Teen Targeted as Terrorist for Using Facebook

“Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists,”

—George W. Bush’s address to the American people in preparation for war with Afghanistan, September 20,2001.

Cameron D’Ambrosio, a Massachusetts high school student, apparently is not with “us” since he was arrested on “terror” charges last week. The youth faces up to 20 years in prison for making a reference to the Boston Marathon bombings on his Facebook page. He is currently being held on $1 million bail, according to Alternet.

So were the police heroes? Did they act on good evidence, stop a terrorist act in its infancy, and perhaps save hundreds of lives, or was this just another example of overkill, censorship and thought policing?

According to the WSWS, D’Ambrosio posted the following rap lyrics: “F--- a boston bominb (sic) wait till u see the s--- I do, I’ma be famous rapping, and beat every murder charge that comes across me!” Friends insist that he was just emulating the macho, boastful style of other rappers and that, like other rap singers, he was merely singing about current events, not planning to emulate them—they insist that he never would carry out a bombing. More significantly, the police did not find any weapons or tools for making bombs, nor any plans for acquiring them. There were no victims. No specific threats were made against any person or target and he had no affiliations with any terrorist organizations

The Thought Police and America’s War on Youth

One would hope that parents and teachers are educating young people to be very careful what they say and do, especially online, in this hyperparanoid climate. However, that does not make D’Ambrosio’s actions illegal, let alone evidence of terrorism. Unless the authorities can find a compelling motive, plan, and the means to carry it out, their actions signal a willingness of the government to preemptively take out citizens merely for their feelings, artistic interests, or what they might possibly do in the future.

It should be pointed out that people routinely reference illegal or antisocial activities on their Facebook pages (and in musical lyrics) without legal consequences (e.g., drug use, violence against women, gay bashing). More to the point, “terrorist” speech is still protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution (as long as it doesn’t involve a specific, imminent and likely threat). In 1969, for example, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court upheld the KKK’s right to call for violence against politicians—though plans or action to actually carry out such an attack would be illegal.

D’Ambrosia is not the only teen being sucked into America’s Kafkaesque anti-terror gulag system. According to the WSWS, Alex David Rosario, a high school student in Michigan, faced terrorism charges in January for threatening to shoot coworkers, something he claimed was only a joke, and two Louisiana high school girls were arrested and charged with “terrorism” in February for emailing threats to students and faculty. There was also Kiera Wilmot, who I wrote about last week, arrested and charged as an adult for weapons possession in response to a science experiment.

None of these cases would have been considered acts of terrorism prior to the September 11 attacks and Bush’s assertion that “you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists.” What they signal is that the war against terror, which has been used to terrify the American public for more than a decade now, is increasingly being turned on the American public itself, including kids, and that the criteria used to identify terrorists has been so broadened that virtually anyone can be targeted. Consider investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill’s observation that the Obama administration is now using drone “signature strikes” to assassinate people based solely on their “profiles” (e.g., age, gender, location and who they might be hanging out with), including U.S. citizens, thus eviscerating their rights to a trial, to confront the evidence against them, and to have the representation of an attorney. A “signature” strike was used to take out Denver-born, 16-year-old, Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, who was assassinated by U.S. drones in Yemen in 2011 (see Democracy Now).

The hyperbolic use of the term terrorism—considered comical ten years ago when Bush’s education secretary, Rod Paige, referred to the National Educators Association (NEA) as a terrorist organization—is now being used to arrest, torture and kill innocent civilians and dissidents throughout the world. For example, members of Mexico’s teachers union, (Coordinadora Estatal de Trabajadores de la Educación en Guerrero, CETEG) were recently arrested on trumped up terrorism charges. In June, 2012, 72 members of Turkey’s KESK public sector union were charged with terrorism and imprisoned until April, 2013, according to Labour Start News, while dozens more have been arrested on similar charges over the past few months. And, according to Scahill, dozens of innocent civilians have been killed in “anti-terror” drone signature strikes in Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Protection for Whom?

