Public i Contact

Recently, University of Illinois Board of Trustees chairman
Lawrence Eppley announced that as of February 21st
2007, the U of I team mascot called ‘chief illiniwek” would
cease to perform at half-time events.
To anyone who is unaware of the controversy surrounding
this figure, this sounds like a relatively unimportant
bit of trivia, just another boardroom maneuver in the
giant corporate game that college athletics has become.
But this is, in fact, a fairly big deal. Who or what was
‘the chief’?
At a halftime performance, a student donned a costume
that was designed to give the audience the impression that
he portrayed an ‘Indian Chief.” He then did a stylized
dance. This ‘chief” was said to represent the ‘spirit” of the
University; to memorialize the Native people who used to
live here, and to portray “strength, bravery, truthfulness,
courage, and dignity.“
Now if you have lived in the United States for awhile,
you won’t think to ask the next logical question. It probably
won’t even occur to you. But for those not steeped in
classic American traditions, myths, and legends, your next
question will likely be: ‘so what is it about this character
that represents those qualities anyway?’
How does the performance described above—or any of
it’s various permutations and iterations over the succeeding
81 years — manage to captivate an audience of disparate
ages, genders, and socioeconomic situations, and leave
them all with at least some degree of the same impression
about who ‘the chief” is, and what he represents?
THE ANSWER IS: ‘THE CHIEF” IS SUPPOSED TO
BE AN AMERICAN INDIAN
If you’ve read any books, watched any movies, television
shows, or cartoons; if you were ever a Boy Scout; if you
attended any schools in this country in the last 100 years
or so, you will know as soon as you look at him, that a person
who is dressed in this way is supposed to be an Indian
Chief. You will also ‘know” that Indians were wise, spiritual,
dignified, courageous and so on.
Just by donning his outfit, the performer doesn’t automatically
assume the full measure of his role however. For
the transaction to be complete, there must be a number of
unspoken agreements already in place, so that this wouldbe
Indian will be seen as the embodiment of all the qualities
I just mentioned.
The most important agreement of course concerns the
outfit itself. It’s changed a bit over the years, but the consistent
requirements for it have always been and must always
be such, that the greatest number of people possible will recognize
it as something an ‘Indian Chief” would wear. Anything
else, however accurate in its own way, wouldn’t do.
That his ‘war paint” demonstrates a lack of understanding
about the way native people used face paints, and why
and when they did so; that his outfit—indisputably
authentic though it may be in and of itself — is representative
of a people that never lived in this area; that his dance
only vaguely resembles the Fancy Dance it’s supposed to
be based on, and that his movements and regalia incorporate
elements of religious significance without any attempt
to contextualize the way they are interspersed with other
things utilized strictly for their entertainment value alone
is all, actually, beside the point.
The only thing that matters is that the greatest possible
number of people understand and know without being
told, that by putting this costume on, and jumping around
the way he does, the person portraying ‘the chief” assumes
all of the relevant characteristics of an American Indian.
Even if that person is just a blond, blue-eyed white kid
from somewhere near Chicago, and up close couldn’t look
any less at home in his costume than your dog does when
you put a coat and sunglasses on him.
The next agreement is that we, the observers, must all
know, or think we know some basic things about Indians.
In order to achieve this, they have to trade in stereotypes.
“The chief” stereotype is that of a figure from the “golden
age” of Indians, a purer, more innocent time before
Native culture was destroyed and altered by the coming of
Europeans. This kind of imperialist nostalgia informs
every aspect of “the chief” and his so-called “tradition” (a
word that was chosen specifically to invoke a sense of
unbroken connection to the past, and the proven worth of
things both tried and true).
You couldn’t utilize a living Native person for this purpose
—despite the fact that he may be culturally, phenotypically
and perhaps even genetically indistinguishable
from your preferred historical version, because a real, living
person is … well … a real person. Just like everyone
else. And real people have a way of inconveniently straying
from the approved script and not living up to the ideal.
So over the years this “chief” has been sent to grade
schools and public events, and he’s delivered lectures on
Native American history and culture primarily because he
can be depended upon to stick to the script. He probably
doesn’t actually know any more about the subject than what
that script tells him. But at the very least he doesn’t have any
of those inconveniently contemporary qualities that an actual
Native person would have, which would keep him from
being … well … “Indian” enough for the part.
Before we go any further, there is a point I’ve been making
that I wonder if you’ve picked up on. To wit: Native
themed mascots like “the chief,” are fundamentally mimetic.
Their entire existence is derived from, and is dependent
upon the cultures they purport to represent. Any amount of
legitimacy they claim to have is in direct proportion to how
accurately they are able to copy actual Native Americans
and their culture, or as in the case of the chief, how true
they are to the most commonly held stereotype thereof.
Just look at how they justify this thing. It is described in
terms of it’s accuracy, it is said to be a tribute to; an actual
authentic version of; is derived from; is respectful to, and
of course, let’s not forget its intent to honor—Native Americans.
But usually, in nature, when you have one creature
that depends entirely upon another for its existence, the
relationship is symbiotic. You keep my fur free of fleas, I
protect you from predators.
But there is no reciprocation going on here. Aside from
the dubious “honor” of having the richness and variety of
hundreds of different indigenous cultures boiled down to
one simplistic and inaccurate stereotype, native people
don’t get much out of the bargain. And all the millions the
University makes off of merchandising goes right into its
own pockets, and nary a cent goes to the people whose
cultures are being sold. The relationship “the chief” has
with real Native people isn’t symbiotic, it’s parasitic.
All of those things I mentioned about the “war paint’;
the costume; the dance, and the pseudo religious trappings—
the things that I said were all beside the point in remaking
the chief seem authentic to his fans—are actually
the point to the people whose cultures those things are
derived from. “The chief” may seem to be something dignified
and reverential to the people who love him, but to an
actual Native person, or to someone from any of the many
groups whose rich experiences and complex lives have also
been reduced to simplistic caricatures of this sort, it’s obvious
what “the chief” is—and what he is not.
Take for example the mercifully short-lived Facebook
group that was called “If they get rid of the Chief, I’m
going to become a racist.” (That the people who created
and joined this group seemed to be utterly oblivious to the
irony of that name is simply astounding). Facebook, for
those who don’t know, is a sort of online bulletin board,
where students post about things that interest them, and
are then able to append comments to each others posts,
carry on conversations, and just generally socialize with
one another. One of the most telling comments posted in
this group was: ” … what they don’t realize is that there
was never a racist problem before..but now i hate redskins
and hope all those drunk(sic), casino-owning bums die.“
Now I couldn’t express what’s wrong with stereotyping,
or the ignorant arrogance of privilege that these few words
manage to convey any clearer or more eloquently if I’d
written a hundred, or even a thousand pages of exhaustive
(and exhausting) disquisition on the subject. The person
who posted this apparently has only two types of Native
people he is able to conceptualize: the ‘Noble Savage” of
the George Catlin or James Fenimore Cooper variety—as
portrayed by the chief—or the drunken, casino-owning
bums who exist primarily as an invention of racists who
wanted another category to define the objects of their
hatred. The problem isn’t so much that someone would
think about you that way—you can’t go through life without
making a few enemies—but that so many of the people
who control your opportunities, who own the media;
run the government, and write the history books, think
that way about you. Their voices, multiplied and amplified
many times over on account of that power, are so much
louder than yours, that they simply drown you out. If you
even bother to try to tell your own personal and unique
story, no one is listening and they can’t; they won’t hear
you. They won’t even try.
Even if you have no great desire to “fit” in their world,
the problem still exists that you—for all intents and purposes—
do not exist as an individual in the minds of far
too many people who control access to the things you
need. They design the education that you have to acquire
if you want to get good jobs, and they are the ones who
make the laws that define what you can, and cannot, do.
And what can, and cannot be done to you.
So yes, “the chief” was important—is important. He has
served as a potent rallying point for adherents of the ideologies
of exclusion, dominance, and privilege, and to the
many, many people who unknowingly supported them
because they didn’t realize what was actually going on. His
presence has reminded the rest of us daily of our “place” at
this University, and in society in general.
So it’s great that he’s gone. It’s long overdue and I’m very
happy about it, but pardon me if I’m not as impressed by
the retirement of this dancing cheerleader as I might be. The
University has in no way admitted that there was ever anything
wrong with “the chief” at all. They didn’t address the
misrepresentation of native culture his image has perpetuated
for 81 years, and they didn’t even acknowledge the fact
that for nearly twenty years this has been an extremely divisive
figure on this campus, and that his removal was
absolutely necessary if they even hoped to bring the student
body together and earn the national and international
respect that this University otherwise deserves. Quite the
contrary in fact, Chairman Eppley made it a point to praise
this “proud tradition” of misrepresentation.
So nothing substantive has changed, and the long, hard
fight of hitherto ignored and marginalized people to be
respected, recognized, and accepted for who they really
are, continues on. Would that it were not so.

