AALDEF Demands Justice for Iowa Student Disciplined for Protesting English Proficiency Testing

This press release was found at Angry Asian Man, I learned about the story via the Addicted to Race podcast.

Honor student deemed an English Language Learner for declaring Lao as her home language

New York, NY - The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), which is representing Iowa honors student Lori Phanachone, has called for the removal of all references to disciplinary action from her school record after she refused to take an English Language Learner (ELL) test. Ms. Phanachone was mislabeled an English Language Learner (ELL) after naming Lao as her home language.

Khin Mai Aung, the AALDEF staff attorney representing the student, said: "Lori Phanachone is an honor student who has excelled in mainstream classes throughout her life, and happens to speak Lao as her home language. Storm Lake has improperly conflated my client's knowledge of Lao with lack of fluency in English."

The Storm Lake School District, which did not assess Ms. Phanachone's English level when she enrolled two years ago, has since subjected her to a yearly test for ELLs. The 3.98 GPA senior did not receive English as a Second Language or other ELL services before moving to Storm Lake as a sophomore. Since matriculating in Storm Lake, Ms. Phanachone has excelled in advanced courses–all of which were taught in English. This year, she boycotted the yearly ELL test in protest. As a result, Ms. Phanachone was suspended for 3 days and threatened with the loss of National Honor Society membership, exclusion from school activities including the track team, prom and other extracurricular activities, as well as further disciplinary action.

Lori Phanachone said: "Storm Lake labeled me an English Language Learner when I enrolled without even bothering to test me. All I want is to continue my education without the school labeling me unfairly."

Among other things, AALDEF demands that the Storm Lake School District:

* Remove all references to Lori Phanachone's suspension and other disciplinary action from her school records;
* Assure in writing that it will not impose further disciplinary action on her;
* Clarify Storm Lake's procedures for classifying students as ELL upon enrollment;
* Explain how and why Lori Phanachone was classified as an ELL under Storm Lake's classification procedures; and
* Reclassify Lori Phanachone, and other affected students if appropriate under Iowa and federal law, as English proficient.

A message from the team at MomsRising

This came to me via the Anti-Racist Parenting blog:

At MomsRising we’re always looking out to make sure that mothers and families are treated fairly in our nation. The other day I saw a video that shocked me: Two young children crying, alone in a car, reaching out for their mother who’d been taken away by deputies wearing ski masks after being stopped for a minor traffic violation.[1] The images haven’t left me. A nightmare, right? Never in America? Wrong.

A local NBC news report described the incident through the eyes of a witness, “…the deputies were wearing ski masks and detained the children’s mother for about an hour while her children watched, crying.”[2]
Who’s in charge of these deputies!?

It turns out that the person in charge knew exactly what was going on. Sheriff Arpaio has been cited repeatedly for gross civil rights violations and racial profiling of both citizens and non-citizens in the name of immigration enforcement, and when questioned about his tactics, he said that under his jurisdiction, “it was not unusual for law enforcement officers to wear ski masks while on duty.”[2,3]

In the video the young girl is asked, “What did the sheriff tell you?” The little girl said, “To be quiet, but I couldn’t ’cause I wanted to go with my mommy.” [2] And here’s what Mary, a MomsRising team member said after seeing the video, “We may not all be on the same page about immigration policy, but we do all agree that children and mothers shouldn’t be treated this way.”

Regardless of where immigration policy stands, no one should be treated that way. We’ve all got to stand up against this inhumane treatment of families. This type of treatment of women and families simply isn’t acceptable.

*Watch the video and join us in urging the Department of Justice to investigate Sheriff Arpaio’s tactics at: http://www.momsrisingaction.org/o/1768/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26817

-Please forward this [post] to friends and family now so they too can take action too. We need to put a spotlight on this inhumane treatment with as many people paying attention as possible in order to get an investigation.

Together we can do something about this. Sheriff Arpaio is out of control in Maricopa County, Arizona, and it’s going to take all of us, and then some, standing up to say that this type of treatment has got to stop.
With over 2,700 lawsuits against him, a history of virulently anti-Latino and anti-immigrant tactics, and 40,000 felony warrants outstanding in his jurisdiction, Sheriff Arpaio has fostered a climate in which real criminals roam free while his deputies cross the line by using tactics that violate civil rights in the name of immigration enforcement.[4]

The voices of mothers are needed right now to say clearly that all mothers and children need to be treated with respect and fairness.

*Don’t forget to watch the video and sign on now to urge the U.S. Department of Justice investigate Sheriff Arpaio at: http://www.momsrisingaction.org/o/1768/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26817

Mothers taken away from young children by men in ski masks, and people being marched in shackles through town to electric fenced “tent cities” in the desert [5] crosses the line of humane treatment. Let’s help put a stop to this.

Thank you - Kristin, Joan, Katie, Dionna, Mary, Ariana, Anita, Ashley, Donna, Roz, Julia, and the MomsRising Team

[1] See the video and take action: http://www.momsrisingaction.org/o/1768/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26817

[2] February 5th, 2009: http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/2009/02/05/20090205motherarrested02052009-CR.html

[3] From “Paying the Price: The Impact of Immigration Raids on America’s Children”: Approximately five million children have an undocumented parent; however, the vast majority of these children are U.S. citizens and under the age of ten. Despite efforts to mitigate harm to children by changing the manner in which raids and other immigration enforcement actions are conducted, children continue to be placed in harm’s way.
[4] http://www.americasvoiceonline.org/page/content/sheriff
[5] February 5th, 2009: http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/2009/02/05/20090205motherarrested02052009-CR.html, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/opinion/04wed2.html , http://vivirlatino.com/2009/03/04/thousands-protest-racist-sheriff-joe-arpaio-in-arizona.php

p.s. MomsRising joins the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (http://www.ndlon.org), National Council of La Raza (http://www.nclr.org), America’s Voice (http://americasvoiceonline.org/page/content/sheriff), and many others in calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to begin a federal investigation into Sheriff Arpaio’s tactics.

Five Things White Activists Should Never Say

What do people think of this write-up? I got it from a livejournal post via facebook.

If I'm to be a white ally, I figure I should take some of the burden off people of color to explain what's wrong with some of the things white people say. With that in mind I've decided to compile a list of things that white people -- specifically, white activists -- should never say.

While reading this list, keep in mind that I'm drawing heavily from my own experience. There are plenty of fucked up things white people can say. However, with one exception I've decided to focus on blatantly racist comments that I've heard first hand. Also, I tend to mention anarchists a lot, because I used to be an anarchist, so I organized with other anarchists. This does not mean that white anarchists have a monopoly on racism. In many cases one could substitute the term social liberal or socialist for anarchist, and the point would still be applicable.

1. "They belong to that religion."

I have yet to visit an activist group with religious homogeneity. That said, in my experience certain religious views are more acceptable among activists than others. If a disproportionate number of the people who hold a religious stance are European or of European descent, the stance is acceptable. So it's okay to be an atheist, a pagan, or a Quaker. If a religious stance doesn't meet this criterion, it tends to be viewed with suspicion.

In the US white activists reserve scorn for the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) that they have for few other religious institutions. It would be outside the scope of this piece to argue that the RCC is good or bad. But I will point out that it's folly to treat Catholics as a monolithic, univocal group that stands opposite of everything activists believe in. Individual Catholics have differences of opinion on pretty much everything, and often membership to the church (as is the case with so many other religious institutions) has more to do with wanting to preserve family or community ties than with adhering to a certain set of doctrines. If white people don't want to alienate people of color from their organizing, they're going to have to learn to show more tolerance for the religions they adhere to.

2. "All nationalism is bad."

The idea that all nationalism, including ethnic nationalism, is bad is often rooted in anarchism, an ideology that was first propounded by European men in the nineteenth century and which since then has drawn more than its fair share of white thinkers. Even if we set this aside, white people who raise the "all nationalism is bad" objection often miss the point that the essence of ethnic nationalism has nothing to do with what anarchists mean by state and everything to do with racial or ethnic identity.

It's important to keep in mind that some people link themselves to a nation in order to express racial or ethnic identity rather than allegiance to a state. If white people can avoid doing this, this doesn't mean that they're all awesome anti-statists; rather it means that they have the privilege of being part of the group that is seen as the default racial or ethnic group. When white activists forget this, it's a disaster in the making. For example, I once saw an activist remove a poster from a wall, simply because it said (when translated), "I am as Puerto Rican as the coquí." The message, which should be obvious to anyone who claims to be anti-racist, has nothing to do with a particular state; it is that one's ethnic identity is something to be proud of.

3. "I know what it's like to face racist oppression; I face oppression too."

No, unless you've experienced racism you do not know what it's like to experience racism.

I used to find this response somewhat confusing. Surely, racist oppression isn't completely disanalogous to other kinds of oppression, right? After all, don't we use much the same vocabulary -- words like privilege, oppression, and intersectionality -- while discussing all kinds of oppression? And can't someone who faces one sort of opression gain insight into another by making a comparison? I think the answer to all these questions is a very cautious yes -- cautious because there's a danger lurking just around the corner. If comparing racist oppression to your oppression helps you realize that something you said or did was racist, then it's probably a good thing that you made the comparison. Even so, before you share your insight with the world you should run it by someone who faces both kinds of oppression, because no matter how oppressed or well-intentioned you may be, you're still coming from a perspective of white privilege and you may be wrong about something crucial. Better yet, start reading the works of people who face multiple kinds of oppression and let them guide you into appropriate analogies.

The danger of white people's comparisons is that often the only "insight" gained from analogy is that because the white people making it are oppressed, they can never be racist. This denies one of the central components of anti-oppression work which is that the oppressed have unique insight into their oppression by virtue of having experienced the oppression, including the ways in which it is disanalogous to other kinds of oppression. This is important, because it may be that it was just these disanalogous elements were at play when you said what you did five minutes ago and that what you said is therefore racist for reasons you don't understand. Not incidentally, the unique knowledge that an oppressed group has is known as the epistemic privilege of the oppressed. If your goal is to eliminate inequality, you don't want to appropriate one of the few kinds of privilege that oppressed people have, do you?

Though many examples of analogies gone wrong could be listed, I'll give only one here -- one that's limited to activist circles. Some activists are inclined to make statements like, "I know what it's like to be black; I'm an anarchist." I think what often happens is that white activists identify one sort of oppression, such as state oppression, as the Big Evil. They don't see that other oppressive forces besides the Big Evil are at work and therefore they fail to see that some people face oppression that they don't comprehend. If you're white and have gone to jail for political reasons, that is unfortunate, but this does not mean you know what it's like to be a person of color. As a white person, you have the privilege of choosing whether or not to engage in political activities that may land you in jail; people of color can abstain from such activities and still end up in jail simply for being people of color. As a white person, you will probably be treated better in jail than a person of color who is your counterpart. As a white person, you don't know what it's like to experience the racist oppression people of color experience outside of jail. As a white person, you don't know what it's like to be a person of color in white activists' space, hearing white people say that they know exactly what it's like to experience racist oppression. In short it is incredibly myopic to think that one point of (apparent) commonality gives white people insight into what it's like to be people of color.

4. "If we focus on this other kind of oppression, racism will disappear."

In the previous section I noted a tendency of white people to fail to see any oppression outside of the oppression they consider the Big Evil. In a related phenomenon white people will, while perhaps acknowledging that orther kinds oppression exist, argue that without the Big Evil other forms of oppression would not exist. Therefore anyone who confronts other kinds of oppression is only treating symptoms; the only cure for society's ills is to fight the Big Evil. The Big Evil could be statism, sexism, or any number of other things, but I'd like to focus on classism, because in my experience it's named as the Big Evil in activist circles more than anything else.

If this piece were about the oppressions I face, you'd see I have a lot to say against classism. However, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to focus on it here. All too often white activists derail conversations about racism by bringing up classism. The problem with white activists' saying that racism reduces to classism is that it is an attempt to keep people of color from directly confronting their oppression so that they will instead confront an oppression that directly affects white people.

To support the claim that racism reduces to classism some white activists point out that in the US at least racist institutions were established as a part of divide-and-conquer scheme to keep the working class from rising up against the upper class. Setting aside the fact that this gives an account of only some racist insitutions (the expansion that drove Native Americans west, for example, was already well underway), the argument presupposes that if working class white people had not bought into the view that they were superior to their black counterparts, they may have succeeded in revolting against the upper class. In other words white people's racism prevented the demise of classism. I do not mean to say that we should make a reversal and say that generally speaking classism is reducible to racism. However, I do mean to say that racism is a problem in its own right.

5. "There are no people of color in our activist group; let's go to a meeting of people of color and invite them to join our group."

Many white activists have the impression that they have arrived. They think they no longer have any racist bullshit they need to work on. Therefore if people of a particular racial or ethnic group don't want to work with them, it must be because they have yet to be informed the awesomeness that is their group of white activists.

There's a reason I'm putting this remark last. I hope that after even a small sampling of racist comments white activists make -- there are many others that aren't included here -- it's apparent just how ridiculous it is to think that the only matter keeping people of various ethnic and racial minorities out of a given activist group is a lack of information. If an organization has disproportionately few people of color as members, it's often because people of color don't see how it benefits them, and that is often because the organization has racist tendencies that it has yet to address.

Perhaps the bigger problem with this remark is that it's blatantly tokenizing. The people who make it aren't primarily interested in forming a diverse coalition to confront the problems that people of color face; if they were, they'd visit the meeting of the people of color regularly and ask them how they could help without expecting glory for themselves or their organization. Instead they want to use people of color to make their activist group more diverse. They are making one more thing -- segregation itself! -- the responsibility of people of color.

Barriers on the Border

The US Department of Homeland Security has been rushing to complete 670 miles of border barriers by the end of 2008. DHS plans to install nearly 110 miles of 18 foot high concrete and steel structures along the Texas/Mexico border, but something has put construction behind schedule: local opposition. In this exclusive FSRN documentary, we travel with Shannon Young to the Texas-Mexico border to hear from locals about their take on the physical barrier slated to divide the region's sister cities.

Listen to it here.

New Jersey 7

From Free Speech Radio News.

What happens when our country's preoccupations with race, gender, and sexuality combine in one legal case? This holiday, we bring you an in-depth look at the New Jersey Seven, a group of women who went out for a night on the town, and wound up spending months in jail.

On August 18, 2006, seven young, Black, queer women went to the Christopher Street pier, a place known for being queer-friendly. That may be why 20-year-old Patreese Johnson didn't blink when a male stranger asked her, "Can I get some of that?"

Patreese handed him her coffee cup. Then she realized he was pointing at her crotch.

The man, Dwayne Buckle, shouted homophobic remarks. He made violent threats. And then he followed the women as they walked away.

Then there was a scuffle.

The women say that Buckle punched three of them in the face, threw a lit cigarette, and yanked out one woman's hair extension. During the fray, Buckle also got stabbed.

Initially, Buckle claimed that he was stabbed by two men – onlookers who got involved in the fight. But Patreece Johnson had a small steak knife on her, and police didn't investigate Buckle's claim.

The media reports that followed said "savage lesbian gangs" were "attacking men" on the street. Buckle himself was never charged with any crime, but Patreece Johnson is serving an 8-year prison sentence, and her companions have all spent at least six months in jail. Today, Puck Lo brings us the story of the New Jersey 7.

Listen to the audio by clicking this link.

Katrina's Hidden Race War, part 2

Katrina's Hidden Race War, part 1

Take Back the Halloween!

From Racialicious. Check it out for pictures, links, comments and the rest of the article.

Mainstream North American culture likes to define itself as cultureless, but Halloween is a very cultural practice. Not only is it a little weird (Just look at it from the point of view of an outsider. Send your kids out to strangers’ houses and tell them to ask for candy? Decorate your house like a graveyard? Dress up like a sexy version of a public health worker?) it is also based on difference - the point of Halloween is to dress up as “something different.” So how do people who are often made to feel visually different - you know, like people of colour - experience Halloween? The average Halloween costume tells us a lot about what we culturally consider to be abnormal.

It tells us that dressing up in an overtly sexy way is taboo - in other words, that we’re a pretty sex-negative people. It tells us that we are obsessed with strict gender categories - because most little boys and girls have to choose very gender-coded costumes, but also because for many young people Halloween is the one time they can experiment with gender in a socially sanctioned way.

And if dressing up as “something different” can typically involve wearing geisha make-up, a Native headdress, bling, or a turban, Halloween tells us that our cultural norm is a middle-class, North American, white person.

Immigrant Women, Seeking Status Adjustment, Face Forced Vaccination

From RH Reality Check by Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas and Emily Alexander.

This July, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced new requirements, including five new vaccinations for individuals seeking adjustment of immigration status. One of these vaccinations is Gardasil, the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. Gardasil, manufactured by Merck, is the only HPV vaccine in the U.S.--also the most expensive vaccine on the market and the only vaccine to be approved for use in only one sex. The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is the only federal body that makes recommendations about immunizations; the committee's recommendations serve as the template that USCIS uses to determine immunization requirements for immigration procedures. These new requirements put increased barriers and additional burdens on women's access to adjustment of immigration status and applications for visas to enter the U.S. and stoke the already reverberating anxieties among communities of color about the HPV vaccine.

Most immigration applicants are currently required to undergo a medical exam by a certified "civil surgeon." These civil surgeons complete an I-693 medical examination and vaccination record. The new regulations that require the HPV vaccine apply to female applicants between the ages of 11 to 26. This is the only sex-specific vaccination requirement, putting particular burden on immigrant women applying for a visa or adjustment of status, further marginalizing a group that already has reduced access to health information and services that are affordable, accessible and culturally and linguistically competent.

According to the Census, there are approximately 17.5 million immigrant women in the United States today, 3 million of whom are undocumented, and 16 percent that live in poverty. These women encounter obstacles to employment and health access; they also face violence and discrimination. Immigrant rights and reproductive justice are intrinsically linked because the reproductive health of immigrant women is profoundly affected by immigration policy. For women seeking adjustment of status, the USCIS' additional vaccine requirements create tremendous barriers to one of the many steps towards a pathway to citizenship.

While women of color, many who are immigrants, face disproportionate rates of cervical cancer in the U.S. (Latina women get cervical cancer at twice the rate of white women; and Vietnamese women get cervical cancer at five-times the rate of white women), efforts should be made to increase access and education about HPV and the vaccine, rather than creating further impediments to the already onerous immigration process. The HPV vaccine is out of reach for many women with its high price tag: at a minimum, it costs $360 for the three shot regimen. Publicly-funded access to the HPV vaccine varies state-to-state, although all low-income adolescents between the ages of 9 through 19 who are either uninsured, Medicaid-eligible, American Indian, or Alaska Native, have access to the vaccine through the federal Vaccines for Children (VFC) program. Immigrant women over the age of 19 may have greater challenges in obtaining the vaccine. According to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and Uninsured and the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), between 45% and 51% of immigrants lack health coverage in the US. The lack of health insurance, coupled with the high cost of the vaccine, limits access to the vaccine for low-income immigrant women. In addition, for immigration visa applicants abroad, the global availability and accessibility of the vaccine is questionable.

States also use the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations when developing their own vaccine requirements for school entry. Calls for state school mandate bills for this vaccine seem to have calmed down, allowing advocates the opportunity to provide much-needed education and advocacy around HPV and cervical cancer prevention. Now this new requirement threatens that critical work.

Instead of mandating vaccines for immigrant women's bodies, the U.S. government should increase access to health information and services that are unbiased, age-appropriate, culturally-competent and non-coercive. Mandating a vaccine that specifically targets young non-citizen women is both sexist and xenophobic. It will only add to the current anxieties among many communities of color about the vaccine and the government's interest in vaccinating a particular community, in this case, immigrant women.