Voting to honor Charlie Kirk and the ongoing Genocide in Gaza, Rep. Scholten demonstrates exactly what she stands for
Yesterday, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution with the title, Honoring the life and legacy of Charles “Charlie” James Kirk.
House Resolution 719 was adopted by a vote of 310-58. Michigan Representatives Shri Thanedar and Rashida Tlaib voted against the resolution, but the rest of the Democratic Representatives joined their GOP colleagues to vote in favor of it.
Rep. Hillary Scholten voted fo the resolution and even released the statement here above. Scholten’s statement is misleading and instructive, so let’s take a look at what she is claiming in that statement.
First, Rep. Scholten says she voted for the resolution in order to “condemn political violence and the killing of Charlie Kirk, and to honor his family.” Taking this position is weak, since it is merely a political move to position Representative Scholten in such a way as to claim that she does not support political violence. Rep. Scholten wants to get re-elected, so she wants to appear as moderate as possible to her constituents in the 2026 Election.
Second, Rep. Scholten said that she agreed with every word that was written in the resolution. This means that Scholten agrees with the following:
- Whereas Charles “Charlie” James Kirk, born October 14, 1993, was a courageous American patriot, whose life was tragically and unjustly cut short in an act of political violence on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University;
- Whereas Charlie Kirk was a devoted Christian, who boldly lived out his faith with conviction, courage, and compassion;
- Whereas Charlie Kirk was a dedicated husband to his beloved wife, Erika Kirk, and a loving father to their daughter and son, exemplifying the virtues of faith, fidelity, and fatherhood;
- Whereas Charlie Kirk was a fierce defender of the American founding and its timeless principles of life, liberty, limited government, and individual responsibility;
- Whereas Charlie Kirk, at 18 years old, founded Turning Point USA in 2012, a student movement with the mission to “identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government”;
- Whereas Charlie Kirk became one of the most prominent voices in America, engaging in respectful, civil discourse across college campuses, media platforms, and national forums, always seeking to elevate truth, foster understanding, and strengthen the Republic;
- Whereas Charlie Kirk personified the values of the First Amendment, exercising his God-given right to speak freely, challenge prevailing narratives, and did so with honor, courage, and respect for his fellow Americans;
- Whereas Charlie Kirk’s commitment to civil discussion and debate stood as a model for young Americans across the political spectrum, and he worked tirelessly to promote unity without compromising on conviction;
- Whereas the assassination of Charlie Kirk was not only a heinous act of violence, but a sobering reminder of the growing threat posed by political extremism and hatred in our society;
- Whereas such acts of politically motivated violence are antithetical to the principles of a free republic, in which differences of opinion are to be debated—not silenced—with civility, reason, and mutual respect;
- Whereas the rise in targeted violence against individuals for their political beliefs undermines the very fabric of our constitutional democracy and chills the free exchange of ideas essential to a healthy civic society;
- Whereas leaders at every level—government, education, media, and beyond—must stand united in unequivocal condemnation of political violence, regardless of their ideology;
- Whereas the tragic loss of Charlie Kirk must not be allowed to deepen the divides in our Nation, but instead serve as a turning point to recommit ourselves to better angels, and to the timeless American principles of liberty governed by truth and the virtues of peaceful dialogue; and
- Whereas Charlie Kirk would not have us respond to his death with despair, but rather with renewed purpose—to speak truth with courage, to stand firm in faith, to seek unity while standing firm in principle, and to serve as living reminders of the values he championed: faith, family, and freedom: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
(1) condemns in the strongest possible terms the assassination of Charles “Charlie” James Kirk, and all forms of political violence;
(2) commends and honors the dedicated law enforcement and emergency personnel for their tireless efforts in finding the suspect responsible for the assassination of Charlie Kirk and urges the administration of swift justice to the suspect;
(3) extends its deepest condolences and sympathies to Charlie Kirk’s family, including his wife, Erika, and their two young children, and prays for comfort, peace, and healing in this time of unspeakable loss;
(4) honors the life, leadership, and legacy of Charlie Kirk, whose steadfast dedication to the Constitution, civil discourse, and Biblical truth inspired a generation to cherish and defend the blessings of liberty; and
(5) calls upon all Americans—regardless of race, party affiliation, or creed—to reject political violence, recommit to respectful debate, uphold American values, and respect one another as fellow Americans.
As you can see from this resolution, there is so much misinformation about who Charlie Kirk really was and how much he specifically contributed to far right political movements in the US through the work of Turning Point USA, which was referred to by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group.
Voting for Genocide while condemning political violence
This resolution to honor the life of Charlie Kirk is riddled with complete lies and so much standard propaganda about what the history of the US government, it would take pages and pages to deconstruct. The one main point that I would make about this resolution is that both the Republican and Democratic Party have engaged in political violence since the founding of their respective parties, especially when looking at the policies they have adopted. Political violence is central to the history of the US, from the genocidal policies imposed on Indigenous people, to chattel slavery, to Jim Crow policies and countless policies since that have primarily benefited those with economic power while punishing the most marginalized communities throughout the country.
For Rep. Scholten to vote for this resolution is in many ways a vote to whitewash the deeply white supremacist political violence that is part of the very fabric of this country’s 250 year history. I for one am not surprised by Scholten’s vote to honor the life of Charlie Kirk, since she has consistently voted to support the genocide in Gaza, US imperialism and militarism, along with the criminalization of immigrants since she took office in January of 2023.
Community Historians Workshop provided a fabulous opportunity to hear directly from people who attended GRPS schools in the 1960s
Editors note: Images used in this post are from Grand Rapids Press articles and a WOODTV8 editorial from that period, all of which can be found here.
Last Saturday was the first in a series of workshops that explored the history of the Grand Rapids Public Schools. The workshop was primarily led by GVSU Professor Leanne Kang, which I interviewed about this series on September 2nd.
The focus of last Saturday’s workshop was on what was happening in the Grand Rapids Public Schools during the 1960s and 70s. Dr. Kang began with some important contextual comments, stating:
The 1960s and 1970s was a breathtaking period in American history, socially, politically, and culturally, because through people’s protest, many of whom were students, it challenged cultural norms of all sorts of hierarchies that had been established over the 20th century. The 60s marked the height of the Civil Rights Movement, and other movements branching from it – the Chicano Movement, the American Indian Movement (AIM), the Asian American Movement, the Third World Liberation Front, Women’s Liberation, Gay Liberation, the Environmental Movement……and the federal government responded, passing critical federal legislation (such as the Civil Rights Act and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), many of which are under attack now.
When it comes to the history of US public education specifically, the 1960s and 1970s is also incredibly pivotal or consequential. The 1960s was a period of mass protest against segregated schools that forced the federal government to respond, followed by backlash and retrenchment in the 1970s.
There was not a large turnout for the event, but at least half of those in attendance were students at either South High or Ottawa Hills High School during the 1960s. Their first hand experience was an invaluable part of the conversation.
It was instructive to hear from those who attended Ottawa Hills High School that they were unaware at the time of what was happening at South High and that racial tensions were not anywhere near the level of what was happening in regards to what was taking place at South High, especially around the issue of the imposing a dress code that profoundly impacted Black students, in what later became known as the Mustache affair.
Those in attendance that went to South High talked a great deal about what went down during that period and how it has continued to impact public education and the Black community since. Several of those who were students tin the 1960s talked about how the impact of the closure of South High and how it ties to the way the Grand Rapids Public School district has evolved, especially with the two-tiered system, where some schools, like City High, cater to students from privilege, while other students are often taught by substitute teachers, with fewer resources, along with lower expectations for the students who attend Union or Ottawa Hills.
In addition, several of those who attended South High are involved with an effort to reclaim and maintain this critical part of history in Grand Rapids. This group has lots of in person meetings, functions and events, along with having their own Facebook page.
The next Community Historians workshop will take place on Saturday, October 25th, with details at this link.
Lastly, here is a timeline that was also share with participants.
Grand Action 2.0 has already taken the public for $80 million on the Amphitheater project
Grand Action 2.0, the organization that was created by members of the Grand Rapids Power Structure to propose development projects in downtown, earlier this week announced the last fundraising wave for the Amphitheater, scheduled to open in May of 2026.
All four daily commercial news outlets ran stories on the Grand Action 2.0 update, exclusively relying on Grand Action 2.0 spokespersons and likely their Media Release. MLive ran an article with the headline, Grand Rapids amphitheater nears fundraising goal, asks public for support. WOODTV8 posted a canned video produced by Grand Action 2.0, with a spokesperson with the Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce praising the Amphitheater project. In the WZZM 13 story, the reporter used the following sentence, “The $184 million Acrisure Amphitheater is already more than 95 percent funded but Monday marked a new chapter — the public’s turn to help push the project across the finish line.”
While not surprising, the line from the WZZM 13 reporter is false. The channel 13 piece, like the rest of the coverage, suggests that the public now has a chance to contribute to this project. Nothing could be farther from the truth. WXMI 17 was the only news outlet that at least provided some breakdown of the funding for the Amphitheater, but even they fell short with the complete costs of the project, especially the use of public dollars.
Here is a more accurate breakdown of how public dollars contributed to Amphitheater:
- $15 million from the Hotel Tax, which was adopted by the Kent County Commission, which diverts money from the public who stays on hotels and motels in Kent County.
- $30 million from the State of Michigan through a public grant, which is from public tax dollars.
- $20.5 million from the Downtown Development Authority (DDA), which uses funds from taxes collected in the downtown area, which is also technically public money.
