As a grassroots movement  working to address racial, gender, and economic injustices produced by our local criminal justice system, we have made one of our main efforts in recent years the prevention of new jail construction and the mass-incarceration mindset that goes along with it. Our ongoing effort has had remarkable success, thanks in great part to the tireless work and vision of fellow CUCPJ member James Kilgore.

In February 2014, a local right-wing newspaper launched an attack against Dr. Kilgore, reporting, as if it was news, on his criminal background and political activities in the 1970s, and questioning whether the University of Illinois―where he currently teaches―should employ him. Although in March a spokesperson for the University made a statement in support of Dr. Kilgore, in April in a private meeting with the University provost, James was informed without explanation that the University would not approve any future employment contracts with him.

We in CUCPJ see this treatment―the attack articles and his dismissal/firing without reasons―as injustices perpetrated not only against James Kilgore but all people with felony convictions who have paid their debt to society. We believe in building a multicultural democracy that includes the voices of those formerly incarcerated. Dr. Kilgore has every right to contribute to our community, participate in the democratic process, and assert himself as a citizen of Champaign-Urbana. We call for the University to reverse its decision and rehire James Kilgore. We also call on the community to sign the petition supporting him.

An injury to one is an injury to all.

CUCPJ

Surveying both the mainstream and the alternative/Left media on the Ukraine crisis can seem like switching between alternate universes. In one, Ukrainians struggling for democracy, European values and independence, after toppling a corrupt President in thrall to oligarchs and the dictatorial Vladimir Putin, are now bedeviled by an extremist, pro-Russian minority who are creating chaos and dismembering the country. In the other, neo-Nazi militants, backed by the imperialist US and EU engineered a coup against a democratically elected government, installed a regime beholden to the Western banks and corporate interests who stand to profit from the coming forced austerity programs, and now are carrying out a reign of terror against simple eastern Ukrainian citizens peacefully expressing their opinion. Conspiracy theories and allegations of ‘false flag’ deceptions abound on both sides, centering especially on the key, bloody flashpoints: the sniper killings of demonstrators on Maidan square (dubbed ‘Euromaidan’) in Kiev on February 20, the fire in the Odessa trade union building on May 2 which killed dozens or hundreds (depending on your source), and the continuing bloody clashes around Slavyansk, Mariupol and other towns near the eastern (Russian) border.

On closer inspection, both sides of this black-and-white picture show contradictions. In the US establishment universe, why would Putin want to stir up widespread violence in Ukraine, thus putting at risk the 66% of Russian natural gas shipments to Europe—the richest source of his and his oligarch associates’ wealth and power—which pass through the Ukrainian pipelines? And what about the regime change that happened in late February under clearly questionable Parliamentary procedures, and the involvement of such elements as Right Sector, acknowledged on all sides as dangerously extremist, and the nationalist Svoboda party, which holds several ministries in the transitional government? In the Left/alternative universe, how can a fascist/extreme nationalist takeover be at the same time pro-US and -EU imperialist, when the EU, and by extension the US and NATO, are the biggest bogeymen of the nationalist Right across Europe? And is Putin—and his state-controlled media, which provide or at least echo the anti-Western arguments—really an appropriate role model for a democratic Left?

For all of the objectionable aspects of Putin’s rule and of Russia’s monolithic media landscape, the charge that an anti-Russian bias is rampant in US media and politics seems hard to deny. US geo-strategic planners have for well over a decade been pushing aggressive policies to roll back Russian influence, rather than the kind of strategic partnership that might have been expected after the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia scholar Stephen F. Cohen cites the US media for a “relentless demonization of Putin, with little regard for facts,” and the creation of a “new Cold War divide” by US actions such as the attempts to spread NATO to former Soviet republics Ukraine and Georgia. This was compounded, according to Cohen, by the EU’s “reckless ultimatum” in November that Ukraine choose between association with the EU and the deal offered by Russia, whereas Putin’s proposal for a three-way arrangement was rejected; Yanukovich’s choice of Russia and rejection of the EU spawned the protests that led to the fall of his government.

