Spring 2002

PSC-CUNY                                     Queens College Chapter

A Summary of the May 6 Meeting

Miriam Thompson, HEO

After much discussion, members were generally supportive of a DA resolution

capturing the consensus outlined below. If approved by the DA, the members would be asked to vote on the resolution through a referendum.

Concerns were raised about a referendum process: while speaking to high democratic standards, such a process can enfeeble or even abort timely decision making. Further, our leaders are democratically elected. They should be entrusted to lead, and should they not reflect the wishes of the members, they can be defeated in the next election. But given the diversity of viewpoints and the desire for direct member participation in decisions so large in nature, the referendum captured large support. The very process, it was felt, would strengthen union democracy, provide a model for our own parent union (not to mention our national government), give members a vehicle for expression many find nowhere else, and verify the union’s role as a social force.

Issues that could command wide support in a resolution/referendum were:

concern over unending war on terrorism

too little public debate

the use of terrorist threat to curtail civil liberties and suppress dissent disinvestment in and raiding of economic and social programs to bankroll continuing military buildup and investment the need for information and education - connecting the dots... oil interests and wars, rationale behind regimes we support and those we demonize concern over U.S. unilateralism and disregard for international treaties (Kyoto and the International Criminal Court - and other UN conventions we have not signed or disregarded) concern over the Administration’s legitimizing the use of nuclear weapons and determination to dismantle antinuclear treaties.

We can move in a progressive direction whose path most members will feel comfortable walking: academic freedom, ravaging civil society and the political consequences; absence of public education and debate over government decision making, its military escalation, its abandonment of international treaties, and the growing threat of nuclear war.

Developing Policy

Eileen Moran

Unions have a responsibility to present their members with information, views and perspectives since the interests of working people are rarely and inadequately covered in the news media. As educators that role is even more compelling not only for us but also for our students.

I think it’s appropriate for the PSC to take positions on national and international policy, but it is very important how we decide which issues we address and the process we use to formulate these positions. To copy a slogan from the sweatshop campaign, think globally act locally.

I favor the PSC identifying the ways that the war on terrorism is being used to legitimize and implement an agenda that does little to prevent future terrorist attacks while seriously eroding commitments to education, healthcare, the environment, and civil liberties. I think it’s easier to achieve consensus when we begin with issues that show how these policies affect us, such as the imposition of economic penalties on immigrant students, attempts to curb academic freedom and dissent, and our funding.

When public officials and their supporters accuse critics of disloyalty, or worse, treason, how is democratic accountability possible? In spite of the rhetorical commitments to help New Yorkers recover from September 11, where are those federal dollars actually going? Why aren’t the projected state deficits ameliorated by an infusion of federal cash? Aren’t the losses that New Yorkers have endured and continue to confront far more devastating than those of states damaged by floods or earthquakes?

We need to focus on the impacts these policies have for ourselves as working people and the consequences such policies have for everyone on the planet. Others at the meeting identified the problem of the Bush administration abandoning a number of hard won international agreements in order to act unilaterally. For example, do we really think that anyone’s health and security is enhanced by abandoning agreements on nuclear proliferation or greenhouse gases?

It seems irrefutable that based on the bombing of the Khobar apartments in Saudi Arabia, the destruction of a U.S. embassy in East Africa, the attack on the USS Cole and finally the events of September 11^th, that there are enemies in this world who are bent on attacking American interests and killing thousands of innocent people in order to advance their cause. While their aims might be limited to removal of American troops from Saudi Arabia or getting a more sympathetic treatment for the Palestinians, or more grandiose ones like fomenting a clash of civilizations, it is clear that there must be some American response.  And given the uncovering of terrorist cells in Italy, Spain, Germany, France, Belgium, not to mention the Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, the Philippines, and perhaps other places, it would appear that our response in Afghanistan, while necessary, is only the first step in the attempt to eradicate the threat of terrorism world-wide.

However, while supporting this type of necessary military intervention, I believe we can level a serious critique at this Administration for using this "war on terrorism" to push through a conservative agenda on tax cuts that not only favor the wealthy but sharply reduces money available for a host of social services including education, an energy policy that favors "big oil," and policies that have the potential for encroaching on civil liberties.

But this Administration also should be taken to task for not responding to the needs of the world and instead fostering the notion of the United States as the economic and military bully of the world. We pulled out of the Kyoto agreement, recently removed our signature from an agreement creating an International Court, turned down the British suggestion that we engage in a massive humanitarian project to reduce poverty and illness world wide, and refused to take the lead in making globalization a mechanism for bringing prosperity to poor countries through the establishment of a living wage law or through encouragement of the development of unions in these "sweatshop countries."

For a while following 9/11 it looked liked the U.S. might take the lead in defining a vision for a better world.  To date we have lost that opportunity, and I think this is what our union should be insisting on at this time. I think that it is in the United States’ long-term interest to be both strong militarily and, at the same time, become the leading humanitarian country of the world, exhibiting an authentic concern for the well being of the citizens of this planet. Together, this approach enhances our security.