Then there are public costs related to the project on the front end, when the City of Grand Rapids did infrastructure work and relocated City services & departments to free up land for the Amphitheater project. The City of Grand Rapids paid $6,252,643 to relocate a sewer trunk, as well as $7,450,000 that the City paid for the 1500 Scribner Avenue NW property from the County, which I reported on in 2021.
In 2023, MLive ran a story with the headline, Making room for proposed riverfront amphitheater could cost Grand Rapids $58M. GRIID responded to that article and discussed some additional costs that MLive did not factor into what the City of Grand Rapids, which is public money, would be paying.
In June of 2024, it was reported that $2 million in federal funding would be used to construct a walking bridge that would connect the Amphitheater and the westside. Federal funding is also public dollars.
If you add up the various sources of public money, it comes to roughly $80 million. Therefore, when WZZM 13 says it’s the public’s turn to help push the project across the finish line, I call bullshit. In fact, nearly half of the cost of the Amphitheater is from public dollars. Now, if nearly half of the cost has been picked up by the public, does this mean that the public will get to use the Amphitheater for public events or attend concerts for free at significantly reduced ticket prices? Hell no!
Looking at the ticket prices for the Amphitheater events you can see that the closer to the stage seats are reserved for those with deep pockets. Tickets for the first concert in May of 2026, range from $60 a seat to $623 a seat.
Lastly, the so-called public donation period that Grand Action 2.0 is pushing, uses the term public in an elitist fashion, since it provides special perks for those that can “donate” larger sums. Here is the breakdown:
- $1000+ results in permanent recognition at the amphitheater
- The first 500 people to donate at least $2,500 can purchase two tickets before they publicly go on sale for all events in the amphitheater’s first season
- Donors who give $20,000 to $49,999 have the option to buy premium seat licenses
- Donations of $50,000 to $199,999 open options for seat licenses and on-site recognition
- The biggest prize comes for donations of $200,000 or more: the option to purchase loge seating licenses
All of the pricing opportunities excludes the majority of those who live this city and county, thus creating yet another divide between working class people and members of the capitalist class. The Amphitheater is just the latest project that Grand Action 2.0 has shoved down our throats, forcing the public to cough of at least $80 million and then charge us ridiculous prices to attend concerts. When are we going to wake up to how we are being manipulated, start resisting and demand that our money should go for housing, health care, mass transit and sustainable energy projects?
GRPS teachers, students, parents and community members speak up at Board of Education meetings to demand that teachers get paid what they deserve
Over the past two Monday’s, hundreds of people showed up at the Grand Rapids Public School Board of Education meetings.
On Monday, September 8th, so many people showed up that they all could not fit into the Franklin Campus Administrative building where the School Board meets, thus leaving over a hundred either waiting in the lobby or outside.
The September 8th School Board meeting received a fair amount of news coverage, but as of this writing there was only one story from the 4 major commercial media outlets in Grand Rapids. The story was from WXMI 17, which only provided a comment from someone with the teachers union, followed by a comment from a GRPS spokesperson. This type of coverage does the public a disservice, since it doesn’t reflect the overwhelming amount of public comments calling for GRPS teachers to get paid that they deserved. By comparison, all 4 major commercial media outlets in Grand Rapids reported on the Grand Action 2.0 push to get the public to cough up even more money to fund the downtown amphitheater.
At both the September 8th and 15th GRPS Board of Education meetings public comment was reduced from 3 minutes to 2 minutes. You can watch the School Board meetings from September 8th and 15th by going to this link.
During the September 8th meeting there were 24 people who spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting. There were over 50 people who had submitted cards, but the School Board decided to adjourn the meeting early since there were so many people who wanted to be there, but were prevented from speaking because of space issues.
Those who spoke during public comment on September 8th were GRPS students, parents with children in GRPS and GRPS teachers. All of them had similar messages, which were centered around the demand that the Grand Rapids Public Schools needed to pay teachers what they are asking or they will risk losing more teachers to other districts.
Some of the GRPS students talked about how the teacher(s) they have had have had such a positive impact on their lives, which is why they were speaking up for teachers to receive a just salary. Another person said that GRPS claims they want qualified teachers but last year ended with 87 empty teacher spots while having a record fund balance.
One teacher who spoke during public comment shared that they noticed right before school started that their paycheck was pending, which was followed by an email apologizing for the delay. This dynamic took their focus away from prepping for their classroom, since they were worrying about getting paid. During the next pay cycle, the same thing happened again. Another teacher said that the district was acting like a dragon sitting on top of a mound of gold.
There were also several comments from people during public comment expressing their disgust that people were being locked out of the building and that everyone who came out should have an opportunity to speak. There were also calls to provide a larger venue, in order to avoid what was happening that night. One GRPS School Board member said, “this space has been sufficient for all meetings thus far.” This statement was inaccurate, as I reported in 2010 that there was insufficient space for the public speak during public comment, so the district moved the meeting to Ottawa Hills High School.
Round Two – September 15th GRPS School Board meeting
During the September 15th GRPS School Board meeting – which was held at Ottawa Hills High School. The School Board read a statement which essentially said that if anyone was being disorderly or breaches the peace, school board can take steps to remove individuals from meeting, using law enforcement officers. Not exactly setting an inviting tone that welcomes public input.
There were a total of 62 people who spoke during the public comment period, again with a reduced time to speak from 3 minutes to 2 minutes. There were GRPS parents and community members who spoke, but the overwhelming majority were GRPS teachers.
One teacher stated that the Special Education program was not only understaffed but the district was using non-certified teachers. One Special Education program teacher said their students are getting a revolving door of unqualified subs and understaffed support system that makes it unsafe for these students. Parents are also leaving the district because they know their kids can’t get fair and appropriate public education.
Several teachers pointed out how the GRPS pay for teacher was one of the worst in Kent County, which not only devalues teachers, it contributes to GRPS teachers leaving the district for nearby districts. A GRPS parent also addressed the low salaries of GRPS teachers compared to other districts, while pointing out the fact that GRPS Administrators gave themselves double digit raises.
There were other comments made about the low GRPS teacher salaries, which not only undervalues those teachers, it negatively impacts students, which the the district continues to claim is their priority. Another teacher said that he shouldn’t have to be the sole dad of 2 teenage boys and have a take home pay that is 2/3 of what it costs to rent a 3 bedroom apartment in this city. Another teacher shared a story about a parapro who had their lights turned off at Christmas because they couldn’t pay their bills off of what the GRPS paid them.
One last comment that I want to highlight was from a 7th grader at City High. This student said, “You talk about how GRPS is my choice…well, my choice is to give teachers more money!”
After two and a half hours the message was crystal clear – value the teachers, pay teachers what they deserve, and if you want to retain teachers pay them what they deserve. The students will benefit, the parents will commit to staying in the district and the community as a whole will benefit from having a robust public schools. Will the GRPS Administrators and School Board members not only hear this, but meet the demand to pay teachers what they deserve?
When rhetoric and voting records don’t match up: Sen. Slotkin on immigration and ICE
In her most recent weekly video, what Michigan Senator calls her Intel Briefing, she made several comments about the US Supreme Court decision regarding racial profiling of immigrants by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.
Sen. Slotkin’s comments on this matter begins at 6:06 in the video. There are several points that the Michigan Senator makes which I think is important to deconstruct. First, Slotkin says that the Trump Administration is using “pretty extraordinary” measures to send fear into the immigrant community – which is true, but then she refers to immigrants, “people who are here illegally and shouldn’t be here.” Using the term illegal for immigrants is unacceptable, since if anything there are undocumented. In addition, saying they shouldn’t be here is deeply problematic, as I have already written about. The Associated Press had made it a practice to not use the term illegal for more than a decade regarding how journalists should report on these matters, using the term undocumented instead.
Second, Senator Slotkin says she has heard lots of reports of immigrants who are US citizens who are carrying their passports with them out of fear of being stopped by ICE. Again, this is a real concern that we also should take seriously. However, the racially profiling of ICE and cops regarding immigrants in not new and in fact it has been practiced since ICE was created in 2003. One example comes to mind in Kent County from 2018, when Jilmar Ramos Gomez, a Latino, who was also a former US Marine, who was arrested by the GRPD, with the GRPD’s liaison to ICE then calling ICE to claim Gomez was undocumented.
Third, Slotkin talks about egregious cases of this racial profiling in Michigan and even mentioned that she was in Grand Rapids but never provides any real context or examples of how ICE is practicing this type of racial profiling by ICE in Michigan. Senator Slotkin could have cited ACLU and MIRC documented cases and she could have checked in with Movimiento Cosecha GR or GR Rapid Response to ICE who have also been documenting how ICE and local cops racially profile immigrants in Kent County.
Fourth, Sen. Slotkin then talks about how people are living in fear, how Mexican restaurants are losing customers and how anyone who cares about democracy should be concerned about this US Supreme Court ruling. Slotkin continues by says this is a tactic of the Trump Administration to divide us and to separate us. Again, I don’t disagree with the senator’s broad assessment, but Slotkin’s rhetoric doesn’t match up with her voting record. For example, since she has been a Senator Slotkin voted for the Laken Riley Act, which is a vile anti-immigrant bill that further criminalizes undocumented immigrants. While Slotkin was a member of the US House of Representatives, she also voted for increased funding of US Customs and Border Patrol along with never criticizing the Biden Administration’s deportation of several million immigrants from 2021 – 2024. You can check how Slotkin has voted on immigration issues since being a member of Congress by going to this link.
Lastly, Senator Slotkin ends her video comments by saying that if people have concerns about immigrants who are being targeted they can reach out to her office. I know of at least two examples in recent months where Movimiento Cosecha has reached out the Senator Slotkin’s office to request assistance.
In June, when Carlos Menjivar was taken by ICE while attending his appointment at the ISAP office, Movimiento Cosecha and GR Rapid Response sent over 2,400 online Action Alerts to Peters, Slotkin and Scholten to demand they assist in that case. Senator Slotkin never responded. Then, on August 20th, Cosecha held a vigil for Cata “Xóchitl” Santiago who has been in an ICE detention facility in Texas. Again, people sent letters to Senator Slotkin, asking her office to intervene in getting Xóchitl out of detention. The judge in Xóchitl’s case recently ruled that ICE had to grounds to detain her, yet she still sits in jail. Throughout all of this Senator Slotkin NEVER responded to Cosecha’s letters to get Xóchitl out of detention.
We should see Sentor Slotkin’s concerns about the recent US Supreme Court ruling that allows ICE to racially profile immigrants as political grandstanding, especially since she didn’t have a problem when ICE was doing the same thing during the Biden Administration and because she has consistently voted for anti-immigrant policies as a member of the House and Senate, along with voting for billions of dollars in funding for ICE and US Customs and Border Patrol as a member of Congress. It is important to not be fooled by rhetoric, but to verify rhetorical claims with how people like Senator Slotkin votes.
Grand Rapids Church dedicates Sunday service to the life and legacy of Charlie Kirk
Some of the Grand Rapids-based commercial news agencies have posted stories about the death of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk.
One story from MLive was about an Office Depot employee who was fired for refusing to print copies of a poster for a vigil being organized for Kirk. Another MLive story simply announces that the Michigan Republican Party was hosting a rally “to pay homage to prominent conservative influencer Charlie Kirk.” The rally was at the Lansing State Capitol at 4pm on September 15th.
WOODTV8 also ran a story about a Grand Rapids pastor who knew Charlie Kirk, and hosted the far-right campus organizer at his church. The pastor’s name is Cody Kuehl and the name of the church that he is the pastor at is GR.Church.
Curious to know more about this church, I then checked out GR.Church and found out that they were going to center the life of Charlie Kirk during their Sunday morning service. On the church’s Facebook page you can watch the service from Sunday morning, which as of 5pm on September 14th there were already 1,400 views. Twelve minutes into this video there is a video compilation celebrating Kirk, followed by the pastor’s sermon that also uses the life of Charlie Kirk as a model for what it means to be a Christian. GR.Church is located just south of 44th Street between Kalamazoo and Breton.
Now, I wouldn’t recommend that you watch the sermon which included a great deal of praise for Charlie Kirk, even some video clips featuring the far right founder of Turning Point USA, since it was difficult to sit through…..unless you have some good bourbon. At one point the pastor said that the US was the greatest country in the history of the planet and that Charlie Kirk was killed because of his faith in God. What I take away for the sermon and the service at GR.Church is that people will use the Christian bible to justify whatever they want.
Pastor Kuehl noted during his sermon that WOODTV8 was present and they did run a follow up story. Unfortunately, the story that channel 8 ran later on Sunday was nothing more than stenography journalism, citing the pastor a few times without any verification of the claims made or critical inquiry into the impact that Kirk and Turning Point USA had around the country.
However, for thinking people, here are some resources to counter the media frenzy around the death of Charlie Kirk and the function of Turning Point USA.
- Charlie Kirk’s Legacy Deserves No Mourning
- Nothing Will Stop Trump From Weaponizing Charlie Kirk’s Killing to Attack the Left
- The Center for Media and Democracy
- Souther Poverty Law Center
- Right Wing Watch
Lastly, I wanted to say that we have to come to terms with the fact that millions of people in the US and thousands in the Grand Rapids area embrace the same ideological framework that Charlie Kirk embraced. The people at GR.Church who praised Charlie Kirk are not an anomaly, they are a significant percent of the public, especially the public that is mobilized to fight against Black people, Trans people, immigrants, people who would criticize Israel and condemn genocide, and those who support reproductive justice and abortion.
Palestine Solidarity Information and Analysis for the week of September 14
It has been 23 months since the Israeli government began their most recent assault on Gaza and the West Bank. The retaliation for the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack in Israel, has escalated to what the international community has called genocide, therefore, GRIID will be providing weekly links to information and analysis that we think can better inform us of what is happening, along with the role that the US government is playing. All of this information is to provide people with the capacity of what Noam Chomsky refers to as, intellectual self-defense.
Information
Israel destroys Gaza high-rises as it slaughters hundreds
Disrupt Complicity Weekend, 18 – 21 September
Israel Bombs Hamas Office in Doha, Issues Displacement Order for 1 Million in Gaza City
The Price of Genocide: How US Funding Sustains an Unraveling Israeli Economy
New York Times misstates Palestinian death toll, downplays genocide
Exclusive: The 100-Word Ceasefire “Proposal” Trump Sent Hamas
ISRAEL’S PEACE PLAN: ASSASSINATE THE CEASEFIRE NEGOTIATORS
Israel Destroys Gaza Human Rights Group’s HQ, Days After It Was Sanctioned by US
‘We Will Not Stop,’ Says Gaza Sumud Flotilla After Second Drone Attack
THE HOUSE JUST PASSED A BILL PUNISHING “POLITICALLY MOTIVATED” BOYCOTTS OF ISRAEL
Analysis & History
“America Is Bankrolling This”: Jeremy Scahill on Israel’s Bombing of Hamas in Qatar
Image used in this post is from https://bdsmovement.net/news/disruptcomplicity-genocide-sanctions-now
The late Black feminist and insurgent writer bell hooks gave a lecture at Fountain Street Church in 2006
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 part of 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, and Amy Goodman, all of whom spoke at Fountain Street Church.
Today, I want to share an audio recording of a lecture by the author and intellectual bell hooks, a lecture she gave in October of 2006 at Foundation Street Church. hooks, who had written dozens of books on racism, white supremacy, feminism, capitalism, media representation and culture, focused on the theme of feminism as a revolutionary movement, especially when the feminism being practiced challenges the systems of white supremacy, capitalism and patriarchy. Listen to the lecture found here below.
Believe in Our City: Just another iteration of the same old business as usual brand in Grand Rapids
Have you all heard of the group Believe in Our City Grand Rapids? It started this past April with 150 leaders from across Grand Rapids came together to officially launch the city’s A250 initiative.
The A250 initiative is the celebration of the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States, which is doing the same program across the county, using the same fundamental talking points and messages.
The A250 Steering Committee for Grand Rapids are the following people:
- Dale Robertson – Grand Rapids Public Museum
- Mayor David LaGrand
- Doug DeVos – Continuum Ventures, the investment management company for Doug and Maria DeVos https://www.continuumv.com/about
- Gleaves Whitney – Gerald R. Ford Foundation
- JD Loeks – Studio C Celebration Cinema
- Joe Jones – Hekiman Group
- John Tuttle – Acrisure
- Juan Olivarez – Community Leader
- LaSandra Gaddy – Grand Rapids Community Foundation
- Mark Washington – Grand Rapids City Manager
- Peter Meijer – Meijer
- Philly Mantella – President of GVSU
- Ron Gorman – Kent ISD
- Tina Freese Decker – Corewell Health
- Senator Winnie Brinks – Michigan 29th Senate District
Looking at this list of people I see several who are part of the Grand Rapids Power Structure, along with government collaborators and other community partners that are interested in maintaining business as usual politics in Grand Rapids.
The April event launch featured several speakers and some video that featured Rich DeVos talking about the city when he opened the Amway Grand Plaza in downtown. (Video link is here, with Rich DeVos comments beginning at 8:04 into the video.)
The MC for the video is Joe Jones, who was followed by Doug DeVos, which you can watch here. DeVos talks about how his partner in this A250 endeavor is Mayor LaGrand, which tells us more about LaGrand than it does about DeVos. Doug DeVos does his usual bullshit talk about how great we are and how we can do better. As a billionaire who has made his money off of the labor of others, and as someone who buys politicians on a regular basis, his words are hollow, even hypocritical.
DeVos was followed by Mayor LaGrand. LaGrand praises Doug DeVos in his comments and says that Doug’s commitment to community is what we need. LaGrand also uses lofty language like equality, democracy and loyalty, but after months as Mayor of Grand Rapids I don’t see where this rhetoric matches up with his actions.
There are also community partners that are involved in Believe in Our City, such as:
- The Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation
- The City of Grand Rapids
- Doug & Maria DeVos Foundation
- Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce
- America250MI
Seems like the usual suspects, which not only promote business as usual, they promote their own interests, especially when it comes to the DeVos family and the GR Chamber of Commerce.
It seems to me that the Believe in Our City project is just another version of Thrive and Prosper. Grand Rapids is synonymous with the phrase West Michigan Nice. West Michigan Nice is an ironic reference to the fact that while people and institutions might appear to be polite, in reality they look down on people with contempt or paternalism, especially those people made vulnerable by systems of power and oppression. Therefore, the label of West Michigan Nice could aptly be given to the recently created group known as Thrive and Prosper. Yes, Thrive and Prosper. Sounds like a get rich quick scheme or a cult or just simply the logical outcome of how Grand Rapids deals with everything.
Doug DeVos embraces this same ideology and has been at the forefront of the Thrive & Prosper groups as well. I wrote about a Doug DeVos video he did with Thrive & Prosper, which clearly exposes his class privilege.
Lastly, it is important to note that the A250 project is connected to the 175th anniversary of the founding of Grand Rapids, which I also wrote about with the headline, What are we really celebrating on the 175th Anniversary of Grand Rapids?
Besides my critique, which is based on what the group has made available online, here is an additional critique by Peter TeWinkle who has attended Believe in Our City project events.
I went into the 2025 session of Believe In Our City with a good bit of skepticism. The theme was entrepreneurship. It’s one of those initiatives that flows naturally out of an individualistic, market-driven worldview. Still, I went for two reasons. First, because all the people who pull the levers of power would be there and I think it’s important to know what they’re talking about. Second, because I was hopeful to hear about some initiatives that would help people start or find support to sustain their businesses.
Unfortunately, “entrepreneurship” was meant in a much broader sense in this case; a sense captured in our city motto, “strength in activity.” We were highlighting go-getters, over-comers, and problem-solvers who embodied something like an “entrepreneurial spirit.” Doug Devos began the conference by wanting us to recognize that we were not alone in our desire to make change; that we needed to put our ideas into action; and that we needed to challenge one another to think differently. He said that we’ll continue to get the same results if we keep making the same decisions.
Upfront and behind the scenes were organizations like the American Enterprise Institute, Acton Institute, Koch Industries, and the Stand Together Foundation. I recognize that some of my impression is the result of a difference of opinion. For example, while more than one speaker called out racialized narratives of inferiority imposed on people of color. The culprit for these narratives was not white supremacy, as I see it, but those who poison young minds with their obsession on oppression. A lot of what was presented felt condescending and some of it was downright deceiving (i.e. disparities in infant mortality rates are NOT resolved by marriage). The reality is there was only one perspective being promoted. The message is quite clear. The call is not for a collective exchange of ideas. The call is for all of us to embrace conservative ideals.
The implication is that it’s the people who disagree with the individualistic, market-driven world view who are the ones who need to have their thinking challenged. They need to stop complaining and start believing. The obvious irony here is that it’s the DeVos’s who are the ones who make the decisions in Grand Rapids. They are the ones who have been putting their ideas into grand action for decades. If the city is not yet a flourishing place for all people, then whose decisions are we to point to if not the people who hold all the wealth and influence city staff? Whose thinking is it that needs to be challenged if not the thinking of those who have been reshaping this city to the neglect of so many? If systems change when, as one speaker suggested, behaviors in the system change, then whose behavior needs to change if not those who designed the system?
There were certainly good people doing good work represented on the stage. There are good employers in our city who genuinely want to create easier pathways to higher wages for their employees. I was grateful for voices such as Christina Keller, from Cascade, and Shana Washington, from Trinity Health, who acknowledged the benefits cliff as well as barriers to higher-paying employment (e.g. high costs of transportation, housing, childcare, and job training). They saw the limitations of our current system and they have some interesting ideas that they are putting into action. But, at the end of the day, it’s hard for me to “believe” that the thrive + prosper brand has any plan to address these systemic barriers. All the while, the number of people who are constrained by their income grows and Grand Rapids remains the worst metro area for African-Americans. But, we don’t have to talk about those things. We just believe.
On a recent GRTV show Mayor David LaGrand was asked to respond to a question regarding President Trump’s threat to send the National Guard to Chicago, the Chicago Mayor’s response and why LaGrand has not done more to support the demands of groups like Movimiento Cosecha to protect undocumented immigrants from abduction? You can watch the Mayor’s response here.
LaGrand made several comments, which I want to share at this point, along with responses to his comments. LaGand’s first response was to say that there are a number of people who are at risk in this community and Cosecha has a voice on this matter, but they don’t have a monopoly over speaking on behalf of the community.
This is an instructive response on the part of the Mayor for several reasons. First, Movimiento Cosecha GR has never said they were the only voice in this matter, plus LaGrand omits the fact that GR Rapid Response to ICE is a partner in demands that have been presented, what those groups are calling Sanctuary policies. Second, it is important to note that Cosecha is mostly made up of undocumented community members and are deeply rooted in the affected community. Movimiento Cosecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE are actually doing the work of being in solidarity with undocumented immigrants, which the Mayor either knows nothing about or even acknowledges.
Third, members of Cosecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE were part of a meeting with Mayor LaGrand in January regarding responding to the Trump Administration’s Executive Order on mass deportation. Most of the people in the room were not from the affected community. A Cosecha representative told the Mayor that night that if he really wanted to know what the undocumented community was thinking and feeling then he should meet with them and listen to their concerns instead of making decisions without following their wishes.
The next comment from LaGrand was to say that his main concern is to not put the people who are most at risk by doing things that are counter productive or giving them a false sense of security. LaGrand has been saying that he doesn’t want to give people a false sense of security, which translates into not wanting to adopt the Sanctuary policies that Cosecha and GR Rapid Response are demanding. On the matter of not wanting to do things that are counter-productive, Mayor LaGrand is specifically referring to the demands, which he considers counter productive. The demands from Cosecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE are:
- Policies restricting the ability of state and local police to make arrests for federal immigration violations, or to detain individuals on civil immigration warrants.
- Policies restricting the police or other city workers from asking about immigration status.
- Policies prohibiting “287(g)” agreements through which ICE deputizes local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration law.
- Policies that prevent local governments from entering into a contract with the federal government to hold immigrants in detention;
- Policies preventing immigration detention centers from being established in Grand Rapids.
- A policy that will not allow the GRPD to share Flock camera images or any other information gathered by the city of Grand Rapids with ICE or any other law enforcement agency seeking to arrest, detain and deport immigrants.
LaGrand then goes on to say that he has looked the existing policies of the City of Grand Rapids regarding immigration and ICE and he thinks that they are sufficient, specifically regarding what the GRPD will and will not do. Mayor LaGrand is referring specifically to the Foreign National’s Policy. This policy clearly states:
The policy allows officers to provide assistance to federal immigration authorities when there is an emergency that poses an immediate danger to public safety or federal agents.
Seems rather clear to me that the GRPD will cooperate with ICE when public safety is at risk. Now we all know that public safety is a broad term, so the GRPD would get to determine when public safety is at risk as they have repeatedly don’t over the years. More importantly, Cosecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE have witnessed that whenever they are making public demands regarding ICE or doing accompaniment and community patrols with members of the affected community the GRPD shows up to harass people who are doing the accompaniment, along with threatening to arrest them, and in one case in July actually arrested 2 GR Rapid Response to ICE volunteers who were following ICE agents.
LaGrand then addresses the Trump Administration’s threat against Chicago and the Chicago Mayor’s response. However, instead of saluting what Mayor Johnson is saying and doing, LaGrand criticizes Chicago for not being more cautious with the possibility that, as LaGrand said, “going to war against 3rd largest city in the country.”
LaGrand then says that the core value and core issue is “do we want to keep everyone safe”, and his answer was yes. The Mayor then says that Cosecha asked the City to do things that don’t make any sense, using one of the Sanctuary policies listed above, “Policies preventing immigration detention centers from being established in Grand Rapids.” In an arrogant and dismissive tone LaGrand says that Cosecha asked them to adopt a policy which will not allow money to be used to build a federal detention center in Grand Rapids. Not only is LaGrand’s response dismissive, it is inaccurate. The demand is, preventing immigration detention centers from being established in Grand Rapids. This could mean using the Kent County Jail as a federal detention facility or using other existing buildings to do the same. Despite misrepresenting what the demand was from Cosecha, the Grand Rapids Mayor calls it a silly and bizarre hypothetical.
LaGrand ends his comments by saying he is laser focused on figuring out what ICE is doing in Grand Rapids, how best to protect those most at risk, making sure that the GRPD is not cooperating with ICE, not giving a false sense of security, simply because one group stands up and say, “we speak for everyone.” Here is my response to the Mayor’s little rant:
- Movimiento Coecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE know better than Mayor LaGrand what ICE is up to, because of those groups do on a daily basis with their ICE Hotline, with accompanying people who have ICE appointment, doing patrols in neighborhoods at greater risk, providing legal, financial and material aid to those affected by ICE, and working in the community to provide sanctuary spaces for those most at risk of ICE arrests, detention and deportation.
- There is no evidence that LaGrand or any aspect of City policy is actually protecting those who are at risk of ICE abductions.
- The GRPD is cooperating and collaborating with ICE, as Cosecha and GR Rapids Response to ICE has methodically documented.
- Adopting the Sanctuary policies listed above would not give a false sense of security, but it would defy the Trump Administration’s mass deportation plan, it would send a strong message to the affected community and those policies would provide greater guarantees that the City of Grand Rapids would not be complicit in ICE abductions.
- Again, Cosecha is not speaking for everyone, but they sure as hell know what the affected community wants regarding ICE terrorism better than LaGrand does, partly because they are members of the affected community and they are deeply involved in practicing solidarity with those who live in constant fear of ICE.
Lastly, it should be noted that Movimiento Cosecha GR and GR Rapid Response to ICE have invited both City and County Commissioners to a forum to have a real conversation about the sanctuary policies listed above. The forum is also an opportunity for elected officials to hear from individuals and families who have been directly impacted by ICE arrests, detention, and deportation. The forum will take place on Saturday, September 27, at 12:00 p.m. at the SECOM Resource Center (1545 Buchanan Ave. SW, Grand Rapids, MI).
Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy 