I conducted an interview with 3 community organizers involved in the Residents United Lowell campaign, a campaign that is opposing the proposed data center in Lowell, Michigan.
These three amazing women responded to the following questions, in an interview that runs just over 27 minutes.
GRIID – What prompted you all to get involved and to get organized around the data center proposal?
GRIID – One news source said that the Lowell City Manager knew about the proposed data center 18 months ago. When did you all find out and what does this tell you about the lack of transparency and who has been making decisions up to this point?
GRIID – What all have you been able to find out about Franklin Partners LLC?
GRIID – Consumers Energy and The Right Place Inc. are also involved in this project. What does that tell you about this project, given what we know about both of these groups?
GRIID – The data center proposal might have the largest impact on Lowell and the surrounding communities in recent decades. How are you mobilizing people and that are your main talking points around why this project would be bad for residents of the area?
GRIID – How soon will there be a vote on the proposed data center project and what else do you think needs to happen to resist this project?
For those wanting to sign the petition against the proposed data center go here.
To access the ResidentsUnitedLowell information handout go here.
Follow ResidentsUnitedLowell on their Facebook page.
One of the 10 principles of journalism is that it must serve as an independent monitor of power.
Now, I don’t claim to be a journalist, more of a media watchdog, but I do engage in movement media. Movement media is reporting and documenting what social movements are doing, which is what I have been trying to do with GRIID since 2009.
However, since I have been monitoring what I call the Grand Rapids Power Structure for nearly two decades, it seems like a good idea to do a Monitoring the Rich and Powerful in Grand Rapids segment.
The Monitoring the Rich and Powerful in Grand Rapids segments will offer brief commentary on those who have power over others in this community. These segments will not replace my regular reporting on the Grand Rapids Power Structure, since those stories will offer more in depth writing.
As we navigate a second Trump Administration it seems like a perfect opportunity to shed some light on the rich and powerful of Grand Rapids, or to frame it the way that radical media from the 60s and 70s would do regarding the Capitalist Class, using the phrase, “up against the wall motherfucker!”
For Segment #8 I wanted to share 4 short examples of how the rich and powerful continue to wage class war against the rest of Grand Rapids.
In the first example Grand Rapids Power Structure member John Kennedy recently a piece for Crain’s Grand Rapids Business entitled, Rejecting corporate welfare makes Michigan better. Kennedy is critical of some corporate welfare and singles out the auto industry, but he and the West MI Policy Forum celebrate and rely on all the other forms of corporate welfare that the State of Michigan and municipal governments provide to developers, corporations that relocate to this community and in other so-called public private partnerships where the public pays while the private sectors profits.
My second example is from recent comments by the CEO of The Right Place Inc., Randy Thelen. The Right Place Inc., has been a member of the GR Power Structure for years, which I have written about. Thelen was quoted in MLive saying, “We need AI to be part of our portfolio here. So when we talk about data centers it’s not a solution or silver bullet in any way, but it’s another addition to the diversification of our economy.” This should not surprise us, as the Right Place Inc. not on recruits businesses to come to West Michigan, they have consistently supported corporate interests, like their involvement to get Amazon to establish a major distribution center in Grand Rapids years ago. Also, Thelen demonstrates his class allegiance, since the public is overwhelmingly opposed to data centers throughout the country and in Michigan.
My third example is from Housing Next, which is a Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce front group which has been pushing the expansion of housing for several years now. Housing Next even acknowledges the ridiculous rent costs in Grand Rapids, but their solution, which is a false solution, is “Zoning, financing, and public-private partnerships.” What Housing Next does not say and will not say is for people to be paid a living wage to everyone can afford the cost of housing in Grand Rapids. The National Low Income Housing Coalition says that in Grand Rapids, for a 2 bedroom apartment, people would have to make $27.75 an hour to afford the rent.
The last example is the latest really awful video that comes from GR& Riverfront, where they continue to celebrate all things development related in downtown GR, especially things that the public has disproportionately paid for, but the private sector profits from. The video celebrates Amway and uses lyrics like, “more green grass where crowds will cheer.” Sure there is some grass that will be part of the soon to be opened Amphitheater, but you will have to pay if you want to sit on that green grass. Arrogant pricks!!!
Minister, socialist and Presidential Candidate Norman Thomas gave a lecture at Fountain Street Church in 1965
Editor’s note: I have been working with Fountain Street Church and looking at a substantial amount of archival materials they have. Today’s post is only possible because Fountain Street Church has provided me access to their archives and they want this information to be public and available to the community. I will be hosting the archival material on the Grand Rapids People’s History Project site, but also posting here on GRIID. This is the second in a series of postings from the archival material at Fountain Street Church.
So far I have posted talks by Kwame Ture/Stokely Carmichael, James Meredith, Dick Gregory, Amy Goodman, bell hooks, Jane Fonda and Jonathan Kozol all of whom spoke at Fountain Street Church.
Today, I want to share a talk that was given at Fountain Street Church by Norman Thomas in 1965. For those of you who don’t know who Norman Thomas is, he was a Presbyterian minister, a socialist, an organizer, a pacifist and ran as a Presidential candidate during six consecutive elections between 1928 and 1948 as a member of the Socialist Party of America. Norman Thomas was involved in labor struggles, anti-war organizing and the Civil Rights Movement. In fact, Norman Thomas sat on a Commission of Inquiry that the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) organized to address widespread police violence against the Black community. Thomas said at the end of his involvement in the committee, “Law enforcement attacks on the movement were nothing less than widespread police sadism.”
Here is the audio of talk that Norman Thomas gave at Fountain Street Church in 1965. The theme of his talk was on the importance of public dissent!
Accompanying an immigrant to court: Fear and loathing in West MI
Editor’s Note: I am a volunteer organizer with GR Rapid Response to ICE and have been doing accompaniment work for several decades.
Earlier this year I facilitated a class called Understanding the Prison Industrial Complex in Kent County.. We used as a primary resource the book, Beyond Courts, which was a project involving the Community Justice Exchange, Interrupting Criminalization and Critical Resistance.
Beyond Courts is an excellent resource, primarily we tend to focus most of our energy on cops and prisons, but not so much on the role of the courts. In chapter 5 of the book the authors write:
“For example, in 2022, there were almost 13 million misdemeanor charges that forced thousands of people into the criminal justice system each year. More than a quarter of all cases filed in criminal courts are motor vehicle, drug and broken windows offenses, so called “low-level” crimes that police and prosecutors pursued aggressively in cities particularly in the 1990s.”
The authors argue that these 13 million misdemeanor charges more often than not landed people in jail, primarily because they could not afford bail. These statistics expose the absurdity of the of the Prison Industrial Complex across the US, since for primarily non-violent offenses, people are separated from their families, lose their jobs and are subjected to a cruel form of punishment.
Accompanying an immigrant to court
On Wednesday morning I picked up a young man who had a court appointment in the Grand Rapids area. I drive, because undocumented immigrants are not allowed to have a drivers license in Michigan.
When I picked up the young man I could tell that he was nervous, then he told me that he did not sleep well, so he asked if we could get some coffee on the way.
The air was frigid this morning and when we got to the court house we stayed in the car to keep war, drink our coffee and reduce the amount of time he would be subjected to cops, lawyers and judges.
When we finally decided to go in the first thing you have to do is go through a metal detector and then possibly be subjected to cops searching your body, backpacks or other items that people carry in their person. Those doing the monitoring at the metal detector and searching through your property and body are cops, which always have side arms and other less deadly weapons that can do harm to you.
Once you get through the metal detector you generally need to wait. The court system tells people to show up at 8am in the morning, but that doesn’t mean you will be going before a judge at that time. Each judge has a docket, where they might hear several dozen cases in a day. This means that when people go to court they have to sit and wait. On Wednesday morning we sat and waited for about an hour.
Eventually the court clerk came out and told us to come in as the judge was getting ready to hear the case of the person I was accompanying. However, there was another delay, since the lawyer that the person I was accompanying was not present. Not only was the lawyer not present, they did not submit a request for translation, since the person I was accompanying had limited English skills.
I was doing my best to communicate what was going on without talking loudly as judges do not take kindly to any disruption in the courtroom. When the judge asked the person I was accompany regarding the whereabouts of his lawyer, he did not understand what was being said. I spoke up and said that he did speak much English and that I could translate for him if need be. The judge asked me if I was a state certified court translator and I said no. The judge then said they could not use me as a translator.