THE POLITICAL AND THE CULTURAL
I have, for many years, been interested in how a single political ideology or a set of political
institutions will vary when they are implemented in different cultural contexts. For
example, in 1988 I published a book that examined how movements claiming to represent
the ideologies of Trotskyism and Maoism took on very different forms when political
activists tried to apply them in France and in the United States.
It appears that the same is true of cultural productions. The production that I want to
discuss here is Eve Ensler’s award winning play, The Vagina Monologues. This play is interesting
because it is simultaneously, and intentionally, a cultural production and a political
intervention. It is a cultural production because its form is the play. It is not a treatise or a
political tract. It is meant to be enjoyed, to be fun for both the performers and the audience.
But it is also political because it is designed to raise consciousness about power, violence,
and self-affirmation in the face of patriarchal power and violence against women.
On February 23 and 24, The Vagina Monologues was performed in the Lincoln Hall
Auditorium. This has apparently become a yearly event. The performance was to benefit
the local Woman’s Fund and V-Day International. V-Day is an international effort to combat
violence against women world-wide. At about the same time that The Vagina Monologues
was being performed in Lincoln Hall, a class in Chinese history at the University of
Illinois was being shown a documentary about its performance in China.
THE CHINESE CONTEXT
In the United States, Ensler’s play became an artistic component of a larger feminist movement
that was struggling for women’s rights in all domains of life– political, sexual, economic,
and expressive. Such a movement, that engages in open political organizing,
demonstrations, and direct confrontations with those holding political power, does not
exist in China. It does not exist in China for both political and cultural reasons. The political
reason is that the state, controlled by a single party, does not permit such public activity.
The pro-democracy movement and Falun-Gong have both paid very dearly, often with
their lives, when they have held public demonstrations. In the latter case, the demonstration
was not even political, simply featuring the bodily exercises of this spiritual group.
The second reason is the moral context in China. There is a reluctance in China to
publicly discuss issues that are explicitly sexual. “Good taste” dictates that these remain in
the private domain. This conflicts with the Western feminist contention that the boundary
between the public and the private is a false one that is useful in perpetuating patriarchy.
As in most single-party states, the Chinese regime assumes as its responsibility control
over public expressions of sexuality morality. When it judges that presentations are
too far from the dominant norms, or are too public, it will intervene to prevent them.
Indeed, scheduled performances of The Vagina Monologues in public galleries and museums
by non-student actresses were prevented from taking place by the regime.
But, in an interview with Professor Sufeng Song of the Program in Women’s and Gender
Studies at Sun Yat-Sen University and a Freeman Fellow at the U of I this year, we
learned that there has been an open space for such expression in China. That space is the
universities with students as the actresses. The Chinese-language version play was first
performed in China in December 2003. It was performed by students in the Women and
Gender Studies Program at Sun Yat-Sen University in Guangzhou. The actual performance
was at the Guangdong Museum of Art. Perhaps because it was the first performance
that was under the government’s radar, students in the Women and Gender Studies
program at Sun Yat-Sen did manage to perform the play in the Guangzhou museum
while non-student performances in the larger cities of Beijing and Shanghai were not permitted
to take place. The play has been presented in a number of other Chinese universities
since the initial 2003 performance.
MODIFICATIONS IN CHINA
I observed some interesting differences
between the play that was presented in Lincoln
Hall Theater and what I saw in the documentary
on the presentation in
Guangzhou. According to Professor Song,
these differences are due to concerns over
the prevailing sexual mores among actresses
and audiences alike. It is not that there is no
reference at all to sex in Chinese culture.
Professor Song points out that many of the
folksongs sung by the rural population are
very explicit. But there is a modesty and a
discreteness in China that perhaps once
existed in the United States but no longer
does. So, if one wants the audience to accept
the message, which means, among other
things that the actresses have to be comfortable
in delivering it, then a certain sensitivity
is required. Professor Song stresses that
the play needs to be fun for both actresses
and audience. There can be a certain fanciful audacity, such as if one were to think about
how one would go about dressing a vagina up, which would be fun and provoke laughter.
But other things are thought to be off-limits, or requiring the greatest sensitivity. The
portrayal of sex workers is one of those things. Prostitution is illegal in China, though it
exists. But the overt portrayal of a prostitute on the stage would not work for either the
actress or the audience. In addition to conservative sexual mores, there is a kind of selfcensorship
in China when it comes portrayal of illegality, probably based upon both deference
to authority and fear of the possible penal repercussions, that does not exist in the
United States. Neither performer nor audience would be at ease with it; they would not
learn from it; and they would not find any fun in it.
Another issue is lesbianism. The documentary about the play produced in Guangzhou
contained interviews with actual lesbians but did not show their faces. In a “not-in-yourface”
delicacy, it showed only their clasped hands. In the play itself, there was only one
brief reference to a lesbian experience by an actress who was recalling many memories in
her life. An American might say that this “delicacy” contributed to the closeting of lesbians.
Professor Song says that it is rather out of respect for the women who are not out of
the closet as well as an attempt to balance education about the lesbian experience and the
need for greater respect for it with a concern for sensitivities in a society that is to a very
great extent desexualized even when it comes to heterosexual forms.
In the Chinese documentary, there is much less bare skin presented to the audience
than in the Lincoln Hall version where one young woman appeared in a bikini and another
in a tee-shirt and what appeared to be panties. All of the actresses shown in the Chinese
documentary were fully clothed. It is not that there was no self-affirmation of sexuality in
the Chinese version, it’s just that nudity is not required for such affirmation and would be
counterproductive in the Chinese context.
In addition, the portrayal of sexual pleasure was different in the two productions.
Again, the Lincoln Hall version was more blunt about the sensations when parts of the
vagina were touched. In the Chinese version, the issue was presented by what Chinese
women felt was a taboo against groaning during the sexual act, i.e., the woman expressing
too much pleasure. The Chinese production reverted to forms of traditional opera to
discuss the pleasure that women feel during the sexual act. Professor Song says that “in a
culture that is comparatively more modest in sexual expression, it is a little difficult to get
these amateur and perhaps first-time actresses to act it out on the set.” Actually, the most endearing part of the
Chinese documentary to me was when students
asked older women about groaning to
express sexual pleasure. The older women,
some of them mothers of the actresses, were
shy and they laughed good naturedly with
an obvious dose of embarrassment, but they
were amazingly good sports to permit the
filming of the discussion.
CONCLUSION
The Vagina Monologues is part of an international
movement to raise the consciousness
of women about their sexuality, about
the patriarchal nature of the societies in
which they live, and about one of the most
damaging aspects of those societies, violence
by men against women. What this
comparison of two performances in two
different countries shows is that the universal
messages must be presented in ways
that take into account both the way that
political power is manifested and the moral
sensibilities that are deeply rooted in the
culture. The less blunt approach is not
always the less powerful one.

Former Sergeant William Alan Myers
pleaded guilty to charges of felony disorderly
conduct and misdemeanor aggravated
battery on Monday, October 26.
Charges of felony obstruction of justice
and felony aggravated battery were
dropped. He received two years probation, a $500 fine,
and 100 hours community service.
On November 14, 2005, Sgt. Myers illegally used a
taser on inmate Ray Hsieh and falsified a report about the
incident. Myers tased Hsieh four times while he was fully
restrained in a chair with his wrists and ankles tied (See
case file 05-CF-2105).
This is the third cop in less than two years whose abuse
of power has gone unpunished since State’s Attorney Julia
Rietz took office. Rietz was elected in 2004 to stop the corruption
that had become routine under the previous
administration of John Piland.
In July 2005, Urbana officer Kurt Hjort was accused of
rape by a 25-year-old woman. Hjort was fired from the
force, but he was never charged and did not spend a single
night in jail. Rietz had claimed a conflict of interest in the
case (her husband Al Johnston is on the Urbana police
force) and passed it to Judge Tom Difanis (whose daughter
is also on the Urbana police force). Difanis gave the case to
special prosecutor Jim Dedman, an Urbana attorney. Even
former Urbana Police Chief Eddie Adair said he wondered
why the case was not sent out of the county.
Dedman looked at the evidence and said he could not
prove Hjort guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Dedman
told the News-Gazette, “of great significance to me is the fact
that Kurt Hjort has resigned his position with the Urbana
Police Department” (10/18/2005). This sent the message
that Hjort had suffered enough because he lost his job.
Although frequently appearing on conservative talk
radio, Rietz took no public stance against Dedman’s decision
or on behalf of the rape victim.
In November 2005, Champaign County sheriff’s
deputy Ryan Garrett lost his job after threatening his
estranged wife and her boyfriend. Garrett had told Ty Kellums,
“I’m a cop. Watch your back” (06-CF-136). Garrett’s
wife alleged a history of physical and mental abuse. Garrett
pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor offense and received
a two years conditional discharge. He did one night in jail.
Garrett was represented by Tony Novak, the attorney who
also defended Sgt. Myers.
A HEAVY PRICE?
In all three of these incidents, the rogue police officer did little
or no jail time. The loss of their job was considered enough
punishment for their serious breach of public safety. The press
release by Myers’s attorney Tony Novak is revealing:
“Alan Myers was a Champaign County Correctional
Officer for over 13 years. In November 2005, he was a
sergeant and shift commander. It is a thankless job.
“Pursuant to his duty, he was attempting to control an
extremely disruptive inmate through use of a taser. He
failed to follow protocol and then attempted to cover up
his violation, ultimately admitting the false report as contained
in the charge of Disorderly Conduct.
“The guilty plea to the misdemeanor battery charge
was a compromise of a very close question of whether
Alan Myers’s use of the taser went beyond what was necessary
to control an extremely disruptive, mentally unbalanced
inmate.
“Alan and I decided it was in his best interest to
accept the plea agreement although he has paid a heavy
price in that he is unlikely to ever work in law enforcement
again.“
Drawing attention to the length of Myers’s employment,
and his service to the public for what is a difficult job, Novak
says that Myers has paid heavily for his abuses. The suggestion
is that Myers suffered enough because he lost his job.
Of course, if you or I, the average citizen, were caught
stealing money at our job, or if we committed aggravated
battery against an individual, we would not only loose our
job, we would do some jail time. Because of the police officer’s
unique position of power, the expectations of them to
uphold the law are not higher, but actually lower than the
ordinary citizen.
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
The 8th Amendement protects the public from “cruel and
unusual punishment.” This is one of the cornerstones of
the American Constitution and what makes it such a radical
document. It says that even the worst criminals in our
society still have basic human rights. Myers’s attorney
Tony Novak makes it clear that inmate Ray Hsieh, even
though he may have been mentally imbalanced, was being
disruptive and deserved what he got.
The Constitution apparently has no jurisdiction in the
remote cornfields of downstate Illinois.
Investigations conducted by the Sheriff’s Department
revealed that Myers had wrongly tased three other inmates.
African American inmate Michael Alexander was tased on
November 12, 2005 just two days before the incident with
Ray Hsieh. On September 19, 2005, Sgt. Myers also used a
taser on Trina Fairley, a pregnant African American woman.
But the most glaring incident occurred on November 6,
2004 when Myers used a taser on 21 year-old white student
from Chicago, Michael Rich. Rich alleges that Myers
slammed his head against a cell wall, put him in a restraint
chair, beat him, then after letting him out of restraints,
Tased him four times. Myers then falsified the report on
Rich (S-2004-5123).
After looking at these documents, the State’s Attorney
could not find any evidence that Myers conducted any
“great bodily harm” and he was given a misdemeanor
charge of aggravated battery, rather than a felony. No additional
charges were brought against Myers for the three
other incidents.
NO TORTURE HERE
Myers’s lawyer Tony Novak said, “There was no torture here.“
The definition of torture defined in the International
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman,
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984), to which
the U.S. is a signatory, is as follows:
“The term ‘torture’ means any act by which severe pain
or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally
inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from
him or a third person information or a confession, punishing
him for an act he or a third person has committed or is
suspected of having committed, or intimidating him or a
third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of
any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at
the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a
public official or other person acting in an official capacity.“
The international standards of torture also apparently
do not apply in Champaign County.
The prosecutor, Assistant State’s Attorney Steve Ziegler,
said that Myers “pleaded guilty to what he did.” Ziegler
would not answer my questions: Why did he not pursue
felony aggravated battery against Myers? Why he did not
file additional charges against Myers for falsifying a police
report on Michael Rich? Why did he not call Trina Fairley?
I was able to get in contact with Fairley and she told me
she was never even contacted by the State’s Attorney.
Michael Alexander, Trina Fairley, and Michael Rich all
filed formal complaints against Myers. In August 2005,
Sheriff Dan Walsh met with Rich and told him he would
look into Myers. He did nothing and three other people
were abused. The day of Myers’s plea bargain, Sheriff Dan
Walsh was tight-lipped and had no comment.
Sheriff Dan Walsh, Julia Rietz, and others will be at a
public forum on March 13, 2007 titled, “Introduction to
the Champaign County Criminal Justice System.” This will
be a rare opportunity to demand some answers from public
officials about the handling of the Sgt. Myers case.
For more on Sgt. Myers see the Oct. 2006 and Dec.
2006/Jan. 2007 issues of the Public i.

In a recent News Gazette article by Mike Monson, dated January
21, 2007 and entitled, Cities Taking Different Tacks on
Police Review Issue, City Councilman, Michael La Due is quoted
as saying that he would “want to see compelling evidence
for the need for one before I’d sour relations with the police
department unnecessarily.” In the same article, Champaign
Mayor Jerry Schweighhart, a retired city police officer, made it
clear he’s unalterably opposed to a review board and is quoted
as saying, “With a civilian review board, you’ll have amateurs
who think they know the law making judgments on people’s
careers. You’re going to take something that’s workable now
and make it into something that’s adversarial.” I, for one, have
to take exception to the quoted remarks and think that these
comments deserve some attention, analysis, and response.
A RESPONSE TO MR. LADUE’S COMMENTS
With respect to Mr. LaDue remarks, I think that they show
a bias in favor of the status quo without furnishing any
rationale for assuming such a bias. One has to wonder why
Mr. LaDue does not ask to see compelling evidence that
there is not a need for a citizen police review board, rather
than asking for compelling evidence that one is needed.
Since there has never been a local citizen review board,
there is no empirical evidence available to provide compelling
evidence to show the need for one other than the
following: (1) the fact that a significant portion of the population
feels that there is a need to at least try some form of
citizen review given their mistrust of the existing processes,
and (2) the fact that any statistical evidence that might exist
is dependent on what the police department has collected
and will make available to the public. Those statistics are
limited in that they were never collected, they were not collected
in any systematic fashion with respect to the issues
in question, or those statistics which do exist are not readily
available to the public in raw data form—if at all.
I would think that, since the existing processes have
been in existence for some time and there is a history of
experience with its operation and impact, it would be easier
(and incumbent on) those who support the present system
and oppose a review board to collect, assemble, and
present compelling evidence to show that the current system
works and that there is no need for a review board.
However, if Mr. LaDue were really interested in viewing
and evaluating the evidence pro and con for various forms
of the citizen police review process, he could always do a
Google search where he would find that a number of cities
and towns across the country—big and small—have some
form of civilian citizen review process. There are at least
1,200,000 web sites with information on this subject
when looking under the subjects “cities with civilian
police review,” “cities with citizen police review,” “cities
with citizen review boards,” etc.
Furthermore, I have to wonder how many pieces of legislation
and what legislation brought before the City Council
have elicited from a member of Council the requirement
that there be compelling evidence presented on behalf of
the legislation before they would consider voting in favor of
it. It is only on the rarest of occasions where “compelling
evidence” has been used as a standard; the common standard
uses have tended to be “sufficient evidence” which
need not be compelling. I ask Mr. LaDue if he would care to
specify and define exactly what he would consider as being
“compelling evidence” and would accept as such. To the
best of my knowledge, this has not been specified anywhere;
and the standard of “compelling evidence” only
serves as a means to cover up the capricious and arbitrary
exercise of some undisclosed, discretionary judgments and
decision-making by council members when evaluating the
proposals and acting on them.
Lastly, whose relations with the Police Department is
Mr. LaDue concerned about souring unnecessarily? His
relations? The City Council’s relations? The complaining
community’s relations? The public in general’s relations?
A RESPONSE TO THE MAYOR’S REMARKS
With respect to the Mayor’s remarks, his argument is both
arrogant and absurd, even though – on the face of it—the
argument sounds both rational and applicable. If the concern
is with amateurs being on the board who think they
know (but really do not know) the law, then that can be
resolved easily by appointing a few lawyers and retired
judges to the review board who can inform the other
members of the applicable law.
Moreover, there is no reason why civilians cannot, over a
brief period of time, be taught and learn the relevant laws
just as police officers are taught and learn the law over a
brief period of training and experience. If teaching civilian
amateurs about the relevant laws were not possible, then
why would it be possible to do so with respect to new police
officers? Maybe we should require our police officers to be
attorneys with law degrees in addition to attending the
Police Training Institute for training in policing methods so
as to assure that they actually are both specialists and
experts in the law rather than uncertified amateur lawyers
who have had a few hours at PTI dealing with the law. If the
police officers were so knowledgeable of, and expert, in the
law, then one has to ask why some of the charges they file
are often not prosecuted by the states attorney’s office,
which is made up of legal experts, and, when the charges
that they file are prosecuted and brought before the courts, a
number of the defendants have been found not guilty. It is
obvious that the officers are not infallible and actually do
not always know for sure the law and its application to the
situational circumstances they encountered. Why insist that
members of a review board be any less fallible?
