Is Grand Rapids an LGBTQ-friendly city?
Last month, MLive ran a story about the City of Grand Rapids receiving a high score for being an LGBTQ-friendly city.
The LGBTQ-friendly status was based on a metric that comes from the national organization, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). Below is a chart of how the City of Grand Rapids scored, looking at the following areas: non-discrimination laws, municipality as employer, law enforcement and leadership on LGBTQ equality.
I found the high score somewhat unbelievable, based on interactions and conversations I have had in recent years with those who identify as LGBTQ, so I sent the MLive article and the HRC scorecard to numerous people to get their response. Here are four responses that I received
Colleen – As an openly gay minister from a liberal church here in Grand Rapids I am contacted throughout the year by teenagers or parents of LGBTQA+ youth. At issue is the teen coming out to their family members and facing rejection. Parents even if they are accepting face being ostracized by other family members, friends and faith communities. Organizations that support homeless youth like HQ and 3:11 Housing report that the high numbers of youth who face housing insecurity are from the LGBTQA+ identities. They are put in crisis because they have been kicked out of their family homes. There is still a deep seeded culture in Grand Rapids that is oppressive to the LGBTQA+ folx. Even an honorable judge recently was singled out by her priest who denied her a sacrament of her faith.
Eight years ago, my wife and I moved here from Boston, Massachusetts. Boston has a long history of being a welcoming city to the gay community. We were in a bit of a culture shock when we first arrived in Grand Rapids. I was repeatedly called a sinner by complete strangers, something I had never experienced before in my life. I appreciate the efforts to be more inclusive but personally I think the HRC 92 out of 100 ranking is extremely premature. We have much more work to do to be a truly inclusive city.
Aaminah – First, it is important to note that the organization that provides this scoring system is a deeply problematic organization with a terrible track record regarding racial justice, engaging in/supporting biphobia, and lack of meaningful support for transgender individuals including erasure of non-binary people. So frankly, their ranking is questionable to begin with. Second, I notice that the two primary areas they are claiming the city has improved is in relation to policing and employment. There are so many things wrong with this focus. To say we have a equality in this city on the basis of the police force now having a liaison and some training is, frankly, horrifying. The GRPD engages in so much inequitable behavior and having a liaison isn’t going to magically transform the nature of policing and the overarching methods. The same goes for these claims about employment that are, frankly, simply false. Having some laws in place doesn’t change the fact that we are more likely to be unemployed or underemployed, more likely to be laid off or fired, and unable to seek legal redress for it. Creating a position for a cis, white, gay man to get paid to chair a community relations commission doesn’t mean anything at all. You cannot just create positions for cis, white, abled gay people and call it doing the work on justice. That’s just PR. It’s not substantial change or movement. And all of this is actually perfectly emblematic of the ways that Grand Rapids is NOT a safe, inclusive, or friendly community for LGBTQIA people. Everything that is being used to show growth is only beneficial to a certain kind of lesbian or gay person – not bi/pansexual, not trans, not non-binary, not intersex, not asexual, and not even anyone who is overtly queer. These growth policies absolutely center white and abled gay and lesbian citizens. And I say “citizens” purposefully, because “improved” policing disproportionately does more harm to Black, Indigenous, Latinx, and other people of color, and non-citizens are also disproportionately harmed. In fact, this focus on “the police are our friends” has explicitly led to white cis gay individuals and businesses just feeling better about using the police against others in the community. I could name specific examples of how this PR campaign has actively contributed to harm to people in the community who don’t conform to a middle-class, professional, and white, cis, abled set of expectations. Local LGBTQ+ organizations have been undermined by this PR campaign and efforts to “look good” that don’t include actual justice or equity for the most vulnerable, most marginalized, and most impacted members of our community. Looking good shouldn’t be the goal. Actual services, access, and sustainable resources for all LGBTQIA people in the community needs to happen, and it isn’t happening right now.
Raina – Basically, myself and some other activists organized a march for Pride protesting police violence. We rented a U-Haul truck and trailer and made a float. People gathered at Veteran’s Memorial Circle and waited for me to drive the float there. The plan was to have the float lead a march down Division to the gates of Pride Fest. We did the same thing the year before and one police car followed us there without intervening. This year there were numerous cruisers and a bunch of bike cops. As soon as I pulled up, I was warned that I could not lead the march and could drive directly to the gates but only at the speed limit and not impeding traffic. As I was being warned, a couple activists jumped in the back of the trailer. I was told to drive immediately or be arrested, even with people in the back. I began to drive down Division, but I was worried about the folks in the back, so I pulled over to tell them to get out. A cop car immediately put its lights on and pulled behind me. The cop told me I had been warned and told me to get out of the vehicle. She cuffed me and put me in the back of her cruiser. Kylie, who was in the trailer, jumped out and was expressing her concern for my arrest. She was also arrested and briefly resisted. The truck and trailer were both impounded. I was charged with failure to obey and creating a disturbance. Kylie was charged with felony resisting and obstructing.
David – It’s a good first start for demographics. This just deals with municipal interactions and those possibilities. It doesn’t seem to ask about interactions in neighborhoods or among individuals, one to one stuff.
I would want a fuller picture for serious pat the community on the back for being LGBTQ welcoming. I think the following set of questions need asking:
What support is given to Pride celebrations, LGBTQ history, youth and families. How many LGBTQ homeless are there, and how many are 14-16, 16-18?
How many social services agencies are there? i.e. Pride Center, AIDS Resource Center, Red Project, HQ, welcoming, affirming, inclusive faith communities. How many LGBTQ folks were interviewed by HRC? There needs to be a representative sample to test for overall inclusion, support for living, welcome by neighbors or lack thereof. How many members of the LGBTQ community have experienced verbal or physical violence?
Betsy DeVos presents at the ALEC Conference: Just one more example of how the Neo-Liberal Education model is being promoted by the US Secretary of Education
Last week, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) hosted their annual States & Nation Policy Summit.
The ALEC policy summit was held in Arizona and featured speakers who fit their long-term agenda, which is to transform state and federal policy that furthers Neo-Liberalism. You can see this reflected in their agenda, which features speakers and facilitated workshops on areas that have been part of the ALEC agenda for decades. You can see if the graphic below the ALEC agenda and which think tanks/groups are involved in each area. Notice that Fiscal policy and Education policy have the largest number of groups working on those respective areas.
Thus, it should come as no surprise that US Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, was one of the featured speakers at this years ALEC policy summit. As we have documented in previous Betsy DeVos Watch articles, the Secretary of Education spends a great deal of her time speaking to organizations that embrace the Neo-Liberal Education Model.
DeVos delievred a speech, no doubt written by her staff, a speech which begins with this statement:
It’s good to be with so many friends and leaders shaping policy across all 50 states. For more than 30 years, state-initiated solutions to intractable issues were my primary focus—and they still are. States are where the action is—or, at least, where it should be.
In the rest of DeVos’ speech, she using standard content from the Neo-Liberal playbook, arguing states rights, choice, the market-place of ideas and even attempting to use language such as, “We the People.” One aspect of the Neo-Liberal playbook is to convince people that whatever policy the right wants to promote is all about freedom and liberty. In addition, one other major theme is to attack the federal government. This message has been central to every administration since Ronald Reagan, even though the Neo-Liberal agenda is not always against the Federal Government. For instance, entities like ALEC or the State Policy Network a deeply in favor of government intervention and policy when it comes to the annual US military budget, tax policies that benefit the wealthy and massive subsidies for corporations. Thus, the Neo-Liberal Agenda is quite selective in their notion of choice and freedom, especially when it comes to policies that benefit the Capitalist Class.
Betsy DeVos continued this theme in a brief interview she did with ALEC TV. Pay close attention to the language used in the questions and the language used by DeVos, which is all right out of the Neo-Liberal Agenda playbook.
Lastly, Betsy DeVos was at the ALEC policy summit to make sure that those attending the gathering were committed to getting her Education Freedom Scholarships adopted. The Education Freedom Scholarships are another example of promoting a Neo-Liberal Education Model, since they allow for individuals and corporations to contribute funds to private & charter schools and then claim it as a tax write-off. This also makes the Education Freedom Scholarships policy just another way for those in the Capitalist class to transfer public money to private interests, which is the foundation of the Neo-Liberal Agenda.
Grand Rapids cracks a lot of lists, for a lot of good reasons…..this is not one of them: Living in Grand Rapids is depressing for lots of people
Depression is a very serious issue and one that is often misunderstood. Millions of people in the US struggle with depression.
Some experts present depression as more of a chemical issue, while others emphasize sociological factors that determine people who are more susceptible to depression. My own view is that both of these major factors contribute to depression. In fact, part of the problem is that we tend to look at these factors in silos, instead of seeing how they are often intertwined.
This is certainly the case with a recent study that was conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which was cited in an Insurance Providers article, which states that in metropolitan areas of 1 million or more, Grand Rapids has the highest rate of depression nationwide.
The study on depression was reported on by WZZM 13 recently. Unfortunately, the channel 13 story was only 35 seconds long and only reported on the data presented in the Insurance Providers article, based on the CDC data. The WZZM 13 story did list contributing factors to stress, as can be seen in this screen shot, here on the right.
Unfortunately, WZZM 13 doesn’t explore any of these dynamics in Grand Rapids and how they are contributing to depression. Essentially, the channel 13 story just repeats a version of a press release, without doing any real work or journalism of any kind. The opening comments from the WZZM 13 news reader makes it clear why the abc affiliate chose not to make this a story, even a series of stories. The news readers introduces the story, by saying, “Grand Rapids cracks a lot of lists, for a lot of good reasons…..this is not one of them.”
So what might be some of the contributing factors for being depressed in Grand Rapids? Here is our running list:
- Settler Colonialism being at the root of the founding of Grand Rapids.
- White Supremacy is woven into the fabric of Grand Rapids.
- Lots of shitty jobs, with wages that require lots of people in Grand Rapids to have more than one job.
- Gentrification
- Lack of truly affordable housing.
- Diversity & Inclusion, instead of dismantling White Supremacy.
- DeVos, Meijer and other billionaires.
- A constant reminder of DeVos, Meijer and other billionaires with their names plastered all over Grand Rapids.
- Working for non-profits that accept funding from DeVos, Meijer and other billionaires.
- Having to deal with the spiritual violence that churches commit in Grand Rapids.
- The overt and and covert homophobia and transphobia in Grand Rapids.
- The GRPD’s treatment of black, latinx and other communities of color in Grand Rapids.
- The GRPD’s cooperation with ICE in Grand Rapids.
- The lack of sun and cold winter days.
Making sense of US foreign policy – Part I: Bolivia is just the most recent example of US Imperial reach
US foreign policy is not a subject that many people have seriously investigated. Living under a system of capitalism doesn’t make it easy to explore the complexities of US foreign policy and most US media sources are inherently compromised, primarily because of their economic interests, but also because of the heavy reliance on government sources.
The recent coup in Bolivia has been showing up on lots of social media posts, but there is not much of a clear understanding of what role the US government played in the ousting of Bolivian President Evo Morales. This post is not intended to explore the role the US played in Bolivia recently, rather it is meant to provide people with a larger framework for understanding US foreign policy.
Over the years, GRIID has taught popular education classes on the topic of US foreign policy, initially a class that looked at post-WWII policy and more recently, one that began from US expansion in 1898, with the US involvement with the Philippines, Cuba and Puerto Rico. In the most recent version of this class we offered a way to look at US foreign policy that would take into account a more comprehensive assessment of what motivates US actions abroad.
Too be clear, we identify US foreign policy as being fundamentally imperialist in nature, based on the resources we have used in the popular education class, as well as my own experience doing solidarity work in various Latin American countries from 1981 – 2006.
We have identified seven major aspects of US foreign policy, in order to assess the complexities of any given US intervention. Those seven are:
Historical Context – How did the country gain its autonomy and what has been the historic relationship between the US and the country one is investigating?
Geo-Politics – What is US policy in the region of a particular country and how do those relationships impact any given country that one is investigating?
Economic Interest – What are the economic interests that the US has from a particular country and how does that influence the relationship between said country and the US? What trade policies have happened? What sort of imposed economic policies have been adopted/austerity measures and has there been a Shock Doctrine applied?
Human Rights/Human Cost – What is the human rights record of the specific country one is looking into and how much of that is an issue to the US. In addition, how has the US benefitted or harmed the population of a particular country that one is investigating?
US Military Complex – Does the country one is investigating have US military bases; do they receive US military aid; are their soldiers trained by the US; and what relationship does US weapons manufacturers have with a country one is investigating?
US Media Coverage and Public Opinion – Sources used by news media, framing of the US role, casualties/cost of war,
US Domestic response – How is the population of the US responding to relationship between the US and whichever country one is investigating? What is the level of US public understanding about this relationship? Is there any organized opposition to said country?
Iraq Example
Historical Context – WWI demonstrated to the British that oil was an essential strategic resource to power the war machines and the Middle East was rich in oil.
1916 Sykes-Picot agreement, between Russia, the UK and France divided up most of what is now the Middle East, which the UK controlling Iraq.
1919 there was an Arab independence movement and the British responded by convening the League of Nations to ratify their colonial control.
1920 – Arab nationalists then fought the British, but the British military was far superior and brutally crushed the uprising. T.E. Lawrence and Winston Churchill both argued in favor of using poison gas. Churchill stated at the time, “I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. IU am strongly in favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes.”
1921 – Iraq was created by the British government behind closed doors. Iraqis were not fit to govern themselves. King Faisal was chose by the British government to rule Iraq.
1925 – King Faisal was forced by the British government to sign a 75-year concession granting the foreign owned Iraq Petroleum Company all rights to Iraq’s oil.
After WWII there were 3 major things that happened: The US became the leading world power; oil became central to global power; and the US shifted from domestic oil production to global oil production.
In 1950 Persian Gulf Oil cost about 5 to 15 cents a barrel to produce, but sold for $2.25 a barrel.
1952 – massive demonstrations began against the British and the monarchy. It was violently repressed.
1958 – a military led uprising began, with the King and his son shot dead.Coup was led by Gen. Abdul Qasim. Iraq now wanted part of the control of Iraqi oil. The UK/US alliance would not budge, so in 1960 Iraq invited Saudi Arabia, Iran Kuwait and Venezuela to create what is now called OPEC – Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
By the late 1950s, the US began a covert campaign to destabilize Iraq, primarily led by the CIA. Part of this effort was to develop relationships with leadership in the Ba’ath Party.
There were attempts by members of the Ba’ath Party to assassinate Qasim, including a young Saddam Hussein.
1968 – Ba’ath Party takes control of Iraq through a military coup. At the time Saddam was head of the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) and by the mid-70s he was the most powerful figure in Iraqi politics.
In the 1970s, the US attempted to undermine the Ba’ath Party, since it was becoming to independent of the US. They attempted to use the Kurds against the Ba’athists.
1980 – 1990 the Iraq/Iran war took place, with the US arming both sides.
1990 – Build up to the Persian Gulf War
January 16, 1991 the US begins bombing campaign against Iraq. Less than 2 months later the war ended, without the removal of Saddam Hussein.
Beginning in 1991 the most brutal economic sanctions were imposed on Iraq, sanctions that lasted until months after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq began. 500,000 Iraqi children died as a result of the sanctions in combination with the devastation from the 1991 US bombing. Asked on TV, then US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright was asked if it was worth it for so many Iraqi children had died. She said, “It was worth it.”
Throughout the Clinton administration regular areal bombing of Iraq took place.
2003 – US invasion of Iraq began
2009 – Soft US troop withdrawal began
Iraq continues to be in a constant state of instability with the ongoing consequences of the US occupation, factions, ISIS and the exploitation of oil.
Geo-Politics – When looking at any form of US intervention, you have to consider what else is happening in that region of the world. Arab nationalism and anti-Colonialism was a major source of US geopolitical concern beginning in the 1950s.
1953 CIA coup in Iran, which ousted Mossadegh and put in power the Shah, who ruled until he was overthrown in 1979, by an Islamist movement, which the US had support decades earlier.
Turkey began a relationship with the US after WWII, military aid, etc because of their strong anti-Communist stance and the repression of an independent Kurdish state. US has had military bases since 1955.
US Saudi Arabia relations began prior to WWII, but increased after the war, allowing US troops to deploy, joint military training and deep relationship between the US and the Saudi monarchy.
Syria – US has had a difficult relationship with. Numerous CIA coups were attempted and it has always been contentious.
Jordan and Lebanon had been an allies since WWII
1956 – Nasser comes to power in Egypt. There were tension between the US and Egypt, but when Sadat became president that changed, along with the Arab/Israeli war. Egypt became one of the top recipients of US military aid and a player against Arab nationalism.
Israel – the US has had a special relationship since its founding in 1948, but especially after the 1973 war with Egypt. Israel has been the number one recipient of US military aid since 1975 and acts essentially as the police of the region.
Economic Interest – Of course, oil was the the dominant economic factor for Iraq, which is why the US re-wrote the Iraqi Constitution after the 2003 occupation and has applied a Shock Doctrine to Iraq’s economy.
Human Rights/Human Cost – Iraq lost 200,000 during Iran/Iraq War, with the US providing weapons to both sides.
10 – 12,000 Iraqis died during the Gulf War, which lasted for about 6 weeks. https://www.globalresearch.ca/how-the-us-deliberately-destroyed-iraq-s-water-supply/31011
The US imposed sanctions, which began in 1991 and lasted until 2003 killed half a million children and 40,000 adults.
1 million Iraqis died during the US invasion/occupation of Iraq from 2003 – 2008.
There were not a large number of US Troop loses during Gulf War, but Gulf War syndrome, likely caused by the use of depleted uranium, resulted in numerous deaths and illnesses with US soldiers.
US troop loses during 2003 – 2008 invasion/occupation was 4,500 dying, with 32,000 wounded.
US Military Complex – What US taxpayers spent on the war since 2003
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/
which includes US military Aid, US military bases, use of private military contractors https://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/business/iraq-war-contractors/index.html,
US Media Coverage – The Gulf War – First Cable News War/24 Hour War
US media coverage of the 2003 invasion/occupation was horrendous at the national and local level. Our GRIID study of 2003 US invasion can be seen here https://vimeo.com/139828747 and there were numerous studies done on national news coverage https://fair.org/take-action/media-advisories/iraq-and-the-media/
US Domestic response – There were responses to the 1991 Gulf War, including demonstrations, Teach-Ins and civil disobedience across the US. Here are two articles on anti-war organizing in 1991:
https://grpeopleshistory.org/2018/08/21/1991-resistance-to-the-gulf-war-in-grand-rapids-part-i/
https://grpeopleshistory.org/2018/08/29/1991-resistance-to-the-gulf-war-in-grand-rapids-part-ii/
Here are links to articles about anti-war organizing, which began in 2002 and lasted until 2008:
Resources on US Policy and Iraq:
The Freedom: Shadows And Hallucinations in Occupied Iraq, by Christian Parenti.
Oil, Power, & Empire: Iraq and the US Global Agenda, by Larry Everest
Iraq for Sale – DVD
Control Room – DVD
Why We Fight – DVD
No End in Sight – DVD
Killing Hope, by Bill Blum, Chapter on Iraq https://williamblum.org/chapters/killing-hope/iraq
What We Say Goes: Conversations on U.S. Power in a Changing World, Barsamian and Chomsky
House Bill 4826 proposes that there by public education curriculum that teaches capitalism and entrepreneurship to 8th graders in Michigan
A few weeks ago, we posted a story about a new class being offered through the Grand Rapids Public Schools, a class which essentially prepares students to work in the Hospitality and Tourism industry.
The business community’s interest in public education has a long history. Elizabeth Fones-Wolf, author of the book, Selling Free Enterprise: The Business Assault on Labor and Liberalism 1945 – 60, thoroughly documents the push by sectors like the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) to promote entrepreneurial education, including the creation of classroom materials for K – 12 schools.
The capitalist class continues to influence public education with a multi-pronged strategy, including attacks against public school teacher unions, redirecting public funding for Charter & private schools, and pushing state level legislation that would alter curriculum being used in public education.
This last tactic is exactly what we are within the GRPS and even at the state level, with legislation like House Bill 4826. House Bill 4826 essentially promotes entrepreneurial education, where students would be exposed to the ideas around creating their own businesses. The language of House Bill 4826 states:
Beginning in the 2019-2020 school year, the board of a school district or board of directors of a public school academy shall ensure that the school district’s or public school academy’s social studies curriculum for grade 8 includes a program of instruction in free enterprise and entrepreneurship.
House Bill 4826 goes on to say:
House Bill 4826 was introduced in August of 2019, by West Michigan legislator Tommy Brann. The bill was co-sponsored by the following state legislators – Hank Vaupel, Matt Maddock, Michael Webber, Steve Marino, Sue Allor, Gary Eisen, Ryan Berman and Gary Howell, all of which have been funded heavily by the private sector, with several of them receiving substantial from the DeVos family, according to the Michigan Campaign Finance Network searchable database.
House Bill 4826 has since gone to the Education Committee and that is where it remains. It is worth noting that the Education Committee is chaired by Pamela Hornberger’s number one campaign contributor has been the DeVos family, a family which not only promotes entrepreneurial education and supports attacks on public education and public education teachers.
Of course, so much of this kind of legislation happens without the public knowing about it, which is how politicians prefer it. However, what would an informed and organized movement for education justice respond to this kind of legislation, along with the multi-pronged strategy of those seeking to push a Neo-Liberal Education model in Michigan? For those interested in being part of such a movement, contact Grand Rapids for Education Justice, by going to their Facebook page sending an e-mail to informedteachers@gmail.com.
A few weeks ago, Michigan Senators Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters, both voted in favor of legislation that included a three month extension on the USA Patriot Act.
What is worse, is that there were no reforms included to curb the draconian legislation that has has bi-partisan legislation since it was signed into law in October of 2001.
The legislation in question also included funding for social programs, which is a tactic used by both parties to get their issues passed. The tactic of “hiding” the funding for certain programs has become more common in recent decades, making it harder for the public to know about or decipher.
In this case it was an Appropriations Act that was adopted by the Senate, with a majority of Senate Democrats voting to support it.
Evan Greer, who is with the group Fight for the Future, is quoted as saying about this vote:
“When the Patriot Act’s surveillance authorities were initially enacted, they came with a ‘sunset’ clause to safeguard against the exact scenario where we had an authoritarian, racist, openly fascist president. And yet here we are and top Dems are still supporting reauthorization.”
However, in many ways this is not surprising, when one considers that even during the first term of President Obama, where the Democrats not only controlled the White House, they controlled Congress and STILL voted to keep the USA Patriot Act.
The USA Patriot Act would have ended on December 15 of this year, but it is not extended until March 15 of 2020. One of the main concerns about this draconian legislation is the ability of the US government to collect data and engage in monitoring of all of its residents. This type of monitoring of the public includes wire tapping, collecting data on phone calls, business record and it grants the FBI surveillance powers.
A spokesperson from the ACLU responded to the extension of the USA Patriot Act last month, stating:
“It is disappointing that Congress is instead extending spying powers that have repeatedly been used to violate Americans’ privacy rights, and trying to bury this extension in must-pass funding legislation.”
This is just further evidence that we cannot rely on politicians to represent us or protect even basic civil rights and civil liberties.
Betsy DeVos Watch: The Secretary of Education receives an award from an anti-feminist women’s organization
Last month, US Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos received an award from the group known as the Independent Women’s Forum (IWF).
According to the Independent Women’s Forum website, it states:
We work every day to engage and inform women and create a community to discuss how policy issues – including paid leave, health care, taxes, energy, minimum wage, and education – impact them and their families.
The IWF does work on these issues, but they function from a patriarchal framework.
The IWF was founded by a group of women who were upset that Clarence Thomas was being accused of sexual harassment during his nomination to the US Supreme Court. According to Sourcewatch, the IWF is an anti-feminist organization predominantly funded by right wing foundations.
The IWF is also connected to groups like the American Exchange Legislative Council (ALEC) and Americans for Prosperity. The IWF has defended right wing radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, they opposed teaching “global warming” in US schools and they oppose VAMA, the Violence Against Women Act.
However, the Independent Women’s Forum is primarily focused on supporting GOP candidates, especially those who are the most anti-feminist. For example, the IWV made $67,242 in independent expenditures aiding Missouri U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin with calls and independent voter outreach in November 2012, after Akin claimed on August 19, 2012 that rape victims couldn’t get pregnant because “if it’s legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
Betsy DeVos was thrilled to receive an award from this anti-feminist group and she used the opportunity to preach her own anti-feminist perspectives.
The Department of Education posted Betsy’s speech online in mid-November. In that speech, DeVos claimed that Title IX was overreach. DeVos also goes out of her way to dismiss Title IX in her acceptance speech, framing the issue in what she believes is justice. However, as we have reported previously, what Betsy DeVos has done to Title IX, was to provide anti-feminist organizations a platform to push their agenda, an agenda which seeks to minimize campus sexual assault and provide greater protections to perpetrators.
Of course, Betsy DeVos also used her acceptance speech as an opportunity to push her Neo-Liberal Education model, specifically the Education Freedom Scholarships, which provides matching federal funds for states which would want to adopt a “school choice” model.
The perpetuation of homophobia and transphobia: Grand Rapids Catholic Church denies communion to LGBTQ parishioners
Over the past few weeks there have been news local news stories about how the priest at St. Stephens Catholic Church has been denying communion to members of that church who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer (lgbtq).
While this is abhorrent and should be condemned by any decent human being, the formal response by the Grand Rapids Catholic Diocese is even more insidious. Here is what the statement, which is in direct response to a story done by WOOD TV 8:
“We appreciate Judge Sara Smolenski’s service to the community. We are grateful for her past generosity. These facts are not at issue in this matter.
As Pope Francis explains in Amoris Laetitia, “The Eucharist demands that we be members of the one body of the Church. Those who approach the Body and Blood of Christ may not wound that same Body by creating scandalous distinctions and divisions among its members.” (186) Lifelong Catholics would surely be aware of this.
Inclusion and acceptance have been a hallmark of Catholic Churches in the Diocese of Grand Rapids throughout the diocese’s history. They remain so. They presume, however, a respect on the part of individuals for the teachings and practice of the wider Catholic community. No community of faith can sustain the public contradiction of its beliefs by its own members. This is especially so on matters as central to Catholic life as marriage, which the Church has always held, and continues to hold, as a sacred covenant between one man and one woman.
Father Scott Nolan, pastor of St. Stephen Parish, has dedicated his priesthood to bringing people closer to Jesus Christ. Part of his duty in pursuing that end is to teach the truth as taught by the Catholic Church, and to help it take root and grow in his parish. Mercy is essential to that process, but so are humility and conversion on the part of anyone seeking to live an authentically Catholic Christian life.
Father Nolan approached Judge Smolenski privately. Subsequent media reports do not change the appropriateness of his action, which the diocese supports.”
First of all, the Catholic Churches in the Diocese of Grand Rapids have NOT been about the business of inclusion and acceptance. From the very beginning of settler colonialism, the Catholic Church did not accept the indigenous people who lived along the Grand River, otherwise the priests who not have tried to convert them.
Secondly, the Grand Rapids Catholic Diocese makes it clear that they support the priest, Father Nolan, who has made this decision to enforce the Catholic Teaching which says that those who identify as LGBTQ will be denied communion. I am not interested in arguing if this or isn’t catholic teaching, since I am more interested in what such an endorsement from the Grand Rapids Catholic Diocese actually means.
For me, the defense of Fr. Nolan by the Grand Rapids Catholic Diocese means that he has the full support of this local church to deny members of the LGBTQ community the eucharist. This action and the diocesan statement could also have further repercussions. First, by sanctioning the denial of communion to LGBTQ members, the Catholic Church is likely sending a message to other priests in the diocese that they now have license to do the same. Second, now that this issue has been made public, it could cause others who are LGBTQ to not be public about how they identify, thus not allowing people to be who they truly are.
Deny people communion is a long-held tradition in the Catholic Church. Is the early church, if you were a soldier, you could not take part in communion. Once the Catholic Church became the official religion of the Roman Empire during the reign of Emperor Constantine, their stance on soldiers and religion changed. Within a one hundred year span the Catholic Church went from saying that soldiers could not take communion to, you could not be a soldier unless you were a christian.
However, another way to look at this issue is, who gets to take communion, even if they engage in morally objectionable behavior? For instance, if a man beats his spouse, he isn’t denied communion. If a member of the Catholic Church is involved in the manufacturing of nuclear weapons, they are not denied communion. Hell, I remember that when I was in the catholic seminary in 1983, we held a Good Friday walk from Aquinas College to what was then called Lear Siegler. Lear Siegler manufactured flight systems for nuclear weapons in the 1980s, right about the time that the US Catholic Bishops came out with a document against nuclear weapons. After our Good Friday march, we were called into the office of the President at Aquinas College. The AQ president lectured us and told us that the CEO of Lear Siegler was a member of the Catholic Church. We also found out later that the CEO was also a major contributor to Aquinas College.
Other examples of those who can continue to receive communion are ICE agents or prison guards, despite what role they play in doing harm to the immigrant community and other communities of color. Then there are those who are worth millions or billions. If you are super rich, you still get to take communion, even though your wealth is likely to have come about because of ongoing exploitation of workers and supporting politicians that pass tax policies favorable to those with massive bank accounts. In addition, you can hold deeply held racist attitude towards black or anti-semitic views towards Jews, and still part take in communion. In other words, the logic behind who the Catholic Church decides can take communion is anything but logical.
Denying communion to those who identify as LGBTQ might be the official policy of the Catholic Church, but that doesn’t make it right and it certainly doesn’t justify the harm it causes to individuals, along with how it perpetuate homophobia and transphobia in this community.
FOIA documents were requested from the GRPD in September: Why is it taking so long?
On September 16th of this year, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Grand Rapids Police Department regarding the May 1st, 2019 march that was organized by Movimiento Cosecha GR.
When submitting the request, I was asked by the GRPD if I wanted all GRPD communications or just those from the Command Unit. I chose just the Command Unit, since they are the ones giving the orders and to avoid the often repetitive nature of FOIA requests.
This is how the GRPD responded to my specific request, which clarified the scope of their monitoring and response to Movimiento Cosecha GR’s May 1st march:
All emails, texts, memorandum, reports or other public records including but not limited to communications from/to GRPD Command Staff personnel and other Command Staff GRPD personnel and from/to GRPD Command Staff personnel and other law enforcement agency including ICE, HSD, MSP, KCSD and Wyoming PD from April 15 to May 2 regarding May 1, 2019 Movimiento Cosecha GR March from Garfield Park to Pinery Park.
I was told that I would receive a response by September 30th, with an estimated cost for the FOIA request and the number of pages the GRPD had on the May 1st action.
On September 25th I received an e-mail from the GRPD that stated that the estimated cost for this FOIA request would be $578.64. I then sent another e-mail asking how many pages this included and their response was, “350 pages, plus attachments.”
In addition to the total estimated cost for the FOIA, they sent me a breakdown of the costs for gathering the information by a clerk with the GRPD and then having someone redact (black out) information they consider too sensitive for the public to see. Here is the breakdown of the cost they sent me.
A group of allies in support of Movimiento Cosecha GR raised the money for the FOIA request, so I went down to the police station to paid 50% of the estimated cost on October 15th. The person I gave the money to, then gave me a receipt and a letter stating that I would be able to obtain the documents within an estimated 20 business days from the date of the first payment…..October 15.
I was then told by the GRPD that 20 business days landed on Nov. 13, so I sent another e-mail asking if I could come by on November 14th or 15th with a thumb drive to obtain the FOIA documents and pay the balance. The GRPD’s response was, “No problem. Once I email you the final invoice, you can come in any time after that and pay the remained of the cost. I’ll have the records ready.”
I asked for clarification on November 13th on how long it might take. The GRPD responded on that same day saying, “The records are being reviewed by my Captain so it won’t be much longer.”
I sent two more e-mails asking if the documents were ready and I received no reply. After talking with Movimiento Cosecha GR, we decided that it would appropriate to show up in person asking if the documents were ready and what it was taking so long.
On Wednesday, November 27th, several of us went to the police station in downtown Grand Rapids and walked up to the window where I had paid half of the estimated cost. I showed them the receipt and the letter they gave me stating it would be an estimated 20 business days and said that 20 business days was two weeks ago. We were told in a rather condescending tone that “it was an estimated 20 days” and “we will send you a message when it is ready.”
Ok, so according to the cost document shown above, it took a clerk 1 hour to collect all of the data and an estimated 15 hours for a captain with the GRPD to redact the documents. Again, I ask, why is this taking so long, since as of today, the documents have still not been released, which was two and one-half weeks ago from the estimated time of completion?
Of course, once the documents are obtained, we will provide some analysis of what they contained. In the meantime it is important for people to think about why the GRPD would have 350 pages (plus attachments) about a non-violent march from May 1st of the 2019, a march that was organized by Movimiento Cosecha GR. Hasta La Huelga!!!
MLive just can’t help but act as a stenographer for the DeVos family
On Monday, MLive posted a story with the following headline, DeVos family earns spot on Forbes’ list for donating $112 million.
The article, like so many we have documented over the years, provides an unquestioning forum for the DeVos family and allows them, once again, to be seen as generous people.
The MLive article is based on a Forbes magazine list of the top 50 people who donate in the US. The DeVos family ranks 26th on the list, along with other members of the capitalist class, including Bill & Melinda Gates, the Walton family, Jeff Bezoz, Mark Zuckerberg, Michael Bloomberg, Warren Buffet, George Soros and Charles Koch.
The problem with such innocuous lists is that they never question:
- How these people became so wealthy
- These lists don’t make comparisons to how much money these people contribute to candidates or political parties
- And they never question what role rich people’s philanthropy plays within a larger political, economic and social framework.
Members of the Capitalist class become disgustingly rich because they exploit other people’s labor. Sure, some of these people were born into wealth, but that hasn’t stopped them from buying politicians that provide massive subsidies for their companies and to get politicians they have bought to pass policies that create tax structures that benefit those with the most wealth.
The only two entities that received funds from the DeVos family foundations, mentioned in the MLive article, were Spectrum Hospital Foundation and Grand Valley State University in 2018. There is no exploration into why the various DeVos foundations contributed the amount of money they did and there is no questioning of what strategic role this money plays for the DeVos family.
If we go back and look at the examples of the Rockefeller family or Andrew Carnegie, when were some of the first foundations were created, we know from that history that their wealth was much more scrutinized, even when it was used for philanthropic purposes. (see Foundations and Public Policy (Joan Roelofs) and The Revolution Will Not Be Funded (edited by INCITE!)
Those who create foundations are not giving money away to be generous, their philanthropy is strategic. Those with wealth use philanthropy to either distract people from asking questions about why those with wealth are so wealthy or to fund projects that fit within their ideological framework. For instance, the DeVos foundation contribute to conservative christian groups that embrace their worldview, to social service agencies that focus on individual solutions to issues like poverty, and to organizations that do public policy work that serves the interests of the DeVos family, like the Acton Institute, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy and the American Enterprise Institute.
Therefore, to report on the DeVos family philanthropy without exploring the deeper implications of why the contribute does a disservice to the public and demonstrates how MLive will not challenge the DeVos family influence in West Michigan.
Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy 