Daily Archives: February 1, 2022

This 1870s engraving depicts an enslaved woman and young girl being auctioned as property.

Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group/Getty Images

Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries people were kidnapped from the continent of Africa, forced into slavery in the American colonies and exploited to work as indentured servants and labor in the production of crops such as tobacco and cotton. By the mid-19th century, Americas westward expansion and the abolition movement provoked a great debate over slavery that would tear the nation apart in the bloody Civil War. Though the Union victory freed the nations four million enslaved people, the legacy of slavery continued to influence American history, from the Reconstruction, to the civil rights movement that emerged a century after emancipationand beyond.

Hundreds of thousands of Africans, both free and enslaved, aided the establishment and survival of colonies in the Americas and the New World. However, many consider a significant starting point to slavery in America to be 1619, when the privateer The White Lion brought 20 enslaved African ashore in the British colony of Jamestown, Virginia. The crew had seized the Africans from the Portugese slave ship Sao Jao Bautista.

Throughout the 17th century, European settlers in North America turned to enslaved Africans as a cheaper, more plentiful labor source than indentured servants, who were mostly poor Europeans.

Though it is impossible to give accurate figures, some historians have estimated that 6 to 7 million enslaved people were imported to the New World during the 18th century alone, depriving the African continent of some of its healthiest and ablest men and women.

READ MORE:The Last Slave Ship Survivor Gave an Interview in the 1930s. It Just Surfaced

In the 17th and 18th centuries, enslaved Africans worked mainly on the tobacco, rice and indigo plantations of the southern coast, from the Chesapeake Bay colonies of Maryland and Virginia south to Georgia.

After the American Revolution, many colonistsparticularly in the North, where slavery was relatively unimportant to the agricultural economybegan to link the oppression of enslaved Africans to their own oppression by the British, and to call for slaverys abolition.

Did you know? One of the first martyrs to the cause of American patriotism was Crispus Attucks, a former enslaved man who was killed by British soldiers during the Boston Massacre of 1770. Some 5,000 Black soldiers and sailors fought on the American side during the Revolutionary War.

But after the Revolutionary War, the new U.S. Constitution tacitly acknowledged the institution of slavery, counting each enslaved individual as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of taxation and representation in Congress and guaranteeing the right to repossess any person held to service or labor (an obvious euphemism for slavery).

In the late 18th century, with the land used to grow tobacco nearly exhausted, the South faced an economic crisis, and the continued growth of slavery in America seemed in doubt.

Around the same time, the mechanization of the textile industry in England led to a huge demand for American cotton, a southern crop whose production was limited by the difficulty of removing the seeds from raw cotton fibers by hand.

But in 1793, a young Yankee schoolteacher named Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin, a simple mechanized device that efficiently removed the seeds. His device was widely copied, and within a few years the South would transition from the large-scale production of tobacco to that of cotton, a switch that reinforced the regions dependence on enslaved labor.

READ MORE:40 Years a Slave: The Extraordinary Tale of an African Prince Stolen from His Kingdom

Slavery itself was never widespread in the North, though many of the regions businessmen grew rich on the slave trade and investments in southern plantations. Between 1774 and 1804, all of the northern states abolished slavery, but the institution of slavery remained absolutely vital to the South.

Though the U.S. Congress outlawed the African slave trade in 1808, the domestic trade flourished, and the enslaved population in the United States nearly tripled over the next 50 years. By 1860 it had reached nearly 4 million, with more than half living in the cotton-producing states of the South.

An escaped enslaved man named Peter showing his scarred back at a medical examination in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1863.

Library of Congress

READ MORE:The Shocking Photo of 'Whipped Peter' That Made Slavery's Brutality Impossible to Deny

Enslaved people in the antebellum South constituted about one-third of the southern population. Most lived on large plantations or small farms; many masters owned fewer than 50 enslaved people.

Land owners sought to make their enslaved completely dependent on them through a system of restrictive codes. They were usually prohibited from learning to read and write, and their behavior and movement was restricted.

Many masters raped enslaved women, and rewarded obedient behavior with favors, while rebellious enslaved people were brutally punished. A strict hierarchy among the enslaved (from privileged house workers and skilled artisans down to lowly field hands) helped keep them divided and less likely to organize against their masters.

Marriages between enslaved men and women had no legal basis, but many did marry and raise large families; most owners of enslaved workers encouraged this practice, but nonetheless did not usually hesitate to divide families by sale or removal.

READ MORE: Enslaved Couples Faced Wrenching Separations, or Even Choosing Family Over Freedom

Rebellionsamong enslaved people did occurnotably ones led by Gabriel Prosser in Richmond in 1800 and by Denmark Vesey in Charleston in 1822but few were successful.

The revolt that most terrified enslavers was that led by Nat Turner in Southampton County, Virginia, in August 1831. Turners group, which eventually numbered around 75 Black men, murdered some 55 white people in two days before armed resistance from local white people and the arrival of state militia forces overwhelmed them.

Supporters of slavery pointed to Turners rebellion as evidence that Black people were inherently inferior barbarians requiring an institution such as slavery to discipline them, and fears of similar insurrections led many southern states to further strengthen their slave codes in order to limit the education, movement and assembly of enslaved people.

In the North, the increased repression of southern Black people only fanned the flames of the growing abolitionist movement.

From the 1830s to the 1860s, the movement to abolish slavery in America gained strength, led by free Black peoplesuch as Frederick Douglass and white supporters such as William Lloyd Garrison, founder of the radical newspaper The Liberator, and Harriet Beecher Stowe, who published the bestselling antislavery novel Uncle Toms Cabin.

While many abolitionists based their activism on the belief that slaveholding was a sin, others were more inclined to the non-religious free-labor argument, which held that slaveholding was regressive, inefficient and made little economic sense.

Free Black people and other antislavery northerners had begun helping enslaved people escape from southern plantations to the North via a loose network of safe houses as early as the 1780s. This practice, known as the Underground Railroad, gained real momentum in the 1830s. Conductors like Harriet Tubman guided escapees on their journey North, and stationmasters included such prominent figures as Frederick Douglass, Secretary of State William H. Seward and Pennsylvania congressman Thaddeus Stevens. Although estimates vary widely, it may have helped anywhere from 40,000 to 100,000 enslaved people reach freedom.

The success of the Underground Railroad helped spread abolitionist feelings in the North; it also undoubtedly increased sectional tensions, convincing pro-slavery southerners of their northern countrymens determination to defeat the institution that sustained them.

READ MORE: How the Underground Railroad Worked

WATCH:Missouri Compromise

Americas explosive growthand its expansion westward in the first half of the 19th centurywould provide a larger stage for the growing conflict over slavery in America and its future limitation or expansion.

In 1820, a bitter debate over the federal governments right to restrict slavery over Missouris application for statehood ended in a compromise: Missouri was admitted to the Union as a slave state, Maine as a free state and all western territories north of Missouris southern border were to be free soil.

Although the Missouri Compromise was designed to maintain an even balance between slave and free states, it was able to help quell the forces of sectionalism only temporarily.

WATCH:Kansas-Nebraska Act

In 1850, another tenuous compromise was negotiated to resolve the question of slavery in territories won during the Mexican-American War.

Four years later, however, the Kansas-Nebraska Act opened all new territories to slavery by asserting the rule of popular sovereignty over congressional edict, leading pro- and anti-slavery forces to battle it outwith considerable bloodshedin the new state of Kansas.

Outrage in the North over the Kansas-Nebraska Act spelled the downfall of the old Whig Party and the birth of a new, all-northern Republican Party. In 1857, the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court (involving an enslaved man who sued for his freedom on the grounds that his master had taken him into free territory) effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise by ruling that all territories were open to slavery.

In 1859, two years after the Dred Scott decision, an event occurred that would ignite passions nationwide over the issue of slavery.

John Browns raid on Harpers Ferry, Virginiain which the abolitionist and 22 men, including five Black men and three of Browns sons raided and occupied a federal arsenalresulted in the deaths of 10 people and Browns hanging.

The insurrection exposed the growing national rift over slavery: Brown was hailed as a martyred hero by northern abolitionists, but was vilified as a mass murderer in the South.

The South would reach the breaking point the following year, when Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln was elected as president. Within three months, seven southern states had seceded to form the Confederate States of America; four more would follow after the Civil War began.

A map of the United States that shows 'free states,' 'slave states,' and 'undecided' ones, as it appeared in the book 'American Slavery and Colour,' by William Chambers, 1857.

Stock Montage/Getty Images

Though Lincolns anti-slavery views were well established, the central Union war aim at first was not to abolish slavery, but to preserve the United States as a nation.

Abolition became a goal only later, due to military necessity, growing anti-slavery sentiment in the North and the self-emancipation of many people who fled enslavement as Union troops swept through the South.

READ MORE: How Many US Presidents Owned Enslaved Workers?

On September 22, 1862, Lincoln issued a preliminary emancipation proclamation, and on January 1, 1863, he made it official that slaves within any State, or designated part of a Statein rebellion,shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.

By freeing some 3 million enslaved people in the rebel states, the Emancipation Proclamation deprived the Confederacy of the bulk of its labor forces and put international public opinion strongly on the Union side.

Though the Emancipation Proclamation didnt officially end all slavery in Americathat would happen with the passage of the 13th Amendment after the Civil Wars end in 1865some 186,000 Black soldiers would join the Union Army, and about 38,000 lost their lives.

READ MORE: What Is Juneteenth?

WATCH:The Civil War and Its Legacy

The 13th Amendment, adopted on December 18, 1865, officially abolished slavery, but freed Black peoples status in the post-war South remained precarious, and significant challenges awaited during the Reconstruction period.

