With 7 percent of the student body at the University of Missouri being African American, some students took matters into their own hands and started to protest the lack of action from the administration. They called for the president and the chancellor of the university to step down. Some students even went to extreme measures by going on a hunger strike. All of this was to no avail: no one listened. Neither students’ protests nor their own health mattered.

The administration did not listen until the Missouri University football team refused to take the field during their next game if nothing changed. Within 24 hours, the president and Chancellor of the university put in their slips for resignation. That abrupt change caused people to ask why it was that angry protesters and hunger strikers got no attention at the university, but the football team did.

I have to assume that the answer is money. College football is a major source of income for such major universities. They generate billions of dollars each year. So when you hit them in the pockets, you get their attention. Many college football teams are under contracts with television networks and have endorsements from various companies.

During the civil rights movements, African Americans boycotted buses and all white-owned stores to get the attention of the people who were treating them unfairly. African Americans showed discipline and unity, and from that came a change. The University of Missouri football team and student body may be on to something. Minorities are big consumers in this country, and also those who are most oppressed and discriminated against. I could say African Americans should go back and take a page from the Civil Rights movement and hit the oppressor in the pocket. Let’s let history repeat itself.

• This post is published as part of the Prison Op/Ed Project, an occasional series authored by CCRI sociology students who are incarcerated at the Rhode Island Adult Correctional Institute. Read more here:
  • ‘Prison Op/Ed Project’ teaches civic engagement, writing – Meghan Kallman
  • Does racial injustice still exist? Look at our schools – Aaron Carpenter
  • Rhode Island charges felons absurdly high court costs – Christopher Nemitz
  • Public school students and inmates need more vocational training – Darnell Hie
  • Prison policies put probation and vocational training at odds – Norman Johnson
  • Corporate-modeled prison industrial complex doesn’t serve society – Adrian Rojas
  • Incarceration is the new slavery – James Poston
  • Justice isn’t blind with data-based sentencing – David Brown
  • Ending welfare entitlements opened the door to disability fraud – Dan Davidson
  • Post prison services would stem system’s revolving door – Michael Wheelock
  • You’re vote doesn’t matter as much as your money – David Brown
  • How schools emulate prisons, and prepare students for them – Richard Pimiental
  • Cars that are good for society – David DeGrasse
  • PTA involvement instead of prison mentality in schools – Mustapha Bojang
  • Prison is about re-socialization, not corrections – Christopher Marsich
  • ACI administrator praises Prison Op/Ed Project – Ralph Orleck
  • Alcohol, incarceration and what it means to matter – Laura Baumgardner
  • Was Myron Magnet a genius or just a Republican? – Danny Mercure
  • Ike was right: Military industrial complex corrupted economy – Christopher Marsich
  • Second Chance Act deserves second chance at full funding – Christopher Rocheleau and Adrian Rojas
  • Who poses a bigger threat to US: Ben Carson or Ahmed Mohamed? – David Brown

The United Nurses and Allied Professionals (UNAP) Local 5098, shared its concerns about the unwillingness to effectively staff the hospital, while Lifespan continues to pay its executives millions of dollars a year.

“With healthcare reform going the way it is going right now, staffing has become a major issue,” said Lee Meyers, a registered nurse who has worked for the hospital for 25 years. “We work on the floors, and it’s getting to be with a skeleton crew. We need to have plenty of staff to take care of the very sick people that we are getting now, because people don’t go to the emergency room like they used to.”

“We take care of seven, eight patients that are really intensive care unit type patients,” she said. “That is causing us to burn out quicker, it’s too much handle.”

Debra Page, another registered nurse who has been working for just under four years, shared the sentiment.

“It’s on every level,” she said of the staffing problems. “Its from the minute you walk into the hospital to the minute you leave. You don’t get taken care of as soon as you walk in because we don’t have staff, you don’t get the care you deserve on the floor, I don’t have the time to hold my patient’s hand if their family’s not able to be there when they’re dying. I want to be able to be there and take care of that patient, and I don’t have the time to do that.”

Hospital staff also remarked on how much the climate has changed. Bernadette Means-Tavares is a pediatric nurse, but has also had experience on the patient end. When her daughter was an infant, she spent the first six months of her life at Hasbro, and there’s a huge difference between care now, and care back then.