The key geopolitical factor that affects Ukraine is the aforementioned energy one. The EU—and especially its economic engine, Germany—is heavily dependent on Russian gas, mostly shipped by pipeline through Ukraine. Russia, through the quasi-governmental energy giant Gazprom, has shown its willingness to use these shipments as a political weapon several times in the past decade, by stopping or severely restricting supply. The US for its part has attempted to remove this lever by supporting an alternate supply route, the so-called Nabucco pipeline, from Azerbaijan and Iraq by way of Turkey. (Some US politicians have also advocated a lifting of the ban on exporting US natural gas, as a way to subvert Russian energy domination over Ukraine, and Europe.) Many see the whole region as the site of increasing geopolitical competition centered on energy.

It is also far from clear that a Ukraine that further integrates with the West—the EU, but also inevitably the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, US Treasury and other sources that it desperately needs to avoid bankruptcy and even complete economic collapse—will get closer to the prosperity and “normal” life that its citizens crave. The IMF has already made initial assistance conditional on sharp increases in consumer energy prices and large cuts in social benefits. Even the Washington Post has reported that concerns over IMF-demanded austerity measures have helped push citizens in eastern Ukraine onto the streets to protest. The hardships faced by citizens of Greece, Spain, Hungary and other EU member states struggling with economic crisis and the austerity demanded as a condition of bailouts pale before those that loom for Ukrainians, already several times poorer than even the poorest EU constituents.

US leaders and media emphasize the need to defend Ukrainian national sovereignty, violated by the secession or occupation (again, depending on one’s perspective) of Crimea in March, and threatened by a similar outcome for the largely ethnically Russian eastern parts of the country. The intertwining of Russians and Ukrainians goes back at least to the precursor to the Russian state, known as Kievan Rus, between the 9^th and 13^th centuries, which ranged from present-day northern Ukraine northwards to the current major population zones in western Russia (including the locations of today’s St. Petersburg and Moscow). Ukrainian territories under the Russian czars were later referred to as “White Russia” or “New Russia;” ethnically Russian settlers moved there in great numbers starting in the 16^th century. Ukrainians look back to the 1648 uprising led by Bogdan Khelmnytsky as the fount of their national independence struggles; others point to tens of thousands of Jews killed during the rebellion and ensuing war, and even more Poles. Ukrainian independence efforts both in the aftermath of World War I and during World War II, when many collaborated with Nazi Germany in order to stave off Soviet power, also led to the deaths of many Jews and others. In between the wars, millions of Ukrainians fell victim to their own national tragedy, the Holodomor, starving during Stalin’s brutal forced collectivization. So the Ukrainian national cause offers much to admire, but also much to be wary of, and its national borders are also not necessarily historically sacred.

With scheduled May 25 Presidential elections pending as this article goes to press, what are the prospects for the Ukrainian people themselves (as opposed to “the fascists,” “the Russian stooges,” etc.)? Politics now as before the “Euromaidan revolution” are dominated by oligarchs, such as election front-runner Petro Poroshenko, a candy magnate known as the “Chocolate King,” or contender Yulia Tymoshenko, the hero of the 2004 Orange Revolution, who made her fortune in the gas industry. Alongside the nationalist militants at Euromaidan were peaceful demonstrators, surely the majority, who sincerely desired to overcome a clearly dysfunctional politics and economy, for the benefit of all Ukrainians. Both “sides” in the current media struggle have succeeded in turning a civic and social movement into an ethnic and national conflict, and Ukraine into a geopolitical pawn. I have not been able to find a continuation of this people’s movement into the current situation, a “side to root for.” But what will definitely do the people unimaginable harm is the looming civil war, not to speak of a possible internationalization of the conflict, in a region that has been a borderland for centuries. It is incumbent on us to urge our political representatives—and our media—to work for diplomacy, resolution and reconciliation, at least as a first step, rather than stoking discord.

“This will give a totally different meaning to wildcat strikes.” – anarchist prisoner Sean Swain, in a letter to me

Months after the Bowl Championship Series National Champion was crowned in college football, and as we prepared for the end of March Madness in Division I college basketball, a major victory for its players occurred off the court.

In late March, the Chicago regional chapter of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that Northwestern University football players have the right to form a union if they desire, and that the Wildcats team members should legally be considered employees.

The ruling from the NLRB stated that “… players receiving scholarships to perform football-related services for the Employer under a contract for hire in return for compensation are subject to the Employer’s control and are therefore employees.” It agreed with the argument that scholarships are payment for services rendered, as well as saying that coaches are agents of the school and have employer-like control over the players.

Most notably, the Chicago NLRB ruled that the players are “primarily athletes,” which undercuts the long-standing mythos of the “student athlete” portrayed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). While harkening back to nostalgic views of pure amateur status, the term “student athlete” was created as a legal argument to prevent the NCAA and its member schools from having to pay out workers’ compensation and wrongful death claims when they were taken to court. The argument falls apart when one notes that the NCAA allows schools to revoke scholarships from athletes on a year-to-year basis if they do not or cannot (due to injury) perform at a level required by coaches.

During the hearing, Northwestern quarterback Kain Colter testified that players work 40 to 50 hours per week on football-related activities before and during the season. This isn’t an isolated instance or an outlier, but commonplace throughout big time college sports.

Soon after, Northwestern University announced that it would appeal and request a hearing before the full NLRB. At press time, they had until April 9 to file. Meanwhile, the NLRB announced that the Northwestern football team would vote on April 25 to decide if it would become a union affiliated with the College Athletes Players Association (CAPA).

The victory at the NLRB comes at a time when the framework of collegiate athletics is under more criticism than ever before. Players at multiple schools, including Northwestern, have silently protested during games by wearing the letters “APU”— standing for “All Players United”—on their athletic tape. Former University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) basketball player Ed O’Bannon has filed a class action lawsuit against the NCAA over the lack of compensation for the use of player names and likeness in commercials, video games and other media. Four players are currently suing the NCAA and the major sport conferences over scholarships not being enough to fully cover the cost of attending the universities. Former West Virginia RB Shawne Alston has filed a lawsuit alleging that the NCAA and its member conferences have violated anti-trust rules by colluding to keep scholarships at an amount less than the true cost of attending the colleges. Prominent journalists, including civil rights historian Taylor Branch, have called out the NCAA repeatedly for its rank hypocrisy, stating that its labor dynamics have an “unmistakable whiff of the plantation”; and documentaries like “Schooled” are being widely screened.

While the ability of Northwestern football to unionize may only apply to private schools (public schools would have to deal with state labor laws), this groundbreaking victory will give the players a greater voice to make demands like ensuring scholarships for the duration of their schooling experience and gaining tangible benefits in their workplace. It may also be a harbinger of things to come, and the latest move in dismantling the indefensible and immoral structure of NCAA athletics that makes billions for the coaches, conferences and their organization, while the players who create the value get zero.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Ann Wu and Rachel Lauren Storm

In last November’s issue of the Public i, Hong Cheng, a freshman in Math & Computer Science at the University of Illinois, published an article entitled “Raising Concerns about Chinese Students’ Mental Health,” wherein he discussed the brutal killing of Mengchen Huang, a graduate student in the School of Art + Design. Her ex-boyfriend and University of Illinois alum, Youngfei Ci, had travelled from his Brown University post-doc intending to kill Huang, following their break-up a week before. Cheng problematizes a lack of access to mental health support for Chinese international students, asserting that things “could have been different if Ci had consulted friends or psychologists.” Cheng speculated that “[Ci’s] absence might be a reason that his girlfriend broke up with him, which eventually led to the tragedy. His girlfriend and his studies in math were his whole life.”

While we do need to engage in critical discussions on barriers to accessing mental health services and ensuring that students, international and domestic, receive adequate support, Cheng fails to situate Ci’s murder of Huang in a larger context of abuse. Moreover, Cheng employs a number of problematic stereotypes and generalizations about the experiences of Chinese international students. This article is a response and urges that we understand the problem of violence against women within a larger framework of structural violence. Intimate violence must be fought through prevention education that is conscious of larger systems of power, privilege, and oppression.

According to an ongoing study by the World Health Organization and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, more than 35% of all murders of women globally are reported to be committed by an intimate partner. In comparison, only about 5% of all murders of men are committed by an intimate partner. Among all homicides of men and women, approximately 15% are reported to be committed by an intimate partner. A global study of intimate partner homicide forthcoming from the National Institute of Health used data from 66 countries to illustrate that more than twice as many women are killed by a husband or intimate acquaintance than are killed by a stranger using a gun, a knife, or any other means.

It’s important to recognize that this was not isolated violence–Ci was abusive before the killing. At the campus vigil for Huang sponsored by the Women’s Resources Center and Chinese Student Association, one woman shared her own experience of having gone on a date with Ci. She described feeling uncomfortable early on in their ride to their dinner destination and expressing wanting to end the date prematurely, requesting to be taken home–a request that Ci ignored. In her statement, she shared that at the time , she–like so many others–didn’t possess the tools to recognize this as abusive behavior. All too often survivors face victim-blaming narratives that obscure the reality of the violence they suffered. By failing to recognize that Huang was abused by Ci during their relationship, Cheng fails to see that this tragic killing was part of a larger pattern of intimate partner violence that escalated to murder when she left. Those of us organizing around issues of intimate partner/domestic violence know that a woman is most at risk when she attempts to leave. In fact, this life-threatening risk is one of the reasons why women may find it extremely difficult to escape an abusive relationship.  Speculating that Huang may have left the relationship due to Ci’s absences, without also noting Ci’s history of abuse, has the effect of minimizing or even erasing that violence. Failing to recognize Huang as a victim of intimate partner violence, and describing Ci as simply in need of mental health services, obscures a larger system of patriarchy pervasive the world over. The silence around Huang’s death was part and parcel of the silence surrounding gender-based violence so prevalent for women. Reports of the murder as a “homicide” with no mention of gender, abuse, or violence against women also reflect that silence.  This labeling represents an institutional silence that produced false narratives about this being a senseless, random crime.

Unfortunately, mental health services haven’t proven effective for dismantling patriarchy. There are very real structural barriers to the accessibility of mental health services for students of color, ESL students, and immigrants, among other marginalized groups. These include ethnocentric design of direct service, lack of cultural competency among staff, inadequate marketing of services for specific populations, and not enough attention given to the dismantling of social stigma surrounding mental health services; all involve xenophobia, misogyny, racism, and classism. However, it is patriarchy– the social, political, and economic system that positions men as dominant– that sanctions beliefs about gender that give rise to misogyny and violence against women.

Overgeneralization of the experiences of Chinese international students in Cheng’s article also contributes to mischaracterization of the problem. Cheng identified “common characteristics of Chinese students [as a] lack of a social life, eminence in academics, and unwillingness to express feelings.” He stereotypes Chinese students, inferring that it is their ethnic background and supposed monolithic cultural upbringing that lead to isolation and lack of support. This not only overgeneralizes the experiences of Chinese international students, but it holds only students accountable for seeking help, rather than demanding institutions meet the diverse needs of students. Cheng was trying to point to very real structural barriers facing marginalized students–which can include those for whom English isn’t a first language, those with immigrant statuses, and international students. That said, institutions must meet those needs where they exist. Furthermore, Cheng focused on the lack of support for Ci, without reflecting upon the fact that Huang may have also needed support from the community as a victim of abuse long before her death.

In response to Cheng’s characterizations about the experiences of Chinese international students, Ann Wu (PhD. student in Art Education in the School of Art + Design) writes:

As an international Chinese student myself, I know that generally, Chinese students do not seek to limit their friendships to other Chinese people. Many of us face barriers in reaching out and connecting, not because of our ethnicity, but because English is our second (or third or fourth etc.) language–making it hard to keep up with native speakers of American English.

My immigration status comes into play in other ways. Because of student visa regulations, I am often afraid of being deported for breaking even small rules. Not being from the U.S., I lack the social network to guide me through times of discomfort or confusion. If we locate Chinese students’ experiences within a larger framework of marginal immigrants’ lived experiences, it is not hard to recognize the systematic denial of access across all aspects of campus and community life that contribute to an alienation in the United States. Instead of resorting to stereotyping and blaming international Chinese students’ lack of initiative (especially when no two experiences of international students are the same), it becomes necessary to recognize the structural hostility facing immigrants of color and the diversity of our individual experiences.

INCITE Women of Color Against Violence asserts that women of color and immigrant victims of violence are at a “dangerous intersection,” facing multiple obstacles to receiving help as a result of oppression. Survivors of violence face many barriers to accessing services as a result of their legal status. They are often reluctant to report crimes because their partners threaten to report them to the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) for deportation. Many programs for domestic and sexual violence survivors in the U.S. do not provide services in languages other than English. To respond to these challenges, INCITE argues that those of us working to end violence must:

1. Develop analyses and strategies around ending violence that place women of color at the center;

2. Address violence against women of color in all its forms, including: attacks on immigrants’ rights and Indian treaty rights; the proliferation of prisons; militarism; attacks on the reproductive rights of women of color; medical experimentation on communities of color; homophobia/heterosexism and hate crimes against lesbians of color; economic neo-colonialism; and institutional racism; and

3. Encourage the anti-violence movement to reinsert political organizing into its response to violence.

What is overwhelmingly apparent is that Cheng, like so many of us, is mourning– looking for ways to make sense of a terrible crime and its affect on our community. Too often in these moments, we move away from looking at structural problems and, instead, individualize the crime or position it as exceptional. We do this to make ourselves feel safer, but in doing so, we fail to recognize that not only is violence against women commonplace, but that these issues are deeply connected structural violence and our work needs to come from a place that addresses violence in all of its forms.

If you or someone you know is experiencing violence or abuse, direct them to these resources:

Anyone who has visited Fiesta Cafe, Emerald City, or C-street over the last twenty years has probably met Amy Ramirez. She can be seen constantly on the move, serving food and drinks while chatting up old and new visitors alike. Amy, who herself came from the small midwestern town of Canton, Illinois, has a history in Champaign-Urbana (C-U) of creating safe entertainment spaces for LGBTQ people from C-U and the surrounding area. 

Public I: How do you feel safe spaces for the LGBTQ community have changed in the past twenty years?

Amy R: It is completely different. Things have  progressed, now gay people can go any place, it used to be (in my opinion) that people were coming to gay bars and nightclubs mainly to hook up, so if you wanted to meet people like yourself, that was all you had because there were no other options. There wasn’t the internet and other things like that. Now we have the technology where people can hook-up … so bars and restaurants are just to be social and go out. If you create a fun, creative event, people will come to it. People are trying to find their own group of friends: their own little family.

Public I: Do you feel that C-U has something unique to offer in the area of safe spaces for LGBTQ people?

Amy R: Definitely. I moved here with my best friend right after high school because we liked the diversity that the University brought to C-U. Back home we used to get beer cans thrown at us when we walked into bars … I still wouldn’t be comfortable going into a bar in Bement, for instance, with my wife. C-U is the closest we’ve got to Chicago or St. Louis, there are a lot of very welcoming places here. A lot of people in smaller towns feel like they have no other place to go, but they can come here and find unity and make friends.

Public I: You had an interesting experience of acquiring a marriage license in one of the smaller surrounding towns, tell us a little bit about that experience.

Amy R: My wife and I had a very unpleasant experience in Mahoment at our venue. So I looked up Allerton Park in Monticello, they were supper supportive and helpful, the ladies were awesome, they watched our wedding and said it was one of the most beautiful weddings they had ever been to. We had to get our marriage license in Piatt County. The ladies in the office were really nice. There was one woman who seemed stand-off-ish, and she probably wasn’t gay-friendly, but she stood over in the corner and did her own thing, while the rest of us were laughing and having a good time.

Public I: Even as same-sex couples gain broader acceptance, transgender people are still experiencing a lot of hate. How do you feel about your role in creating safe spaces for transgender people, specifically:

Amy R: I am definitely trans-friendly. I have always felt that everybody is welcome. I create spaces where people can come together and have a good time, and not by putting a label on people. As the bartender, whenever I saw a transgender person there for the first time, and it looked like they might feel a little out of their element, or even people who were new, or straight women looking around, I always went up to them and would go the extra mile to let them know that if they needed anything or any resources, I was there to help. You never know what people are going through, talking to them for ten minutes might make a big difference in their life.

The new thing I learned is that lesbians are not always supportive of transgender people, and I don’t know what the big deal is. I’ve been asking questions and reading and researching. I’m lucky enough to say that right now I am currently friends with over 20 local transgender people. I know a lot of them are having problems at home or with other people in their lives judging them. I’ll sit down and talk to them confidentially and do anything to help. I’m trying my best to embrace each person with my life.

What do you think, A.J.? [Amy turns to A.J., who has recently started to transition]

A.J.: It’s the highlight of my week! It’s something that is refreshing for people to have.  And [Gay Nights at Fiesta Cafe] being on Wednesdays, it gives me something to do in the middle of the week. I can meet new people and feel supported. A lot of people have to work through the week and may not have support, so if you have to wait for the weekend, it can be hard. It just feels really great, I’m thankful for it.

Public I: In general, your events are body-positive, for cisgender and transgender people, you set an example by bartending in a pair of daisy-dukes and a half-top.

Amy R: I remember that night! I had my stomach sticking out, it made everybody laugh and it made me laugh and so many people took their pictures with me. I’m down for everyone having a good time. No one should feel bad about their weight, and if they do, I want to help them change that. I just feel like I love myself and I value myself, of course I wish I were 50 lbs skinnier! That would be great, but I’m happy with who I am. You’ve got to find happiness in who you are.

Amy currently hosts “Gay Night” on Wednesdays at Fiesta Cafe in Champaign; and brings in a Mistress of Ceremonies for Ru Paul’s Drag Race event on Mondays, which features games such as bingo and `pin the wig on the drag queen’. A recent event was hosted by local queen, Honey Dijon, who came dressed in elaborate drag that looked like a taco.

Lindsey Renee Bever (A.A. Parkland College in Psychology, B.S. UIUC in Psychology, M.A. Suffolk University in Women’s Health) lives in Los Angeles, where she works with LGBTQ youth and spends time with her partner and friends that are family.

If you would have told me as a child growing up in Champaign-Urbana that one day I’d be living in Los Angeles, with my Master’s degree, working with LGBT youth, I definitely would have believed you. I have wanted this for a really long time. A journal entry from me at 16 says “I can’t wait to have a master’s degree and be working at a youth center.” 12 years later, here I am.

Almost 3 years ago, I started working with homeless LGBTQ youth in Los Angeles. My role within the organization I work for  has changed and  shifted, but my number one goal has stayed the same – to create and maintain a space that is holistically safe for LGBTQ youth. I believe that my passion for this work began many years ago when I, a queer youth, felt as if I had nowhere to go and be myself. Now, every day, I have the opportunity to make eye contact with the youth and offer them genuine compassion, and that is truly the driving factor in my passion for this work.