Moreover, if the Mayor’s arguments were valid, then the
same can be said about grand juries and trial juries which
are made up of common everyday civilian citizens who are
not experts in the law but are charged with making legal
and other decisions which impact on the lives of the
defendants. Would he say that the legal system be changed
so as to prevent amateur civilian citizens from serving on
juries because they do not know the law and might think
that they do? Who would he propose that we replace them
with? Police officers? Lawyers? Former judges? Academics
specializing in constitutional law and/or other forms of
law? As with grand juries or trail juries, those brought
before a civilian review board should be expected to make
arguments to the board members which convince them
and make them understand why the board should take no
actions or make no recommendations in their case. It is
incumbent upon the defendant to educate the members of
the board on what the appropriate law is and how to interpret
the relevant law in the case before them just as one
would expect from the advocates in a grand jury hearing
or a court hearing with a jury.
Just because a process is adversarial does not mean that
it is unworkable which is what the Mayor seems to be
implying. In one stroke, the mayor appears to be condemning
the entire U.S. legal system for its adversarial structure
as being unworkable. I assume he would prefer closed nonjury
court proceedings where the defendant is not allowed
to challenge the prosecution or question the witnesses.
Furthermore, if the Mayor’s standards of not allowing
amateurs who are not experts review, evaluate, pass judgment
on or make recommendations concerning decision in
fields where they are not certified as being experts are valid,
then I am left with the question of how can members of the
City Council assess and evaluate, decide to enact or reject
proposals and proposed legislation of a technical nature
brought before them by the city staff consisting of engineering
projects and designs, municipal planning, finance, and
so on which they have no expert knowledge or certification
to suggest that they are anything more than competent amateurs
in most cases at best? How many members of city
council have engineering degrees and licenses, credentials in
city planning, municipal finance or risk management, information
systems, or any one of a multitude of issues and subjects
that come before them for review and decision?
CONCLUSIONS
There is not just one type of citizen review process; there
are many different forms of review that are possible—each
having different focuses and levels or types of decision
making authority attached to them. While there may be
good arguments in support of and/or against each of the
various forms of civilian review, those offered by La Due
and the Mayor are not among them.
Both sides of this issue need to bracket their pre-established
points of view and be much more open-minded in
approaching a serious examination and discussion of all
the questions and issues involved. The fact that municipalities
such as San Diego, Fort Collins, Iowa City, Corvallis,
New York City, Pittsburg, Oakland, Baltimore, and Dallas
have found that some form of citizen police review process
was useful enough to institute one should suggest that the
subject merits a serious open-minded discussion, analysis,
and assessment of the possibilities.
There certainly is no harm in trying out an acceptable
method of citizen review which will accomplish or help
bring about the goals of the community for some fair and
alternative mechanisms to investigate, review, evaluate,
and adjudicate instances of alleged police misconduct and
abuse so as to allow the community to have some formal
input into the decision-making – even if that is merely to
furnish recommendations to the decision-makers in
authority. There must be methods available which will
protect the rights of both the police officers and the members
of the community, which are more transparent and
more available to the public than currently is the case.
Such a review process should provide an alternative set of
avenues for handling citizen complaints that the members
of the public can avail themselves of when and if they do
not trust or have faith in the police department handling
such things in-house without any public scrutiny.

The public schools in Champaign and Urbana are meeting
the needs of some students very well but are not meeting
the needs of other students, low income and minority students
nearly so well. All students should receive a secondary
education that would enable them to go on to
higher education if they choose to do so. But many students
will not be going on to higher education and they
need to be given an education that will prepare them to
support themselves and their families.
The building trades offer such a possibility. The remuneration,
especially in the commercial sector where prevailing
wages are paid, is substantial. At one time, there
were substantial offerings in a number of trades in the high
schools. Those opportunities have been severely diminished.
Part of the problem was that vocational education
was part of a two-tier tracking system. Students were identified
early on as either potential college students or as
potential skilled manual labor. Following a program in
vocational education precluded the possibility of going on
to college. But judgments of people at an early age often
turn out to be wrong. They are also often driven by the
class and racial identities of those who make the judgments.
Thus doing away with such a tracking system was a
good thing. But doing away with the possibilities of young
people to have a choice in which direction they want to go
was not a good thing. Many leave high school with no
skills and too often find themselves with low paying and
dead-end jobs, too often engaging in illegal activity such as
selling drugs, and/or winding up incarcerated.
It does not have to be this way! High school, and perhaps
middle school, vocational education in the construction
trades would be of benefit to both students who will
go on to higher education and those who will not. For
those who will go on to higher education, it offers useful
and satisfying life skills and could offer a more concrete
and hands-on preparation for such professional careers as
architecture and engineering. I was talking last week with
a very accomplished engineer whose firm designs duct
work and steam and cooling systems of hospitals. She said
that she wished that she had had such a program available
to her in high school because her engineering curriculum
was too theoretical and mathematical for her to fully
appreciate the work in installing the systems she designs
For the person who does not go on to higher education
it offers the same skills and satisfactions, but it also offers
attractive career opportunities as both a wage worker and
an independent contractor. Construction jobs cannot be
outsourced abroad. They will always be here. It is a myth
that graduating from college assures one of a high paying
job. Construction jobs pay more than jobs that many college
graduates perform. A significant program also offers a
motivation to attend school regularly and to perform well.
Many students now go to school because the law requires
it and the state enforces it. If this were not the case, they
would not be there at all. Many students sit in math classes
with glazed looks on their faces. They know that they
will not be going to college and that they will never actually
use the math. So, why study it? But if there were a program
in, for example, carpentry, and the instructor taught
applied math, the student who chose not to go to college
would have a motivation to be attentive and do well in
both the general and the applied math courses. Furthermore,
courses preparing students for these trades would
also emphasize the virtues of dependability, promptness,
and the ability to work cooperatively with other people.
There are a number of ways that one could rebuild
strong programs in the construction trades, and they are
not mutually exclusive. One would be to establish a vocational
and technical academy for both students who will
go on to higher education and those who will not. But the
latter are still prepared to further their education if they
choose to do so later in life. In other words, no student
would be tracked out of that possibility. Such schools exist
in Chicago and St. Louis.
Another way is to significantly build up the scaled-back
programs already existing—such as those in Champaign
Central and Urbana high schools—in collaboration with
our community college and tie them to union apprenticeship
programs and internship.
Finally, we could offer summer programs that might
include middle as well as high school students. Why
should our schools be closed down in the summer when
students could be learning in them?
I don’t want to discount some of the hurdles we must
overcome in order to meet the challenge I am proposing.
First, school funding is inadequate in many areas of the
state, including ours. Second, the federal mandates associated
with No Child Left Behind, which were intended to
help minority and poor students are actually hurting them
by tying the hands of schools districts. So much time is
devoted to testing that there is little left over to try different
approaches. Third, universities and colleges that prepare
teachers have almost completely stopped training
teachers in the construction trades. Thus, I am not blaming
the school administrations, principals, and teachers for
not seeing the desirability of going back to more extended
programs in the building trades.
But with the cooperation of community organizations
and individuals, state agencies such as Education for
Employment, skilled trades people who are willing to
serve as tutors and mentors and perhaps even willing to
become certified teachers, the building trades and teachers
unions unions, Parkland College, other units of county
and municipal government and the park districts, we can
overcome these obstacles. Too many of our young people
are being lost to not meet this challenge. We can, and WE
SHALL, OVERCOME.

During a recent trip to Arizona I learned
that a Navajo woman’s traditional garb
includes a special woven sash worn about
the hips. This sash serves many functions:
(1) tightening the sash creates a counterpressure
that relieves discomfort from
menstruation, the weight of a baby in the
womb, and labor pains; (2) others can shape the sash into
a hammock, to hold a birthing woman upright, or a pull
rope, to create a downward pressure; (3) laboring women
can hang onto the sash when it is tied to something above
them and easily squat in the expulsion stage of labor; (4)
the sash can strap a baby to one’s body; and (5) the sash’s
bright red appearance marks the unique movements of a
woman’s body as she walks, attracting this life cycle to
begin. For these reasons, the sash is a symbol of woman
and is used in Navajo coming of age ceremonies.
As I watched my Navajo teacher shape this sash into a
symbolic baby for a ceremonial dance I couldn’t help but
wonder if the hip scarf I wore during Middle Eastern Dance
(MED) class might not be a similar symbol. MED movements
prepare a woman’s body for birth and reflect the postures
a woman’s body assumes when birthing in a natural
setting. Rosina-Fawzia B. Al-Rawi, author of Grandmother’s
Secrets, writes her grandmother’s stories of women dancing
for a laboring woman. This circle of women would take
their cues from the laboring woman, converting her rhythm
and movements into a dance. In turn, this dance would
focus the mother on the pattern naturally emerging from
her body, becoming a mantra of sorts.
It is no wonder why MED is such a powerful dance: it is
a celebration of fertility and femininity, traits once worshipped
at the goddess level but now lost in our androcentric
economy.
I invite all pregnant women and those recovering from
childbirth to comfort their bodies through the support of
Middle Eastern dance adapted for pregnancy. In my class,
Belle Mamas, gentle, slow movements that enhance labor
(comparable to prenatal yoga and stretching exercises) will
be introduced in the context of supportive talk regarding a
mother’s journey. Through this creative birth preparation
you will unveil your feminine strengths and develop body
awareness. Midwives and obstetricians around the world
have approved this dance as a supplement to birth preparation
in normal pregnancies. The class is not appropriate
for pregnancies at-risk for premature birth. Even though
obstetricians generally do not restrict physical activity in
normal pregnancies, participants should consult their doctor
for approval.
For more information call 217-369-1334.

On the afternoon of Saturday, November 25, 2006, we and
other AWARE members Durl Kruse, May Xiong, Don
McClure, David Green and Meg Miner handed out
counter-recruitment pamphlets entitled What Families
Need to Know About Military Recruiting in High Schools and
Colleges at the IHSA state-wide football championships,
where each year the Illinois National Guard recruits.
AWARE (Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort) is a communitywide
organization working to end the war in Iraq and promote
racial justice.
We were distributing flyers developed by the organization
“Grandmothers for Peace” to provide young people
who are considering joining the military with advice and
an alternate viewpoint on military service. We were flyering
on the corner sidewalk and in a parking lot southwest
of Florida Avenue and First Street directly in front of the
National Guard, whose set-up included a trailer, a Hummer,
video games, blaring music and a bright yellow tent.
The recruiters were sitting in chairs in front of the trailer
when we arrived. As soon as we began distributing our
leaflets, they stood up and began passing out their own literature
and freebees such as pencils.
ENTER THE POLICE
After about 10 minutes, two Champaign Police Department
(CPD) squad cars pulled up. Three CPD officers surrounded
Durl Kruse, demanding he and the two of us
move to the sidewalk. They were not polite or respectful.
Their explanation at the time was that we were not
allowed to distribute flyers because the university parking
lot was private property. The few University Police officers
that were present confirmed that flyering was prohibited
in the parking lot. However, several women were in the
parking lot passing out coupons for Noodles & Co. They
were not told to stop until AWARE asked the University
police about their activity. The recruiters were free to continue
to flyer uninterrupted.
Although it did not stop us from distributing the literature,
our removal altered the statement we wanted to
make. Our purpose was dual: to provide information and
to publicly question the National Guard’s recruiting tactics.
The latter goal was essentially denied because moving
to the sidewalk made our critique less direct. The CPD’s
violation of our freedom of speech and of assembly was
disturbing. Did they have the right to move us? Article 2 of
the Student Code of the University of Illinois-General Policies
and Regulations Section 2-406 Posting and Distribution
of Handout Materials Part C-Distribution states “any individual
may post leaflets, handbill and other types of materials
intended to provide information about sociopolitical
or educational issues and events, without prior approval,
under the following conditions,” and goes on to list locations
and types of materials that fit regulations.
Our handing out literature in the parking lot seemed to
fit those conditions. Not only was distributing flyers at the
IHSA event legal according to university policy, but
AWARE had permission from the University Police to do
so. Randall Cotton, an AWARE member, had spoken earlier
with the University Police and received approval for us
to flyer. When Durl Kruse met with the University Police
on Monday, November 27th, Lt. Roy Acree confirmed that
he had spoken with Mr. Cotton and given his approval.
SHIFTING JUSTIFICATIONS
However, it was not Lt. Acree but Lt. Foster who was on
duty that Saturday and it was possible, Lt. Acree said, that
Foster was not aware of Acree’s conversation with Mr. Cotton.
Lt. Acree also seemed confused that the Champaign
Police Department had intervened in a situation he felt
should have been handled by the University Police. He
admitted there had been a breakdown in communication.
An hour later, Randall Cotton, Durl Kruse and Jan Kruse
met with the CPD. They spoke briefly with Sgt. Scott
Friedlein who stated that the officers were only following
orders. Whose orders? His own, Sgt. Friedlein answered,
made upon the request of Dana Brenner, the number-two
man at the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics (DIA).
Sgt Friedlein had not checked to see if the request was legal.
When Mr. Kruse showed him the Student Code he responded
that he had never seen the document before. He had not
been aware of any permission given to us and he refused to
acknowledge any possibility of a civil rights violation. He
did state that there could have been better communication
between the DIA and the University Police.
On Tuesday, November 28th, Durl and Jan Kruse met
with Mr. Brenner, who after hearing their story maintained
that he, as the university representative in charge of the
event, had the right to move us because we were on university
property. In fact, since UIUC is a public university,
its property is state property and therefore public,
although the University does have the legal authority to
regulate activities if they disrupt the educational environment.
He did not explain why he did not want us to hand
out flyers. Although Mr. Brenner is a UIUC employee, he
did not seem familiar with the Student Code and its policy
on leaflet distribution. He stated he would review the case
and contact the Kruses, but never did, nor did Mr. Brenner
respond to our request for an interview.
Lt. Acree later notified Durl Kruse that the case had been
discussed with the DIA and the CPD and had been forwarded
to the legal department of the University for a ruling.
On December 13th, Lt. Acree called Durl Kruse to
explain the conclusions of these discussions. Acree cited
the following section of Article 2 of the Student Code:
“Certain buildings, due to the nature of the
activities within them, are governed by separate policies.
For those buildings, appropriate restrictions as
to time, place, and manner for distributing materials
may be established by the agency responsible for the
building. These may include, for example, requiring
prior permission to distribute inside the building, or
restricted distribution to designated areas only.”
Comparing the incident at the football tournament to
the University Police’s presence at anti-chief protests, Lt.
Acree stated that they had moved us in order to “protect
the demonstrators.” When the CPD approached us on Saturday,
November 25th, they told us we had to move to the
sidewalk because we could not flyer on private property.
Lt. Acree’s explanation contradicted that. As he pointed
out, the sidewalk is in fact part of university property.
Although Durl Kruse could understand “protection of
the demonstrators” in the case of the anti-chief protesters,
he pointed out to Acree that AWARE was not demonstrating
or holding signs, nor did we feel threatened in any way. Furthermore,
if we were designated a spot for our own sake, we
should have been designated one we agreed to. We would
have liked to be in front of the National Guard and being
removed from them lessened the impact of our actions.
BUYING FREE SPEECH
It has been over two months since the incident took place
yet many things remain unclear: should the CPD have
handled the situation or the University Police? Why did
Dana Brenner call for our removal? Most troubling of all,
why was the National Guard allowed to hand out literature
in the parking lot when AWARE was not?
As it turns out, there may be a reason for the National
Guard’s favorable treatment by the police: Mr. Kruse called
IHSA after November 25th and spoke with assistant director
Anthony Holman who revealed that the National Guard
is a sponsor of IHSA. He would give no further information,
explaining that the specifics of IHSA contracts with
sponsors are not public information; only an administrator
of a member school may request it. Principal Kathleen Patton
of IHSA member school Uni High requested the names
of all IHSA sponsors and the amount of money they gave in
mid-December, but never got a response.
TO BE CONTINUED….
Durl Kruse requested an appeal and hearing with the
Committee on the Use of Facilities in early January, but
Dean of Students Bill Riley informed him that this committee
has not existed for a couple of years. The incident
has been forwarded to the chancellor.
We spoke with Vice President of Academic Affairs Larry
Mann on Monday, January 29th. “I find it disappointing
and discouraging that you were asked to leave,” he said of
the incident. While he thought that the University flyering
policy needs to be brought to the attention of the campus,
he stressed that the University policy’s spirit was to
encourage the free expression of differing opinions. The
problem lay in individuals acting outside of that spirit to
make bad calls, but not, he accentuated, malicious calls.
AWARE hopes to get a hearing with an appointed University
committee to have the incident and the policy clarified.
This will be important because it will set a precedent
for possible future controversies about campus flyering.
SOME IMPORTANT LESSONS
The incident showcases police incompetence in Champaign-
Urbana. Both Lt. Acree of the University Police and Sgt.
Friedlein of the CPD admitted there was a lack of communication
within and between departments. In addition, the
separate police departments seemed to operate with different
understandings of the laws at different times: the CPD on
November 25th told us we could not flyer on University
property because it was private but that the sidewalk was
okay. The University Police gave us three different, contradictory
statements with regard to flyering at the IHSA event:
that it was entirely permissible, that no one was allowed to
flyer in the parking lot (although they allowed the National
Guard to do so); and that we had been moved not because
flyering was illegal or because university property was private
property, but because they wanted to protect us.
It is clear that there are gray areas in university rules,
but it seems that the CPD and the University Police make
up policies as they go. This is especially disturbing in the
case of the IHSA football tournament because they seem to
have altered policies depending on the group.
If the National Guard was allowed to flyer and to deny
the right of flyering to other groups, then they were, in
effect, buying free speech. Free speech is a civil right held
sacred by the constitution of the United States of America.
To create a system which allows one group free speech while
denying it to another is not only unconstitutional but violates
the ideals this country was based on. For the National
Guard, an institution which is meant to protect the United
States, such an un-American act is truly inappropriate.
A TWISTED MESSAGE
This is scarcely the first time the police in Champaign-
Urbana gave orders without sufficient reason. We know it happened in 1990 when several U of I students
and Professor Belden Fields were
arrested for holding signs protesting the
CIA in the Illini Union basement. It happened
again last December when the International
Socialist Organization was prohibited
from distributing flyers in the hallway
of the main library even though they were
not disrupting the traffic flow.
Civilians, especially youth, are not usually
familiar with rules regarding details
such as where one can distribute literature
or the legality of such rules. A civilian
should be able to trust that what the
police say is illegal is in fact so. Yet this
incident is a perfect illustration that the
police are not always clear on the rules
themselves.
As Alexis de Tocqueville observed in
the 19th century, American democracy
would not survive long if it were not for
the involvement of civic groups. When
police do not feel the need to check their
actions against the laws and rules, rights
are violated and political activity is stifled.
It is crucial to understand the effect this
abuse of police power has on the minds of
youth. It is intimidating, especially to a
generation that has grown up during a
time when the president’s message is ‘dissent
is unpatriotic.’ The police’s rudeness,
power to arrest, and propensity to act
against political activity, regardless of its
legality, discourages political action and
civic responsibility.

Beginning Aug 23, 2006, Campus Academy opened its doors to six families
with African American male middle school-aged students seeking
an innovative and advanced learning experience for their children. The
purpose of this academy is to provide African American boys an exceptional
foundation for college achievement, leadership, and world citizenship.
We’re really smart.
All students must have a complete knowledge of the accomplishments and contributions
of Africa-American people! All of the students at Campus Academy are African
American males, and we refer to them as young scholars. Therefore, as they began working
on their submissions for this issue of the Public i, I asked them what they knew about
African American history. I quickly realized that they had received very little educational
exposure to the complete historical accounts of Africans in America and almost no exposure
to the historical or present conditions of Africans on the continent of Africa.
Furthermore, their knowledge of contributions made on their behalf by African Americans
was, overall, very limited. The inquiry even included such people as Nelson Mandela
and the anti-Apartheid movement, Malcolm X, and Paul Robeson and almost every
student struggled to give me any real information about the aforementioned. Now, of
course, this doesn’t shock me. It simply reminds me of the challenges that are still facing
students in the educational system.
A few necessary points must be mentioned at this time. One, the lack of substantial
information being presented to the entire student body regarding African American contributions,
and two, the portrayal of African American history in a way that shapes us as only
slaves, or prisoners. African American history is a part of World History. If one were to
educate children of all races about African American contributions, just as children are
infused with the colonial history of America and the world, perhaps white children would
begin to see the complete story and move away from this idea of privilege based solely on
their “whiteness.” Subsequently, black children will begin to relinquish this idea that their
“blackness” is the reason for their lack of accomplishment. Remember, the myth of white
supremacy was directly connected to “manifest destiny.” This ideology is the basis for justifying
the annihilation of the Native American and the enslavement of the African, thus
leading to the marginalization and outright neglect of children of African descent.
By presenting American children a lopsided and “disuniting” concept of African and
African American history we are guilty of perpetuating racism and classism in the institution
of education. The reason why the submissions from Campus Academy were centered
on Paul Robeson is because he exemplifies courage, discipline, perseverance, and caring.
His life is a testament to the internal drive necessary for the world to truly become a better
place. I pray that you, the reader, will find something in the pieces shared to do two
things. One, demand that your school begins the process of inclusion of African American
history as more than a footnote. Two, start teaching your own children about the true
accomplishments of African American people minus the stereotypical images that are
being portrayed. May the Creator be pleased with our efforts. Peace.
Sis. Carol Ammons
MOSES MUHAMMAD, 13
Paul Robeson was a great example for the world. He showed me that there is no limit to
my dreams. Before I learned about Paul Robeson, I thought I could only do one or two
things for a living but that is not true; I can do unlimited things in my lifetime. Paul Robeson
was an African American, whose story related to me as an African American young
man. He also showed me to fight for what I want. Paul achieved lots of things in his life
time such as pro football, pro baseball, activism, he graduated from law school, knew 30
languages and still found time for his wife and family. He achieved a lot of things in his
life. Paul Robeson was a great man, and because of his sacrifice, he opened doors for me.
MITCHELL BENTSEN, 11
When Paul Robeson was a child, people always said he would do great things. He was a
well respected actor; singer, football player, lawyer and he had a wife. He traveled around
the world speaking on peace and justice for the poor and working class people. He continued
to fight even when they took his passport away. That tells me that I can do more in
my life, much more. I’ll do greater and greater by helping others and myself. His story
inspired me because it showed me that I can go where I need to go, so I can make the
world peaceful place. And nothing will stop me. This is what I learned from Paul Robeson.
JELANI SAADIG, 11
Paul Robeson was “truly the tallest tree in our forest.” His farther once was a slave. So he
did all that he could to be educated. He went to Columbia law school to become a lawyer.
He was famous for singing songs that inspired people all over the world. He made me
want to be educated to the fullest and there is no place to stop to ensure that I am educated.
He also became an activist. He spoke out against the international policies of the
United States government in defense of the Russian people. Then the government took
his passport. In the mist of everything he pulled through and helped all people, including
the United States. I have been greatly inspired by his life and accomplishments.
JORDAN PATTERSON, 11
Since Paul Robeson was a singer that kind of amazes me because I wouldn’t think of him
being a singer. The way Paul did all of those languages was cool because I thought that he
would only speak English. What I don’t really get is why Paul had a concert at the border
of the U.S. But I do feel nice that he was an activist and fought for other people’s rights.
When I learned that Paul’s passport was revoked, I felt bad because he couldn’t go and
have concerts other places but he got his passport back later on and he could go around
the world again.
FORREST BREWSTER, 12
Paul Robeson’s life inspired a goal for my life in academics and athletics. His life gives me
an idea on how I should live my life. He inspired me to improve my language skills and
learn new languages. He inspired me to be an activist. Can you believe that they revoked
his passport for being an outright supporter of the African and Russian people? He teaches
me to live up to my dreams. He inspired me to never stop even when it gets hard. He
inspires me to be a role model for other people. He inspires me to speak for people who
cannot speak for themselves. I did not know of this great man before we watched a video
documenting his life. Now that I have learned of him, I plan to live up to my own dreams.

I would like to extend a happy birthday to my family: my father Jerry
Ammons (Feb. 6), sister Alicia Boss (Feb. 18), grandfather Bob Bailey
(Feb. 15), and Jelani Saadiq (Feb. 24) and to myself (Feb. 7).
During this month of February (Fevrier), we will all experience a flood of
“token gestures” toward memorable, deceased “African-Americans” for
their sacrifices; however, logic and truth will not be exalted.
Have we asked the question, gotten the answer, made the decision and done the work
necessary to understand how these “great” people came to the conclusions that they obviously
did? Or will we, for example, continue to insult the intelligence and disregard the
disobedience of Rosa Parks by saying “she was just tired that day,” or “her feet were hurting
too bad to give up her seat that day?” Why have we reduced the courage and commitment
it takes to stand in the face of ignorance to clichés: “I Have a Dream,” “By Any
Means Necessary,” or “Power to the People”? Where is the investigation and research that
uncovers the “method to the madness” so that the onlookers of history can walk away
with the processes that lead to the reshaping of the American political and social landscape?
If the masses are not taught the “how-to” of social movements such as the Civil
Rights Movement, how will they translate the problems of today into solutions that bring
about the restructuring of the establishment?
Does the “I Have a Dream” speech move you to tears, or does it extinguish your fears?
An emotional outburst usually amounts to a fleeting immediate pleasure. In contrast,
studying, meditating upon and practicing the principles that Dr. King lived for, will produce
just outcomes. For the sake of clarity, we must understand that along with his belief
in God and mastery of theology, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was also well versed in
history, philosophy, and sociology. In order to fulfill his duties, Dr. King challenged many
of the traditional beliefs of the church, while internalizing the fact that “… the good shepherd
lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10:11).
Many people continue to ask the question, how did they do what they did? The
answer, as simple as it may seem, was that each person individually committed themselves
to education. Education is defined as the acquiring of knowledge (principles/sociological
science) for the sole purpose of serving the health, rights, interests and needs of
all people. It is this understanding of education that achieved the greatest change in the
economic, political, and social fabric of America. Education led Dr. King, Rosa Parks,
Reverend Bevel, John Lewis, Bernard Lafeyette, Septima Clark and others to study at
Highlander Folk School with Myles Horton (see: highlandercenter.org). A thorough
search into the biographies of “great” people will unveil a dedication, commitment and
obedience to love, truth, wisdom and discipline (among other principles and sciences)
that led them to being remembered forever. The melodic voice of Dr. King certainly had
an attraction but it was the content of his speeches that resonated in the subconscious
mind of millions. Remember his dream? “…not judged by the color of their skin (Black
history) but the content of their character” (integrity, dignity, wisdom & discipline).
I leave you all with what has now become my favorite quote by Margaret Mead
because of the truth, love, and wisdom within it: “Never doubt that a small group of citizens
can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” BE, peace. BE, just.

A motion for a retrial filed by attorney Robert Kirchner on
behalf of Patrick Thompson was heard Thursday, January
5, 2007. Nearly 50 of Thompson’s supporters were in the
courtroom. In July 2006, Thompson was found guilty of
home invasion and sexual abuse. Thompson is facing 6-
30 years for what his supporters believe is retribution for
his political activism. Patrick Thompson is one of the
videographers that created the controversial documentary
Citizens’ Watch in 2004 that exposed the unfair treatment
of the black community by local police.
The post-trial motion was turned into a trial-within-atrial
by attorney Robert Kirchner and assistant Ruth
Wyman. Ineffective counsel was the underlying theme of
Kirchner’s lengthy motion for a retrial. In the July 2006
trial, attorney Harvey Welch had called only one witness
for the defense. On Thursday, Kirchner called a total of six
witnesses: Thomas Tarr, correctional officer; Susan Frick,
jail nurse; Terrence Ware, accuser’s co-worker at Provena;
Michael Hediger, Urbana officer; Maria Thompson,
Patrick’s wife; and Dawn Miller, the accuser’s former
friend. The testimony of these witnesses, in addition to
legal arguments, builds the case that a jury has not heard
all the evidence and Thompson has not received a fair trial.
Thomas Tarr was the correctional officer that processed
Thompson when he was taken to jail on August 24, 2004.
Tarr testified to filling out a medical intake form at 2:56 p.m.
and indicated that Susan Frick had also checked Thompson.
Susan Frick was the staff nurse who examined Thompson.
She testified that she had indicated on her form that
Thompson had said he had hit his hand on a metal object
and that she had taped his fingers. We find out later from
Maria Thompson that Patrick had been wearing a splint on
the index finger of his right hand, which was never identified
by the accuser.
Terrence Ware worked with the accuser. What was a
bombshell to many in the courtroom, Ware testified that
the accuser was on time to work at 7 a.m. on August 24,
2006 (contrary to her testimony she was late) and that she
acted like nothing was wrong. Ware worked at Provena for
four years and said he knew the accuser because he bought
DVDs from her. When he heard that the police had arrived
that day because the accuser said she had been raped, his
response was, “She’s at it again.”
Ware said that in 2003 the accuser had made allegations
that he had showed her his private parts. Ware, an
African American, said that he was aware of other incidents
where the accuser had made sexual allegations
against other men of color. When this white woman
accused Ware, he was suspended from his job and nearly
fired. Like the entire Thompson trial, Ware’s story is further
evidence of how the charges of rape by a white
woman can destroy the life of a black man in America.
Urbana officer Hediger was the first cop who was on
the scene, filled out a police report, and arrested Thompson.
Kirchner questioned Hediger’s report which states
that the accuser was “yelling” and “screaming” when she
was allegedly attacked and testified that these were her
words. Kirchner highlighted the accuser’s inconsistent
statements that she was “not a yeller” and had spoken just
above a talking voice. Kirchner also verified that the
accuser made no mention of a finger splint.
When Maria Thompson took the stand, she was calm,
confident, and brave. Ruth Wyman questioned her about
the morning of August 24, 2004. Maria said she awoke at
6:10 a.m. and her husband was in the shower. Between
that time and approximately 7:30 a.m. when Patrick left to
attend the first day of class at Parkland College, she was
with him the entire time.
Maria also testified that Patrick had been wearing a
splint on the index finger of his right hand. She said they
had gone to Osco the previous Sunday because Patrick’s
finger had become so painful. The splint had a metal backing,
blue foam, and was wrapped with tape. He had worn
it all week and did not take it off in the shower. This splint
has never been identified by the accuser.
Ruth Wyman asked Maria if she had ever been interviewed
by Harvey Welch. Maria said no and that she had
told Welch during the trial that she wanted to testify.
Welch told her it was not a good idea and that her testimony
would not help. Of course, Maria’s testimony is Patrick
Thompson’s sole alibi.
Lastly, Dawn Miller was a fellow resident at Sunny Crest
2 Apartments and testified that she was with the accuser
the night of the alleged incident. Miller had known the
accuser for about three weeks. Nearly every night between
8 p.m. and midnight she was at the accuser’s apartment
drinking and playing cards. On August 24, 2004, they
were once again at the accuser’s apartment. Miller said the
accuser acted like her normal self and there were no signs
that she had been assaulted.
Miller said that when Special Prosecutor Michael
Vujovich spoke with her, he told her not to talk to
Patrick Thompson’s lawyer. He then did not call her to
testify. According to Miller, it was because, “If I took the
stand, I’d hurt her [the accuser’s] case.” Miller also said
she was never contacted by attorney Harvey Welch in
the second trial.
Time had run out before Kirchner had the chance to
call all the witnesses he had subpoenaed. A continuance
was granted until February 7 at 9 a.m. in courtroom A to
hear the other witnesses. Others on the witness list
include: Anthony Bates, the former boyfriend of the
accuser; Harvey Welch, Thompson’s attorney in the second
trail; as well as the accuser.

NEARLY 3 AND A HALF YEARS after felony criminal charges
were filed against Patrick Thompson, the founder of
Visionaries Educating Youth and Adults (VEYA), the case
is again scheduled for a third jury trial in late January or
early February. Thompson, 38, of Champaign, has
remained accused of home invasion and criminal sexual
abuse since the creation of VEYA’s controversial video documentary,
Citizen Watch, in August of 2004.
The documentary became a community-wide issue
when then-State’s Attorney John Piland and then-Assistant
State’s Attorney, Elizabeth Dobson, attempted to charge
Thompson and co-VEYA member, Martel Miller, 43, also
of Champaign, with felony eavesdropping for audio
recording police officers in the public right of way during
routine pedestrian and traffic stops.
Miller was the first of the two videographers to be criminally
charged by Elizabeth Dobson on August 23, 2004.
Also on that day, Urbana police seized a copy of the documentary
from a public access television station as evidence
against the pair.
One day after Miller was indicted for eavesdropping,
Thompson was arrested at his home after Urbana police
alleged that Thompson (who is black) entered his nextdoor
neighbor’s apartment in the early morning of August
24, 2004, and attempted to rape a 32 year-old white
woman whom he did not know.
Thompson was placed into custody at the Champaign
County Jail on a $250,000 bond and charged with 5
felony counts, carrying a possible prison sentence of 120
years. Later that week, prosecutor Dobson added eavesdropping
charges against Thompson for his participation
in the videotaping of police during the summer of 2004.
Due to public pressure, State’s Attorney John Piland dismissed
the eavesdropping charges against Martel Miller in
September of 2004. Piland, however, refused to drop the
eavesdropping charges against Thompson.
In the November 2004 election, Piland, the 10-year
incumbent was defeated by current-State’s Attorney Julia
Reitz, who credited her victory partially to the uproar over
the eavesdropping prosecution by Piland. Upon election,
Reitz asked for Dobson’s resignation. In one of her first acts
as State’s Attorney, Reitz dismissed the remaining eavesdropping
charges against Thompson. However, Reitz claimed she
had represented Thompson in a prior matter, and due to this
apparent conflict of interest, Reitz claimed she could not dismiss
the home invasion case against Thompson.
In a December 1, 2004 pre-trial hearing, newly-hired
assistant state’s attorney Steve Ziegler did not object to
Thompson’s bond being lowered from the original $250,000
to $5000 and Thompson’s release on his own recognizance.
In June of 2005, Thompson and Miller filed a pro se
federal civil lawsuit against the Champaign Police Chief, 2
Champaign Police Chief Deputies, 4 patrol officers of the
Champaign Police Department, the assistant Urbana Chief
of Police, the Champaign City Attorney, the Champaign
City Manager, and attorneys John Piland and Elizabeth
Dobson for various constitutional violations during the
unlawful seizure of their video camera and documentary;
and for the malicious prosecution of felony eavesdropping.
Champaign Police Chief R.T. Finney admitted to the
News-Gazette that the eavesdropping charges were only
filed to “leverage” Miller and Thompson “to the table” for
discussions about videotaping the police. Included in
Thompson’s complaint is a racial profiling traffic stop
against Thompson.
In the summer of 2004, assistant state’s attorney Dobson
engaged in “ride-alongs” with Champaign Police officer
David Griffet, and videotaped Thompson videotaping her.
On August 7, 2004, Dobson authorized Officer Griffet to
seize VEYA’s video camcorder and film for evidence in the
eavesdropping case. Dobson was also the prosecuting
attorney who presented evidence before the Grand Jury on
Sept. 2, 2004 in the home invasion case against Thompson.
The federal lawsuit filed by Thompson and Miller
remains pending. Due to the overwhelming caseload at the
federal courthouse, Federal Judge Harold Baker has scheduled
that trial for March of 2009. An out-of-court settlement
conference between plaintiffs and defendants has
been scheduled for January 11, 2008.
In July of 2005, Thompson represented himself pro se
during the first trial of the home invasion case. During that
trial, the state admitted that it had no physical evidence of
an attempted rape occurring that morning of August 24,
2004. I a departure from police department procedure,
Hediger testified that he conducted no investigation at the
scene of the alleged crime. The State said the home invasion
case came down to whether they believed the victim or not.
Thompson attempted to subpoena defense witnesses
who would have testified that Thompson’s accuser had
falsely accused them of sexual misconduct at the accuser’s
workplace in the past. This testimony was not allowed to be
heard at the first trial because presiding Judge Tom Difanis,
who had hired Elizabeth Dobson to be an assistant state’s
attorney in 1984, ruled that the accuser’s past record of false
sexual allegations could not be allowed into evidence in the
Thompson trial. Trial judge Clem abided by the Difanis ruling
and Clem later stated, for the record, that barring
Thompson’s defense witnesses at the first trial was in error.
The he-said/she-said case ended in a mistrial as the jury
was deadlocked at 6–6. Prosecutor Vujovich chose to retry
the case, and 4 days before the second trial was to commence,
the accuser’s criminal charges were dismissed by
the state’s attorney’s office.
Thompson elected to hire local defense attorney, Harvey
Welch to represent him at the second trial, and the case was
postponed further to allow Welch time to prepare. Court
records show Welch filed a supplemental motion for discovery,
indicating Welch planned to call the defense witnesses
Thompson had subpoenaed in the first trial.
It was revealed at trial, however, Welch failed to subpoena
anyone other than a last-minute subpoena of the
one defense witness Thompson had put on the stand in
the first trial, a neighbor who lived below the accuser.
Prosecutor Vujovich impeached the neighbor’s testimony,
reminding the jury that the witness had a past conviction
for an unrelated obstruction of justice charge from Dec.
2003. The witness had pled guilty to giving a false name
during a traffic stop. The jury returned a verdict of guilty
on 1 count of home invasion and 1 count of criminal sexual
abuse on Friday, July 7, 2006.
With the help of community activists, Thompson fired
Welch and retained the services of Bob Kirchner to file a posttrial
motion for re-trial. Thompson remained free on bond
until April of 2007, when Judge Clem ruled that Thompson
should be granted a new trial due to ineffective assistance of
counsel; and that the improper hearsay evidence Welch failed
to object to is prejudicial to the defendant.
The Kirchner Law Office has filed numerous pre-trial
motions barring the state from using hearsay testimony
again, limiting the prosecutor’s opening and closing arguments
to only the evidence, and barring the state from
using Thompson’s past criminal record to impeach
Thompson should he choose to take the stand. In the
state’s effort to prove a crime had actually occurred on
August 24, 2004, Clem ruled that criminal records over 10
years old would be prejudicial to the defendant.
Defense attorneys for Thompson have also filed a motion
for sanctions and/or case dismissed over the state’s failure to
secure and protect the 911 audio recording made when the
accuser called METCAD on the morning of Aug. 24.
Thompson’s criminal trial is set to begin Monday, April
14 at 1:30 PM. Thompson has been free on bond and is
currently enrolled at Eastern Illinois University, majoring
in the Career and Organization Studies program. Thompson
received his associate degree in criminal justice from
Parkland College in 2007. VEYA continues to mentor atrisk
youth and has approximately 20 students engaged in
VEYA’s various self-improvement programs. Thompson,
who is married with 4 children, has also produced a new
video documentary about the October 8, 2006 protestdemonstration
in front of the News-Gazette. It was shown
numerous times on UPTV last winter.
Thompson has filed a small claims in civil court against
defense attorney Welch. The suit asks for the return of all
monies paid to Welch in the second trial. That hearing is
scheduled for February 22. The schedule for Thompson’s
criminal trial can be found at www.cccircuitclerk.com or
check the UCIMC website at www.ucimc.org

A FACT AND A QUESTION
Rafael Correa, a 43 year-old who took a Ph.D. in economics
at the University of Illinois in Urbana, won big in
Ecuador’s presidential election on November 26. Correa
received 68% of the votes cast. His opponent, Alvaro
Noboa, received 32% of the votes. The conservative
Noboa, is in the banana business and has a fortune that
the New York Times claims is $1.2 billion. This, claims the
Times, makes him the richest man in the country.
So, why did he not win with all that money?
HYPOTHESES
1. Technology. Correa, who is quite familiar with the
United States, posted poor old Boboa’s campaign gaffs on
YouTube, circumventing the traditional media which, concludes
the Times, was “hesitant” to criticize the richest man
in the land. Noboa, after all, controls the bananas. The use
of YouTube reached a lot of voters, especially the young
who tend to get much of their information from the web.
2. The Ecuadorians wanted to poke Bush in the eye.
Correa has good relations with Hugo Chavez and, with the
exactitude required of a Ph.D. in economics, has characterized
Bush as “dimwitted.” He did, however, say that he
had “nothing personal against Bush.” Whether his comment
was meant personally or not, perhaps the people of
Educador were so proud of Dr. Correa’s precision and
courage that they wanted him to say it to Bush face-toface,
one head of state speaking directly to another.
3. The Ecuadorians agree with Correa’s political and economic
positions more than they agree with the conservative
Noboa’s. This is a tough one because they had already elected
a legislature in which the majority was more like Noboa
politically. But maybe they
changed their minds
between the legislative
elections and the November
presidentials. Did the
voters elect Correa
because he was to the left
of Noboa?
WHAT’S LEFT?
We are back to the question in the title, “What’s Left“? Correa
has stated that he wants to strengthen the already
national oil company, to gain control over the country’s
energy, and to provide the poor with affordable housing and
cash subsidies. He also said that he did not want to renew
the agreement, which will expire in 2009, that permits the
U.S. military to have a Pacific coast surveillance base in the
country. Early in the campaign, he had also proposed a “citizen’s
revolution” to convene a constitutional assembly that
would shift some of the power from the very powerful legislature,
which can force presidents from office almost at will,
to the presidency itself. This legislative power has resulted
in Correa becoming Ecuador’s eighth president in ten years.
But perhaps the biggest fear of conservatives is that
Correa would join with Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, and,
they fear, now Nicaragua (despite Ortega’s protestations to
the contrary) in being vehemently opposed to the neo-liberal
vision and practice of free trade and hostile to U.S.
policies. The other option, which the conservatives fear
less, is that he would be closer to Argentina, Brazil, and
Chile where populism is mixed with a greater accommodation
to the neo-liberal free market vision and practice.
So, where indeed does Correa stand? Is he a Leftist?
“No“, says his former adviser at the U of I, Professor Werner
Baer. On a WILL recorded interview of November 28, Baer
says that Correa is religious, believes in the free market, and
respects private property. Baer contended that the portrayal
of Correa as a Leftist is an invention of the U.S. press.
He draws a contrast between Chavez, a military man
who once attempted a coup in Venezuela, a “demagogue”
who tries to get the support of the poorest of the poor in
the hills, with Correa, a civilian who respects constitutional
processes. So Professor Baer says, while Correa will want
ties with both Chavez and the U.S. (and he asks rhetorically,
“why not“?) “my guess is that we will be able to compare
him more with Lula in Brazil, who became very reasonable.
Now he’s [Lula] the darling of Wall Street.“
According to Professor Baer, that’s not Left. Of course,
we don’t know that Professor Baer’s characterization of his
former student is accurate. We will have to watch Correa’s
performance over time to know that. But what is obvious
is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to give any precision
to the word “Left” in the Latin American context.
How can we characterize extra-institutional social movements
in many of the countries, armed revolutionary
groups in Columbia and Mexico, the Cuban regime,
Venezuela, Nicaragua under the ever-so-Catholic Ortega,
Bolivia, Argentina, and Brazil if all we have in our political
vocabulary is “Left” and its opposite “Not Left,” either with
a laudatory or a condemning insinuation? The political
dynamics in Latin America today are demonstrating as
perhaps never before the poverty of our language in