I favor the PSC continuing a vigorous and democratic discussion of the impact of U.S. militarism on both our working lives and wider struggles for social justice. I also hope that this discussion will lead the union to take a strong position against the current "war against terrorism." Others have outlined the specific ways in which such a position is in our interest: defunding of education goes hand-in-hand with hyper funding of militarism, leading to an ever-increasing national and global disparity between the rich and the poor; historic U.S. military and intelligence support for brutal, undemocratic states, usually with the financial and political support of mainstream U.S. unionism, has undermined countless struggles for social justice. We have already been spoken for by our "parent" unions: without a vigorous and democratic discussion among rank and file members, the AFT and the AFL-CIO have vigorously endorsed the current wave of U.S. militarism, though the AFL-CIO has shown some admirable concern for violations of civil rights in the U.S.

Some have suggested that because our membership holds many different views

on the current wave of U.S. militarism, any statement will fail to reflect that diversity. We risk being undemocratic, it is suggested, if we issue a statement that does not reflect the view of every member. I disagree. I would suggest that democracy is not expressed by a position that fully represents all the views of all its members. By its very nature, representation can never offer such a total view. Rather, democracy is expressed by the vigorous and representative debate and discussion itself. Agonism, not unanimity, is the mode of democracy. So let us embrace this mode, and risk its representative outcome.

"The concept of military necessity is seductively broad, and has a dangerous plasticity.  Because they invariably have the visage of overriding importance, there is always a temptation to invoke security "necessities" to justify an encroachment upon civil liberties. For that reason, the military-security argument must be approached with a healthy skepticism." Justice William Brennan, Brown v. Glines, 444 US 348 (1980)

The union has a duty to open up a space of debate and conversation on the issues of military engagement and nuclear policy.  The positions within the union movement represented by the AFL-CIO, the AFT, and the United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA) resolutions show us ways, and limitations, of speaking in a single voice about these issues. One thing I learned from reading these statements is that we must confront with a healthy skepticism calls to limit our freedoms, safety, and social security in the name of military necessity. For me, this means taking an informed position, as the AFL-CIO did, against the USA PATRIOT Act.  (For information on the Act, go to:

http://www.aclu.org/safeandfree/index.html
http://www.eff.org
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism 

 It also means taking a position on nuclear policy, which, as The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists notes, has shifted in ways that bring us closer to planetary nuclear destruction (for more see http://www.thebulletin.org/clock.html).  And finally, it means staying alert to the seductive uses of anti-terrorist rhetoric to pass economic stimulus reforms that will rob the treasury, starve education, and impoverish the working people of this country (see http://www.ctj.org/; http://www.cepr.net/ ).

It is my opinion that the issue of militarism is not a topic in which the PSC should be involved.  This topic is very complex and cannot be handled with a simple resolution.  People who oppose militarism waver when the topic of withholding aid to Israel is proposed.   Conversely, people who are in favor of militarism waver on sending military aid to Palestine.  After the discussion at the PSC meeting on May 6, it was very clear that people who agree in principal have major differences on the substance of the topic, both on militarism and humanitarian aid.  It would take a resolution of a few volumes to accurately cover this topic.

We have multiple problems concerning higher education in New York. The funding for higher education in New York is a disgrace.   The PSC still does not have an approved 2000 contract.  The negotiations for the next contract should start soon.  Our time and efforts would be better spent solving these issues.  If the PSC is to have a resolution on this topic it should be approved by the entire PSC membership.  There should be three choices: 1. In favor of the resolution 2. Opposed to the resolution, 3. The PSC should not have a resolution on this topic.  To accurately represent the opinion of the PSC membership an affirmative vote of 50 % of the entire membership should be required to pass the resolution.

We know that unions are not simply collective bargaining instruments but formal political subjects, massively engaged (the AFL-CIO is probably the main prop of the Democratic Party); but foreign policy, and war and peace in particular, may still seem remote from the "real" concerns of unions.

In fact, however, whatever position we in the PSC decide to take about the war on terrorism, other union bodies are taking positions.  The AFT and the AFL-CIO have issued strong statements-in our name-supporting the war in Afghanistan and its extension. The AFT resolution also has a mild statement for increased aid to Afghanistan and poor countries, a vague statement on civil liberties, and a call for equal aid to workers and corporations; it ends: "God Bless America."  The AFL-CIO gives less of a blank check to Bush for unlimited extension than the AFT, and the rest of the resolution, unlike the AFT, is an extremely strong condemnation, in great detail, of Bush’s curtailment of civil liberties; it does not mention the economic effects of war and militarism on workers in the U.S. and abroad.  On the other hand, the large United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA) local has issued a strong statement against the extension of the war, as has the San Francisco Central Labor Council, and New York City Labor against the War has gathered over 1,000 signatures from local union officers and delegates. The UTLA resolution begins with aid to Afghanistan, opposes extension of the war, opposes curtailing civil liberties, opposes "political use" of September 11 to cut social budgets, and instructs union officers to work with other locals of the AFT and NEA for similar resolutions. Other unions, like us, are in the process of deciding.

I favor a PSC resolution along the lines of the UTLA, and, while views were certainly conflicting and nuanced, I did hear deep concern from many of the fifty members at the chapter meeting May 6 about further extension of the war, and also about its serious consequences at home and abroad for working people. With alarming calls for war on Iraq and shifts in framing U.S. nuclear policy, I feel the urgency of acting in my local, state, and national union (e.g., at the AFT national convention in July) to stop this globalizing war, whose profile is already etched into a ruined Afghanistan.

In my comments at the meeting, I indicated that developing a resolution concerning the US government’s policies with respect to international counter-terror operations is a difficult enterprise. This is so because of the wide variation of feelings, opinions, and also because of the various nuances pertaining to the issues.  I stated that, for example, I was critical of the Presidential and State Department policies with respect to Israel, in that I felt that the support for Israel’s counter-terror and anti suicide bomber campaign was not strong enough, and was at times downright ambiguous and muddled.

The meeting seemed to come to a consensus to make our statement "future oriented" as Josh Freeman suggested. We should avoid statements about US global policy on terrorism, either endorsing or rejecting it because, as was clear from the meeting, views were extremely divergent. Some expressed the idea of a strong condemnation of US policy on the grounds that US exploitative capitalism, by supporting oppressive regimes, which keep the masses in poverty, is responsible for all the ills of these nations and is the bedrock cause of desperation and terrorism.  Others argued that if the fight against terrorism applies to Israel in these terms, serious objections would be raised by many of our members. Still others noted positive effects of our fight against terrorism in Afghanistan, and some dissented from this view. At least one person argued that the union should not speak for individuals on grave matters of policy.

In sum, it seems to me that there is no way a statement on US national policy on terrorism could muster general support. At least one person argued that the union should not speak for individuals on grave matters of public policy. So I think it is clear that there will be strong opposition to any of the various views and the membership or large parts of it will be extremely disturbed should any particular one be accepted.

However, my understanding is that there was a consensus reached about the

fact the republicans had used the war to push a reactionary agenda, which would destroy to a large degree the social fabric of our society. There was agreement to oppose strongly the attacks on civil liberties, the cuts in health, welfare, education, and the continued attempt to enrich the top one percent by outrageous tax cuts. In short, the administration wants to pay for the cost of the war by destroying the programs necessary for the vast majority of Americans. I think we can all agree on that and we should make that our position.

I heard two things at the May 6 PSC Chapter meeting at the college.  The first was a strong, if not unanimous, conviction that the PSC could and should take a stand on issues of national policy, including those related to foreign policy and the pursuit of military solutions. But this stand has to be made in a way that connects the national or foreign policy questions with "local", bread-and-butter issues that affect union members and workers generally. The extreme defunding of public education, the treatment of immigrant students, issues of intellectual freedom: all of these affect all of us in virtually everything we do as educators. As such, the affected areas of our jobs and lives have to be the subject of serious debate and thoughtful action. This means that our politicians have to be informed about just how negative is the impact of policies that all too often rely on knee-jerk reactions. These policies would include not only those that foster enormous military budgets, but also those that dictate a tax policy and fiscal measures intended to redistribute yet more of the society’s goods to the wealthy.

The second thing I heard was that this union’s commitment to taking strong and principled stands on important government policies had to be seen as a form of education. This means free and spirited debate within the union to produce comprehensive and nuanced statements about our values. It also involves educating the public and the politicians about those values, and this necessitates doing our utmost to use language and research and thought in ways that are grave, deliberate and effective. A fully engaged and democratic union membership will be the best way to promulgate our commitment to justice and equity.

At the recent PSC meeting, I raised the following point.  In our discussion of the advisability of the union’s issuing a position statement addressing the US’s response to September 11, a proposal was made that the union’s statement be sent to the membership for ratification before being issued. Some of those present continued to voice a strong concern that the union’s statement still would not fairly represent the views of all the union’s members; but as it was evident that there was a general consensus about most aspects of the position that the union should take, and as it had been generally (if tacitly) acknowledged that the union proceeds according to the principles of representative democracy, I suggested that with respect to a ratification vote, some percentage might be agreed upon as defining adequate representation.  As David Kazanjian subsequently underscored, representative democracy by its very nature does not guarantee 100% consensus between the representative body and its constituents; and as had been pointed out several times over the course of the meeting-indeed, this was what in large measure had prompted the PSC to consider issuing such a statement in the first place-we had already been spoken for by the AFT Executive Council back in October 2001.

PSC HOME