Previously enslaved men and women received the rights of citizenship and the equal protection of the Constitution in the 14th Amendment and the right to vote in the 15th Amendment, but these provisions of Constitution were often ignored or violated, and it was difficult for Black citizens to gain a foothold in the post-war economy thanks to restrictive Black codes and regressive contractual arrangements such as sharecropping.

Despite seeing an unprecedented degree of Black participation in American political life, Reconstruction was ultimately frustrating for African Americans, and the rebirth of white supremacyincluding the rise of racist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK)had triumphed in the South by 1877.

Almost a century later, resistance to the lingering racism and discrimination in America that began during the slavery era led to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, which achieved the greatest political and social gains for Black Americans since Reconstruction.

PHOTOS: See Americas First Memorial to its 4,400 Lynching Victims

Visit link:

U.S. Slavery: Timeline, Figures & Abolition - HISTORY

Martin Luther King Jr. shakes hands with President Lyndon B. Johnson at the signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Credit: AFP/Getty Images

The "peculiar institution of slavery was abolished nearly a hundred years after the Declaration of Independence called for freedom and equality for all in 1776. But it took another century before landmark legislation would begin to address basic civil rights for African Americans.

This slow progress was the product of decades of work amongst anti-slavery constitutionalists, activists and abolitionists.They agitated in Congress, the courts and the streets. The fruits of their labor were not enacted immediately and were often foiled by a highly adaptable architecture of discrimination. Poll taxes and literacy tests hampered African Americans from voting in the aftermath of the Civil War. Likewise, the equal access promised in the 1960s did not mark the end of de-facto segregation.

Between 1865 and 1968, much was on the agenda: the abolition of slavery, extending legal protections for the emancipated and their descendants, birthright citizenship and ending segregation in public facilities.

When President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863 in the midst of the Civil War, he was not ending slavery or declaring it illegal. The executive order was a wartime measure that promised slaves in the Confederacy their freedom should they make it to Union lines. It even purposefully overlooked slaves in those border states that had not joined the Confederacy. Instead, the 13th Amendment of December 6, 1865, abolished slavery.

Still, African Americans were vulnerable to subjugation. The South was passing so-called black codes that effectively tried to re-enslave freed persons, creating a form of neo-slavery by criminalizing Black behavior, says Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center of Constitutional Rights. So, there were statutes that prohibited vulgarities or spitting, or if you did not have employment, you could be imprisoned and then leased as labor to whites in a form of debt bondage.

The first Civil Rights Act established that all those born in the United States were to be granted American citizenship. It was a radical notion for its time, seeking to grant birthright citizenship and all the associated rights and protections, helping to counter the black codes of 1865.

Darren Lenard Hutchinson, director of the Center for Civil Rights and Social Justice at Emory University says the Civil Rights Act of 1866 also sought to reverse the Supreme Courts ruling in the 1857 Dred Scott case that Black people werent U.S. citizens and had no legal rights. Opposition to the act soon followed.

President Andrew Johnson vetoed the legislation on the grounds that it discriminated against whites. As early as the 19th century, advancement in the condition of people of color was seen or perceived to be an affront or harm to whites, says Hutchinson.

The 14th Amendment, ratified on July 9, 1868, forbid state governments, not just the national government, from abridging the rights and privileges enjoyed by citizenship. Congress now had the power to enforce and protect citizens from state and federal encroachment. However, the 14th Amendment did not promise political rights, which the next amendment addressed.

The 15th Amendment expressly banned the states and U.S. government from denying citizens the right to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Ratified on February 3, 1870, the monumental piece of legislation also gave Congress the power to enforce legislation.

These rights were still curtailed when states devised their own voter qualifications, like literacy tests and other regulations. These onerous requirements were sometimes disguised as neutral but were enforced in an entirely arbitrary and discriminatory way.

With respect to voting, the laws did not say Blacks cannot vote; instead they imposed literacy tests against Blacks, asking things like, 'How many bubbles are in this bar of soap? How many jellybeans are in this jar?' The Klan and Southern sheriffs would terrorize Blacks who tried to register to vote through violence, so there was almost no Black voting in the Deep South until the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, says Azmy.

The Civil Rights Act of 1871also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act or the Enforcement Actempowered the federal government to use military force against people and organizations that conspire to violate the constitutional rights of other citizens. This act targeted racial terrorism in the South (particularly in South Carolina) and attempted to dismantle not only the KKK and other white supremacist organizations, but also organizations like rifle clubs that threatened or used violence.

The period from 1865 and 1871 was one of the most dramatic and radical conversations about freedom and equality probably in the history of humankind, says Azmy. "During Reconstruction, the United States government became fully committed to reconstructing the South in the northern image, and an image based on equality, which included U.S. troops in the South to enforce laws and protect Blacks. It created very significant proportions of Black representation in southern statehouses and produced three Black senators and multiple congresspersons from Mississippi and Alabama in an 11-year period."

This behemoth legislation is a benchmark act that banned labor discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Proposed by President John F. Kennedy in 1963 and passed by President Lyndon B. Johnson, it also ended racial segregation in public facilities, public education and in federally funded programs.

This statute, along with more aggressive judicial enforcement of Brown v. Board of Education, helped to accelerate desegregation in southern schools, says Hutchinson. When the legislation passed, less than 3 percent of Blacks attended schools with Whites in the South, despite the fact that Brown had been decided 10 years earlier. In the decade following the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, southern schools became the most integrated in the U.S.

In addition to outright violence and intimidation that existed at the grassroots level, states developed an array of tools to prevent African Americans from voting: the grandfather clause, literacy tests and poll taxes. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 forcefully addressed these issues.

According to Hutchinson, a key nuance of the legislation includes banning, not only specific prejudicial policies (such as literacy tests), but more generally any policies that could potentially have a racially disproportionate effect.

In addition to enforcement rights, the act requires that states with histories of discrimination receive a green light from the federal government before any changes to their voting practices. (In 2013, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling in Shelby County v. Holder gutted these protections arguing that they were "based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.")

A week after the assassination of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., the Civil Rights Act of 1968, also known as the Fair Housing Act, was signed into law and banned discrimination in housing.

The Fair Housing Act bans discrimination in public housing and in certain private units. The statute covers actions that discriminate by impact as well as intent. Thus, it has been used to strike down arguably race-neutral policies like zoning laws that make housing unaffordable for persons of color in a particular jurisdiction, says Hutchinson.

Read more:

8 Key Laws That Advanced Civil Rights - History

In 2015, a Buckingham Palace insider signaled that the Queen would begin paying her staff a living wage that reflected the true cost of living for UK residents. "Queen to pay the Living Wage to servants," read the Daily Mail headline.

A review of the royal household's public accounts of its spending and an analysis of advertised pay rates suggest that while the palace is mostly meeting that goal, a large chunk of workers are getting the bare minimum.

Insider identified 503 jobs at the royal household with pay rates advertised between 2015 and 2021. Ten of those positions advertised salaries starting below the living wage recommended by the Living Wage Foundation. A further 274 positions advertised pay within pennies of that rate.

Former staffers for various members of the royal family; a spokesperson for the staff union, the Public and Commercial Services Union; and others told Insider that workers tolerate the low pay because they have immense pride in working for the monarchy.

"Our members take pride in their work," the PCS Union told Insider. "But as a culturally significant institution in the public consciousness, the royal household should be leading the way on good pay and working conditions."

The Living Wage Foundation, an influential nonprofit formed in 2011, calculates a minimum wage needed to support the true cost of living in the UK. UK companies have widely adopted its model wage benchmark, which is higher than the legally required minimum wage.

In 2015, the royal household's public account of its spending in the annual Sovereign Grant report said it "aspires to offer London and Regional Living wage as a minimum." In 2021, the foundation's benchmark was 10.85 an hour (about $14.50) in London and 9.50 (about $12.75) in the rest of the country.

"The Queen pays in a very tight-fisted way," Norman Baker, author of "And What Do You Do? What The Royal Family Don't Want You To Know," told Insider. "It's been apparent to me for some time that when [job] adverts come up that they are not advertised at a generous salary," he said. "It's just shocking that one of the richest people in the world pays some of the lowest wages."

Baker is a former Liberal Democrat minister and member of the Privy Council, a large group of current and former lawmakers that advises the Queen on royal prerogative.

There, he says, his advice is "to pay people properly."

In addition, the palace benefited from Windsor Castle's location when it comes to paying staff. The castle is within walking distance of the London city limit. Windsor borough is one of the wealthiest and most expensive towns. But because Windsor is technically outside of London, the palace may pay the lower regional wage.

"They have a huge amount of money, an endless amount of money, really," said Graham Smith, a spokesperson for Republic, a group that campaigns for the abolition of the monarchy. "They are quite capable of leading in terms of paying people a living wage at the very least and make sure that people are well-paid for what they do."

"These people are working in, living in London, or just on the outskirts of London, an expensive place to live You would think that they would be leaders on this issue and pay comfortably over that [the living wage] and reward people properly for the work they do, which I imagine can be fairly demanding given the people that they're working for."

In response to Insider's extensive request for comment, a spokesperson for the royal household said, "It is disappointing to find glaring inaccuracies and outdated information being relied on for a series of ill-informed and baseless claims about the operations of The Royal Household."

The palace declined to specify the matters it considered inaccurate or outdated.

It's nearly impossible to produce an overview of the royal household's staffing practices, which are exempt from UK Freedom of Information Act requests.

Based on available public records, such as job advertisements and official announcements, Insider compiled in one place, for the very first time a searchable database of 1,133 positions in the royal household.

Insider's database includes posted salaries for top aides like the Queen's private secretary and the keeper of the privy purse, as well as advertised salaries for hundreds of much humbler positions.

Most of the Queen's official business is funded by taxpayers' money.

The grant totaled 85.9 million for the fiscal year ending on March 31st, 2021. It covers things like palace repairs, royal travel, and staffing the royal household. (It does not cover staffing for other working royals like Prince Charles, Prince William, and Kate, but it does fund some of their official business, such as trips abroad.)

