Category: Uncategorized

By Nick Braune

Although there has been a flood of articles commemorating the tenth anniversary of the Columbine High School tragedy, lamenting the violence of youth, maybe a little different perspective might be permissible too.

I was living in South Dakota at the time, where I was a minor presence in the legislature as a lobbyist on peace and justice issues. I watched the legislature closely for three years, and I watched them solemnly “upping” (toughening) the sentences for this and that offense, always “sending a message” that evil actions would not be tolerated. The Clinton years were very punitive: they killed a half million Iraqis through sanctions and made our prisons swell like sores.

It was a particularly harsh decade for children. Hillary and Bill, who believed it takes a village to raise children, were advocating school uniforms early in the 1990s but basically settled for prison uniforms. The “trying youth as adults” fad was intense throughout the decade. I wrote a one-act play — it was performed in a few places — about a kid in South Dakota who received a “life in prison with no parole” sentence for a crime he did as a 14-year-old.

It’s a true story. The boy, Paul Jensen, trying to impress an adventuresome 18-year-old who was sleeping with Paul’s mother, became totally confused about what it meant to be grown-up, shot a cab driver on orders from the 18-year-old father figure, and is in prison today, where, I suppose, he will stay forever. The prosecutors and the press called him a “predator,” and the trial was a slam dunk. He did wrong, and everyone wanted to “send a message” to other youth not to do wrong.

There are only five countries in the world which give the sentence “life in prison with no parole” to children. According to a Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International joint report in 2005, Barbados allows that sentence, but the report did not state how many were in prison there with the sentence. Tanzania had one person in prison under that sentence. South Africa had four. Israel had seven, and the United States had 2,200 people in prison for life with no parole who had committed the crime before turning 18. (This sentence, which Alexander Cockburn calls the “living death” sentence, incidentally violates the international conventions on the rights of children, which the U.S. has refused to sign.)

Also in those Clinton years we saw a cancerous growth of “boot camps” being set up around the country, “tough love” centers, where the children were humiliated, screamed at, and tortured to make them better. When I lived in South Dakota, a 14-year-old girl, Gina Score, who had shoplifted some petty items, was trapped in a boot camp (to modify her behaior) and was killed. An interesting book on boot camps, although it only scratches the surface, is American Gulag: Secret P.O.W. Camps for Teens, by Alexia Parks.

In my opinion, Columbine is the symbol not of youth violence but rather of a very cruel decade toward children: Paul Jensen in prison for life without parole, shoplifter Gina Score in a grave, the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children dead because of sanctions, the children burned to death by the Clintons in Waco, children sentenced to execution, children dead in Columbine. If any readers would like to examine two interesting sociology books studying our negative and exaggerated attitudes toward youth in the 1990s, I suggest Mike Males’ wonderful studies, Framing Youth and Scapegoat Generation — I love those book titles. (Available from Common Courage Press.)

* * * * * * * * *

The following related piece, “The Criminal Justice System and Kids: One Dad’s Story,” appeared in my column in the Mid-Valley Town Crier, April 12, 2009 — N.B.

While chit-chatting with everyone this week about April being the tenth anniversary of the Columbine High School massacre, I learned that Randy Jarvis (a Sociology and Criminal Justice faculty member at South Texas College) has a perspective much like mine — but with a special personal side. I asked for an interview.

Braune: As you know, I am miffed that America began locking up more and more youth starting in the 1990s, and I think the fad about “trying youth as adults” has been disastrous. The media began labeling children as “dangerous,” as “predators,” as “lacking in consciences,” and then after Columbine, we began turning high schools into little jails. Youth could not be trusted. If I understand correctly, your son was hit by a false accusation right after Columbine. Please, fill us in.

Jarvis: Two days after the Columbine incident, my son (at Burlington High School in Iowa) had some lead shot in his book bag. I had purchased a smelting pot for making fishing weights, and he was transporting the shot to his grandmother’s house where the smelter was located. Another student in his class saw the lead shot and asked what it was, and my son told him. The other student made a comment to my son that this could be used to make a bomb and my son replied “I guess you could.” The student immediately told a teacher about “bomb-making materials” in the book bag.

The school police officer was immediately notified [there is more about school police later] and my son was arrested, charged as an adult, and taken to jail.

Braune: The press and prosecutors went bananas?

Jarvis: Oh yes, the news media, hyped by Columbine, plastered his school picture in the newspaper and on all four local channels and the next morning were present at my son’s arraignment. I had money ready to bail him out. But this was not to happen — the local prosecutor grandstanded, claiming my son was a danger to society and should be held without bond. The judge, reacting to the cameras, agreed and increased the bond to one million dollars.

I retained a good attorney who immediately asked for a psychological evaluation to determine if my son was a danger, giving us some time for the hype to calm down, so he was sent to a state mental institution for evaluation. After a month, the psychiatrist determined that my son was no danger to anyone and should be returned to the judicial system.

Because we got a different judge from a month earlier, I thought the nightmare was over. But this was not the case. In the court hearing, the school police officer showed up with a document, electronically signed by the vice-principal, showing that my son had been expelled from school. According to this document, a copy had been sent to his mother, the guidance counselor, the principal, the police officer, and me. But the document was dated the same day as our court appearance.

Then the chief jailer/police officer was placed on the stand, who even claimed that my son was convicted of drug crimes in Henderson County, Illinois, clear evidence that my son was a danger to the community. Our attorney asked for a recess until that afternoon to substantiate the claims. I rushed to Henderson County Court House and obtained an affidavit showing my son had never had any criminal history in the County. Our attorney went to the school and ascertained that the school did not even know about the expulsion notice and in fact the only copy that existed was the one presented in court.

Braune: Had the school police officer lied?

Jarvis: Apparently, it was discovered that he produced the document on the Vice-Principal’s computer early that morning without their knowledge. After we proved this, the judge admonished the two officers and the Assistant District Attorney and sent my son to the Juvenile Court where he belonged in the first place, releasing him to his mother and me. Soon my son was acquitted of the charges, but his reputation was damaged — with his name plastered all over the news beca
us
e he had been charged as an adult.

Braune: After the dust settled, did you receive an apology from the police, the school, the prosecutors, press, etc?

Jarvis: No one apologized for anything. After civil litigation the school finally privately apologized, but only because they wanted the litigation to end and refused to apologize publically.

Braune: I think your kid was lucky to have you in his corner.

Jarvis: He was very fortunate that I could get the ten thousand dollars needed for the attorney’s fee. Otherwise, my son would probably have received a court appointed attorney and probably would have been convicted as an adult, sentenced to ten to twenty years.

The international press is carrying the story of the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Jr., but they usually fail to give his full title: Alphonse Fletcher University Professor and Director of the W. E. B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research at Harvard University.

According to the AFP report: “Gates was seen by a passing woman to be attempting entry to the front door of his house — which was damaged — along with another black man, according to the police report from July 16.”

When police questioned Gates at his own home, he reportedly told them “this is what happens to black men in America.” He was arrested at his own home for allegedly being “loud and tumultuous” in his denunciations.

Has a person no right to protest?

The story of Gates’ arrest follows news about one imprisoned immigrant in South Texas who was indicted after being roughed up by authorities (see Nick Braune’s story below.)

We draw a comparison between what was done to Gates and Rama Carty. In both cases free expression was countered by official misuse of power. These two cases become the latest symptoms of a systemic disease.

As we watch for developments in both cases we also keep our watchwords close at hand. Today we take our watchwords from “Living Morally: A Psychology of Moral Character,” by Laurence Thomas.

“the desire not to be wronged by others is the most minimal attitude of positive regard that a self-respecting individual can have toward herself or himself.”

These two cases of official retaliation against Gates and Carty are obstructions to the right to be a self-respecting individual in America today. –gm

---

Here is an excerpt from Gates’ attorney as posted at The Root:

When Professor Gates opened the door, the officer immediately asked him to step outside. Professor Gates remained inside his home and asked the officer why he was there. The officer indicated that he was responding to a 911 call about a breaking and entering in progress at this address. Professor Gates informed the officer that he lived there and was a faculty member at Harvard University. The officer then asked Professor Gates whether he could prove that he lived there and taught at Harvard. Professor Gates said that he could, and turned to walk into his kitchen, where he had left his wallet. The officer followed him. Professor Gates handed both his Harvard University identification and his valid Massachusetts driver’s license to the officer. Both include Professor Gates’ photograph, and the license includes his address.

Professor Gates then asked the police officer if he would give him his name and his badge number. He made this request several times. The officer did not produce any identification nor did he respond to Professor Gates’ request for this information. After an additional request by Professor Gates for the officer’s name and badge number, the officer then turned and left the kitchen of Professor Gates’ home without ever acknowledging who he was or if there were charges against Professor Gates. As Professor Gates followed the officer to his own front door, he was astonished to see several police officers gathered on his front porch. Professor Gates asked the officer’s colleagues for his name and badge number. As Professor Gates stepped onto his front porch, the officer who had been inside and who had examined his identification, said to him, “Thank you for accommodating my earlier request,” and then placed Professor Gates under arrest. He was handcuffed on his own front porch.

See Also: Statement from Gates’ Attorney and link to police report at The Root.

Editor’s Note: Some good friends of the Texas Civil Rights Review have turned their focus to USA ratification of the UN Convention for the Rights of the Child (CRC). The following media advisory has been circulated to traditional press reps, but the group would also like to encourage coverage in the blogosphere.–gm

Why hasn’t the US ratified UN Convention for the Rights of the Child (CRC)?

Media Advisory

AUSTIN TX–November 20 marks the 20th anniversary of the most universally ratified of all UN human rights treaties with 193 members. Two UN member nations have abstained from ratification to date: the United States and the failed state of Somalia. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice has recently broached the subject of U.S. ratification, and Congressman John Lewis (D-Georgia) has introduced H.R. 416 which presses several human-rights issues, among them Senate ratification of Rights of the Child. It is time to correct this failure.

Rights of the Child USA is a coalition of organizations representing the interests of religious, education, health care, humanitarian, labor, legal, and social service communities nationwide with a focus on this single goal. Their activities will be reported at www.rightsofthechild.com.

But the story we highlight today is the reality behind our national failure to join the world community of good will in this action. It is this story that we ask you, the press, to highlight over the coming weeks. It encompasses complex issues, each deserving critical attention to help the American people understand their responsibility to act.

A few political organizations have succeeded in portraying the CRC as a threat to our families and our national sovereignty. Two decades of a Republican Congress, inspired by the largesse of such organizations as the Christian Coalition, Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and the National Center for Home Education, have effectively prevented the U.S. from joining — indeed, leading — the rest of the world in this essential initiative.

CRC simply provides guidelines to establish the basic respect a child deserves from all adults, whether relatives, teachers, or strangers. It has no power to require parents to alter their own beliefs; rather it seeks to create a climate in which any child can achieve his/her potential through a loving society. Because the treaty has been operational in most nations since 1990, a wealth of information is available to show its effect on participants (see links below).

We invite you, the Fourth Estate, to make November 2009 a special month for the child. Below are some questions we ask you to explore, with research links. We thank you for honoring your essential role by addressing the understandable fears of some Americans, thus lighting our path toward this important decision and helping us to reimagine our country’s priorities about childhood.

Questions:

What is the history and background of the Convention of the Rights of the Child?

FAQ from UN

AP article with comprehensive background info

UNICEF on CRC

How has CRC impacted countries that have adopted it?

Australia: A nation tending toward conservative leadership shows itself quite comfortable with the positive results from and lack of coercion exacted by CRC.

Child Rights Club in Zambia [pdf format]

And even in Hanoi!

How do children fare in the U.S.?

American Humane Assn: Annotated statistical summary of child life in America (2006).

Deportation by the U.S. government of some 90,000 unaccompanied Mexican children, dumped on border.

Pennsylvania judges charged with accepting $2.8 in kickbacks to send youths to private detention centers. AP October 30, 2009

Texas: 1201 deaths from child abuse 2001-07, other stats

How are our children doing compared with those of other countries?

Among the 30 member countries of the U.N. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, we’ve been rated 23rd in material well being, 24th in health and safety, and 25th in education [pdf format].

U.S. ranks number one for teen-age births?[pdf format]

How do the family values of anti-ROC organizations resonate with public policy?

Texas Freedom Network

For further research

US govt: America’s Children at a Glance

U. WS. DHHS Administration for Children and Families

Child Welfare Information Gateway

Children’s Defense Fund

The Campaign for U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

Amnesty International on CRC

CONTACT: Rights of the Child USA, Jay Johnson Castro, 830 734 8636, jay at villadelrio dot com

By Nick Braune

According to the McAllen paper, The Monitor, some 5,000 people in the Rio Grande Valley applied for jobs with the Border Patrol in the last four months. That it is not completely surprising since the agency pays almost $50,000 a year and has embarrassingly low entry-level requirements, a high school diploma. (Compare that to other federal enforcement agencies which require a college degree at minimum.)

As I have reported in previous columns, there has also been some question, arising from within their own ranks, about how well the new recruits are being screened and mentored. And The Monitor has also noted lately that there were four Border Patrol officers in the Valley arrested for felonies in 2008. Five, if you count the brother of one of the arrested agents. The brother is also in the Patrol and was arrested in neighboring Zapata County for taking $23,000 in bribes from drug traffickers. Four of the five arrested last year were involved in drug trafficking.

Why is it important to keep an eye on the Border Patrol? Well, it has been beefed up massively as part of the “virtual wall” initiated by the Bush crowd, a trend which probably will continue under Obama and his conflicted Homeland Security nominee, Janet Napolitano. And the Patrol’s rapid growth is also ominous because it is taking place during this unethical period of “criminalizing” immigrant labor violations. (“Search” for several other online articles about the Border Patrol and “Operation Streamline” in the Texas Civil Rights Review site.)

The Patrol has traditionally been hapless, and its mission unclear. Founded in 1924, its intended mission was not really to prevent Mexican immigrants, but European and Asian immigrants, from entering. Also worth noting is that it has always policed the working class – note its conflict recently with the California Day Laborers Organizing Network, which is accusing the Border Patrol of blatant profiling and operating on the basis of a quota. One often hears the chant “Abajo La Migra” in farm worker circles, and it makes sense: founded as part of the Labor Department and staying there for its first 16 years, the Border Patrol has always kept labor it its ken and served the employers.

During the 1930s it remained “poorly staffed, poorly equipped, poorly administered and largely disorganized.” (For this article I’m following Juan Ramon Garcia’s classic book, Operation Wetback, written in 1980.) And the Patrol soon developed an embarrassing reputation, which still survives in Border areas, that it will enforce the laws except when powerful interests, certain growers, don’t want it to. Even the Border Patrol’s clothing was inconsistent (generally lacking the usual military or police uniforms).

But in 1940, the Immigration and Naturalization Services was moved from the Labor Department to the Justice Department. Garcia explains that Roosevelt, when WWII was nearing, was worried about Italians and Germans entering the country, not Mexicans. However, the Patrol also did not even do well in WWII. Why? First, many agents wanted to join the real military and quit, depleting the ranks. But secondly, the government, during the war, was happy to have documented and undocumented Mexicans coming into the U.S. to work, freeing up other workers to go into the military, so the Patrol agents were held in limbo, reinforcing their do-nothing image. And lastly, no doubt it was a little unclear what kind of important national security or law enforcement role the Patrol played.

Although we might think that joining the Justice Department would have been an ego boost for the Patrol, actually it made them feel even more like a second-rate enforcement agency, compared to the famed and focused FBI, for instance. And Garcia notes that the Justice Department did little to promote the Patrol — it is not very glamorous tracking down hungry and unarmed people.

Often half-blindfolding itself, it let in enough undocumented workers to serve the growers’ interests while also making sure there were not too many immigrants. And Garcia says, “It was not unusual for them to allow undocumented workers to roam the Valley and concentrate their efforts on keeping the undocumented away from the industrial jobs up North.” Could this — controlling the flow of labor north — be the origin of today’s “checkpoints,” the ugly, racially profiling, permanent roadblocks on highways about 80 miles north of the Border? (There were no such checkpoints coming south from Canada.)

It was really not until “Operation Wetback,” a racist military operation in 1954, coordinated by General “Jumping Joe” Swing, that the Border Patrol started to get some recognition and status. (Swing, a “professional Mexican hater” who served with General Pershing chasing Pancho Villa decades before, ran a military style sweep and a flashy publicity campaign against “wetbacks.” (Even President Eisenhower used this crude term, although he apparently apologized for it once.) Interestingly, today we hear of “border security” keeping terrorists from coming up from Mexico; in 1954, they warned us of communist infiltrators coming over the border.

General Swing, within a few short months, scattered hundreds of thousands of Mexicans — he bragged it was well over a million — deep into Mexico. Today we would call it “ethnic cleansing.” A thousand people a day were moved in and out of the McAllen detention camp. Swing even used ships, one called The Constitution, to drop immigrants off in Vera Cruz, 800 miles from the Tex-Mex border. (According to Garcia, The Patrol kindly let those who were dropped off have at least three dollars with them when they reached a part of Mexico they had never seen before.)

After participating in that touted 1954 success, the Border Patrol began to be seen as a bit more “respectable,” in the sense that it was said to have been successful in something. The uniforms got spiffier. But it has always been considered seedy, in the pocket of business, and it has had an inferiority complex and a chip on its shoulder; and consequently, when we see rapidly growing numbers of agents in the Rio Grande Valley, with vans and green uniforms and side arms, we feel uneasy.

[Much of this article appeared in the Mid-Valley Town Crier.]

By Nick Braune
Mid-Valley Town Crier<br
by permission

Although I am a sourpuss and think President Obama is beholden to much the same crowd as was ex-President Bush, there are many people anticipating that things will change for the better soon. And so there is a resurgence of progressive activity going on, and that is good.

One source of optimism is that Michael Chertoff is gone as Homeland Security head. Two weeks ago, after another disturbing factory raid by ICE in Bellingham, Washington, Janet Napolitano, the new DHS chief, said publically that she had not even been informed the raid was going to happen and that she was ordering a full review of it. “I want to get to the bottom of this,” she said. It is not a clear message, but it provides a glimmer of hope that the recent workplace raids, dramatically handcuffing and imprisoning working people, might be softened in favor of restarting discussions about comprehensive immigration reform.

Interestingly, Napolitano also sent the Rio Grande Valley a signal last month. When Brownsville’s city commissioners had been pressured by Homeland Security to put up more border fencing right in the middle of an area that the city had planned for development, Napolitano stepped in, saying that she was not aware that a deadline had been given to the city and that she wanted to reconsider some of these projects. How far she will go is a mystery, but recent events have provided some hope.

Another sign of hope is that President Obama seems more favorable to labor organizing, and a press release I saw from a local uni*n group quotes Obama that labor is not “part of the problem but…part of the solution.”

Since I have not reported anything on labor recently, let me do that now.

Several weeks ago I reported attending an interesting anti-NAFTA event held by the Southwest Workers (SWU), which is based in San Antonio but also does work here in the Valley. SWU has started an organizing effort in Edinburg, trying to reach the school district’s bus drivers, cafeteria workers and other low income employees. I phone-interviewed organizer Anayanse Garza.

Braune: The SWU is trying to reach workers in Edinburg, but the district is balking. Is that correct?

Garza: Yes, we already have members, but we want more. But the ECISD (Edinburg School District) has been uncooperative. About a month ago, an assistant superintendant yelled at us, saying that if it were up to him there would be no uni*ns allowed. After we made his comments public, we had a series of meetings.

Braune: You certainly should have the right to organize.

Garza: Certainly, and we feel that the workers are being given false information and it is having an intimidating effect. Some are being told what we are doing is illegal. Some are being told it is against ECISD policy to be part of the SWU. Actually, it goes against ECISD policy to discourage us from getting members.

Braune: I know you had a rally in front of the school board last Tuesday night. What was your message there?

Garza: We were trying to inform the board about our continuing problems. We have met with a couple of board members but not with the whole board, and we have not spoken, even after about a month of this dispute, with the head of the school board. One of our SWU representatives and one of the bus drivers spoke at the public testimony session last night while the rest of us were rallying with signs outside. We told them that we want to have a meeting and that we have been trying to schedule a way to work out the problems. But so far today we have not gotten a call from them.

Braune: Your organization has experience with this sort of organizing; I take it what you immediately want is a fair opportunity to meet with the workers.

Garza: Yes, and we are surprised at the problems we are facing. The school district workers have mandated lunch and break time, and they discourage employees from leaving the campuses. So there are lunch rooms and meeting rooms where the workers congregate. We have simply asked that we can meet with them at the breaks on occasion. Part of the disinformation is that we want to interrupt the work time, which is not true. We simply want to visit during the breaks.

Another bit of disinformation is that we are demanding that we can just walk into the schools at any time. That is ridiculous. We would sign in at the desk like all other legitimate visitors. In other districts where we have members, we are able to meet with the workers in an orderly way with no problem.

We hope the ECISD School Board will hear us so that we may work together to correct these issues and help our schools, our families, and the community of Edinburg prosper as a whole.

Braune: Thanks for your work and the interview. Keep us informed how it is going.