“[The care she received] is being given, but it’s being given under a lot of stress and restraints. What she got, there’s no comparison to what you’re getting now, what we’re giving now,” she said.

Short staffing isn’t the only issue that UNAP is fighting against, though. In a press release sent out Tuesday, the group revealed that Lifespan not only keeps their hospitals at minimal staff, but is also attempting to cut employee compensation in the new contract that will be drawn up this year.

“Lifespan is seeking to cut its contribution to the retirement security of union employees- a move which would result in the loss of thousands of dollars to a member’s retirement,” the release said. “The hospital wants to make dramatic changes to the union’s health coverage, and is proposing a pay freeze until July 2016.”

Lifespan’s top five executives and officers were paid more than $12 million in 2012, according to the most recent available IRS 990 filings. Helene Macedo, President of UNAP Local 5098 finds these conditions to be inappropriate.

“For years, frontline caregivers have been asked to do more with less while the hospital spent lavishly on high-priced public relations campaigns; millions in salaries for top executives, and on other misplaced priorities,” she said. “It’s time for Lifespan to stop shortchanging healthcare professionals and invest in patient care again.”

Page added that Lifespan has tried to take away many of their rights as employees.

“For the hard work that we do, not only do they want to freeze our pay, not do any sort of cost of living increases, and actually take away benefits from us, including the fact that we have not had a matched 401k in quite so many years,” she said. “They want to limit our healthcare, where we get to get our healthcare, a lot of things that for one of the larger employers in the state, it doesn’t look good for them.”

The union has agreed to continue negotiations with Lifespan throughout July, but the negotiating committee has been given the authorization to deliver a ten-day strike notice if they cannot reach an agreement.

Well over 60 Providence police officers and a fair number of State police flanked the peaceful protest. There were no arrests made. The police were also recording the march, and spent a long time videotaping the marchers through the fence at the press conference held in the DARE parking lot at the end of the march. When the march briefly paused at the Providence Public Safety building, participants were startled to see police officers in full riot gear watching them from the windows.

In my years of recording and reporting on protests and marches of all kinds, I’ve never seen such a large police presence.

Contributing to the photos below is the talented Rachel Simon.

The bill to criminalize interfering with traffic on the highway while protesting was introduced by Senator Leo Raptakis and co-sponsored by, among others, Senator Paul Jabour. Coincidentally, Senator Jabour is the brother of Christine Jabour, the judge assigned to oversee the cases of five of the seven people arrested during the November 25 #blacklivesmatter protest here in Providence.

I contacted Senator Jabour to ask him about his reasons for signing onto the bill and the coincidence of his sister being the judge in many of the cases that provided the impetus for the legislation. Jabour, a practicing attorney, wanted to be upfront and quite clear when he said, “I never have and never will discuss cases with my sister.” He added that when he and his sister speak, they talk about family, and not about any issues to do with their jobs.

Jabour said that when the author of a bill is looking for co-sponsors, they make the rounds to their colleagues and ask for signatures. Like many, Jabour was “disturbed by the conduct” of protesters blocking the highway and was eager to support a bill that would clarify the limits of protests he sees as dangerous not only to motorists, but to the protesters themselves.

Jabour told me that the penalty outlined in the “final bill may not be a felony” but a misdemeanor. He expects the bill to change in significant ways after public testimony, which will likely include input from the Rhode Island State Police and the Department of Transportation.

A spokesperson for Christine Jabour informed me that the judge has no comment and was unaware of the Senate bill.

Judge Jabour set a trial date of February 5  today for Tess Lavoie-Brown, arrested Nov 25 with six others after hundreds of protesters blocked 95 southbound traffic for about 25 minutes. Due to the snowstorm the court appearances of three defendants, Steven Roberts, Larry Miller and CBattle, will be rescheduled. The case of Servio Gomez, who is facing more serious and complicated charges, is still ongoing.

Molly Kitiyakara pled to the charge of disorderly conduct on January 8, receiving a filing and 50 hours of community service. Charges against Tololupe Lawal were dismissed on December 17.

Walt Buteau, of WPRI 12, reports the firefighter, who has not been named “is the focus of an internal investigation into a gesture he made during a flag-burning protest in front of the Providence Public Safety Complex.”

The alleged show of support was captured on video by Steve Ahlquist (2:30 in video below).

Providence Public Safety Commissioner Steven Pare said police officers working the protest brought the matter to his attention, and the above video confirmed the incident.

“It’s a violation of rules and regulations,” Pare said. “Public safety officers are not allowed to protest or get involved in political activity when they are on duty.” Off duty public safety officials are allowed to express their political opinions, he added.

The firefighter could be reprimanded, Pare said but the action won’t be public because it’s a personnel matter, and he declined to give the man’s name.

“There was no doubt he was showing support,” said Pare. “When he raised his fist in support of the demonstrators, it incited them.”

Pare said he would follow the same procedure if, for example, an on-duty firefighter showed support for a union protesting a Gina Raimondo fundraiser. But he acknowledged that Ferguson protesters penchant for civil disobedience adds an element not present in the other example. “Is it more concerning because of the protests across the country, where we’ve seen some violence and some property damage, perhaps.”

Local 799 President Paul Doughty declined to comment on the issue.

RI ACLU Executive Director Steven Brown sent this statement to RI Future:

Unfortunately, recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have severely cut back on the First Amendment rights of public employees in the workplace. Even so, seeking to punish a firefighter merely for silently expressing support for an anti-racism protest is troubling on a number of levels. After all, the City has taken the legal position that firefighters can be forced to march in a Gay Pride parade against their beliefs. It’s somewhat ironic if city officials believe they can demand that firefighters participate in a demonstration of solidarity for gay rights but then punish a firefighter for quietly demonstrating support for racial justice.

The response to this incident raises other questions. According to news reports, Commissioner Pare indicated that city policy may have been violated because the firefighter should have been “neutral” in a political protest.  While we can understand why police officers should generally demonstrate neutrality in a protest in which they are engaged in crowd control, did the police officer seen hugging a young protester in Ferguson engage in conduct that would have violated Providence’s “neutrality” policy? And even if such a policy makes sense for police officers in the middle of a demonstration, why must all other city employees demonstrate “neutrality” as well?  At a time of political unrest, is it a violation of “neutrality” for a city employee to publicly salute a flag in response to a flag-burning across town?

Obviously, a government agency can set reasonable limits on what employees can say or do in their official capacities, and we don’t wish to minimize the complicated nature of issues that can sometimes be raised by government employee speech.  But the investigation of the firefighter’s silent expression in this instance is problematic and undeserving of any sort of punitive response.

“So what does blocking a highway and making ambulances late do to stop racism?”

These are real statements from those who would rather have seen Tuesday night’s Ferguson protest against police violence and systemic racism here in Rhode Island relegated to its usual three paragraphs next to a car advertisement on page six of the ProJo. Had the protesters in Providence not taken over the southbound lane of I-95, few media outlets would have covered the event in any depth.

To be fair, some see this as a tactical issue, and debate whether or not closing down the highway was the best course of action, but others feel that attention getting stunts like this are wrong because effectively highlighting the existence of racism brings about the possibility of system change, and with such change comes insecurity, uncertainty and fear for the privileged.

Better that black and brown people continue to die than one white person suffer insecurity, uncertainty or fear, I guess.

So those who benefit most from the present system (or think they do) lash out, and attempt to make huge issues out of relatively minor events.

Let’s get one thing out of the way right now: burning the American flag is a symbolic gesture that hurts no one and is completely protected speech under the first amendment. If a burning flag offends you more than the idea of the police gunning down a twelve year old carrying a BB gun or shooting a man in the toy aisle of a Walmart, your priorities are out of whack, and this piece isn’t written for you.

This piece is for the rest of us.

Blocking the highway was dangerous. The protesters could have been hurt. They could have caused an accident, or delayed an ambulance bringing someone in need to the hospital.

Yet accidents slow down the highways all the time. So does construction. So does a deer that’s lost its way. Somehow, ambulances make it through, take different routes, or go to different hospitals. And as a good friend said to me on Facebook, how many people complaining about the protesters closing the highway will vote for Chris Christie if he runs for President?

One potential Christie voter, Robert Paquin III, of the RI GOP, said, on Channel 10’s Wingmen, that, “The protesters were acting no better than the people they are accusing of being unfair.”

Let that sink in for a minute. The protesters are literally fighting for the lives of black and brown persons who are dying at the hands of an ever more militarized police. We have police officers getting away with murder. We are talking about centuries of racial oppression.

Somehow, according to Paquin, blocking traffic for twenty minutes on a Tuesday night is “no better.”

Providence Public Safety Commissioner Steven Pare wants protesters to inform him of their plans, so that the protests can become safe and predictable. Pare’s concern is public safety. Activists are concerned with establishing a more just society. The commissioner and the activists are at cross purposes. Society will not change when protesters ask politely, and there is little safety in change.

Our own history is full of dangerous and stupid actions that are steeped in violence, rather than non-violent disruption. RI Future editor Bob Plain, debating Paquin in the Wingmen segment, mentioned the burning of the Gaspee, an event celebrated every year in Rhode Island in which smugglers burned a British ship as a prelude to the American revolution. One might ask, “What does burning a ship and killing sailors have to do with democracy?”

So what has come out of the blocking of the highway? Conversation. Some of it is angry: privilege lashes out when uncovered, like a tiger pulled away from its young. Some of it is pointless: too many are so enmeshed in the privileges the current system confers upon them that they will never allow for the uncertainty of change.

But some conversations will shape future tactics, shake convictions, rock comfortable world views and bear fruit. Then the problem of criminalizing black and brown bodies will no longer be “their” problem but “our” problem, and we can work together to find solutions.

Like this kind writing?

Consider donating directly to Steve Ahlquist:

The response to Obama took place after the Gazan Solidarity Rally, which has been running weekly since Israel’s most recent military siege. As one peace event ended the next seamlessly began. In all about thirty people attended the two events.

The protesters spoke to passersby, handing out flyers that elucidated the similarities between the situation in Gaza under Israeli occupation and conditions in Ferguson, MS in the wake of the shooting death of Mike Brown, an unarmed black man. The list of demands made by the Providence protesters included stopping the war on Gaza, stopping police brutality in communities of color, ending all U.S. aid to Israel, ending U.S. military incursions in the Middle East, ending NSA spying on private citizens, and ending the militarization of the police.

“One reason for our choice of locale,” said Paul Hubbard, spokesperson for the Rhode Island Antiwar Committee, “is that President Obama will be fund-raising among the 1% at a secluded, ocean-front mansion in Newport. The other 99% of his constituents will probably be unable to catch even a glimpse of him, due to the blocked roads and high security surrounding his brief visit. This situation strikingly symbolizes the truth about which groups the U.S. government is really serving.”

Rallies like this seem small and inconsequential when stacked up against $32,000 fund raisers and the corporatization of the military and the militarization of the police, but such rallies offer up another way of thinking about the world and another way of being.

What is being offered is peace, and the courage to embrace it.

Poet and activist Jared Paul read his six-part, “Apartheid Then, Apartheid Now” which you can watch on video below:

CHANTING “MONEY for jobs and a decent wage, not for bailouts and 38,” 75 members and supporters of Occupy Providence (OPVD) rallied and marched through the streets of Providence on June 9.

OPVD organized the protest around three demands: No bailout of Wall Street/38 Studios bondholders, tax the rich, and solidarity not austerity, locally, nationally and internationally.

Assembling outside the Rhode Island Convention Center where the liberal blogger conference Netroots was in progress, the crowd heard personal testimony from working people who described how the economic crises and austerity agenda of the 1 percent have impacted their lives.

OPVD then marched several blocks to the former headquarters of 38 Studios, which spoken-word artist Jared Paul, an organizer with OPVD, described as a “crime scene.” Dozens of marchers then laid on the ground and were outlined in chalk as they participated in the great RI Jobs Dead On Arrival “die-in.” The action was designed to dramatize the destruction of good jobs caused by the “trickle-down” policies of the 1 percent and evidenced by the 38 Studios debacle.

38 Studios, a video game company owned by former Red Sox baseball star Curt Schilling, was financed in 2010 with a $75 million loan from the RI Economic Development Corporation (EDC). Gambling on Schilling’s risky start-up with taxpayer funds, the quasi-public agency floated up to $125 million in “moral obligation” bonds on Wall Street to guarantee the deal.

Chris Mastrangelo, an organizer with OPVD, made the analogy of a gambler who goes “on the street” to a loan shark for money to bet on a horse. Schilling, for many years a right-wing proponent of “small government,” was only too happy to accept the EDC loan.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

NOW THAT 38 Studios has collapsed, laid off its entire workforce in three states (700 people) and filed for bankruptcy, the bondholders (sharks) on Wall Street still expect to be paid. Gov. Lincoln Chafee and the Rhode Island Legislature have promised full payment. This will cost Rhode Island’s taxpayers $112 million over the next 10 to 20 years.

Speaking at the die-in, Paul Hubbard of the International Socialist Organization said:

The austerity agenda of Rhode Island’s 1 percent, recently imposed by the governor and the Rhode Island legislature, means massive cuts to education, the developmentally disabled, state worker pensions, public transportation and Rhode Island’s poor. These are the real crimes, crimes perpetrated against Rhode Island’s working families, against the 99 percent, against humanity…Our sisters and brothers in Greece, Egypt, Spain and Quebec have risen up against the austerity agenda of the global 1 percent. Occupy Providence is proud to stand in solidarity with the global 99 percent.

OPVD then marched through the city of Providence to the State House, where dozens of protesters assembled in front of the building’s main entrance. Chalk outlines of dead bodies, representing another crime scene, were drawn on the plaza outside.

Marching back to the convention center, the site of OPVD’s four-day “sidewalk occupation,” dozens of protesters stopped by another crime scene–the tax-exempt Providence Place Mall. Sixty protesters marched through the first floor, chanting, “Tax the rich! Solidarity not austerity!”

Security guards appeared and began assaulting peaceful protesters at the front of the march, physically pushing them toward the middle exit. A large group of protesters easily avoided the guards and continued to the exit at the far end of the mall as planned. There, a “mic check” ensued as OPVD again started chanting.

Security guards called in the Providence police, who detained and handcuffed about a dozen protesters as they attempted to leave. An hour later, all were released after signing agreements to stay off the mall premises for one year.

OPVD then re-assembled and finished the march, returning to cheers from those at the sidewalk occupation as well as bystanders outside the convention center. Speaking to the media, organizer Mariah Burns said, “The police used handcuffs on peaceful protesters simply exercising their rights to assembly and free speech. These tactics were clearly designed to intimidate and were completely unnecessary.”

As the scandal surrounding 38 Studios continues to unfold, OPVD has pledged to continue its struggle for justice and against Wall Street bailouts.

Sam;

Publishing the contents of the OP discussion list serve on -line with links at RI Future blog is a violation of our safety/security policies.

Of course, anyone is free to criticize OP, publicly or on the list itself, but exposing the discussion list to the public is not acceptable.

Unfortunately, this is seen by OP as a serious infraction.of our rules for the list. We have had to ask members of the press to leave the list for that exact reason – they wouldn’t respect OP confidentially on its’ list..

We’re requesting that you remove yourself from the OP discussion list.

solidarity;

[Name Redacted]

Well, I’m a good sport, so I fired back this:

I’m sorry, I thought Occupy was committed to a higher level of openness and communication; you know, that the 99% should be able to see the 99%’s list. I’m sorry that’s not the case. Go ahead and remove me.

Sincerely,

Sam

Sam; I hope this is just a misunderstanding. When people post to the OP discussion list, they have to have a certain level of trust that their posts will not be published in the [public] media (certainly not without their prior permission). That’s just common sense. In the past, people have been targeted by the government, employers (lost jobs), and been the subject of harassment for belonging to social protest movements like Occupy. For instance: there’s currently a war on public education, a war on women, and a war on the middle class, designed, engineered and promulgated by both parties – a broad austerity and state security agenda that we’re opposed to. We have teachers, students, and working people in our movement – people who could be targeted and hurt from exposure. In case you haven’t noticed, the US is not really a ‘free’ society anymore. Publishing the contents of emails from the OP list is wrong on so many levels and has nothing to do with any perceived ‘higher openness’. That’s not the same thing as publicly criticizing OP’s tactics or ideas. The right wing does that all the time and we’re perfectly capable of publicly defending our ideas and tactics, but we draw the line at intentionally opening up our people to potential harassment, intimidation, and reprisals. We don’t really want you to leave the list, but do need your promise that you will not publish or publicly expose posts, discussions, threads, etc.from the OP list. If you will make that commitment and agree not to in the future, we’re perfectly happy to have you stay on the list and participate in OP activity. If you feel that you can’t agree to this, then we will have to agree to disagree and you will be removed.