:
Educational research has show that it takes 3 - 5 years for a language learner to acquire oral language proficiency and another 5 - 7+ years to acquire cognitive academic abilities in the second language.
Cognitive academic abilities are those skills needed to succeed in school - ability to summarize, take notes, analyze an academic text and determine what it is saying; be able to read technical language as in a science book or computer programming manual; write a book review or term paper, etc.
In order for native speakers of English to be ready to read, research has shown that a child will need to have an oral vocabulary of 2,500 words when they enter Kindergarten and have other skills like concepts of print (that a comic books is different from a newspaper) have letter name/sound correspondence and phonemic awareness. A kindergartener will have, on average, a receptive - recognize the words when spoken - and productive - use the word in their conversations - vocabulary of 5,000; a 4th grader 8,000 and a 6th grader 21,000. (National Reading Panel)
In contrast, language learners who are “proficient” in their spoken English only have a vocabulary of 3,000+ words and it takes as long as 3 - 5 years to get to that point. Why? Because the people wanting to dictate English as the official language do everything in their power to also cut funding from the education budget that would provide intensive English language services to immigrant populations. So, I once again ask, why is this an issue that the Kansas legislature feels we must take up? It is nothing more than the fear mongers of the right once again scapegoating
a population for ills they are unwilling to address.
Surely with the health crisis that is facing our state as our graying population retires and coupled with that Bush’s proposed cuts to Medicare and Medicade, we should be spending energy on the real crisis of health care. But once again the reactionary right is forcing us to waste time, money and energy on a “crisis” that only exists in their imaginations to enshrine another of their fears into law that diminishes the American Dream for all of us.
Fear of the Other
Originally read on 8 February 2007
by Christopher E. Renner
Sometimes I wonder just how we make it as a nation. This past week has seen some really great examples of how our education system is apparently failing our nation.
In Boston police mistook a child’s toy as a possible homemade bomb and shut down large sectors of the city. It was later revealed that it was a marketing ploy. Now I ask you, where were the police’s critical thinking skills? It was a blunder that I am not going to allow to be written off as part of the national hysteria about terrorism. The police made a mistake, a very dumb mistake. As tens of thousands of people, if not 100,000s of people had their lives interrupted because of the philosophy of fear which the current administration and those who support it have perpetrated on our nation.
As has been the case with most of our “preparedness” efforts following 9-11, reason has been low on the list of priorities to have. Rather than using rational thought to analyze and determine if something is, in fact, a bomb or a toy, we instantly jump to conclusions which are base on fear and reaction.
To quote Benjamin Franklin: “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
Last week, Boston showed how unsafe we are -- FROM OURSELVES! If anything the whole affair in Boston made me wonder if we can defend ourselves from another 9-11 type attack. If the police can’t tell a bomb from a marketing ploy, are we safe?
Closer to home, Representative Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe - who is considered one of the most conservative members of the Legislature. - introduced House Bill 2299. This bill, should it become law, would prohibit municipalities and counties in the state from establishing Domestic Partner Registries. Rep. Kinzer introduced his bill after the Lawrence City Commission gave an affirmative review to the establishment of such a domestic partner registry in Lawrence.
A domestic partnership is a legal or personal relationship between individuals who live together and share a common domestic life but are not joined in a traditional marriage, a common-law marriage, or a civil union.
Domestic partnership was conceived to help bridge the disparity that exists for same-sex couples and create greater equality. In 1982, the Village Voice became the first private business to offer its employees domestic partnership benefits. In 1984, Berkeley, California enacted a domestic partnership registry, which allows same-sex couples of the municipality to register their relationships. The District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, and California have established state-wide registries. An additional 70 local government units across the nation have do so at the local level.
Domestic partnership policies vary greatly depending on their intended purpose. Most city and county domestic partnership registries are simply registration systems that confer no benefits or responsibilities on either partner but provide couples with a way to officially register their relationship with the municipality. Since the goal of most employer domestic partnership policies is to create greater equality in the workplace, most provide at least some benefits, such as bereavement leave and emergency medical leave. Many provide LGBT couples with the option of obtaining health insurance and pension benefits for their partners.
The Lawrence domestic partnership registry would not automatically grant the legal rights that married couples have to gay or lesbian couples. The registry also would not automatically require the city or private employers to begin offering health care benefits to employees’ domestic partners as granted for spouses.
But Rep. Kinzer doesn’t want any chances. His bill would make it illegal for any municipal or county government to set up domestic partner registries in the state. Now I ask, aren’t conservatives supposed to be against “big government”? Isn’t this “big Government” in action. The state micro-managing municipalities in order that one’s man’s religious ideology can become the law of the land.
IT is wrong! Rep. Kinzer’s proposed bill is outrageous. It is nothing but thinly vailed bigotry being turned into law, just like the Kansas Marriage Amendment was.
Then across the Capitol in the Senate chambers, the Federal and State Affairs Committee held hearings that would add “sexual orientation” to the Kansas Act Against Discrimination which would prohibit discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations.
Our Senator Roger Reitz serves on that committee and engaged Rep. Janice Pauls, in what was surely one of the more intellectual discussions that chamber has seen. Rep Pauls is something of an abnormality in that she is a right-wing Democrat from Hutchinson,
Rep Pauls said that you can’t tell whether people are homosexual by looking at then and that as such they shouldn’t be included with the other protected groups such as race or religion.
Senator Rietz challenged Rep Pauls asking whether religion should be protected because “you can’t tell if someone is Jewish by looking at them.” Pushed further rep. Pauls said that homosexuals are not a group that has been discriminated against.” Well Rep Pauls, for a women who claims to hold the highest religious morals, apparently she too missed those lessons on critical thinking I mentioned earlier. The committee was presented with numerous examples of discrimination including personal testimony and a recent (2005) study that documented 121 cases of discrimination against gay and lesbian Topekans of which 15 percent reported being fired from their jobs when their sexual orientation became known.
State Sen. Roger Reitz, disagreed with Rep Pauls saying it was wrong for people to be denied work because of their sexual orientation.
“It is incredibly unfair and offends my sense of justice,” he said.
I am so thankful that Manhattan and Junction City is represented by Senator Rietz and commend him for his courage and forthrightness in dealing with such an irrational person.
by Christopher E. Renner
Sometimes I wonder just how we make it as a nation. This past week has seen some really great examples of how our education system is apparently failing our nation.
In Boston police mistook a child’s toy as a possible homemade bomb and shut down large sectors of the city. It was later revealed that it was a marketing ploy. Now I ask you, where were the police’s critical thinking skills? It was a blunder that I am not going to allow to be written off as part of the national hysteria about terrorism. The police made a mistake, a very dumb mistake. As tens of thousands of people, if not 100,000s of people had their lives interrupted because of the philosophy of fear which the current administration and those who support it have perpetrated on our nation.
As has been the case with most of our “preparedness” efforts following 9-11, reason has been low on the list of priorities to have. Rather than using rational thought to analyze and determine if something is, in fact, a bomb or a toy, we instantly jump to conclusions which are base on fear and reaction.
To quote Benjamin Franklin: “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
Last week, Boston showed how unsafe we are -- FROM OURSELVES! If anything the whole affair in Boston made me wonder if we can defend ourselves from another 9-11 type attack. If the police can’t tell a bomb from a marketing ploy, are we safe?
Closer to home, Representative Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe - who is considered one of the most conservative members of the Legislature. - introduced House Bill 2299. This bill, should it become law, would prohibit municipalities and counties in the state from establishing Domestic Partner Registries. Rep. Kinzer introduced his bill after the Lawrence City Commission gave an affirmative review to the establishment of such a domestic partner registry in Lawrence.
A domestic partnership is a legal or personal relationship between individuals who live together and share a common domestic life but are not joined in a traditional marriage, a common-law marriage, or a civil union.
Domestic partnership was conceived to help bridge the disparity that exists for same-sex couples and create greater equality. In 1982, the Village Voice became the first private business to offer its employees domestic partnership benefits. In 1984, Berkeley, California enacted a domestic partnership registry, which allows same-sex couples of the municipality to register their relationships. The District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, and California have established state-wide registries. An additional 70 local government units across the nation have do so at the local level.
Domestic partnership policies vary greatly depending on their intended purpose. Most city and county domestic partnership registries are simply registration systems that confer no benefits or responsibilities on either partner but provide couples with a way to officially register their relationship with the municipality. Since the goal of most employer domestic partnership policies is to create greater equality in the workplace, most provide at least some benefits, such as bereavement leave and emergency medical leave. Many provide LGBT couples with the option of obtaining health insurance and pension benefits for their partners.
The Lawrence domestic partnership registry would not automatically grant the legal rights that married couples have to gay or lesbian couples. The registry also would not automatically require the city or private employers to begin offering health care benefits to employees’ domestic partners as granted for spouses.
But Rep. Kinzer doesn’t want any chances. His bill would make it illegal for any municipal or county government to set up domestic partner registries in the state. Now I ask, aren’t conservatives supposed to be against “big government”? Isn’t this “big Government” in action. The state micro-managing municipalities in order that one’s man’s religious ideology can become the law of the land.
IT is wrong! Rep. Kinzer’s proposed bill is outrageous. It is nothing but thinly vailed bigotry being turned into law, just like the Kansas Marriage Amendment was.
Then across the Capitol in the Senate chambers, the Federal and State Affairs Committee held hearings that would add “sexual orientation” to the Kansas Act Against Discrimination which would prohibit discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations.
Our Senator Roger Reitz serves on that committee and engaged Rep. Janice Pauls, in what was surely one of the more intellectual discussions that chamber has seen. Rep Pauls is something of an abnormality in that she is a right-wing Democrat from Hutchinson,
Rep Pauls said that you can’t tell whether people are homosexual by looking at then and that as such they shouldn’t be included with the other protected groups such as race or religion.
Senator Rietz challenged Rep Pauls asking whether religion should be protected because “you can’t tell if someone is Jewish by looking at them.” Pushed further rep. Pauls said that homosexuals are not a group that has been discriminated against.” Well Rep Pauls, for a women who claims to hold the highest religious morals, apparently she too missed those lessons on critical thinking I mentioned earlier. The committee was presented with numerous examples of discrimination including personal testimony and a recent (2005) study that documented 121 cases of discrimination against gay and lesbian Topekans of which 15 percent reported being fired from their jobs when their sexual orientation became known.
State Sen. Roger Reitz, disagreed with Rep Pauls saying it was wrong for people to be denied work because of their sexual orientation.
“It is incredibly unfair and offends my sense of justice,” he said.
I am so thankful that Manhattan and Junction City is represented by Senator Rietz and commend him for his courage and forthrightness in dealing with such an irrational person.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