One might reasonably wonder who the authorities are trying to protect (and at what cost), when they lock down an entire city (as they did in Boston, and more recently in Valley Springs, CA), conduct warrantless house to house searches, and threaten to arrest anyone who leaves their home. The same might be asked about the Obama administration’s assertion of its right to use drones to assassinate U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

In this context, being labeled a terrorist becomes all the more significant. If the government can arrest musically-inclined teens on terrorism charges simply for expressing anger and hostility devoid of a credible or imminent threat, will the terror jacket placed on the NEA by Rod Paige one day be used to arrest its members, as occurred in Mexico and Turkey?

Not likely—not unless they actually start to strike in significant numbers and pose a credible and imminent threat to the status quo, something they show no indication of doing. Likewise, if the labor movement were to engage in protracted multiple work stoppages, it seems inevitable that the government would accuse them of being economic terrorists. But this, too, seems remote. Unlike actual terrorists, the labor movement’s response to harassment, abuse and discontent tends toward a retraction from combativeness and collaboration with its persecutors.

Breaking News—Interest In Teaching is Dropping!

In a shocking and completely unexpected bit of news, it appears that young people are no longer interested in the Noble Profession. The Los Angeles Times reports that 12% fewer people earned teaching credentials in California last year compared with the year before—the 8^th straight annual decline. The California commission on Teacher Credentialing said that 16,450 educators earned credentials in 2011-12, while 23,320 did so in 2007-08.

One might argue that maybe today’s breed of wannabe teachers are just too stupid or lazy to pass the already really easy teacher preparation courses, but the number of students enrolling in teacher preparation programs has also dropped from 51,744 in 2006-07, to 34,838 in 2010-11, thus indicating that interest in the teaching profession is waning.

The decline has experts baffled.

When polled, current teachers insist that teaching is still the Noble Profession. “I love my students,” said Melissa Bernstein, a 4^th grade teacher in El Cajon, California. “I’d do anything for them. When my principal calls ad hoc meetings after school to get us on board with the latest reforms, I’m the first to arrive and the last to leave because I know it’s what’s best for my students!” San Francisco High school science teacher Armando Villalobos said, “The pay may not be sufficient to live in San Francisco, but the satisfaction of knowing I helped my students’ raise their test scores few points more than makes up for it.”

Dean Vogel, president of the California Teachers Association, said the combination of budget cuts, layoffs and slashed programs, combined with declining numbers of people entering the profession has been “very impactful” on our numbers. “Nationally, our union [the NEA] has lost 150,000 members over the last 3 years. These are good-hearted, hard-working teachers whose dues help pay my six-figure salary. This has me worried.”

While fewer young people are interested in becoming teachers, over 54,000 teachers are older than 55 and rapidly approaching retirement. This constitutes 19% of all California teachers. However, as California’s student population grows and its pool of fully credentialed teachers shrinks, considerable job and entrepreneurial opportunities will be created, which should boost the state’s lagging economy. For example, districts with insufficient numbers of credentialed teachers can always shut down some of their campuses and transfer them over to private charter school operators, who can hire Teach for America interns, and non-unionized, un-credentialed private school teachers. Districts may also choose to transfer much of their teaching duties to online “distance” learning companies, offshore call centers and sweatshops and simply hire “monitors” to make sure that students are logged on to the correct education websites during class time.

NEA Sheds Crocodile Tears for the Poor

President Obama has sent his budget plan to Congress, hoping to appease Republicans by slashing $400 billion from Medicare and other health programs (according to NEA Today) and cutting cost of living increases for Social Security recipients. Not surprisingly, Republicans are saying this isn’t enough and they have no intention of supporting any tax hikes, whatsoever. Some pundits are referring to the process as Obama negotiating with himself.

Needless to say, the cuts will hurt seniors and the poor the most (but on the brighter side, the wealthy will be able to continue to enjoying record low tax rates and subsidies for their businesses). These cuts could also have a trickle-down effect on schools. By stripping away some of the safety net for poor families, children will inevitably feel some of the cuts, which could lead to increases in malnutrition, untreated medical conditions, premature births, stress and elevated levels of cortisol, and other factors that can impair cognitive development, memory and learning.

National Educators Association (NEA) President Dennis Van Roekel criticized the plan, saying:

“Right now the focus should be on protecting and increasing benefits for our seniors, not pulling the rug out from under them . . . Social Security belongs to the people who have worked hard all their lives, contributed to the program, and relied on the promise that they and their family will be able to collect benefits that accurately reflect the cost of living when they retire. . . Any budget proposal must be balanced and fair by demanding more of the wealthiest and corporations while staying true to our nation’s commitment to seniors and those most in need.”

These comments are little more than crocodile tears coming from a man who earns close to $400,000 per year in salary and benefits and who will likely be set for life with a comfortable retirement, thanks to his members’ dues. While he may in fact feel sympathy for the poor and seniors, he is completely unwilling to do anything about it besides making a few impotent complaints—and certainly nothing that might jeopardize his income, status or personal freedom.

If NEA was a fighting union, if it really gave a damned about the wellbeing of America’s poor families and children (or simply wanted to see significant gains in educational outcomes), it would mobilize its hundreds of thousands of members to protest the entire budget debate vigorously, with direct action, civil disobedience and even strikes. The NEA is the largest union in the country. It has vast resources and could have significant influence on policy if it were to move away from its unreliable and weak strategy of lobbying and campaign financing and start exercising its true power: its members’ ability to withhold their labor.

One reason why the NEA will not do this is because it does not want to offend its darling in the White House. Despite the fact that Obama has done nothing to reduce the damage caused by No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and actually worsened it with his Race to the Top (RttT), he continues to pay lip service to the notion of improving public education (which seems to be sufficient to mollify many on the left). In fairness, his budget proposal does include an additional $75 billion to fund pre-school for all low- to moderate-income 4-year-olds. Yet for many middle class families, the only preschool options available are expensive private schools that suck up large portions of their disposable income. Obama’s budget will provide no relief for these families. More to the point, since we know that pre-K programs have significant benefits for children’s long-term academic success, why not extend the existing free public education system to include all children, starting at the pre-K level? This would have the additional benefit of allowing many parents to get back to work without having to lose a large chunk of their income to overpriced private preschools.

Van Roekel is also probably pleased with the supposed billions of dollars that will go toward education jobs to replace those lost due to the sequester cuts. However, jobs, in and of themselves, are nothing to support, particularly if those jobs are for low pay, with poor benefits and unreasonable demands or lack security. Why not increase unemployment benefits, welfare and other safety net programs to a level that provides all Americans with material security and comfort until they get back on their feet, instead of continuing with the cynical and punitive system that provides only a fraction of what one needs to survive and only for a timeframe that is insufficient for finding another decent job?

Additionally, why strive for putting teachers back in front of 30-40 kids per classroom, which is all that will happen with Obama’s proposal? Why not demand sufficient funding to bring all high school classes in the country down to 20 students per teacher, and the lower grade levels down to 10 or 15 students per teacher? This would not only create a lot of jobs, but it would provide teachers sufficient time to attend to the individual and diverse needs of their students; identify physical, emotional or academic problems before they spiral out of control; and provide more engaging, student-centered, inquiry-based lessons and rely less on canned curriculum, bubble in tests and rote memorization.

Weingarten Takes a Dive for Capitalism

Last week, Valarie Strauss (Answer Sheet) interviewed American Federation of Teachers (AFT) boss Randi Weingarten about why she went to Philadelphia and got arrested. Weingarten correctly noted that the people of Philadelphia, who had asked for a one-year moratorium on school closures, have been repeatedly ignored by the mayor. She also correctly pointed out that the push to close the schools is largely the initiative of the mayor, the city’s School Reform Commission (SRC) and an outside consulting firm, Boston Consulting Group (BCG). “When the powers that be ignore you, and dismiss you,” she told Strauss, “then you have no other choice than to resort to civil disobedience to confront an immoral act.”

The problem is that there is nothing immoral about it. While the majority of schools to be closed are in low income communities of color, the motivation to close them is not wicked, sinful, nor is the goal to harm poor black kids. Rather, the proponents are capitalists exploiting an essentially legal method to crush the Philadelphia teachers union and transfer public K-12 tax dollars to private charters and online schools. Calling it an immoral act merely obfuscates the financial motives (and legal methods) behind it, undermining teachers’, parents’ and students’ ability to successfully resist it.

Another problem is that a single arrest at one high profile public meeting is essentially just a publicity stunt. It is not an organized or effective strategy for reversing a large-scale public giveaway to private business.

One justification for the closures is the school district’s perennial budget problems. Yet the district voted to spend $1.4 million to hire BCG, according to Workers World. BCG Partner Sanjeev Midha is a trustee for KIPP Philadelphia (an online charter school) and BCG members serve on numerous other KIPP boards, as well. Not surprisingly, BCG promotes online education and stands to profit handsomely from the closures by offering online courses to students displaced by the closures.

Other BCG alumni include Mitt Romney, Benjamin Netanyahu, hedge fund manager John Paulson, and GE CEO Jeff Immelt, as well as hedge fund manager and Democrats for Education Reform[er] Whitney Tilson—all cheerleaders for charter schools and teachers’ union-busting. SRC members include Feather Houstoun, a former president of the William Penn Foundation (which donated additional money to hire BCG) and Pedro Ramos, who currently sits on the board of the United Way (which also coughed up funds to hire BCG).

BCG was also hired by the Transition Planning Committee (TPC) of Memphis to oversee their mass transfer of students out of the public school system and into private charter schools and has been involved in the post-Katrina plundering of the New Orleans school system, as well as pro-charter and anti-teachers’ union activities in Cleveland, Seattle, Chicago and Dallas. According to Diane Ravitch, their goal in Memphis is to increase charter enrollment from 4% to 19% of all students by 2016, which will effectively transfer $212 million from the public school budget to private charter schools.

Union-Sanctioned Union-Busting

If the school closures go through, the district will lose dozens union jobs. According, to National Educators Association president Dennis Van Roekel, the NEA, alone, has lost 150,000 unionized teaching jobs over the last three years. The AFT has lost thousands, more. If Weingarten wants to save her own job (and her more than $600,000 per year income) she needs to maintain membership levels, not let them shrink further. However, to do this requires mobilizing Philadelphia’s teachers, who are affiliated with the AFT, to do far more than protest at school board meetings. They need to engage in concerted and ongoing job actions and civil disobedience, something neither Weingarten nor any other major union leader wants to do.

The paradox is that while union bosses depend on their members’ dues to pay their salaries, they depend on the good graces of the ruling elite to exist in the first place, graces that have been granted to them in exchange for keeping the system running smoothly. The quid pro quo is that if they keep their members quiescent and on the job, the unions are tolerated and minor concessions are sometimes granted them. The bosses will even tolerate the occasional angry rant, arrest or otherwise uncivilized act by union leaders if it helps them to keep the rabble in line. Consequently, union leaders have been relying more and more on legal and political action than on strikes and other job actions, a strategy that has, at best, merely kept the decline in union membership from occurring any faster than it has. An occasional high profile arrest, while doing nothing to improve teachers’ job security, working conditions or compensation, does help boost union bosses’ street credibility by making them look like tough, self-sacrificing fighters, rather than parasites.

 
In order to keep members in line (and maintain the good graces of the ruling elite), union leaders need to convince the rank and file that alternatives to strikes and other job actions will be effective. In the case of the Wisconsin state house occupation, the unions argued that they could best reverse their state’s union-busting legislation at the ballot box and convinced everyone to go home.

In the case of Philadelphia’s school closings, Weingarten has similarly distorted the issue, ignoring the impact on job security and collective bargaining power and focusing on political corruption. She described events in Philadelphia as a strong “statement” that the mayor, governor and SRC are not on the side of the people. In other words, the school closures are an attack on democracy (an immoral act?)—a politically popular concept that is likely to appeal to community members’ sense of patriotism, but not one that is likely to save teachers’ jobs or stop the closures. Indeed, if the problem is merely the product of bad politics, as she has implied, then the solution is supposedly to fight back in the political arena, thus squelching any movement for workplace actions.