After the judge, the prosecutor and the court clerk spoke to each other, the judge decided to postpone the case until the lawyer showed up. We then went back out to the area just outside the courtroom so I could communicate with this young man what had just happened. Imagine people talking about your life and you are completely unaware of what they are saying.
We waited a few more minutes when the lawyer finally showed up, but instead of speak with the young man I was accompanying, they went directly to the courtroom. We were then called back into the courtroom, where the judge laid into the lawyer about being late and not submitting a request for a translator.
The judge then called an entity that provides translation services online. This means the person who was translating was listening and talking through microphones. Finally the young man I was accompanying knew what was going on.
However, the lawyer then told the judge that they no longer wanted to represent this young man, so the judge then said that the lawyer had to submit a request to withdraw from the case, which would then allow the young man the option of using a court appointed lawyer.
When we left the courtroom the young man said to me that he didn’t understand how lawyers can treat people like this, expect to be paid and then not do a damn thing. Unfortunately, while working with GR Rapid Response to ICE I have see repeated instances where lawyers demand several thousand dollars upfront in order to take cases, and many of them do the absolute minimum when it comes to representing undocumented immigrants who are facing potential detention and deportation.
After dropping the young man off, all I could think about on the way home is how demeaning and dehumanizing this was for him. Cops, lawyers and judges were determining his fate, and none of them seemed to show an ounce of compassion or care towards someone scared of them, plus the potential for ICE to apprehend him during the two and a half hours that we were in the court building.
We are told in school that the courts are part of our justice system. I did not witness any justice on this day.
Note: the photo used in this article was used as a reflection of the possibility that ICE can apprehend immigrants when they go to court for case that are unrelated to their immigration status.
Crain’s Grand Rapids Business story on AmplifyGR omits critical information on the organization’s early years as a creation of the DeVos family
On Monday Crain’s Grand Rapids Business posted a story about a new development project in the Boston Square neighborhood that involves the DeVos-created and financed group known as AmplifyGR.
Early in the Crain’s article is states:
Amplify GR has tapped Habitat for Humanity of Kent County to build 22 affordable townhouses at its massive Boston Square Together project, the first homeownership component of the 9-acre redevelopment on Grand Rapids’ south side.
Later in the article it states what the townhouses will be sold at, stating:
The townhomes would be sold primarily to households earning up to 80% of area median income, which is about $85,120 for a family of four people in Kent County, per the latest U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development guidelines. Some of the units may be sold to households earning up to 120% of AMI, or $127,680.
This means that families will pay between $85,120 and $127,680. To put into perspective, if you make $25 an hour in Grand Rapids you would make $52,000 a year. There are thousands of people in Grand Rapids who do not make anywhere near $25 an hour and that barely qualifies as affordable, especially for families. If there are two income families it would be more affordable, but again it depends on how much people are earning, which is not reflected in area medium income, which takes averages, thus ignoring the massive wealth gap in this city. African Americans are particularly impacted by this wealth gap. An article from MLive in February stated:
the five-county Grand Rapids-Wyoming metro area’s Black population had the worst homeownership, educational attainment and business ownership rates among the big metros.
The developer that is being tapped for this project is Pure Architects, which also developed the newer AmplifyGR space. It is also worth noting that the CEO of Pure Architects is Zachary Verhulst, who is the son of Michael B. Verhulst. Michael B. Verhulst runs V2 – Verhulst Ventures, is the CEO of Spesh Construction Company LLC, and a former VP of Rockford Construction, which worked with the DeVos family to purchase 37 different properties in the southeast part of Grand Rapids, which is the AmplifyGR target area.
The Crain’s article also states that AmplifyGR has already built a food incubator, which is a space for food entrepreneurs to start food businesses. I wrote a post in 2023 as a response to the food incubator project, primarily asking why they would not use it as a community kitchen space, since food insecurity is a significant issue in that part of the city.
There are only two sources cited in the story, someone with Habitat and someone with AmplifyGR, specifically Jon Ippel, Amplify’s executive director. Towards the end of the article Ippel says, “Amplify GR has engaged about 400 Boston Square neighbors and stakeholders since the nonprofit began planning the redevelopment in 2019.” This might be true in terms of numbers, but AmplifyGR actually began doing community engagement in 2017, which didn’t go so well.
I have been tracking the DeVos-created and funded AmplifyGR since 2017 when I first heard about them. In May of 2017, I wrote an article entitled, The DeVos Family now wants to remake part of a southeast Grand Rapids neighborhood. In late June of 2017, AmplifyGR hosted it’s first community forum, which was well attended, but there was also lots of push back from the community, as I noted in another post.
There was a second town hall style meeting in July, which I also attended and reported about. Here is an excerpt from that article:
Tempest Warfield, an afro-Latina, just made it plain when she given the chance to speak. She spoke passionately and called out who is running this process. She said that a lot of what this boils down to is race and class. “People want to just stay in their homes, but people are feeling bullied by the wealthiest family in the area. People want to keep their homes and leave a legacy for their kids. We do have purpose here, even if it doesn’t look like it to the DeVos family.” John Ippel, from AmplifyGR, responded by saying he gets it. Tempest came right back and said, “be careful about practicing white savior politics.”
Because there was significant pushback from the community at these town hall style meetings, AmplifyGR decided to shift tactics. In a 2019 article I wrote:
AmplifyGR has shifted their tactical approach to meeting with small groups of people and individuals in the southeast area, thus eliminating community accountability. When organizations like AmplifyGR, which has the backing of the wealthiest family in West Michigan, chose to operate with limited transparency, you can be sure that they still are committed to their original agenda, an agenda reflected in the graphic below.
I included this information as a direct response to AmplifyGR’s executive director who made the claim that the DeVos-owned and financed organization had engaged the community since 2019. As I documented, AmplifyGR began engaging the community in 2017, but because of significant community resistance, they decided to approach community engagement in more isolated and behind closed doors fashion. None of the background information I provided here was part of the Crain’s Grand Rapids Business article.
Making sense of the idea to defend the Constitution and refusing orders through a historical lens
When Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin and several other members of Congress went public with a video urging current US soldiers to refuse orders to be deployed in US cities, the Trump Administration pushed back and called them traitors.
Trump’s response was predictable, but what I want to examine is the message that Senator Slotkin and her colleagues made and how to make sense of it with the history of US military deployments both domestically and at the international level.
Yesterday I posted an article that deconstructed a meme claiming that the US Constitution was the handbook for anti-fascists. I stated that saying the US Constitution is the handbook for antifa is both insulting and absurd. In fact, I would argue that the US Constitution is antithetical to anti-fascism.
However, for the sake of argument, if we follow what Senator Slotkin and her colleagues were stating, that US soldiers have an obligation to disobey orders to deploy because it has nothing to do with defending the US Constitution, then let’s examine that claim.
First, it must be stated that US soldiers from the Revolutionary war and right up to the present have refused orders, primarily because they believed that what the US military was doing was unjust and had nothing to do with democracy.
In Robert Fantina’s book, Desertion and the American Soldier: 1776-2006, he documents that there have been thousands of US soldiers who have refused orders or deserted after a war had begun for a variety of reasons. Most people are familiar with the number of US citizens that refused the draft into Vietnam War, along with the large number of US soldiers that refused orders in the midst of that war. Some excellent resources for understanding draft resistance and Vietnam GIs who resisted being part of plans to murder Vietnamese communities can be found in David Cortright’s book, Soldiers in Revolt: GI Resistance During the Vietnam War, along with the powerful documentary Sir, No Sir.
Second, we could start by looking at Senator Slotkin’s time in the CIA during the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. The US claimed that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), specifically nuclear capability, as the pretext for the US invasion/occupation in 2003. Those claims were false, but even if they were true, did the US have the right to invade and occupy Iraq? The United Nations didn’t support the US invasion/occupation, so why didn’t Elissa Slotkin refuse orders to be part of that military operation? The US invasion/occupation of Iraq had nothing to do with defending the US Constitution or bringing democracy to that country.
Third, I would argue that most US military actions have had little or nothing to do with defending the US Constitution, let alone having a just and moral purpose. There is an excellent chronological online resource put together by Zoltan Grossman, which begins with the US Military massacre at Wounded Knee in 1890 and goes pretty much up to the present. Here are just a few examples:
- 1890 – US military kills 300 Native Americans at Wounded Knee, mostly shooting them in the back while they were attempting to run away from US soldiers.
- 1898 – US sent troops to Puerto Rico, kicked out the Spanish and have occupied that island ever since. Many Puerto Ricans consider their country to be a US colony.
- 1914 through 1918 – the US military engages in several different interventions in Mexico in opposition to Mexicans who were involved in a revolution, such as attacking Poncho Villa’s army in the northern part of Mexico.
- 1932 – US war ships were sent to El Salvador to suppress a labor and political revolt against the oligarchs.
- 1943 – US troops deployed to Detroit to put down a Black-led rebellion.
- 1953 – the CIA plotted and executed a coup in Iran because the Iranian government nationalized its oil.
- 1965 – the CIA assisted the Indonesian army in a military coup.
- 1973 – CIA coup in Chile to out the democratically elected Allende government.
- 1989 – US military bombs Panama to remove Manuel Noriega, a long-time CIA asset, killing some 2,000 civilians.
Again, these US military interventions has nothing to do with defending the US Constitution or promoting democracy.
Now, I agree with Senator Slotkin that US soldiers should refuse orders to be deployed to US cities. US soldiers have no business being involved in domestic affairs. However, I believe that there have been few examples of US soldiers being deployed anywhere in the world that was for just reasons or for the claim that they are defending the US Constitution.
Where was Senator Slotkin and her colleagues when it came time to denounce US complicity in Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians? Why did Senator Slotkin and her colleagues vote in favor of US military aid to Israel while they have been committing a genocide? I would argue that their call to US soldiers to disobey orders has more to do to with what the Trump Administration is doing and has little to do with the awful harm and carnage of US troops being deployed around the world.
If you want to explore this history of US interventions, I invite you to sign up for my class on the History of US Foreign Policy since WWII.
GRIID Class: History of US foreign policy since WWII
This 8-week class will investigate and analyze US foreign policy from WWII through the current Trump administration.
It is impossible to investigate more than 80 years of US foreign policy in 8 weeks. However, we will look at US Foreign Policy through various lenses, such as:
- chronological
- geographical/geopolitical
- the history of US relations with a country/region
- direct US military intervention
- economic warfare/trade agreements
- the use of proxy forces
- weapons sales
- diplomatic coercion
- the annual size of the US military budget
- the influence of defense contractors
- and how the US media reports on US foreign policy.
Indeed, this is how we should always assess current US policy, by asking all of these questions in order to have a more comprehensive understanding of US foreign policy, regardless of which country we are talking about. In addition, we will look at the human and ecological impact of US foreign policy.
There is no single book assigned for this class, rather we will use chapters from a variety of books, online sources that provide historical analysis, online sources that track certain aspects of US foreign policy, online sources that focus on specific regions or countries, declassified US government documents and current news & analysis of US foreign policy. In addition, we will use clips from various documentaries on US foreign policy and provide a bibliography for further investigation.
The GRIID class will be held on Thursday nights beginning on Thursday, January 15th and ending on Thursday, March 5th. The class runs two hours, from 6:00pm til 8:00pm. The GRIID class will be held at Fountain Street Church in room 109 on the lower level. The address for Fountain Street Church is 24 Fountain St NE, Grand Rapids, MI 49503.
The cost of the class is a suggested donation of $25 for the whole 8 weeks, but no one will be turned away because of the cost. For those interested in attending this class, send an e-mail to sjeff987@gmail.com. The class can hold up to 25 people, so don’t wait too long to sign up.
Deconstructing memes: Is the US Constitution the handbook for anti-fascist resistance?
Under the current administration the public is subjected to daily forms of propaganda and misinformation. Whether the propaganda is coming from Trump himself or someone else in the administration, you can bet that what is being said is anything but the truth.
Unfortunately, too often some of the public responses to the banality from the Trump Administration are also filled with propaganda and misinformation. In September, Trump designated antifa as a domestic terrorist organization. Antifa is short for anti-fascism, which means it is not an organization, it is a belief and a practice that opposes fascism in all forms. Anti-fascism is, and has also always been, international, thus is can never be just domestic.
There have been plenty of responses to Trump’s designation of antifa as a domestic terrorist organization claim, but many of the responses are not rooted in the antifascist tradition. In September, I deconstructed another meme, which made the absurd claim that US generals Eisenhower, Bradley and Patton were the founders of antifa.