Every year, the royal household issues an annual spending report, and since 2014 that report has taken a progressively weaker line on paying a living wage.

Sovereign Grant reports for 2013-14 and 2014-15 said the palace offered "London and Regional Living wage as a minimum to staff" and included a commitment to pay at the market median. There was an exception for staff who were provided housing.

But the 2015-16 report said only that the household "aspires to offer London and Regional Living wage as a minimum to staff."

Mention of a living wage disappeared in the 2016-17 report, and even meeting the market median was framed as an aspiration.

So Insider looked at the palace's help-wanted ads to see what the Queen pays her workers from those who scrub the palace fireplaces to those charged with washing the dishes after a royal banquet.

The palace appears to have made some progress in paying a living wage:

The London Living Wage would be the equivalent of about 21,000 a year. Median annual pay for all full-time UK employees was 31,285 in 2021.

The PCS Union, which represents some palace workers, told Insider that many of its members' pay rates at the household were "far too low."

The Living Wage Foundation says it's confirmed that more than 9,000 companies operating in the UK, including Nestl, Burberry and Ikea, pay the living wage it recommends. But a foundation spokesperson said the royal household was not among them.

The royal household has never spoken to the foundation, the foundation's director, Katherine Chapman, said. She told Insider she would be "delighted" if the palace were interested in committing to paying its living wage.

Of the 503 royal roles Insider looked at, 171 were at Windsor Castle. The 1,000-room castle, which sits on 13 acres, is in one of the priciest boroughs in the country. But its location just outside of Greater London allows the palace to pay the foundation's Regional Living Wage, which in 2021 was 1.35 lower than the London living wage.

Yet you'd need deep pockets to afford to live there.

"Windsor may not technically be in London, but it is to all intents and purposes part of that region that is a very expensive place to live," said Smith, the Republic campaigner.

In 2019 Windsor was the UK's richest town, housing 250 multimillionaires, according to the research firm New World Wealth. Many residents would surely love to send their children to nearby Eton College, where William and Prince Harry were educated. The real-estate company Zoopla included Windsor in the 15 most expensive UK towns to buy a home in.

Insider identified 119 jobs at Windsor Castle with advertised pay rates in 2018 that were no more than 15 pence (about $0.20) above the regional living wage of 8.75 an hour that year.

Eighty-two percent of the jobs in Windsor were advertised with pay within pennies of the Regional Living Wage.

A job listing for an admissions assistant at Windsor Castle in 2019, for example, was advertised at 9.45 an hour. If the castle were in London, five miles to the east, the position might have paid about 2 more an hour.

"Just about paying the living wage isn't the standard we ought to expect from our head of state," said Smith, the spokesperson for Republic.

No-one gets rich on the Living Wage. It is designed to represent the minimum needed to cover living costs, but not much more. "The real Living Wage covers all the everyday needs of living household bills, rent/mortgage payments, travel, food as well as a little extra to cover for unexpected costs a broken boiler, a new winter coat for a child," said a spokesperson for the Living Wage Foundation.

In opening up palaces to the public, the royal household employs hundreds of people in hourly low-wage positions, such as retail assistants, ticket-sales and information assistants, and visitor assistants.

Insider's analysis found:

Some palace positions such as kitchen porters, palace attendants, and housekeepersare advertised as including housing or meals "for which there is a salary adjustment."

Two former senior staffers for Prince Charles Grant Harrold, a former butler, and Carolyn Robb, a former executive chef told Insider that their jobs paid lower than comparable jobs outside the royal household.

A former live-in staff member, Harrold said shifts were often long. "Because you were on duty," he said, "you were fed, you were watered, you were warm, you were comfortable" a situation he said allowed him to save money.

While most hourly-wage positions in Insider's database were advertised at or below the living wage, the salaried roles appeared to be paid above the benchmark and offer benefits like pensions.

Insider's database shows that higher-paid jobs in the royal household are in areas like accounting, human resources, and executive retail.

Salaries for these generally white-collar jobs start at about 40,000 and top out at 190,000 for senior positions.

The Sovereign Grant report says salaries for the household's six directorate positions the lord chamberlain, the comptroller of the lord chamberlain's office, the keeper of the privy purse and treasurer to the Queen, the private secretary to the Queen, the master of the household, and the director of the Royal Collection Trust are benchmarked against the UK's senior-civil-service pay scales.

None of the palace workers who fall under the PCS Union were willing to answer Insider's questions about their working conditions. The PCS Union spokesperson told Insider that members were "subject to stricter than usual contracts and NDAs."

But former higher-level employees emphasized that some royal-household employees accepted their lower pay because of the perceived privilege and historic significance of working at a royal palace.

Baker, the former minister, said there is an "attitude that people should be grateful for being in the same place as the royal family, and that they should be prepared to work for a very low wage just for the sheer honor of being there."

Richard Fitzwilliams, a longtime royal commentator and journalist, told Insider that genuine reverence for the royal family means that for many, the job comes with an "actual gut feeling of loyalty."

"The point is you do have a lot of people who would be prepared to work for less for something that they very, very definitely believe in," he added.

In her 2019 memoir, Angela Kelly, the Queen's stylist and dresser, described playing practical jokes on the Queen and because they happen to have the same-size feet even breaking in the monarch's shoes.

Robb, the former chef, told Insider over email that despite the lower pay "it was the job that I wanted above all others." She said she had other benefits "which made it very worthwhile for me."

Harrold, the former butler, told Insider that many roles are an impeccable boost to the rsum he can likely be a butler anywhere on the planet now.

Working for the monarchy also provides unique experiences. Harrold said that when he gives talks about his former work, people are "literally gasping and laughing and crying" when he reveals he's danced with the Queen.

Baker disagrees with this mindset. "Well, more fool them," he says. "Why should they take a small sacrifice in their salary to serve some of the richest people in the world?"

Read more from the original source:

The palace appears to fall short of ambitions to pay Queen's staff a living wage - Insider

Photo: Stock photo (Getty Images)

A bipartisan group of US Senators that includes Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-Ala.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), and Dick Durban (D-Ill.) is determined to renew the Violence Against Women Act this year, nearly three years after Republican Senators blocked the reauthorization of the bill in 2019. And they have strong support from nearly every leading womens rights and anti-sexual violence organization in the nation.

But the bill faces opposition, not just from Republicans, who oppose its gun safety measures and language that includes trans and non-binary people; some of its key components also face opposition from feminist activists, and particularly abolitionist feminist activists like Beth Richie, Gina Dent, Angela Davis, and Erica Meiners, who wrote the recently published book Abolition. Feminism. Now. As abolitionists organizing against the prison industrial complex, they argue that we should be addressing the root causes of interpersonal harm by investing in our communities rather than in prisons and policing, as VAWA does.

VAWA ultimately relies on carceral strategies, in that a huge percent of the funding thats authorized in that bill goes to prosecution, to training police officers, to criminalization, surveillance, and providing mostly criminal legal solutions for survivors, Richie told Jezebel. This is rather than what we would call more abolition solutions, like addressing the power imbalances that breed gendered violence through guaranteeing housing, employment training, childcare, food services, health care.

VAWA has a number of important features that include funding and resources for survivor hotlines, legal aid, shelters, and rape kit funding to serve the significant swaths of women and people of all genders and sexualities who have experienced sexual violence. But the bill, which was originally introduced as a part of then-Sen. Joe Bidens 1994 crime bill, does allocate most of its funding to police departments to respond to domestic violence, despite their long histories of disbelieving, mistreating, and retraumatizing survivors.

These features of VAWA are part of why the law has historically been criticized for primarily serving a narrow sliver of mostly white, middle-class or wealthy, straight, cis women who are more likely to be seen as good victims. In contrast, women, immigrants, and queer people of color are more likely to be harmed by VAWAs mandatory arrest program, which compels police who are called to domestic violence disputes to arrest at least one person involved. In many cases, victims of sexual violence may be arrested themselves for self-defense against abusers, or if theres any ambiguity in who is the primary abuser in an abusive relationship, which is common in same-sex relationships. One 2020 survey found 24% of women who have called the police to report intimate partner violence say that they were consequently arrested or threatened with arrest, contributing to whats known as the sexual assault-to-prison pipeline, and a prison system in which 90% of incarcerated women have survived sexual violence.

G/O Media may get a commission

Save 68%

15 Bottles of Cabernet Sauvignon

I can't stop having wineScared about how much you need wine? Or maybe you just like it a normal amount? This preposterous amount of cab sauv for less than $100 is the deal for you.

Contrary to ever-present copaganda like Law and Order, police have proven either inept or actively harmful to most victims who turn to them for help, and we shouldnt be particularly surprised by this. Despite how abuse victims are frequently invoked as the most common argument for why we need police, many report being failed or retraumatized by law enforcement. Other research has shown at least 40% of police officers are domestic abusers.

In Abolition. Feminism. Now., Richie and Dent present the case for why abolition and feminism are inextricably linked, noting how women and particularly women and trans people of color have historically been leaders of the movement for abolition. A key reason they were compelled to write the book is that false messaging has increasingly framed the feminist and abolitionist movements as being at odds with one another, because of the popular assumption that police always help rather than harm victims.

Richie says VAWA has unfortunately contributed to this narrative. There are many well-meaning advocates who are deeply committed to the work of liberation and freedom. But weve been limited in our imagination, and we have to think and build beyond the current system thats more likely to criminalize than help survivors, she said.

In the summer of 2020, amid a nationwide uprising for racial justice, nearly 50 anti-sexual violence organizations and direct service groups signed onto the Moment of Truth letter, highlighting the harms of police and prisons on victims of abuse, and calling for divestment from them. After sharing the letter, some of the groups who signed, including local shelters and community anti-violence programs, have since lost public funding, while others say police departments have stopped referring abuse victims to their services.

This, Richie and Dent say, encapsulates how police and the greater prison industrial complex have capitalized on the traumas and vulnerabilities of the most marginalized people in societyparticularly victims of sexual violenceto give their work the guise of legitimacy. When survivors and advocates fight back against being used, they face retaliation and punishment from these systems.

The work we do has to be about more than getting rid of prisons, but thinking about what other system of relations we can create to achieve justice, to collectivize and share responsibility, to address harm without further harming or criminalizing survivors, Dent said.

Prior to VAWA, domestic violence was widely accepted, normalized, and shrugged off as a private affair, exclusively discussed in underground, feminist consciousness-raising circles. Advocacy around gender-based violence began to draw mainstream support amid the tough-on-crime era in the 1980s and 1990s, when awareness campaigns on the issue conflated it with stranger-danger violence in the streets. This, of course, was despite how most gender-based violence is carried out by intimate partners or someone the victim knows, and often takes place at home or in private.

As public awareness and protest of gender-based violence grew, some of the movements most visible activists ceded its more radical demands to gain wider public support, resulting in collusion with law enforcement and the carceral features of laws like VAWA.

In Abolition. Feminism. Now., Richie, Dent, and their co-authors are critical of the many, seemingly benign reforms of prison and policing that actually lead to greater funding and investments in them, ultimately strengthening the prison industrial complex. This can include funding for sensitivity trainings for police that have proven ineffective; the construction of new, supposedly more humane prisons; or electronic monitoring and house arrest approaches that activists say will eventually turn most of society into a prison without walls.

In a similar vein, despite some of VAWAs important investments in shelters and community violence prevention programs, the authors are dubious about how much the law can be reformed, so long as it extends from broader government systems of punishment, incarceration, and racial capitalism that denies poor people of color basic resources.

Since the first version of VAWA passed in 1994, advocates through the years have constantly worked toward improving it, from updating its language to include queer and trans abuse victims to creating special routes to citizenship for select non-citizens experiencing domestic violence. Some Indigenous anti-violence activists are currently pressuring lawmakers to pass a version of VAWA that respects tribal sovereignty, citing a 1978 Supreme Court case that ruled that tribes dont have the authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes in their territories. Indigenous women and girls are three times more likely to experience sexual violence than their non-Indigenous counterparts.

With funding and other resources from VAWA, many shelters and organizations across the country have been able to offer both shelter to victims and support for their wide-ranging, day-to-day logistical needs, like transportation to places of employment, funds for prescription medication and health care.

The authors recognize the life-saving ways that pieces of VAWA have reached and helped many people across the countrybut theyre also concerned with how its existence has been hugely distracting, to the extent that people have spent countless hours and money and ruined relationships over this damn bill. This, Richie says, has come at the cost of focusing on on-the-ground efforts to raise money for people to have abortions amid existential threats to Roe v. Wade, or to help a trans person get access to housing and safety from transphobic violence, among other community-based avenues to more directly support survivors.

According to Richie, feminists need to reject neoliberal thinking that narrowly defines violence as individual, interpersonal acts that are disconnected from overarching crises of state violencemass incarceration, the criminalization of poverty, family separation via immigration laws, the imprisonment of sexual assault survivors for acts of self-defensethat carry disproportionate harm for women, gender-oppressed people, and survivors of color.

Amid the growing popularity of the Defund the Police movement and other abolitionist demands, Dent believes anti-violence activism is at an inflection point. Activists can continue to inadvertently harm and criminalize survivorsor they can reject carceral solutions and support the most marginalized survivors.

Anyone whos been involved with cases of gendered violence has seen firsthand that for all the resources that are consumed in handling just one case in the legal system, this often fails to improve the conditions of life for the person who was harmed, to offer them meaningful support, or to offer any possibility for transformation for the person whos done harm, Dent said. We need to think both smaller and bigger, at the same timeto help the individuals who arent getting what they need, and on a systems-level, to stop bolstering the institutions that are failing them.

Excerpt from:

Perhaps It's Time to Think Beyond the 'Violence Against Women Act' - Jezebel

MINNEAPOLIS

In the birthplace of the summer 2020 uprising over the police murder of George Floyd, the defund movement took ablow in November 2021. Ballot Question 2, which would have opened the door for major structural changes to the Minneapolis Police Department, failed 44%-56%. Yet city council challenger Robin Wonsley Worlobah, who campaigned in support of Question 2, won by 13 votes in arunoff. And aprogressive ballot measure to allow rent control, known as Question 3, passed 53%-47%.

Kandace Montgomery

is a Black and queer organizer in Minneapolis and a national leader in the Movement for Black Lives. She is co-executive director of Black Visions, which co-issued the May 2020 demand to defund the Minneapolis Police Department. She was board chair of the Yes 4 Minneapolis coalition to remove the citys mandate for a police department.

Kandace Montgomery: The result of the summer 2020 uprising that was led by young Black and brown people here in Minneapolis was apolitical opportunity to create systemic and transformative change in the ways police hold power and how resources are moved within the city to support public safety. Many of us understood it as astep toward abolition. For others, it felt like anecessary step to actually ensure folkssafety.

So the Yes On 2campaign looked to change the city charterour citys constitutionto remove arequirement to keep the police department as it is. Then, it could be replaced by aDepartment of Public Safety that would take apublic health approach to our safety. That department would include police officers but also abreadth of other things, like mental health responders and nonpunitive socialworkers.

Im still processing lessons learned. Ithink our opposition made the conversation very much about abolition or not. That created alot of fear for people who are not quite there, who have some really real concerns around their physical safety and intercommunal violence. And so the conversation became verynarrow.

But my experience of talking to folks on doors, talking to our canvassers, being on the phones, is that once you are able to actually have the conversation of, Heres what aDepartment of Public Safety could look likeit could include youth programming, it could include all of these thingsI found, overwhelmingly, that even people who were still very committed to the idea of still having police were able to embrace this vision. They just needed more time to let go of the policing thing. And that was OK, as long as we were consistently doing thatwork.

In the birthplace of the summer 2020 uprising over the police murder of George Floyd, the defund movement took ablow in November 2021. Ballot Question 2, which would have opened the door for major structural changes to the Minneapolis Police Department, failed 44%-56%. Yet city council challenger Robin Wonsley Worlobah, who campaigned in support of Question 2, won by 13 votes in arunoff. And aprogressive ballot measure to allow rent control, known as Question 3, passed 53%-47%.

Kandace Montgomery: The result of the summer 2020 uprising that was led by young Black and brown people here in Minneapolis was apolitical opportunity to create systemic and transformative change in the ways police hold power and how resources are moved within the city to support public safety. Many of us understood it as astep toward abolition. For others, it felt like anecessary step to actually ensure folkssafety.

So the Yes On 2campaign looked to change the city charterour citys constitutionto remove arequirement to keep the police department as it is. Then, it could be replaced by aDepartment of Public Safety that would take apublic health approach to our safety. That department would include police officers but also abreadth of other things, like mental health responders and nonpunitive socialworkers.

Im still processing lessons learned. Ithink our opposition made the conversation very much about abolition or not. That created alot of fear for people who are not quite there, who have some really real concerns around their physical safety and intercommunal violence. And so the conversation became verynarrow.

But my experience of talking to folks on doors, talking to our canvassers, being on the phones, is that once you are able to actually have the conversation of, Heres what aDepartment of Public Safety could look likeit could include youth programming, it could include all of these thingsI found, overwhelmingly, that even people who were still very committed to the idea of still having police were able to embrace this vision. They just needed more time to let go of the policing thing. And that was OK, as long as we were consistently doing thatwork.

Robin Wonsley Worlobah: Ithink often in these conversationsand within our movementits about policing only. And thats also how the opposition tries to frame it. But actually, under acapitalist society, policing is only one piece. My city council campaign put Question 2within asocialist analysis: We have to correct the conditions under racial capitalism that cause apower imbalance and inequality that policing ends up reinforcing. We have to make mass investments in our public infrastructure, which we know actually address crime by stabilizing peoples lives and their communities. Neoliberals dont want to hear anything about mass investments. We lead with transitional demands that not only improve peoples material conditions, but also shine alight on an enemy to rally working-class people arounddemands like rent control, which maintains some level of housing security for working-class people and has avery clear class enemy in corporate developers, who generate millions if not billions of dollars of wealth from working-class people through ever-expansive rents. So then we link these issues by saying, You are going after our localized enforcement structure of capitalism, thepolice.

I think the movement backing Question 2made amistake of not naming the enemy. Because then the opposition was able to say, You hate the police chief, this upstanding Black man. Or, You hate Black people, you want them to live in communities riddled with gun violence. The mayor, these corporate-backed PACs like Operation Safety Now, the Downtown Council, the chief of police and the police union literally went on four months of aspeaking tour. Almost every weekend, out over in north Minneapolis, where ababy has just got shot and killed, they would basically say, Look at these grieving parents, look at these grieving Black folks, we cant afford to try somethingexperimental.

We didnt have anarrative to counteract that at that scale. And thats finebut if we dont have the narrative, then we damn sure have to have the ground game. Because, Imean, were only running on people power, we aint got none of these corporations sponsoringus.

I think there was amissed opportunity to have astrong ground game in the places that the corporate elite targeted, which was working-class Black folks. It was agreat testament to the signature campaign [to get Question 2on the ballot] that they reached 1,400 Northside residents, but what if we had joined forces with the rent control coalition [backing Question 3] to do joint canvasses across north Minneapolis? To say, This is your better offer. Not only will you get aquality, equitable public safety system, but youll stop paying all your money to the slumlords. This is how you dont got to work two jobs in order to take care of your kids. And then youre missing out on your kids, and theyre being pulled to get involved in otherthings.

Another point the opposition said was, You progressive abolitionists, yall aint got no plan. This public safety department aint gonna do nothing. Ill be very frank, the coalition had internal debates about this. Very early on, we knew the opposition was going to weaponize the language of the ballot amendment. And Ithink there was amissed opportunity of putting out that proposal Kandace mentioned, around alternativeresponders.

My campaign made our own democratic socialist public safety plan. We made zines of it that we distributed when we were door knocking to say, What if we actually invest in what Kandace namedunarmed responders, first responders, mental health providers, socialworkers?

In our ward, we turned out more than 50% of registered voters, and Question 2won [56% to44%].

And Iknow Kandace wants to throw in something,too.

Kandace Montgomery: Iagree with alot of those offerings, Robin, and Im excited to sit down to debrief. Just adding, Ithink its important to see the conditions in which we were fighting, coming out of 2020. Folks were exhausted, living through apandemic. Our organizations were all very much pulled. Multiple organizations, including Black Visions, were dealing with internal conflict. And alot of organizers were experiencing alack of activity from community members because of the economic conditions, because of the pandemic, because ofisolation.

Some opportunities had to be missed because people just literally didnt have the capacity to pick them up. Iname that because Ithink our movements need to really think about how, in these low moments, we are fortifying our organizations and our bases and our relationships. How are we actually developing Black organizers so that its not just 10 of us who are brilliant, radical Black strategists in the city? Because, to be real, its hardly much more thanthat.

To the rent control piece: The rent control coalition was abit broader, and it was not necessarily aligned on policing. Some of the leadership intentionally decided not to sign onto our question. And so those collaborations werent really possible. Again, it speaks to the ways we have to build alignment, shared vision. Ithink everybody should understand how police abolition gets us to housing justice gets us to these other things, but its long-termwork.

Yes 4 Minneapolis volunteer Tira Howel (right) garners support for Question 2 on Election Day, Nov. 2, 2021, which would have allowed Minneapolis to restructure its police department. Joshua Lott/The Washington Post via Getty Images

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Proposition A, on Austins November 2021 ballot, would have mandated two police officers per every 1,000 residents, amajor expansion. More than 80 groups joined aNo Way on Prop Acampaign, including the Travis County Democratic Party, Austin Democratic Socialists of America, AFSCME Local 1624 (the county employees union), the firefighters union and the emergency medical services union. Prop Alost 31%-69%.

ANDREW R. HAIRSTON

is a civil rights attorney and writer in Austin, Texas. He organized with the No Way on Prop A campaign to block an increase of hundreds of millions to the citys police budget. He is running a democratic socialist campaign for Travis County justice of the peace in the March 1 Democratic primary.

Proposition A, on Austins November 2021 ballot, would have mandated two police officers per every 1,000 residents, amajor expansion. More than 80 groups joined aNo Way on Prop Acampaign, including the Travis County Democratic Party, Austin Democratic Socialists of America, AFSCME Local 1624 (the county employees union), the firefighters union and the emergency medical services union. Prop Alost 31%-69%.

Andrew R. Hairston: Apretty tremendous victory was registered November 2. We defeated this unfunded mandate for the policeprojected to cost up to $600 million to the detriment of parks, libraries, fire and other socialservices.

A little bit of political background. In 2019, Austin City Council voted to lift the camping ban that had been in place for some years and to allow folks who are experiencing homelessness to be in public spaces. In 2020, the city council started to move toward adefund strategy and mandated aseries of cuts to the policedepartment.

But in 2021, at the behest of Gov. Greg Abbott, the Texas Legislature stepped in to undo local efforts and codify in state law that local police budget cuts are impermissible without voter approval. And then this conservative-backed group, Save Austin Now PAC (SAN PAC), got ameasure on the May 2021 ballot to reinstitute the camping ban. Austin DSA and other nonprofits fought against it, but it passed 58%-42%. Alot of wealthy white folks in West Austin are like, You know, we just dont want to see folks experiencinghomelessness.

Then, SAN PAC kind of doubled down and said, You know what, lets super-fund the police. We have thismomentum.

The super-funding ballot measure failed miserably. The voters were like, You know, we dont want to affirmatively support people experiencing homelessness, but Iguess we also dont want to super-fund thepolice.

So thats where we are. Ithink theres still alot of organizing appetite to push back against the super-funding of the police pushed from the state government, but as Robin uplifted, theres this tepid response from neoliberal folks. Theyre like, We dont want to super-fund the police, but were not going to really entertain this conversation aboutabolition.

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Because D.C. is not astate, its election cycle coincides with federal elections, the most recent being November 2020. In the June 2020 city council primary, democratic socialist Janeese Lewis George ran on adefund platform against Democratic heavyweight Brandon Todd, aprotg of D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and asupporter of the police union. Lewis George won 55%-43% (a third candidate won 2%). But in the November 2020 election for two at-large council seats, both candidates supporting police defundinglost.

Because D.C. is not astate, its election cycle coincides with federal elections, the most recent being November 2020. In the June 2020 city council primary, democratic socialist Janeese Lewis George ran on adefund platform against Democratic heavyweight Brandon Todd, aprotg of D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and asupporter of the police union. Lewis George won 55%-43% (a third candidate won 2%). But in the November 2020 election for two at-large council seats, both candidates supporting police defundinglost.

Makia Green: As organizing director with the Working Families Party, Iworked on Janeese Lewis Georges campaign for Ward 4councilmember. She ran on acampaign of housing rights, good jobs, demilitarizing and divesting from the police, and investing in communities. Defund MPD [Metropolitan Police Department] has been talking about divest/invest for years: Take away the infrastructure from things that are harming us and put money into things that will helpus.

The council campaign was along shot to everyone elses mind. She was going up against an incumbent [Brandon Todd] in aseat from which people often become mayortwo times sofar.

Lewis George was attacked by her own party members. This out-of-state PAC, Democrats for Education Reform, put in tons of money. Everyone was getting these postcards taking her words out of contextjust acomplete misinformation campaign. They made it sound like she could and would fire all the cops. Come on, right? It just missed her platform completely, as well as what was realistic. But honestly, alot of times, we thought our folks were going to believethis.

On Election Day, the mayor, whos apro-cop mayor, put acurfew because of the protests supporting folks in Minneapolis. There were hundreds of people downtown in front of the White House. The curfew started before the polls ended. And we knew who that was going to impact Black and brown voters. We knew what she was doingshe was backing BrandonTodd.

And in spite of that, people stayed in line till after midnight. Young people came to vote, saying, Im here specifically for Janeese and Im here to vote because Black lives matter. Folks had their fists up in the line and, around 7oclock, the time of the curfew, everyone kneeled together. Janeese won by alandslide, in myopinion.

November 2020 was acompletely different landscape. The presidential election was polarizing everything. The Democratic Party started to say that the defund demand was erodingsupport.

In D.C., there was a24-person race for two at-large city council seats. Two of the candidates, Ed Lazere and Markus Batchelor, ran in support of what we called, Defund MPD, Refund D.C. Unfortunately, neitherwon.

For me, the lessons in this moment are: One, strike while the iron is hot. Context does matter. And two, run acampaign that canvasses to find out, Is everybody really on board? Everyones kneeling and putting out flags on their house, but are they talking to their friends? Are they really going to be down for you when itcounts?

We also want to claim our victories. We won alot of policing reforms. We restored voting rights for everyone whos incarcerated in D.C. currently and formerly. Were trying to decriminalize drugs and decriminalize street vending. Were having hearings on getting rid of mandatory minimums. None of that would have been possible without the movementwithout youall.

Washington, D.C., Ward 4 Councilmember Janeese Lewis George greets constituents after being sworn into office Jan. 2, 2021. George, a democratic socialist, defeated an establishment-backed candidate in the June 2020 primary by running on a "defund the police" platform, among other issues. Amanda Andrade-Rhoades/For The Washington Post via Getty Images

SOMERVILLE, MASS.

In the Boston suburb of Somerville, Defund Somerville Police Department won a7.7% police budget cut in July 2020. In November 2021, Defund SPD organizer Willie Burnley Jr. won acity council seat, along with two other democraticsocialists.

In the Boston suburb of Somerville, Defund Somerville Police Department won a7.7% police budget cut in July 2020. In November 2021, Defund SPD organizer Willie Burnley Jr. won acity council seat, along with two other democraticsocialists.

Willie Burnley Jr.: Somerville is about four square miles, with about 80,000 peopleone of the densest places in the country. Its 75% white, but you have alot of white people here saying, Oh, Ilove our diversity. [laughter] Massachusetts is pretty pro-police, so those dynamics all play into thisconversation.

In the midst of 2020s national reckoning with police violence, our city government was saying, We know our budgets are going to get impacted by Covid, so what were going to do is massively cut housing. The Office of Housing Stability, which helps people stay in their homes and not be displaced, was going to get cut by12%.

They were barely going to touch the police departmentmaybe a3% cut. This flew in the face of the national conversation. So we got organized. We did phone banks, emails, biking and car caravans to the mayors house. Defund SPD organized six hours of public testimony to the city council; 148 people spoke, saying, No, we should cut the police by at least 10%. That number came from asurvey where the average actually was 60%but we didnt think we were quite ready for that demand as an organization that was about two weeks old. We got 7.7%, which was $1.3 million. The money actually went where we wanted it to go: healthcare, housing, rental assistance, food, services, the things that make our community stronger andsafer.

In the midst of that battle, we had alot of pushback. All these people, including the police chiefs, said, This isnt Ferguson, this isnt New York. We are different and were better. We heard this from June to December 2020. What they didnt tell us was that, in October 2020, the local president of the police union handcuffed aman and pepper-sprayed him in theface.

We also saw continual gatekeeping around what communities of color and working-class people need and who is representative of them. So we had abunch of white people saying, You guys arent representative of my people over here who are people of color. Youre gentrifiers, youre rich people, you werent born here. In fact, Defund SPDs steering committee is majority people of color and almost all renters. They are far more representative of those communities, often, than the people who have the power to decide thesethings.

WHERE THE BLACK VOTERSARE

Makia Green: What Im wondering is, how do we make sure that folks are not gaslighting us about where Black folks are? We get this in D.C. and Isaw it when Iwent to Minneapolis. Maybe its not the tagline defund, but we know Black people deserve and want healthcare, public safety, to hold our homesand were told Black people dont support thesethings.

Kandace Montgomery: In places like Minnesota with such ahuge white population and also asignificant Black population, tokenization happens very easily. Particular Black people are sort of courted for positions of quasi power. Often, those people dont work in their actual communitys interests. And theres also an old guard that sticks to amore moderatepolitic.

Minneapolis really has to move past an idea that Black people are amonolith and that Black people cant disagree. So that the conversation isnt as narrow as, the Black community didnt get behindthis.

Were also facing things like voter suppression and alack of authentic engagement with Black community members, especially from the traditional electoral apparatus, and alot of skepticism because of inaction from council. What Ifeel really committed to is we need to have astronger vision that people can tangibly and physically resonatewith.

Robin Wonsley Worlobah: Iwonder, what would the conditions have been if we had double the Black folks to push back against the Black old guard? The public safety debate that was held in October revealed very clearly that the opposition, that included the Black old guard, did not possess astrong plan for public safety transformation. In fact, after the forum, Queen Minister JaNa Bates [co-chair of the Yes 4Minneapolis coalition for Question 2] had members of the Black old guard churches coming up to her being like, Bruh, Ive been liedto.

Makia Green: Ireally think we need to push back on the way they use the stories of our community loved ones who are grieving as chess pieces to get more funding. They use Black death to line the pockets of our oppressors. One thing we say in D.C. is, Theres acop on every block in my neighborhood, but our kids are still gettingshot.

When crime is up, police need more money so they can solve it. When crime is down, police need more money to keep crime down. When crime stays the same, police need more money to keep up morale. When officers quit during ahuge movementin D.C., record numbers left the forceits, The angry kids yelled at them so they left. Is it possible that people leave this job all the time because its avery unsafe job, and youre putting people in aplace where they have to police their own community and they dont believe in itanymore?

Willie Burnley Jr.: Iresonate so deeply with that. In Somerville, the police unions were able to say, Violence is up, shootings are up, and turn that into, I guess we need more cops. Obviously, what theyre doing isnt working. So either theyre incompetent or we need to find another route. Which isit?

Youthful abolitionists and Black Lives Matter supporters mark the anniversary of the police murder of George Floyd on May 25, 2021, outside of Los Angeles police headquarters. Sarah Reingewirtz/MediaNews Group/Los Angeles Daily News via Getty Images

THE DEMOCRATS

Willie Burnley Jr.: Ihave some tension around how much time we should spend trying to respond to accusations like, Democrats lost nationally because Cori Bush doesnt like the police, or, We have to stop saying defund the police as aparty. The Democrats have never run on defund the police; it should be obvious to anyone paying attention that theyve never lost anywhere because of defund. Iran on it, and Idid notlose.

Robin Wonsley Worlobah: Anytime the Democrats lose for not delivering change, they blame the leftists, they blame Bernie Sanders, they blame the Squad. In Ohio, they brought aBlack woman corporate establishment candidate to go up against NinaTurner.

Its their way to deflect, in hopes that they can finally win over suburban voters. This is why we see the party constantly move to the political Right and adopting conservative platforms and messaging. It all demonstrates that the party is not interested in making transformativechange.

Joe Biden can, right now, with the stroke of the pen, eliminate trillions and trillions of dollars of debt for millions of students, and he refuses. Instead he does other maneuvers, like authorizing student debt payment pauses, to placate those who own capital. Thats the reason the Democratic Party is about to lose heavily in the midterms. Theyre not beholden to the people. Working-class people spend so much time phone banking for the Democratic Party and door knocking to get nothing. But working-class people are starting to see beyond the misinformation fog. People are becoming more and more disengaged and more frustrated with the DemocraticParty.

After several decades of failing to reform or take over the Democratic Party, you would think that we would learn that this strategy simply doesnt work. Iran as an Independent as atestament to say, DSA, hows this partnership with the Democratic Party looking for yall? My sis Kshama Sawant in Seattle is the reason why the Fight for 15 spread nationally. It wasnt through the Democratic Party. Even under full Democratic control at the federal level, we still cant get $15. And we should be talking about $25.

So as Black working-class organizers and leftists, we should think about building independent political power, instead of constantly routing all of our talent, art, labor and brilliance into aparty that we end up having to fight more than actually get somethingfrom.

A forward-looking graffiti wall in New York City in fall 2020 supports defunding the police while reading, "We'll be patience," prophetic of organizers' longview approach to the movement for abolition. Joan Slatkin/Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

2022 ANDBEYOND

Willie Burnley Jr.: In Somerville, the city is considering building anew public safety building to house the fire department and abunch of police half of the building would just be for their vehicles. The building would cost $100 million. Thats more than athird of our overall budget. So wed need to borrowmoney.

To the point Robin was making earlier, Defund SPD is in the midst of acommunity conversation about what public safety means, how we build it, how we invest in it. If we want to have anew fancy building, OK, lets do that, but why do we need police in there? Lets remove the police. Lets put in acommunity center. Lets put in municipal ambulances. In Somerville, police arent often responding to violent crime; people need an ambulance, they need help for amental health crisis or acrisis of addiction. Nine times out of 10, they dont need aperson with agun.

That council vote needs asupermajority because the measure is bond-funded. We have, now, four DSA candidates on our council, and if we vote as abloc, we can just kill this thing outright. So we can engage in anegotiation.

Andrew R. Hairston: 2022 has notes of optimism and hope for me. Running for justice of the peace in Travis County, Texas, as amember of the Democratic Party but also as ademocratic socialist and abolitionist, Im trying to be deeply explicit in my values: This is for Black people, for queer people, for folks who have been pushed to themargins.

Kandace Montgomery: Iam still wrestling with the question of where to go in 2022, to be honest. Im really trying to assess and evaluate the data we have from the last 18 months, to create more of an arc of strategy that wins some concrete things along the way toward alarger vision. Well also be building relationships with new council members and getting an understanding of their priorities and opportunitiesespecially voices like Robins, who are more ready and primed for amuch more radicalapproach.

We have awhole bunch of new contacts and people. We need to go out and sit down with those folks. We need one-on-ones everyday.

In terms of the midterms, Ithink we really need to figure out when is the right time to be going for aDepartment of Public Safety and, like Robin said, put alittle bit more meat to the definition of what that is. Ithink Robin might have abetter sense of thattiming.

Robin Wonsley Worlobah: Theres an opening now to organize the 60,000 people who voted for Question 2to build apublic pressure campaign for the mayor to create the new Department of Public Safety. He said in September 2021 that he supported one and could do it without aballot initiative. My office released an op-ed in December 2021 encouraging him to moveforward.

Kandace Montgomery: The other thing Ill say is that none of us went into 2020 and were like, Next year, were going to try and abolish the police. All the organizers on this call know thats amultiyear campaign arc, baby, that we tried to pull off in 18 months. The rupturings of uprisings create political opportunities. We all saw the political opportunity and went for it. Idont necessarily regret that. But Ido know, from my organizer brain and all the mentors who have trained me up, that Ithink its going to take multiple years of political educationand building up some of the models that people can rely on instead of the policeto actually fortify abase of Black folks who are able to more critically think through oppositional messages and are ready to take astep toward this kind of transformativechange.

Thats areal tension: You have to take the political opportunities when they come, but we also have to move at the speed of trust and understanding withincommunity.

Willie Burnley Jr.: Off election year, we need to be having these conversations in areally robust way, of, I am your neighbor. When you are unsafe, Iam unsafe. Therefore, Iam not going to abandonyou.

Mutual aid is the first way we establish trust. Its hard to talk to someone about Marx or Frantz Fanon if theyre hungry. We have to meet people where they are. Parts of our community are dealing with deep poverty and alack of resources. Once people have stability, they can become more open toconversations.

But we have to be very honestly strategic about the messengers and how were reaching out. The impression in Somerville of Boston DSA is that it is almost entirely white (although there are alot of BIPOC folks). So how do we engage our people in public housing who are overwhelmingly Black and Latino? We have to be very mindful of who is doing that conversation and how we are engaging. Is it, knock on the door, Hey, have you heard aboutabolition?

Or is it, How can we help to make sure your needs are being met? And then amore gradual introduction to the work ofabolition.

We have to build those informal networks, that so many of our ancestors have done, in order to give working-class people enough support to be able to start moving to the front lines. Those people can actually become our leaders in this movement and can reach out to more people, and thats how we get past generationalbarriers.

Makia Green: Im just grateful to still be putting forth candidates that would support adivest/ invest campaign, regardless of what the Democratic elite leaders think and regardless of our wins andlosses.

A lot of us are in the Black radical tradition, and we know that this movement has alongevity before and past 2020. We have been experimenting and trying and building, and thats why were the largest movement in the countryshistory.

At some point, there may be anew tagline beyond defund the police, but it will be in the same tradition. And itll be about meeting the needs of Black people at that currenttime.

This roundtable was edited for length andclarity.

Originally posted here:

What's Next for the Defund Movement? - In These Times

Latest: What the new 180 day jobseeker period means for the job market

Changes to the way employment in the private sector operates, such as flexible working and shared jobs, will be introduced on February 2, 2022.

The amended labour laws, which were first outlined by the government in November, provide options that were not available before and strengthens employees' rights.

Among the headline changes are shorter, fixed-term contracts for most private sector employees, the ability to stay in the country for 180 days after leaving your job, and the introduction of job shares, which may suit students and people returning to the workplace. And there are significant changes to maternity leave.

The National explains what's new.

The new employer will have to compensate the old employer for the visa costs and expenses for the hiring of the ex-employee. Its like compensation

Mohamed Rouchdi, ICLO

Under condensed hours options, if an employee works 40 hours a week in line with their contract, they can now work those hours over three days, according to Abdulrahman Al Awar, Minister of Human Resources and Emiratisation.

Other flexible working options include shared jobs, when two people do one job and split the hours after agreeing to the arrangement with their employer.

People can now work for more than one employer for a specified number of working hours or days.

They can also take on work for a temporary period to complete a specific task.

Working hours or days can also be changed, depending on the workload and an employers needs. Employers may also allow people to choose the times they work.

Dr Hassan Elhais, a legal consultant with Al Rowaad Advocates, said the abolition of unlimited contracts, anti-discrimination protection and the new work models such as flexi-time, part-time work and supplementary leave are the headline changes.

_______________________________________

UAE salary guide 2022

_______________________________________

"For flexible work, this is a new thing, said Mohamed Rouchdi, partner at ICLO law firm.

There is something very good here for employed students, who can freely work and have their own arrangements with mutual consent from their employer.

Employment contracts must now be limited.

This means people on indefinite, or permanent, contracts will be switched to fixed-term contracts of up to three years, which can be renewed.

Probation periods cannot be more than six months, and a notice of two weeks must be given to terminate them during this time. Employees who want to change jobs during the probation period must give a months notice, or 14 days if they want to leave the country.

In case the employee wishes to join another employer during of course the probationary period the employee will have to serve 30 days notice, Mr Rouchdi said.

And in this case, also, the new employer will have to compensate the old employer for the visa costs and expenses for the hiring of the ex-employee. Its like compensation.

If an employee leaves the country then returns to take up a new job within three months, the new employer would have to pay the former employer for the visa costs and the labour expenses incurred, he said.

Employers cannot force workers to leave the country after they leave their job or their employment is terminated. Instead, the former employee will be allowed up to 180 days to find a job without overstaying their visa.

Under the previous law, someone who had their residency visa cancelled had just 30 days to find new work or leave the country without incurring fines for overstaying, making this one of the most significant changes.

Mohamed Rouchdi, partner at ICLO, says flexible work will benefit employed students. Ruel Pableo for The National

Discrimination is prohibited in any form, be it race, colour, gender, religion, nationality, social origin or disability. A new minimum wage will be set.

Article 27 of the new law will set a minimum wage, which is a new thing for the UAE to do, Dr Elhais said.

A proposal from the Minister of Human Resources and Emiratisation, in collaboration with other authorities, will set the minimum wage in the United Arab Emirates."

The new laws also provide more protection against harassment.

Employees cannot be forced to work any more than two hours of overtime a day. And if their job requires it, they must be paid 25 per cent more than their regular hourly rate.

In addition, employers cannot withhold employees documents, such as passports, and they cannot charge workers recruitment fees.

Employees will not have to pay legal fees when filing labour cases against employers for compensation of less than Dh100,000. If the amount is more than Dh100,000, there will be legal fees to pay.

End of service gratuity payments can now be paid in either UAE dirhams, or an employees chosen currency, as agreed upon in the employment contract.

All end-of-service entitlements must be paid within 14 days to avoid a penalty, Dr Elhais said.

Employees must also be given one month from the end of the contract to leave accommodation that might be paid for by their employer.

Employers must pay any end of service benefits due to the employees family in the event of their death. The employer must cover the cost of repatriating their body.

Employees can now be served notice during their period of leave, but the notice period will not begin until the first day they return to work, Mr Rouchdi said.

In addition, notice periods can be no longer than three months.

Employment can be terminated without notice for 10 specific reasons, including in the case of misuse of power by the employee, or if the employee gains personal benefits from their position.

Rights have also been strengthened for employees in terms of termination, giving them the power to leave their job without serving a notice period.

Article 45 has increased the reasons for termination by the employee without notice, Dr Elhais said.

Under paragraph four of Article 45 under the new law, which permits the employee to terminate the contract in case of significant change of his tasks or work. And without a written consent of the employee. This should be, of course, to the employees favour.

Many of the workplace changes improve flexibility for the employer and employee. Silvia Razgova / The National

Everyone must have at least one rest day, with the option of more depending on their contract.

Employees must receive paid mourning leave of between three and five days, depending on their relationship to the deceased.

They will be able to ask for bereavement leave of five days after the death of a spouse and three days after the death of a close family member; parental leave of five days within six months of the birth of a child, and study leave of 10 days for employees who need to take exams if they have worked for two years for the same employer, Dr Elhais said.

Mothers will also get more time off, with 45 days of full pay and 15 days of half pay.

Fathers are permitted five days paid leave across all emirates.

Non-compete clauses can now be written into a contract, allowing an employer to prevent a former employee from competing against them or participating in a competing project in the same sector.

In another change, teenagers aged 15 and above can now work after obtaining written approval from their parents and a medical fitness report. They should not, however, be hired to do risky jobs or work later than 7pm. They must also work no longer than six hours each day, inclusive of a one-hour break.

The changes, introduced by Federal Decree-Law No 33 of 2021, were issued by President Sheikh Khalifa in November.

Those working in the private sector only but not including domestic workers.

All private sector employees and employers in the UAE, onshore and in the free zones, are subject to the new law, except for those in the DIFC and ADGM, which have their own employment legislation, Dr Elhais said.

Updated: February 1st 2022, 3:25 AM

See the original post:

UAE labour laws: all you need to know about the changes in February - The National

On Jan. 18, Utahs Legislature took up a Republican-led bill (HB147) to repeal the death penalty, which was immediately met with widespread and emphatic support.

Backers include prosecutors, conservative lawmakers, victims families and business leaders like myself. This groundswell shouldnt come as a surprise. Ending capital punishment is key to unlocking Utahs potential.

As a state, we are at a critical juncture. We have a skilled and educated workforce, excellent research facilities, and the infrastructure to support growth. We are one of the top ranked states in the country when it comes to doing business, and Salt Lake Citys new airport presents a tremendous opportunity as we look to graduate from Crossroads of the West to Crossroads of the World.

However, our continued use of the death penalty presents a major stumbling block.

When assessing where to do business, investors and employers look for signs of good governance, fiscal responsibility and evidence-based policymaking. But as a justice measure, the death penalty falls at every hurdle. It doesnt make our communities safer. It doesnt deter crime. Studies have shown that states that use capital punishment have higher homicide rates than those that abolish it. Utah Countys top prosecutor says that pretending it will curb crime is simply a lie.

For something that doesnt work, its also shockingly expensive. Over the last 20 years, Utah has spent roughly $40 million on death penalty cases and funded only two sentences. Wasting taxpayer money like this sends the wrong message about political priorities. As we emerge from the pandemic, governments should focus on recovery and job creation not on failed and retributive policies of the past.

The death penalty also comes with a real and alarming risk of killing innocent people. Since the 1970s, at least 186 people have been exonerated and freed from death row nationwide. This means that for every eight people executed, one innocent person is released. We shouldnt be publicly funding any system with such an unacceptable rate of error, let alone one with such tragic and irrevocable consequences.

Given these facts, I join other investors who are signaling their opposition to the death penalty. Galaxy Digital CEO Mike Novogratz has stated we should choose to invest elsewhere in the face of such reckless mismanagement of taxes. Other outspoken critics include tech giants such as Marc Benioff (Salesforce), Sheryl Sandberg (Facebook) and Paul Graham (Y-Combinator). With initiatives like Silicon Slopes, we have an opportunity to cement our status as an innovation hub but we need to attract companies like these. Lets not undermine by clinging onto this machinery of death.

Its continued use also presents a threat to Utahs prospects in attracting international trade and investment. French President Emmanuel Macron has announced he will make the universal abolition of capital punishment a key priority of his countrys EU presidency. European governments have also consistently said they take urgent issues like the death penalty into consideration when it comes to trade. Pre-pandemic, Utahs trade with the EU brought $5.5 billion not to mention 30,000 jobs into the state. EU investment here totaled more than $23 billion, creating another 25,000 jobs. Then theres European tourism, which generated $300 million.

There is no question. The death penalty comes at an enormous cost to our safety, to our reputation, to our economy. As a conservative and deeply moral state, we should demonstrate a commitment to those values by ending it.

Jeff Wright is chairman of Actium Partners, based in Salt Lake City. He is a former member of the board of trustees for Southern Utah University and previously served as national finance chairman for Jon Huntsmans presidential campaign.

Excerpt from:

Utah still has the death penalty. That hurts its economy |Opinion - Deseret News

The 2022 demonstration at the Livermore Lab. | Mishaa DeGraw, ProBonoPhotos.org, used with permission. La demostracin de 2022 en el Livermore Lab. | Mishaa DeGraw, ProBonoPhotos.org, usado con permiso.

LIVERMORE, Calif. As workers entered the west gate of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on the morning of Jan. 21, they were greeted by protesters displaying 8-foot banners declaring, World to U.S.: Nuclear Weapons are Illegal Join the Treaty!

The demonstrators, from Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment, Womens International League for Peace and Freedom, and the Livermore Conversion Project, were there to celebrate the first anniversary of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and to call on the United States to sign and ratify the treaty. The pact, often called the Ban Treaty, entered into force on Jan. 22, 2021, after 50 nations had ratified it.

The protesters gathered at Livermore Lab because it is one of two locations that create every nuclear warhead and bomb in the U.S. stockpile.

After years of work by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, the TPNW was adopted at a United Nations conference in 2017 by 122 of the UN General Assemblys 192 members. The treaty has now been signed by 86 countries and ratified by 59, with more ratifications in process. So far, none of the worlds nine nuclear-armed nations have signed it, and three the U.S., the United Kingdom, and France have declared they will never ratify it.

The treaty bars its signatories from developing, testing, producing, manufacturing, transferring, possessing, stockpiling, using or threatening to use nuclear weapons, or allowing them to be stationed on their territory, or helping, encouraging, or pressing anyone to do so. It also commits them to aid victims of nuclear testing and to help restore contaminated sites.

As Raiza Marciscano, Tri-Valley CAREs community organizer, circulated a bullhorn among the banner-holding protesters, they told why they joined the early-morning action. Said one, Nuclear weapons are as great a threat as the climate crisis and the extinction crisis. We need our government to sign the treaty and disarm and shift the money to human needs and protecting nature.

Added another, Im here for all the survivors of our bombings were the only nation to bomb a civilian population with a nuclear device and to tell our young people to work for peace and nuclear disarmament.

Noting that U.S. mainstream media have largely ignored the treaty, Scott Yundt, Tri-Valley CAREs staff attorney, declared that with 59 states having ratified the pact, its time for us to take it seriously Lets do it!

The bullhorn continued to circulate as participants read portions of the treaty. They joined in cheering, ringing bells, and chanting United States, sign the treaty! as Tri-Valley CAREs Executive Director Marylia Kelley read the names of ratifying countries. This is the goal of the world, Kelley said. Weve heard island countries, countries from almost every continent, countries of various sizes, various traditions. She said all, including those still in the process of ratifying, are united to ensure nuclear weapons are never used again, by assuring their global abolition.

Wrapping up the action, the protesters zip-tied a banner featuring the treatys full text to the laboratorys fence.

The action at Livermore Lab was one of many such anniversary gatherings around the world. Among dozens of other locations where advocates calling for U.S. ratification: Northampton, Mass.; Geneseo, N.Y., New York City; Asheville, N.C.; Madison, Wisc., Berkeley, Calif., and Idaho Falls, Idaho.

The very first nation state to ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was the Vatican. On Sept. 20, 2017, the Secretary for the Holy Sees Relations with States signed the treaty at UN Headquarters in New York and at the same time, handed over the instruments of ratification.

As the TPNWs first anniversary approached, Roman Catholic Archbishop John C. Wester of Santa Fe, N.M. on Jan. 11 issued a pastoral letter in which he called for renewed emphasis on nuclear arms control and on concrete steps to abolish nuclear weapons and to find a new path toward nuclear disarmament.

Archbishop Wester said the archdiocese has a special role to play in work for nuclear disarmament because of the presence of the Los Alamos and Sandia nuclear weapons laboratories and the U.S. largest repository of nuclear weapons at the Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, N.M.

Citing Pope Francis declaration that We must never grow weary of working to support the principal international legal instruments of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, including the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, Archbishop Wester said it is the duty of the archdiocese, the birthplace of nuclear weapons, to support that Treaty while working toward universal, verifiable nuclear disarmament.

And on Jan. 19, anticipating both the TPNW anniversary and the Biden administrations expected release of its Nuclear Posture Review, Veterans For Peace released a far-reaching Nuclear Posture Review of its own, calling on the Biden administration to sign and ratify the TPNW and to work with other nuclear-armed states to eliminate all the worlds nuclear weapons.

Veterans For Peace calls for a No First Use/No Launch on Warning policy with warheads separated from delivery vehicles, decommissioning of intercontinental ballistic weapons and silos because as well-known targets they can only be used as first-strike weapons, replacing the presidents sole authority to launch a nuclear attack with a more collective process less likely to lead to a rash decision, and eliminating anti-ballistic missile systems.

The Veterans urge Washington to reinstate the Anti-Ballistic Missile and Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaties, to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and to call on the other nuclear powers to negotiate for nuclear disarmament under the 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. They also urge the U.S. to rejoin the Iran Nuclear Deal and negotiate a peace treaty with North Korea that will finally end the Korean war.

VFP also calls on the U.S. government to remove U.S. nuclear weapons stationed abroad, end all nuclear weapons modernization, create funding and develop technologies for cleaning up uranium mines and mills, nuclear production and testing facilities, and help nuclear industry workers transition to constructive employment.

Read the original:

Nuke treaty anniversary observed with calls for U.S. ratification - People's World

A major grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation will provide new learning opportunities for Kalamazoo College students and faculty seeking solutions to societal problems and promote the critical role of the humanities in social justice work.

The $1.297 million three-year grant will provide funding for the Colleges Humanities Integrated Locational Learning (HILL) project, which is building student coursework rooted in Ks commitment to experiential learning and social justice to address issues such as racism, border policing, economic inequities, homelessness and global warming, while examining history, how humans share land, and the dislocations that bring people to a communal space.

The project was envisioned by Associate Professor of English Shanna Salinas (Co-PI), Arcus Center for Social Justice Leadership Assistant Professor of Sociology Francisco Villegas (Co-PI) and Professor of English Bruce Mills. HILL will invite K faculty to build curricula that foreground how power structures produce destabilizing dynamics and the collective response(s) of affected communities through the development of course materials, collaborative faculty-student research and community engagement, the development of program assessments and the sharing of oral histories tied to partnering projects and organizations.

Each class within the curriculum will fit into one of two cluster programs: the first focuses on hubs outside of Kalamazoo such as New Orleans, St. Louis and San Diego; the second looks within Kalamazoo with themes relevant to the city such as prison reform and abolition, and migrants and refugees. Both cluster programs will contribute to a digital humanities initiative for publishing, archiving and assessing coursework and partnerships. Each will provide opportunities for immersing students in local heritage, cultures, landscapes, opportunities and experiences.

Salinas and Villegas will co-direct the HILL initiative. The three sites outside KalamazooNew Orleans, St. Louis and San Diegowere chosen for their current or historical dispersion of people from their homeland, as well as dislocated communities with strong histories of social justice movements. About 15 to 20 students at a time will go to those cities to further their experiential learning. Salinas added that faculty and students will first put in research and legwork related to their collaborative partnerships with a year of concentrated work. Then, by about December 2022, they will be ready to conduct in-person learning, first in New Orleans.

In addition to co-directing the project, Salinas will also serve as the curriculum coordinator for New Orleans. We hope that students will develop an understanding of place as a living entity with a storied history and people who are a part of that location, Salinas said. We want students to learn what it means to be a part of a particular place. We want them to contend with histories, and meet the residents and people who inhabit the spaces we study with a real sense of generosity and purpose. We want to change students understanding about how they approach space and operate within it.

Villegas plans to build on his strong connections within Kalamazoo County in leading the cluster focused on issues inside Kalamazoo. As a member of an exploratory taskforce (and now advisory board chair), he helped Kalamazoo County launch a community ID program in 2018, allowing residents, including those otherwise unable to get a state ID, to obtain a county ID.

I think the grant speaks to the Mellon Foundation seeing promise in the kind of work we are imagining, Villegas said. Its encouraging that they are willing to invest so greatly in such a project. Theyre also recognizing the ethics of the project. Theyre trusting that were going to engage with cities, including our home city, with a sense of respect and with a recognition of furthering community agendas already in place rather than imposing our understandings to other spaces. Most importantly, were invested in thinking about how students can consider the humanities in these projects as a way of producing nuanced understandings toward addressing very big problems.

Mills will lead the digital humanities portion of the initiative. He noted that one measure of success for participating faculty will be how HILL shows the enduring dimensions of its partnerships with the digital project playing a large role.

When you create classes, writing projects, oral histories or collaborate on community projects, these efforts often get lost when they just go into a file or a paper or are not passed along in local memory, Mills said. The digital humanities hub is an essential part of this initiative because faculty, students and city partners will have a site for a collective work to be published or presented. Community members will have access to it. That means the work being done will not disappear.

In addition to Salinas, Villegas and Mills, Associate Professor of Music Beau Bothwell and Professor of Art and Art History Christine Hahn will be curriculum coordinators for St. Louis and San Diego respectively. The first four courses that will be offered in the HILL project are Advanced Literary Studies (Salinas, English); Missionaries to Pilgrims: Diasporic Returns (Associate Professor Espelencia Baptiste, Anthropology and Sociology); The World Through New Orleans (Bothwell, Music); and Architecture Urbanism Identity (Hahn, Art and Art History).

The Mellon Foundations grant to K is one of 12 being issued to liberal arts colleges as a part of the organizations Humanities for All Times initiative, which was created to support curriculum that demonstrates real-world applications to social justice pursuits and objectives.

Kalamazoo Colleges commitment to social justice is most profoundly realized through students opportunities to connect the theoretical with hands-on work happening in our communities, Kalamazoo College President Jorge G. Gonzalez said. Were grateful for the Mellon Foundations generous support, which will enable us to build on our foundation of experiential education and demonstrate to our students how the humanities have a practical role in fostering positive social change.

The Mellon Foundation notes that humanities thought and scholarship efforts influence developments in the social world. However, theres been a sharp decline in undergraduate humanities study and degree recipients nationwide over the past decade despite students marked interest in social justice issues. The initiative targets higher student participation in the humanities and social justice while building their skills in diagnosing cultural conditions that impede a just and equitable society.

The Humanities for All Times initiative underscores that its not only critical to show students that the humanities improve the quality of their everyday lives, but also that they are a crucial tool in efforts to bring about meaningful progressive change in the world, said Phillip Brian Harper, the Mellon Foundations higher learning program director. We are thrilled to support this work at liberal arts colleges across the country. Given their unequivocal commitment to humanities-based knowledge, and their close ties to the local communities in which such knowledge can be put to immediate productive use, we know that these schools are perfectly positioned to take on this important work.

See the rest here:

Humanities Grant Boosts Experiential Learning Project - News and Events - Kalamazoo College