The 2013-14 academic year is shaping up to be a pivotal one for the American student movement. Developments both on-campus and off promise to shape the landscape of higher ed organizing in huge ways.

For the rest of this week, I’ll be posting the top twelve stories I’ve got my eye on as the fall semester gets underway. Yesterday I put up the first three — on Janet Napolitano’s new position at the head of the University of California system, the rise of divestment campaigns targeting Israeli policies and fossil fuels, and the new tuition alternative proposals being floated in Oregon and elsewhere.

As for the next three? Here you go…

9. The Obama plan for higher education funding.

A few weeks ago President Obama rolled out an ambitious set of proposals for reshaping the federal government’s role in higher education funding. There are a lot of pieces to the plan, but its core is a scheme under which students’ financial aid packages would be tied to the performance of the colleges in which they enrolled. The idea is that by rewarding colleges that keep tuition down, keep graduation rates up, and enroll lots of needy students (among other things), the federal government would be able to use its financial clout to influence policy on the state and campus level.

There’s a tremendous amount of disagreement about the merits of the plan, even among progressive higher ed policy folks. (Speaking for myself, there are pieces of it I really dislike, and others that I think have a lot of potential, at least in the abstract.) Big chunks of the plan won’t be going anywhere without congressional approval, others won’t see the light of day for several years, and all of it is going to be the subject of a lot of lobbying and wrangling in the months to come.

8. Building occupations as a campus organizing tactic.

Campus building takeovers have played a diminished role in the American student movement in the last couple of years, but we may see a bit of a resurgence this fall. Turnover at the top of the University of California system, mentioned yesterday, could lead activists there to test the waters on tactics that were met with harsh repression under the system’s former president, while the qualified success of the spring’s Cooper Union occupation drew the attention of organizers around the country.

7. What next for the United States Student Association?

The US Student Association is the country’s oldest and largest national student activist organization, but it has struggled in recent years to build membership and to connect with the burgeoning student movements of the moment. This year will be a crucial year for USSA, as its new officers and staff look to build on the achievements of the past while forging a sustainable new direction for the association.

The 2013-14 academic year is shaping up to be a pivotal one for the American student movement. Developments both on-campus and off promise to shape the landscape of higher ed organizing in huge ways. For the rest of this week, I’ll be posting the top twelve stories I’ve got my eye on as the fall semester gets underway.

12. Janet Napolitano and the future of the University of California.

The University of California is one of the nation’s most prestigious public university systems, and for the last several years it’s been a flashpoint for the changes and controversies that have been roiling American higher education. In-state tuition at UC is the highest in the nation, while out of state fees now rival Harvard’s. The system has been battered by budget cuts and bruised by the MOOC debate. Students have staged powerful and inventive protests across the state, and the police brutality they have been met with has become a national scandal.

And now UC is getting a new president.

Janet Napolitano will be the first female president of UC, the first politician, and the first non-academic. Hired for her political acumen and management skills, it’s not at all clear yet what kind of a University of California she’ll be advocating for, either internally or in Sacramento. UC observers will be watching closely in the coming months to see how Napolitano handles issues of university funding, campus governance, student protest, and — crucially — undocumented student issues. Napolitano has promised to be “an advocate for the undocumented” at UC, but as head of the Department of Homeland Security she presided over a wave of deportations that was unprecedented in its scope.

11. The growing use of institutional divestment campaigns as a student organizing tool.

In the 1980s institutional divestment campaigns were a central component of US student organizing against South Africa’s apartheid regime. By pressing universities to cut ties with businesses operating in South Africa, students yoked the financial clout of colleges’ huge endowments to the moral force of institutional accountability.

In recent years students have resurrected the divestment campaign as a tactic in other struggles, most notably in opposition to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and to American dependence on fossil fuels. In each case, momentum for these divestment campaigns has grown year-to-year, and plans are already in place for efforts at new campuses this fall. Also: Look for the tactic to spread to other issues as the Israel and fossil fuel divestment movements continue to garner greater attention.

10. Tuition alternatives in Oregon and beyond.

Oregon’s legislature got a lot of press a few months ago for a proposal called Pay it Forward that many headline writers hailed as an end to tuition in the state’s public colleges. It’s not that, but it is interesting.

The idea behind Pay it Forward is that students would be given the option of delaying tuition charges and then paying them off as a percentage of their income for a set number of years after college. In some respects, this is simply a repackaged version of the income-based loan repayment plans that have started to get traction around the country in recent years, so it’s not quite as revolutionary as it seems. It is, however a big step forward for a relatively new way of thinking about college costs.

Is it a good plan? To a large extent that’s going to depend on the details. A high repayment rate and a long repayment schedule would make the plan a lot less appealing, obviously, and how the numbers shake out in the long term depends on a lot of factors — how much of the cost of education students are expected to shoulder, obviously, but also how many students participate in the program and which ones. If students with high prospective incomes wind up opting out (either by taking advantage of a traditional-tuition alternative or simply choosing other colleges), the poorer students in the Pay it Forward pool will wind up getting squeezed more.

Pay it Forward isn’t going to be implemented immediately, even in Oregon. (The legislature there has asked that a pilot program be up and running by 2015.) But lawmakers in other states are already sniffing around the idea, and more will surely follow as the Oregon proposal moves forward.

•          •          •

That’s the first installment of the list. Additional entries will be posted every day this week — come back tomorrow for a discussion of Obama’s higher ed funding proposal, the future of the United States Student Association, and more.

 

Content note: Rape and rape apologism.

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen has a new piece up blaming youth culture generally, and Miley Cyrus in particular, for the 2012 Steubenville rape. There’s a lot to hate in Cohen’s piece, from the rote victim-blaming to the arch condemnation of popular culture to the utter failure to comprehend the ways in which Steubenville’s upstanding, non-twerking adult citizens set the stage for, facilitated, and then attempted to cover up and excuse the crimes of that night. But I don’t want to talk about any of that right now.

I want to talk about one particular lie.

Here’s how Cohen describes what happened in Steubenville:

“The first thing you should know about the so-called Steubenville Rape is that this was not a rape involving intercourse. The next thing you should know is that there weren’t many young men involved — just two were convicted. The next thing you should know is that just about everything you do know about the case from TV and the Internet was wrong. One medium fed the other, a vicious circle of rumor, innuendo and just plain lies. It made for marvelous television…

…The Internet — in e-mails and tweets and Facebook…formed itself into a digital lynch mob that demanded the arrest of the innocent for a crime — gang rape — that had not been committed…

And yet what indisputably did happen is troubling enough. A teenage girl, stone-drunk, was stripped and manhandled. She was photographed and the picture passed around. Obviously, she was sexually mistreated. And while many people knew about all of this, no one did anything about it. The girl was dehumanized. As Levy put it, “[T]he teens seemed largely unaware that they’d been involved in a crime.” She quoted the Jefferson County prosecutor, Jane Hanlin: “ ‘They don’t think that what they’ve seen is a rape in the classic sense. And if you were to interview a thousand teen-agers before this case started and said, “Is it illegal to take a video of another teenager naked?,” I would be astonished if you could find even one who said yes.’ ””

That’s the entirety of Cohen’s summary of the case. There was no intercourse. The internet formed “a digital lynch mob,” calling for “the arrest of the innocent for a crime … the had not been committed.” A drunk girl “was stripped and manhandled.” Photographed. “Sexually mistreated” — “obviously.” But because the perpetrators didn’t know it was “illegal to take a video of another teenager naked,” because that act isn’t “rape in the classic sense,” they don’t know they committed a crime.

But the two young men who were convicted of rape in the Steubenville case didn’t just “take a video of another teenager naked.” They penetrated her digitally when she was dead drunk. One attempted — at a minimum — to force her to perform oral sex on him when she was in the same condition, and boasted that he’d had sex with her as well. (No rape kit was ever compiled.) Others witnessed these assaults, with at least one participating by videotaping one of the attacks. One partygoer was captured in a twelve-minute cell phone video joking about the incident, repeatedly describing it as a gang rape.

Because evidence was destroyed or not secured, and because several young men were given immunity from prosecution in exchange for their testimony, the full list of perpetrators and their complete list of crimes will likely never be known for certain. But despite Richard Cohen’s despicable spin and obfuscation, one thing is clear — the girl at the center of the Steubenville case was raped.

Nobody — not the perpetrators, not the witnesses, not the victim — was in any way confused about that.

Content note: Racial and sexual violence and slurs, victim-blaming.

September 26, 2014 Update: Stacey Dean Rambold was resentenced today, and was given ten years in prison for the rape of Cherice Moralez. The thirty days that he served in his original sentencing will be credited toward that time. In other news, the original judge in the case, who was suspended from the bench for a month by a disciplinary body, has announced that he will step down in December.

Fifty years ago today, as hundreds of thousands gathered in Washington DC for history’s most celebrated civil rights march, a few dozen people filed into a Maryland courtroom to hear a verdict and a sentence.

William Zantzinger, a 24-year-old tobacco farmer from a wealthy white family, was the defendant. On February 8 of that year Zantzinger had gone out partying with his wife and friends. At dinner, drunk and aggressive, he struck — “tapped,” he would claim at trial — several black waitresses with a toy wooden cane he carried with him.

As the party moved on to a formal ball at an exclusive hotel, Zantzinger’s mood worsened. He called one waitress a nigger as he struck her with his stick, then demanded that Hattie Carroll, a 51-year-old barmaid, bring him a bourbon. When she took too long in preparing it, he called her a black bitch and struck her on the neck, once, with the cane.

She gave him his drink.

Within a few minutes she began to feel dizzy and sick. Her arm went numb, she collapsed, and she was taken to the hospital. Carroll, the mother of eleven children, died of a brain hemorrhage at nine o’clock the following morning.

Zantzinger was arrested for murder, but the charge was reduced to manslaughter and assault because of ambiguities as to the precise medical role his attack played in Carroll’s death. His attorneys succeeded in moving the case out of the city of Baltimore to Hagerstown, Maryland, where he was tried before a panel of three judges in August.

Fifty years ago today those three judges found Zantzinger guilty of manslaughter and sentenced him to six months in jail, with the sentence deferred until after the end of the tobacco harvest.

•          •          •

In the fall of 2007 Billings, Montana high school teacher Stacey Dean Rambold sexually assaulted a ninth-grade girl in his school, fourteen-year-old Cherice Moralez. In April 2008 Moralez told a church group leader about the assaults, which had continued for several months, and Rambold was arraigned in October of that year.

As the case made its way through the courts, Moralez was subjected to embarrassment, harassment, and humiliation. In February 2010, with Rambold still awaiting trial, she took her own life. She was sixteen years old.

The death of Cherice Moralez complicated the effort to bring Rambold to justice, and in 2010, over the objections of Moralez’s family, prosecutors cut a deal. Rambold admitted guilt to a single count of felony sexual assault and pledged to enroll in a three-year sex offender treatment program. If he completed it, he would not face jail time.

Rambold never completed the treatment program. He started skipping meetings a year ago, and was terminated from the program in November after his treatment provider learned that he had violated a rule against unsupervised contact with minors and failed to inform counselors about a sexual relationship he had entered into.

Under the terms of Rambold’s original plea agreement his 2010 confession was admissible as evidence in court, so gaining a conviction after he violated the treatment agreement was a simple matter. Prosecutors asked that he be given ten years.

On Monday the judge gave him thirty days.

In handing down his ruling Judge G. Todd Baugh declared that although Cherice Moralez was just fourteen when the 49-year-old Rambold assaulted her, she was “as much in control of the situation” as he was. Moralez, he said, was “older than her chronological age.” Rambold’s violations of his treatment agreement, Baugh said, were not serious enough to warrant a lengthy sentence.

As Flavia Dzodan wrote this morning, the judge’s declaration that Moralez, a ninth-grader who killed herself at sixteen, was “as much in control” of her sexual assault as the 49-year-old teacher who perpetrated it is a claim with powerful racial precedent.

The insistence that girls of color who experience sexual abuse are precocious temptresses is one that we’ve seen used again and again to defend or exonerate their abusers.

It’s fifty years later. The fight isn’t over.

Note | I gave serious thought to the question of whether to include Cherice Moralez’s name in this piece, weighing the value of remembrance against the importance of privacy. Her name has appeared regularly in news coverage of the events that followed her suicide, and in researching this piece I searched for guidance about her family’s wishes. I found no indication that they prefer that it not be published.

Update | Judge Baugh defended his courtroom comments in an interview with a local newspaper yesterday. “I think that people have in mind that this was some violent, forcible, horrible rape,” he said, “it wasn’t this forcible beat-up rape.” Baugh conceded that “obviously” a fourteen-year-old can’t consent to sex.

In his interview, Baugh also addressed concerns about the sentence he handed down, in which he suspended all but thirty days of a fifteen-year term. “I think what people are seeing is a sentence for rape of 30 days. Obviously on the face of it, if you look at it that way, it’s crazy,” Baugh said. “No wonder people are upset. I’d be upset, too, if that happened.”

But that’s exactly what did happen. Yes, Rambold wound up in Baugh’s courtroom because of his failure to complete sex offender treatment, but the plea deal he struck in the original case was a result of the death by suicide of the complainant and sole witness to his crime. As prosecutors said at the time, they made the deal because they didn’t believe they could get a conviction otherwise. Their hands were tied.

Baugh’s hands were not tied. He had in front of him on Monday a confessed sexual predator who had failed to abide by even the absurdly lax terms of his original sentence. Baugh could have put him in prison for years. He chose not to. He chose not to, by his own account, in part because he regarded Rambold’s victim as complicit in the crime that led to her suicide, and because he does not consider the sexual assault of a ninth-grader by a 49-year-old teacher as having the seriousness of “some violent, forcible, horrible rape.”

No wonder people are upset. No wonder.

August 29 Update | Facing a growing outcry and an upcoming re-election fight, Judge Baugh apologized yesterday for his comments on the Rambold case, calling them “stupid and wrong.” In a letter to the Billings Gazette, he said that he was “not sure just what I was attempting to say” in his “references to the victim’s age and control,” but that his remarks had been “demeaning of all women, not what I believe and irrelevant to the sentencing.” He did not, however, apologize for the sentence itself, likening the circumstances that put Rambold in his court on Monday to a minor probation violation. The Yellowstone County district attorney said yesterday that he would be reviewing the sentence for a possible appeal, but told the Gazette that the scope of his authority to contest the judge’s decision was limited.

Activists will be staging a protest outside Baugh’s courthouse at noon today.

Second August 29 Update | Here’s the Facebook page for today’s courthouse protest.

Third August 29 Update | It’s become increasingly clear that Baugh’s apology was a very narrow one, restricted only to his remarks on Moralez’s “chronological age” and his claim that she was “in control” of the situation. In an interview with a local CNN affiliate that came after the release of yesterday’s apology letter, Baugh again displayed a caricatured understanding of the nature of rape. “It was not a violent, forcible, beat-the-victim rape, like you see in the movies,” he said. “But it was nonetheless a rape. It was a troubled young girl, and he was a teacher. And this should not have occurred.”

Two things need to be said about this quote. First, the “beat-the-victim” rape that “you see in the movies” has never been the most common kind of rape. Most rapes are committed by friends or acquaintances of the victim, and only a minority involve physical violence beyond the brutality inherent in the act itself. To imply that rapes that do not involve battery are not violent, and to suggest that such rapes are somehow the standard against other acts of sexual assault should be measured by, is a mind-boggling display of professional incompetence for a man in Baugh’s position.

Beyond that, it’s important to note that this hierarchy of rape is directly related to the comments about Cherice Moralez’s culpability that Baugh now disavows. The essence of rape is the denial of consent. That’s what defines the crime. And the premise behind statutory rape laws, the reason that such laws exist, is the understanding that a child is not legally capable of granting an adult consent to sexual contact. Statutory rape laws exist to preclude exactly the kind of “rape-rape” parsing that Judge Baugh has been engaging in all week. That Baugh doesn’t understand this, even now, is again evidence of not just moral obtuseness but also profound incompetence.

May 1, 2014 | The Montana Supreme Court has ordered Stacey Rambold re-sentenced by a new judge, declaring that Judge Baugh had no legal authority to evade statutory sentencing mandates in the case. In giving the re-sentencing order, the Court explicitly stated that the minimum legal sentence in the case is four years in prison with no more than two years suspended.

The maximum possible sentence is fifteen years.

In its ruling, the Court declared that Judge Baugh’s statements in connection with the Rambold sentencing were “improper,” “had no basis in the law,” and “cast serious doubt on the appearance of justice.” Further, they said, Baugh’s claim that Moralez was in “control” when Rambold sexually assaulted her was “directly at odds with the law.” They intend to take up the question of disciplinary action against Rambold at a later date.

Earlier today, as the 50th anniversary March on Washington got underway, writer David Sirota tweeted the following:

This is a premise that Sirota has indulged frequently in recent months — that his own criticism of Obama’s foreign policy is in the tradition of Martin Luther King, and that Obama’s defenders are the modern-day equivalent of those who attacked King for speaking out against the War in Vietnam.

Many have objected to this tweet, and to those that followed. Goldie Taylor of MSNBC suggested that Sirota was applying a flawed “cultural lens” to the analogy, while Imani Gandy of RH Reality Check and This Week In Blackness suggested that describing King’s criticism as simply “slamming LBJ” misrepresented the nature of King’s critique.

Taylor and Gandy are right. While King was fiercely critical of US government policy — and, at times, of President Johnson himself — he understood the failings of the government not as individual or partisan failings, but as failings of American society and government.

King made this distinction forcefully in an appearance on Face the Nation just two weeks after his pivotal speech on the Vietnam War at Riverside Church, in which he had condemned the US government — “my government” —  as “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.”

Asked whether his attacks on American policy might not be giving aid and comfort to the enemy, King responded, in part, that it was his view that ” in America we are in the tragic position of having a paranoid fear of Communism, an almost sick, morbid anti-Communism, which can be as destructive as anything.” When a panelist criticized the “implication” that “the President has a phobia about Communism,” King said the following:

“I did not specify any particular individual. I am speaking now of many, many people in our nation, and I do think that if we look at it from a historical point of view, many people in past administrations have had this view. I have felt that Mr. Dulles had it. I am not placing all the blame for this situation that we are in now on President Johnson. I think we have collective guilt here. After all, four administrations have participated in the development and the build-up, in a sense, of our present involvement in Vietnam. And I would not be so narrow as to single out President Lyndon Johnson. I understand the ambiguity of the situation that he faces. The only thing I say is that now that we are in it, we ought to admit that we have made mistakes — and it is very hard, as Reinhold Neibuhr said somewhere, for a nation to say it made a mistake. But this is just a fact. And I would hope that President Johnson will seek to rectify the tragic mistakes we have made in the past.”

Martin Luther King understood that the flaws he saw in the United States were not the flaws of one president, one administration, or one party. They were, he insisted, deeply embedded in our national culture.

When Sirota wraps himself in King’s mantle by imagining Obama supporters attacking King as an “emoprog,” he distorts King’s analysis and cheapens the debate that’s currently taking place in liberalism and the left around questions of American policy.

In imagining King’s critics as his own, moreover, he repudiates the approach that King himself took to the divisions of his age. Here, from that same Face the Nation interview, is King responding to a question of whether his antiwar statements had “split the civil rights movement”:

“I cannot conceive of a social revolution … that does not have debate. I think debate can be very healthy …  I think every movement goes through that period when it reaches the peak of united activity and united philosophical thoughts, and … those valley moments when we go through searchings and philosophical debates … I think this is where we are at the present time … and it is a myth to think that this is something new in the Negro community or any community.”

On the substance of Sirota’s criticism of the Obama administration, I am closer to Sirota’s views than to those of his primary antagonists. But his relentless needling deployment of Martin Luther King as a bludgeon against America’s first black president is unworthy. It’s ahistorical, it’s obnoxious, and it does nothing to advance the causes that he and I support.

About This Blog

n7772graysmall
StudentActivism.net is the work of Angus Johnston, a historian and advocate of American student organizing.

To contact Angus, click here. For more about him, check out AngusJohnston.com.