Then there is the recent photo-meme I have seen on social media that made me shake my head. The photo says, “They found the antifa handbook! It’s the Constitution!
Now, there is no simple way to respond to this absurd claim. The only logical response is to look at the very nature of what it means to be an antifascist, followed by the creation and the meaning of the US Constitution.
What is antifa?
“For certain people, America has been fascist all along, and it just depends on what side you are on.” Robin D.G. Kelley
Shane Burley in his 2017 book, Fascism Today: What it is and How to End it, defines antifa as:
A direct-action interaction of Anti-Fascist Action developed by autonomous and anarchist blocks in Germany, France and the UK and adopted as a primary anti-fascist organizing method worldwide. It differentiates itself by direct engagement with fascists in the streets, fighting over “contested spaces,” and using a “no platform” strategy.
There has been a long tradition of people resisting fascism in the US, especially communities that were confronted by genocide and slavery. In the book, The Black Antifascist Tradition, the authors argue that Black people that were forcibly brought to the US have always resisting forms of fascism within the US, stating:
“Black Antifascism is embedded with and in dialectical relationship to such transformative Afro-diasporic moments as the Campaign Against Lynching, the Pan-African Movement, Anticolonialism, Anti-imperialism, International Communism, the Civil Rights Movement, the Black Power Movement, Black Feminism, LGBTQIA+ struggles, Black Anarchism, and the contemporary Abolitionist movement.”
This is a significantly different understanding for most white Americans, many of whom believe that fascism originated in Europe. This makes sense in many ways, since white people have not endured the same kinds of fascist policies and laws that Black and Indigenous people have faced after legalized slavery, such Jim Crows laws, legalized lynching, eugenics, segregation and mass incarceration. For Indigenous peoples still living in the US they have faced various forms of genocide, like so-called boarding schools, the so-called Indian Wars, reservations, the US violation of hundreds of treaties, and being denied their own spiritual traditions.
Now that white people are experiencing what the current Trump Administration is doing, even though they are still not the primary targets of oppression, they think that this is the first time that fascism has been practiced in the US. The longtime abolitionist Angela Davis helps us understand how we resist this and who should be leading the resistance:
“The only effective guarantee against the victory of fascism is an indivisible mass movement which refuses to conduct business as usual as long as repression rages on. It is only natural that Blacks and other Third World peoples must lead this movement, for we are the first and most deeply injured victims of fascism.”
This brings me to why I believe the above photo/meme is absurd. There might be useful words and principles in the US Constitution, but they have never been applied fully to Black, Indigenous and numerous others communities of color.
It is also an important that we come to terms with the creation and use of the US Constitution as something that has always serve elites in this country. Just because we learned in 8th grade civics class that the Founding Fathers were great men who created the most democratic experiment in the history of humanity, doesn’t mean it was true.
I highly recommend that people read the book, We the Elites: Why the US Constitution Serves the Few, by Robert Ovetz. Ovetz argues that the Constitutional framers were elites who owned lots of land and slaves, in addition to creating a system that would help them protect what they owned and make it extremely difficult to make meaningful changes using the political systems they designed. This is why those of us who believe in the possibilities of social movements using direct action is what makes change, not using the existing political process.
The history of anti-fascist efforts over the centuries demonstrates that revolutionary change is what is needed and that we can never vote our way to real and substantive change. Saying that the US Constitution is the handbook for antifa is both insulting and absurd. In fact, I would argue that the US Constitution is antithetical to anti-fascism.
9 years ago the GRPS Superintendent was praising Betsy DeVos: What is she up to now?
Nine years ago on November 28th, I wrote about Teresa Weatherall Neal, who was the Superintendent of Grand Rapids Public School district. Just after Donald Trump had picked Betsy DeVos to be his Secretary of Education, the GRPS Superintendent was quoted as saying:
Neal says she has worked closely with DeVos since she began her job five years ago. The relationship started with DeVos asking for a meeting.
“She wanted to know what I was going to do, what was my plan for the children in the district,” said Neal. “I appreciated her asking the question. She was part of the transformation that we have done in the district.”
When Neal said she needed the expertise of a superintendent coach, DeVos picked up the tab, and she continues to send notes of encouragement.
The DeVos clan, especially Amway President Doug DeVos and his wife, Maria, have channeled millions from their foundations to programs that align with Neal’s goals.
Neal acknowledges the toll Michigan’s school of choice policy has taken on urban school districts like her own over the past 22 years when the lawmakers set it in motion with school finance reform in 1994.
“It has been hurt by choice (but) we have also become a much stronger district and able to compete,” Neal said.
Over the past two decades, the district has lost 8,000 students, closed 35 buildings, eliminated 1000 positions and cut more than $100 million from the budget, according to the district’s spokesman John Helmholdt.
Under Neal, the district’s graduation rates have climbed and chronic absenteeism have dropped, Helmholdt added, although they’re still below state averages.
Neal thinks DeVos can hold up GRPS as a model of what can be done at other struggling districts.
“I’m really excited for the children across the nation,” Neal said. “She has been a wonderful supporter of GRPS and our transition plan. She knows education. She knows what it is going to take in order for our kids to be helped.”
Some have questioned DeVos family involvement in the district and public education in general since they have educated their children in privately-funded Christian schools.
Neal sees the politically conservative family’s focus on education as their commitment to the “greater social good.”
In 2019, during the last school board meeting that Teresa Weatherall Neal was Superintendent, I also wrote about that meeting and some disturbing dynamics. At the time I wrote:
The MLive article mostly focuses on the decline in GRPS enrollment, thus a reduced budget. However, there are several other questions that should be raised about the budget, such as, why the GRPS Foundation has a line for allowances to 23 Charter Schools, funding disparities between different schools and several line items that are vague and unspecified.
I spoke with someone after the public hearing for the school budget, and was told about a few other issues that were disconcerting. First, was the issue of what happened at a recent school board meeting where the Interim GRPS Supervisor, Ron Gorman, was operating on the assumption that he would be able to bring in his own administrative staff. Theresa Weatherall Neal, who was the Superintendent until last Monday’s meeting, stepped in and said that she was picking the administrative staff for Gorman, which was almost the same as the personnel that Neal has had.
A second issue that should raise red flags for people who care about public education is the issue of the Grand Rapids Promise. Grand Rapids is now in line to become a Promise Zone and will have to follow the guidelines of the Michigan Promise Zones. The Michigan Legislature appoints people to the Michigan Promise Zones Authority and Michigan House Speaker Lee Chatfield, has appointed J.C. Huizenga to the Authority. Huizenga is founder and chairman of the board of National Heritage Academies Inc., a for-profit charter school management company. Huizenga, besides being the head of a for-profit Charter School company, is also an influential member of the Grand Rapids Power Structure and a close associate of Betsy DeVos.
What has Teresa Weatherall Neal been up to since?
It would appear that since Teresa Weatherall Neal resigned from the GRPS her connection to Betsy DeVos has paid off.
- Teresa Weatherall Neal sits of the board of the Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce Foundation.
- She is on the Executive Committee of Grand Action 2.0. Grand Action 2.0 is the entity that has led the charge for the Amphitheater and the Soccer Stadium.
- Neal lists herself as the President and CEO of Lead 616 Consulting.
In 2021, I wrote about an exchange between Teresa Weatherall Neal and JC Huizenga during a Grand Rapids Promise meeting:
JC Huizenga asks the questions, “what does BIPOC stand for?”
Teresa Weatherall Neal says, “It’s just another name for non-sense, JC.”
JC Huizenga then asks, “I’m wondering, does this discriminate against Asian people, Jews who aren’t wealthy or Syrian Refugees?” All the while Weatherall Neal is shaking her head in affirmation of Huizenga’s comment.
Weatherall Neal talks about how she had to deal with the term BIPOC while she was GRPS Superintendent. “Black signifies all people from Africa. So everyone is lumped together.”
Last year Doug DeVos interviewed Teresa Weatherall Neal on his podcast Believe. In the later part of the interview DeVos and Neal talk about her leadership, which she bragged about, with little or no humility. At one point Neal said, “no one loves the children in Grand Rapids more than I do.”
Lastly, Teresa Weatherall Neal briefly talks about her work now with the group Thrive & Prosper, which is another front group for the DeVos family and other members of the GR Power Structure. Here is the video where Doug DeVos interviews Teresa Weatherall Neal.
After the first session I posted an article providing a summary of the first two sessions that I had done at Fountain Street Church about the History of US Immigration Policy. In Part I, I provided an immigration policy overview since the US was founded through the current Trump Administration.
In Part II, I talked about the importance of asking the question about the root causes of people fleeing their country to come to the US, particularly those entering the US through Mexico. I presented a brief historical overview of US military and economic interventions in Central America from the mid-19th century til today. I talked about how the US sent the Marines to invade many of those countries, plus the history of US funded and military training for the counterinsurgency wars in the 1970s and 80s, followed by some analysis of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central American Free Trade Agreement, also known as CAFTA.
In Part III of the History of US Immigration Policy this past Sunday, I focused heavily on the anti-immigrant narrative or the xenophobic narrative(s) about immigrants that politicians and US news media companies use when talking about undocumented immigrants.
For decades now, there have been certain narratives about immigrants, especially undocumented immigrants, narratives that are false. Despite these false and unsubstantiated narratives, politicians parrot them, and most commercial news agencies perpetuate them. Here are a few of the more dominant false anti-immigrant narratives:
- Immigrants take jobs fro real Americans
- Immigrants drive down wages
- Immigrants don’t pay taxes
- Immigrants are a drain on the US economy
It is important that we create accurate narratives to counter these false narratives, so let’s do that for each of these 4 dominant anti-immigrant narrative. Much of what I am sharing here comes from an excellent book by Aviva Chomsky, They Take Our Jobs! and 20 other myths about immigration.
In the fourth and last session that I did on the history of US immigration policy at Fountain Street Church I focused on the history of immigration detention, using two chapters from Silky Shah’s book, Unbuild Walls: Why Immigrant Justice Needs Abolition.
The author provides us with a clear understanding of the evolution of immigrant detention in the US. One point that is critical to understand was that immigrant detention was an outgrowth of the further criminalization of Black communities after the Civil Rights era. Shah writes in Chapter 1:
“Since the 1980s, a combination of economic restructuring and increasing tough-on-crime policies have produced devastating results: the highest rates of incarceration in the world and the greatest number of deportations in US history.”
The author notes that immigration detention essentially began during the Reagan Administration in the 1980s. Shah argues that immigrant detention centers were meant as a deterrent for Central Americans that were fleeing by the thousands during the US funding counter-insurgency wars at that time. The detention of undocumented immigrants were mandatory, with the belief that it would minimize the number of undocumented immigrants crossing in to the US at the southern border. While the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) passed in 1986 and provided amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants, new undocumented immigrants were criminalized, with the administration using language that would demonize anyone coming to the US without papers.
The growth of mass immigrant detention continued during the Clinton years, with the adoption of more Neoliberal economic policies, like the end of welfare, which took away basic safety net resources to economically desperate population, including undocumented immigrants. In addition, several states were adopting policies to further criminalize immigrants, like with Prop 187 in California in 1994. The author goes on to say:
“Both the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) were passed that year. Together they changed the paradigm on immigration to one that emphasized citizenship rather than residency and laid the legal foundation for the expansion of the deportation machine that emerged following 9/11.”
The George W. Bush administration continued the further criminalization of undocumented immigrants, especially after 9/11 with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002 and the creation of Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) in 2003. ICE was created with complete bipartisan support.
With the creation of ICE, which a more militarized version of the INS, this increased the number of immigrant detention centers around the country, which fit within the framework of the War on Terrorism. The Obama Administration continued much of the same criminal immigrant framework when he took office in 2009.
According to the author, the Obama Administration made the immigration system bigger and more effective, but not in a good way. His administration created new programs and partnerships and increased family detentions and creating the Secure Communities program, which got county sheriff departments involved in immigration enforcement, like what happened in Kent County in 2012.
The Obama Administration was referred to as the “Deporter in Chief”, since he deported more immigrants (3.5 million) during his tenure, which was the most at that time for any administration.
Lastly, the author makes the point, stating: “the Obama administration expanded and set up a powerful machinery for Trump to exploit by plugging in the detention and deportation system much more closely to criminal law enforcement across the country.”
As I mentioned in week #1, with the slide presentation I did, the history of US immigration policy, with all of the xenophobia and white nationalism, has been a bipartisan policy.
Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy 