Welcome to the fight over net neutrality, a battle that has been brewing for years.

At a time when more and more broadband users are frequently using sites like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and other innovations, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Congress are deciding the future of the Internet; whether the Internet will continue to be an explosion of creativity, or become a decentralized, participatory and democratic communications.

As someone who observed the rise of the broadband market, it is troubling to learn 73 Democrats are willing to sell out their constituents and their president by siding with the greedy phone and cable companies. They have joined with 37 Senate Republicans, who signed an industry-written letter demanding the Federal Communications Commission to halt all efforts to protect Internet users. So it came as a surprise to learn all three of San Antonio’s lawmakers – Rep Charlie Gonzalez (TX-20), Rep Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23), and Rep Henry Cuellar (TX-28) – were included in the Democrat group that has decided to oppose the Obama Administration’s telecom agenda for better broadband and Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality: What is it?
Before I get to the heart of this debate, I feel it is important to explain the meaning of “net neutrality” because even a simple Google search can get confusing. In the simplest terms, net neutrality can best be defined as the principle that allows an Internet user access to the Internet without fear of their Internet Service Provider (AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, and Verizon) blocking or limiting their access to it. This principle has prevented ISPs from censoring content for any reason or favoring a specific website, service, or application based on its content, message, or ownership. The “non-discrimination” concept has been the guiding principle for the Internet since its inception, and at one time it was the law.

Starting with the basics, at the time the Internet was considered a novelty, gaining access to it was done through the telephone network. The telephone companies had nothing to do with the content the users accessed. As the cable industry entered the market in the late ’90s, they too followed, these rules.

From 1996-2002, Internet users had no problem choosing an Internet provider because small Internet service providers in the era of dial-up service had equal access to home users because their services were provided over the telephone network which were regulated as common carriers. By 2001, more than half of all U.S. homes were connected to the Internet through “dial-up.” As Americans became familiar with the Internet’s capabilities, the demand for better service also increased. Both the telephone and cable companies responded in kind by improving their networks by increasing their speeds; the arrival of broadband.

However, all of this changed starting in 2002 as the Bush-era FCC began stripping away these protections. As the chairman of the FCC, Michael Powell believed that regulation stifled innovation, which he then led the charge for deregulation. Powell believed that internet access was a luxury than a necessity, thereby dismissing the idea of a digital divide. During a press conference, Powell mocked the idea by comparing it to a Mercedes divide in which he stated “I think there is a Mercedes divide. I would like to have one, but I can’t afford one.”

As the cable industry started to provide high speed access, smaller ISPs like wanted to use their cables in the same manner like common carriers. Since these cables were privately owned by the cable companies, in March 2002, the FCC classified cable Internet service as an “information service” rather than a “telecommunications service.” Hoping to reverse the FCC’s decision, Brand X, a small Internet service provider based in California, took the FCC to court.

In 2005, the Supreme Court evaluated the FCC’s decision to classify broadband Internet access service as an information service. In a 6-to-3 decision, the court ruled in favor of the Powell Commission’s decision to classify cable modem service as an “information service” and not a “telecommunications service.” Under the 1996 Telecommunications Act, information service providers are not subject to the open access regulations that are applied to telecommunications providers, such as DSL companies. The Court’s ruling gave the new FCC Chairman, Kevin Martin, the legal grounds to reclassify broadband delivery to the phone companies as an “information service.”

Since then, some Internet providers have already started discriminating against certain applications. In 2007, two incidents exposed the telcos’ gatekeeper ambitions. In September 2007, the New York Times revealed that Verizon Wireless had prevented NARAL Pro-Choice America from sending text messages to its own members. A month earlier, AT&T had censored the live Webcast of the rock group Pearl Jam, when singer Eddie Vedder’s began criticizing President Bush. These episodes showed that when given the option, phone companies willing to discriminate content they don’t like.

The Issue: Access vs. Openness
Why the battle over the Internet?

The battle lines began to form when the Bush-era FCC adopted a set of principles in 2005 saying “consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice;” however, the principles provided vague guidance by permitting providers’ “reasonable network management.”

Shortly after the FCC adopted a set of principles, Internet users were rope-a-doped into believing that the broadband service providers would not “[block] access to video or P2P services.”

It was not until an investigation by Associated Press that relieved that Comcast was degrading and blocking traffic from BitTorrent, a peer-to-peer file sharing protocol used for transferring large files, from it’s service network. The results from the Associated Press’ investigation confirmed tests done by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

However, BitTorrent was not the only application Comcast was blocking.

As a former Comcast customer, I immediately experienced connectivity issues while downloading the online game, World of Warcraft. While downloading, my internet connection would suddenly slow to a crawl to the point it would suddenly die because my router was forced to renew my IP address. Before Comcast was exposed, I had heard rumors that Comcast was interference with BitTorrent traffic. After doing a little digging, I was not the only experiencing this problem. I have found that Comcast is being overzealous in throttling every file sharing application, such as Shareaza. This would include World of Warcraft because Blizzard relies on BitTorrent to download the game and all it’s patches. The result, it took over a day and half to complete before I could start playing. It certainly was not for the faint of heart.

My experience also confirms other reports about sudden decreases in download speeds. Kevin Kanarski has reported that Lotus Notes (a suite of software that many businesses use for email, calendaring and file sharing) is also being interfered with.

Comcast justified their actions by citing “reasonable network management” as their legitimate excuse to degrade an application’s performance. However, the FCC rejected their reasoning and ordered Comcast to stop slowing down BitTorrent users before the end of the year. In addition, the company has to disclose all “network managing” practices. Comcast sued, saying that the FCC didn’t have the authority to enforce net neutrality.

In early April, the FCC was dealt a blow when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FCC lacks the authority to protect Internet users against network operators. The ruling effectively gave corporate gatekeepers control over Internet users’ online experience, and it called into question the FCC’s ability to act as a public interest watchdog over our country’s communications media.

Technical Information:
The common question consumers asked in search of high speed Internet access for their homes, which is better, DSL Internet vs Cable Internet. It is in this area that broadband providers view consumer ignorance on Internet protocol profitable.

The broadband providers had help when the FCC decided that anything that is faster than dial up would now be an “information service” and no longer a “telecommunications service.” It also allowed the “connection to the Internet”, as well as the network used for higher speed to now be considered one thing – “broadband services.”

Without getting to technical, broadband services means the way a person connects to the Internet whenever your computer is turned on. Cable modems and residential DSL are two of several high-speed Internet technologies grouped under the term “broadband services.”

When I enrolled in an eCommerce certification program, cable internet was starting to be introduced. While cable internet was considered faster than DSL, there was a down side, with cable, each household had to share available bandwidth with other broadband subscribers, which could comprised of 500-2,000 home networks. A fact, that cable companies continue to downplay.

Cable providers providers downplay this information by providing half-truths. A common complaint among cable subscribers are slow speeds.

DSL does not have that problem since broadband access to Internet services is provide through existing phone lines. In other words, DSL services connect the subscriber’s home directly to the local telephone company’s Central Office.

Ignorance is bliss
When it comes to the Internet. people don’t really care how they are connected so long as they are connected. As long as they feel that it is fast and consistent, they have no dog in this fight. The reason, opinion about issues they are not familiar with made by the experts. This belief was echoed by FCC Commissioner McDowell in his Washington Post editorial, “[t]he Internet has … operated under the principle that engineers … solve engineering problems.” In other words, leave the engineering to the engineers.

This is not the first time this logic has been applied in a policy debate. The mantra of leave certain professions to the experts was also used during the health care debate.

This is the reason people are perplexed by this issue, coverage of this issue in the media is nowhere near the extent needed. Recently, FCC commissioned Abt/SRBI and Princeton Survey Research Associates International to gauge the Internet speeds users are getting in their homes and mobile devices, such as smartphones and tablet computers. They found that 80 percent of broadband users in the U.S. do not know the speed of their broadband connection.

The current power grab involves lobbyists, unscrupulous legislators, phony front groups and the most powerful telecommunications companies in the world. Instead of sticking to the core issue, all sorts of irrelevancies and misinformation is used to undermine trust and scare off the public.

Soon after FCC Chair Genachowski’s decided to reclassify broadband and protect net neutrality, Wall Street Journal reported net neutral proponents were going to fight to the end by conducting a massive lobbying campaign to stop broadband reform. .

National Broadband Plan would help more than 93 million people get online. Chairman Genachowski has laid out the right plan to restore the Commission’s authority over broadband networks and provide a stable legal foundation for our nation’s most critical communications infrastructure.

In an era of free market capitalism, any industry that can gain the wealth and prestige necessary to enter the halls of power are able to sway the opinions of the political establishment to influence policies that will help them double their wealth. The telecommuncication industry continues to fly below the radar as one of America’s newest oligarchy — a group that gains political power because of its economic power, and then uses that political power for its own benefit. The FCC’s rule changes has allow them the increase their earnings by creating new revenue steams that have transmuted into political power through campaign contributions and the lure of the revolving door.

I have been troubled that several groups have seemed to accept the arguments made by the telecom companies, and are now either opposing or are skeptical about Net Neutrality protections. In rural West Texas, Rep. Ciro Rodriguez’s Congressional District, some still lack connectivity that allows them to get online without the hassles of dial-up. The question isn’t just who’s connected to the Internet, but why is supporting big cable and phone companies who are forcing poor communities choose between fair representation and access?

As a fellow social worker, I am troubled by the disregard of the social work code of ethics “to enhance human well­being and help meet the basic human needs of all people, with particular attention to the needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty.”

As for my own Representative, Charlie Gonzalez is certainly not following in his father’s footsteps. Where was Henry B was known for not taking political contributions from special interests. More importantly, at a time when Democrats are facing increasingly heavy public skepticism and criticism for the lack of courage to stand up to the special interest, the absence of Henry B Gonzalez is missed for the courage he demonstrated in opposing powerful interest groups and so ably serving the people of his district and the nation.” It was his acceptance speech for John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award father that inspire me to get involve in politics.

In my time I have had the honor to be vilified for standing up against segregation. I have had the privilege of being a thorn in the side of unprincipled privilege, and the great joy of being demonized by entrenched special interests. I have had the special pride of seeing hard jobs completed: the great civil rights laws; the cleanup of corruption in the savings and loan industry; the enactment of Federal laws that help educate the poor, care for the sick, eradicate disease, and house the people. And I have endured the impatience and humiliation that comes along with sometimes falling short of the goal.

While I may be disappointed they their recent actions, I still hold out hope they will come around and support Net Neutrality. If not, don’t be surprised if their next primary election is their last.

Since the birth of my niece, the state of our world really hit me. We often cruise through life and often without a care in world. Then suddenly things change when holding an infant only one hour old. Growing up, my aunts and uncles have been very instrumental growing, and I only hope I too can do the same with my niece – be part mentor, part buddy, part sounding board and part baby sitter, with a role that’s somewhere between a parent and a friend.

During my time there, the fears I had for my niece are your normal fears anybody has raising a child in America. Although we like to think of ourselves as evolved, there are still many among us whose actions reveal attitudes about those they consider different from themselves. What kind of world will she grow up in? Will she have a brighter life? Or will we leave them a standard of living in decline?

To be honest, the world that she was born into is scary. The start of this new century has already begun with the tragic consequences of blank checks for people whose chief talent has been the emotional manipulation of the public for political purposes.

Despite this country electing America’s first Black male president, lately it’s been bad news on top of more bad news. Today, racism continues to be a serious problem in America. Racism is not only anti-spiritual and anti-humane but the toxins that all democracies are susceptible to, especially in stressful times.

While racism is not overt as before the post-civil rights era, fixed assumptions about certain groups of people remain intact. Even when a word doesn’t express a judgment on the surface, there’s one hiding just beneath the surface – consider the current hot-button words like terrorism and illegal immigrant. Immigrants have become synonymous to a wide range of social ills – unemployment, poor housing, low skills and criminality. As a result, some cities across the US – Houston and Arizona among other cities – local law enforcement have increased their practice of “racial profiling.”

Unfortunately, we continue to live in a world which we allow to be destroyed in the name of economic development and ever more so because of wars at global scale. Since 9/11, we are currently engaged in a couple of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in the name of a “global war against terrorism.” And one week after her birth, under the premise of the “Right to defend oneself,” Israel decided to launch rockets into the Gaza Strip.

These wars bring enormous destruction upon others, more so upon innocent bystanders and in particular children. They do not merely destroy factories, houses, bridges but also institutionalize “war” as the primary choice to resolve conflicts over nonviolent solutions.

Children are affected by all the environments in which they live. The real question we should be asking, what are we teaching our children through these destructive actions? The fact is, the road we take often depends on what we think other people will choose. As of now, this has to a moral decline. As a consequence, this has led to society’s intolerance of those in authority over them and the inability to adhere to rules and regulations. It’s harder to stay honest if we see other people cheating. More importantly, it is harder to take responsibilities for the care for others if those responsibilities don’t seem to be shared.

We are entering uncharted terrain with this conjuncture of profound crises – the fall out from the global credit crisis that erupted in 2008 has taken and continues to take a toll in this country. Just recently, the Labor Department reported that the unemployment rate has jumped to 7.2 percent in December, the largest yearly loss since 1945. However, if you factor those who work part time because they cannot find full time employment, the hidden unemployment rate is 14.5 percent.

As the real economy moves into recession, people are being thrown into a deep sense of insecurity; misery and hardship will increase for many poorer people everywhere. In December, the American Bankruptcy Institute reported a total number of bankruptcies for the first nine months of 2008 (Jan. 1 – Sept. 30) was 841,496. The total of 292,291 bankruptcies filed during the third quarter of 2008 (July 1 – Sept. 30) was up 34% compared to the 218,909 cases filed over the same period in 2007. Of those, according to ABI report, the total number of consumer filings, with 280,787, up 33% in comparison to the number of filings during the same period of 2007.

There was also a sharp increase in the number of businesses filing for bankruptcy (29,960), eclipsing the total number of businesses (28,137) that filed for bankruptcy in 2007. The number of business filings recorded, with 11,504 (61% increase), compared to the 7,167 business filings in 2007. The number of businesses filling for Chapter 11 spiked to 2,485, up 76% over the 1,410 filings during the similar period in 2007.

As the real economy moves into recession, more than ever, people are mixed with emotions. Last week, a local Pennsylvania baker, Tanya Reid, asked for spiritual advice from Oprah Winfrey because she was struggling with her faith since the economic downturn might cost her bakery, which she and sank all their savings into, and her dreams. Tanya’s question stood out because it is the universal question that everyone would really like the answer to.

We’re all, to some extent, motivated by fear, particularly fear of what we can’t control. As an uncle, I realize that there’s a lot to be scared of, but I also recognize that, outside of advocating that my sister encase her child in plastic bubbles, there’s only so much we can control. If we live life paralyzed by fear, the dividing lines placed between the respect for the privacy for the individual child, the opportunity to find their own path, and the imposition of conditioning restraints, partly for society’s convenience, partly for their own safety will become blurred.

As much as her parents and I would love to protect her from the evils of the world, we do have to remember her well-being does not depend solely on her parents or her extended family. There are also the world and social norms. Parenting is the convergence of basic human concerns like love, resentment, food, and sleep; and natural evolutionary developments. What is considered acceptable behavior today may not be 50 years from now. This context is beyond our control, and we should not assume responsibility for what we cannot control.

What can we do as citizens? We can help bring about the change to make sure my niece and all other children will not inherit our wars and fights and burdens. The economy of community is abundance, sharing and helping, as opposed to the money economy of scarcity, which encourages competition and ever widens the gap between us and them. A crisis is an opportunity for change. If we choose to seize upon the opportunity, we have a chance create a different world by creating an abundance of milk of human kindness by changing our government policies and social norms.

I don’t know exactly what the future holds for little Nora, however, if there is a happy ending to the story of humanity, it will be because we envisioned and enacted a new story, with the rest of the community of life, on the pages of the living world.

Click here to view the embedded video.

If I were a gambling man, the first ones to be picked up will occur after the Rage Against the Machine protest concert. Let’s just hope the Denver PD did not take a page out of ICE’s playbook, we know how they treat their detainees.

Most people don’t know that back in 1912, Hellmann’s mayonnaise was manufactured in England. In fact, the Titanic was carrying 12,000 jars of the condiment scheduled for delivery in Vera Cruz, México, which was to be the next port of call for the great ship after its stop in New York. This would have been the largest single shipment of mayonnaise ever delivered to México. But as we know, the great ship did not make it to New York. The ship hit an iceberg and sank, and the cargo was forever lost.

The people of México, who were crazy about mayonnaise, and were eagerly awaiting its delivery, were disconsolate at the loss. Their anguish was so great, that they declared a National Day of Mourning, which they still observe to this day. The National Day of Mourning occurs each year on May 5th and is known, of course, as Sinko de Mayo.

Fooled ya!

Cinco de Mayo is often mistaken for México’s Independence Day, here in the US. México’s Independence Day is celebrated on September 16 because it was day that Father Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, in the small town of Dolores, in the state of Guanajuato, rang the church bell and made the call to retaliate against the Spanish. Every year at midnight on September 15, Mexicans led by the president of México shout the Grito, honoring the crucial and impulsive action that was the catalyst for the country’s bloody struggle for independence from Spain.

Cinco de Mayo is the celebration of the victory of the Mexican Army, led by Texas-born General Ignacio Zaragoza, over the French expeditionary forces in the “Batalla de Puebla” (Battle of Puebla) on May 5, 1862. On that morning, history was written that continues to serve as a reminder that with patriotism, valor and pride, one will overcome any and all obstacles. Cinco de Mayo is a day of great importance for the Mexican and Chicano communities. The victory was viewed as a symbol that proved to the world that national sovereignty would not be compromised. Especially those from imperialist states hell bent on world conquest.

The historical background leading to French intervention took shape in the aftermath of the Mexico-US War of 1846-48. As a result, México lost two-thirds of its territory to the north what is now known as the southwest region of the United States. The “Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo”, which settled the war with fifteen million dollars in payment for the annexed lands.

Much like todays war in Iraq, many felt that the war with México was an “unjust war.” Freshman House member and future President Abraham Lincoln. He spoke against the war and accused President James Polk’s motive as a desire for “military glory – that attractive rainbow, that rises in showers of blood.” In his speech to Congress, Lincoln said:

“God of Heaven has forgotten to defend the weak and innocent, and permitted the strong band of murderers and demons from hell to kill men, women, and children, and lay waste and pillage the land of the just.”

Both Former President Adams and Lincoln, worked together in 1848 as members of the House of Representatives, to expose the fraud of the US war against Mexico. Former President John Quincy Adams described the war as a southern expedition to find “bigger pens to cram with slaves.”

Like Iraq today, México entered a period of national crisis during the 1850s. Years of not only fighting the Americans but also a Civil War, had left México devastated and bankrupt. In 1861, the newly elected democratic President Benito Juarez issued a moratorium to defer their debts for two years, with the commitment to start making payments after that period.

On October 31, 1861, Queen Isabella II of Spain, Queen Victoria of Great Britain and Emperor Napoleón III of the Second French Empire refused the request, so they sent their troops to México to collect their debts. The English and Spanish quickly made deals with Juarez and left. The French had other ideas. A month after the Spanish and British withdrawal, France brought 4,500 troops and began marching inland on its war of occupation. Their intention was to dispose of the Mexican Constitutional Government and create an Empire in Mexico under Napoleon III, who also detested the growing power in the US because Napoleon III believed that the US would eventually become a power in and of itself if left unchallenged. At that time the US had already entered into the American Civil War (1861–1865). Not may people realize, Napoleon III came very close to officially recognizing the Confederacy and was driven by a desire to keep the Union split. All through 1862, Napoleon III entertained Confederate diplomats, raising hopes that he would unilaterally recognize the Confederacy. Napoleon III also had plans to impose a monarchical government upon the nations of Central and South America. By doing this, France would have been able to provide raw materials and trade for the European nations as well as put the US in check.

Napoleon III had help by the plutocratic and conservative landowners of Mexico who feared loss of land and political power to the newly elected constitutional government of Benito Juárez. In 1862, Napoleon III began to advance by sending his army of the Second French Empire into Mexico. Napoleon III planed to seat Maximilian I, a Hapsburg prince, as Emperor of the new Mexican empire. The French Army had never lost a battle in 50 years, and with this belief, they invaded Mexico. The French Army was equipment with modern weaponry and with a newly reconstituted Foreign Legion. Historians believe the French established the monarchy, especially since the US was already in its own Civil War.

At this time, President Juárez (a full blooded Zapotec Indian) was already taking countermeasures. President Juárez commanded General Ignacio Zaragoza to block the advance of the French Army at the fortified hills of Loreto and Guadalupe by the city of Puebla. Under the command of General Zaragoza, the Mexicans awaited with 5,000 ill-equipped Mestizo and Zapotec Indians. On May 5, 1862, General Zaragoza beat back repeated French assaults and ended up defeating the French army in Puebla, which is now known as the “Batalla de Puebla.” Before the day was over, more than a thousand French soldiers were dead.

General US Grant told President Lincoln in 1865 that the Civil War would not have been over if the French continued to stay in Mexico. The 1962 Mexican victory did contribute to the Union victory in our Civil War. If not, Napoleon III would have continued to supply weapons to the Confederate Army, and American history would have been different.

The French defeat by Mexicans on the 5th of May kept the French from supplying the rebel Confederacy with massive cannonry and munitions. Superior Union numbers and soldiery combined with a lack of cannon and munitions to defeat the Confederate Army of General Robert E. Lee at the four-day July 1863 battle of Gettysburg. This Pennsylvania battle assured the total defeat of the Southern rebels and the continued existence of the United States of America.

Once the Civil War ended, President Abraham Lincoln turned his attention and American resources to help Mexico throw out the French Army. He personally ordered General Sheridan to Texas to help the Mexicans.

The importance “Cinco de Mayo” is not that it only memorializes a historical event, but it is a cultural emergence coupled with a history that has taken place that defines who we are as Latinas/as. The significance of the Battle is not about who won or lost, nor is it about a battle that took place in Mexico or how it indirectly helped the Union win, it is about respect. It is respect for those, the mestizos and Zapotecs, who were often taken for granted, ignored and without any resources other than their patriotism, which has helped defined a moment in Latino history.

The victory at Puebla does have specific meaning to me because it is about putting a spotlight on my heritage as a mestizo and how we took part in shaping the course of history for both Mexico and the US. Even though I am born in the United States and have nothing to do with Mexico, I cannot ignore my Mexican familial roots and their role in Mexican history, as I also cannot ignore my American familial roots and their role in shaping the US.

Previously, I wrote about the recent trend that is taking this country by storm. In colleges and universities across the country, white young adults are finding it fashionably acceptable to throw racist theme parties. A few weeks ago, it was reported that another off-campus racist party was thrown; this time, students from the [tag]University of Delaware[/tag] hosted the party.

The photos from the May 5 party featured students from the University of Delaware playing on Latino stereotypes during an off-campus “South of the Border” party. One photo showed students were dressed up as gardeners with nametags reading “Pedro” and “Jose” with a Latino racial slur on the back of the shirt that read “Spic n’ Span Gardening.” The students also wore gardening gloves and carried lawn tools as part of their racist costume. Others photos showed a trio of students in red, white and green shirts with the word “Mexico” on the front and on the back each labeling themselves either as “Hott,” “Spicy” or “Full of Tequila.”

This began when Lauren Boroski, a junior, elected to post pictures from the party on the popular social-networking site, Facebook, which was later discovered by a member from UD’s Campus Alliance de La Raza (CALR), a Latino organization on campus, which was later posted on the organization’s website. Soon after, the university announced that an investigation of the “South of the Border”-theme party was underway. According to the student paper, The Review, University President [tag]David Roselle[/tag] issued a statement on the university’s Web site, encouraging the campus community to join him in “decrying insensitive and thoughtless student behavior that can cause hurt to others.”

After the party, several attendees expressed their regret, claiming that they had no intent to be offensive. Boroski was the only one who publicly apologized for her actions during a town hall meeting to discuss the issues raised by the party and to begin the healing process. Some of the partygoers decided to write an apology instead. However, they ended up tripping over themselves because they all pleaded ignorance as the reason for their actions at the racist party.

Letter #1
I also did not understand what this world truly meant and it makes me extremely upset to think that anyone who does or does not know me believes that I am racist. … My use of malicious language or stereotypes does not reflect my personal views or beliefs and was a complete and utter serious misjudgment.

Letter #2
I am not a person who thinks badly of other people. … But the person you see in these photos is not representative of who I am, nor is it the type of person I want to be … Please know that the insulting sentiments portrayed in the pictures are so contrary to how I truly feel about the students on this campus and the minority population.

Letter #3
I am very sorry that these pictures have caused you pain, and that my attire has reflected a racist attitude in your eyes. I can assure you that I have always considered myself an individual who openly accepted others, and I had no intention of causing any damage with this attire.

It has been reported that the offending students were members of the local chapter of Phi Sigma Pi, a national co-ed honors fraternity. What is not widely known is that some of the photographed students were from Blue Hen Ambassadors, a campus organization where students officially represent the university by conducting campus tours and help recruit prospective students to the University. This probably explains why the university’s Office of Public Relations were quick to report that a forum was organized on campus by La Raza and Phi Sigma Pi in their on-line e-zine, UDAILY in which more than 200 students, staff and faculty members were in attended the forum. According to Delawareonline, in which more than 200 students, staff and faculty members attended the forum. According to Delawareonline, Boroski was the only one from Phi Sigma Pi who participated the town hall meeting. If the other participants who also attended to party failed to attend the town hall meeting, one does have to wonder if Phi Sigma Pi really co-hosted the forum with La Raza and really committed to what is stated on. Was this an effort by the university to downplay the concerns over the racially-theme “South of the Border” party?

It is interesting that there was an effort to make sure everybody knows that the party was not an “organization-sponsored event.” Several media reports made sure to emphasize Brian Brady’s, president of UD’s Phi Sigma Pi chapter, message. Although some steps have been taken in the right direction, such as Phi Sigma Pi deciding take “disciplinary action” against offending students by suspending them from the organization for one year and requiring them to attend diversity classes. The National Office is currently investigating the matter. Unfortunately, since the party near the end of the school, with the country’s short term memory problem, this event will most likely go down the memory hole this summer.

Sadly, the university has decided to sweep this issue under the rug by deciding not to punish the students, particularly in light of their of their “zero tolerance for hate”. “The University of Delaware must and will have a zero tolerance for hate,” Roselle stated in an open letter to the university. “There is no place at the University of Delaware for those whose credo is meanness and whose method is intimidation.”

What makes this upsetting, the university has decided to close its eyes on the reality and treat this as a “free speech” issue. Roselle told the UD community that the “actions of the students attending the party are not criminal,” therefore the university “will respect their First Amendment rights.” The question remains, why maintain a set of policies which address this issue and not follow them.

The University has a “zero tolerance” for hate crimes and bias-related conduct. When a student has been found to have violated the Code of Conduct and the Hearing Officer finds facts demonstrating that the offender has directed his or her behavior towards someone because of that person’s particular race, gender, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation or disability, the sanctions may be enhanced as the Hearing Officer deems appropriate.

There is no need to have these students expelled or suspended, however, there must be some form of disciplinary action with they are actually be made to learn from their actions. Although it true that we as a nation are allowed to express our views, but the reality is, we live in a world where people are looking for loopholes so they do not have to be held accountable for their actions. Angela Onwuachi from Blackprof provides some good insight into various ways how institutions may handle these issues.

In Grutter v. Bollinger, Justice O’Connor highlighted the various ways in which institutions may benefit from having racially diverse student bodies, such as through enhanced learning among students because of exposure to diverse perspectives; increased ability by students to work and live with people from different cultures, and the destruction of racial stereotypes about the intellectual capacity and viewpoints of both minority and majority members. Perhaps, these partying or joking students could be made to benefit directly from these lessons laid out in Grutter—to learn from diverse interaction, not just on their campuses, but outside of them.

It is true that some things are definitely inappropriate and shouldn’t be punished too harshly, but given the frequency of these events, when do we start drawing the line between what’s entertaining and what’s offensive? A forum is a good first step, but how effective is it when only one member shows up. The reality is, this is not just a University of Delaware problem, these events are emerging on university campuses through out the country, which should trouble us all the more. We can no longer just shrug them off as isolated incidents and pretend they innocently made a mistake.

If one where to do a search on Facebook on other “ghetto” type parties, you will see nothing has changed. Here is a short list from a quick Facebook search.

On June 23, in Columbia, MO group of young adult white males are gathering for a “Ghetto BBQ.”
On May 27, in Bloomington, IL a young white female had a “ghetto fabulous grad party” with the description, “It be hip hoppin yo.”
On May 25, in Denver, CO a young white male had a “Ghetto Trailer Trash” eviction party.
On May 19, in Lake Winnebago, MO a group of white young adults held a “ghetto garage party”
On May 15, in Virginia Beach, VA a group of young adult white females held a “Beach Babes and Ghetto Bitches” party
On April 15, in Whitewater, WI a group of young adult white males gathered for a “Thug Life Baby” party.
On March 31, in Pittsburgh, PA a group of white young adults held a “Thug’s and Hoe’s Party”

In the book Understanding Words that Wound, Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic address the immediate danger of hate speech to Latinos and other historically dis-empowered groups. Hate speech does not just apply to overt charge words used by folks like the KKK; it also represents the manifestation of socially accepted stereotypes. One could argue that the message the university is sending out to the University of Delaware community is that ethnic slurs is acceptable because the First Amendment allows them to disregard a person’s humanity, dignity, self-respect, standing, and potential. It also sends a message that UD’s University Policies is just there to give lip service and really has no teeth because in the end if an individual or organization is ever caught, all will be forgiven if they apologize for their actions, plead ignorance of their surroundings and conduct a Dr. Phil type forum.

The actions of the university are just another painful reminder to extent of this country’s commitment to maintaining white supremacy. In order the defeat racism, we must realize all parties must be committed to ending racism. The first step we must answer this fundamental question: How can we really tackle racism when a majority from the white culture actually do believe racism does not exist in this country? Yet, how is it that a nation who is legally committed to equal opportunity for all – regardless of race, creed, national origin, or gender – continually reproduces patterns of racial inequality? How is it that in our open, participatory democracy, racial minorities are still underrepresented in positions of power and decision-making?

Their rejection of racism is no doubt genuine in its adoption of “colorblindness;” but it also tends to continue the existing inequalities and injustices that descend from the Jim Crow days of segregation. Eduardo Bonilla-Silva has constructed a theory of “color-blind racism” based on ignorance or denial of racial disparities and underlying structural factors. He suggests that race-related issues are understood primarily by means of four dominant frames. The first frame involves the minimization or trivialization of racial differences. The claim that race does not exist, or is not real, is the ultimate form of this tactic. When disparities are acknowledged, the second frame involves blaming minorities for their pathological non-White cultures, rather than on structural constraints or White privilege. The third frame justifies racial phenomena as natural. Finally, the fourth frame upholds the current standards such as equality and meritocracy, but fails to take into account relevant preconditions such as a balanced playing field.

These positions reflect the dominant racial ideology in the US – a view that seems more concerned with “reverse discrimination” than with unchanged black and Latino poverty rates, infant mortality, or heightening, not declining, racial stratification. Thus domestic racial ideology both undermines an older, more familiar racial mindset and reinforces it.

These inconsistencies are indications of the uncertainties of the current moment in racial politics. Racism is a type of despotism. Whenever one does contemplate race and racism as being part of a national social structure, we are immediately struck by the magnitude to which racism still stratifies societies as a whole. However, if we continue to close our eyes to this reality, it becomes impossible to operate effectively as a society. Roselle had a chance to make a difference, he could have been creative in developing new forms of policies is handling racism. In pursuit of racial justice and racial democracy, he could have used one of the new theoretical insights developed from his own pool of professors. Nevertheless, he did not, he opted to take the coward way out and in the end; the racism beat goes on.

Thus we are compelled to ask, what would a racial justice-oriented set of policies or program look like in the twenty-first century? We should not dismiss this as a rhetorical question, but instead attempt to respond to it from a radical pragmatist viewpoint, one that takes its commitments seriously.

Last Tuesday, University of Colorado President and former US Senator [tag]Hank Brown[/tag] received a report from a faculty committee regarding its hearing on alleged research misconduct by Professor Churchill. According to University spokeswoman Michele McKinney, Brown has 15 business days to determine how to proceed – whether are no grounds for dismissal or recommend sanctions such as suspension. There are still many more steps in the process if Brown recommends dismissal.

The relentless pursuit of Professor Churchill is a manifestation of this country’s new form of McCarthyism, which has serious implications on academic freedom and free speech in the US. Churchill has been singled out by the ultra-right, with the assistance of Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly. The controversy erupted shortly after Churchill was invited to participate on a panel at Hamilton College for an essay “Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens,” he wrote soon after the events of 9/11 came to light.

The passage that has caused the greatest controversy concerned the innocence of some of the victims died in the World Trade Center attacks. Churchill accused some of victims were “technocratic corps at the very heart of America’s global financial empire” and “little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers.” Whether Churchill’s statement is viewed flawed and reactionary, this does not mean, this grants the ultra-right the right to exploit the controversy in an attempt to advance their ongoing Culture Wars by seeking to demolish free speech rights, liberal and left values, and the academic tenure system, which in their view protects crazed radicals corrupting the minds of youth.

The Right launched a series of attacks on his character and ethnic background, to distort his intention and meaning, and to demand that he be fired from a tenured position designed to protect academics from ideological persecution. Conservative politicians and media pundits demonized Churchill as a “madman” and “cheerleader for terrorists” who spews vile “hate speech” tantamount to treason. Right-wing pundits like Bill O’Reilly, among others urging their listeners to flood Hamilton College, the University of Colorado, and Colorado politicians with letters of complaint demanding that Churchill be fired.

Reaction to Churchill’s views was swift and predictable at the state capitol. Colorado Governor Bill Owens declared, “all decent people … should denounce the views of Ward Churchill” since they “are at odds with simple decency.” He later demanded that he be fired from his tenure. The Colorado House of Representatives released a Joint Resolution in support of the 9/11 victims’ families and vilified Churchill for striking “an evil and inflammatory blow against America’s healing process.”

Within the Colorado university community, reaction was mixed. The reaction from the university’s administration was more controlled. The Chancellor Phil DiStefano, stated that even though Churchill’s statements was “offensive,” and that his the essay had “outraged and appalled us and the general public;” the chancellor held that Churchill had the right to “hold and express his views, no matter how repugnant, as guaranteed by the First Amendment.”

The Colorado administration suddenly decided to begin a 30-day inquiry into “Professor Churchill’s writings, speeches, tape recordings and other works.” The special panel was to look into two issues: whether Churchill’s actions “including his speech, provide any grounds for dismissal for cause” and “if so, is this conduct or speech protected by the First Amendment against University action?”

The report concluded that the First Amendment protected Churchill’s essay and that he could not be dismissed for making such statements. However, the panel determined that there were concerns regarding “standards of professional integrity,” including charges of possible “research misconduct.” The question that should have been asked, if Professor Churchill’s scholarship were an issue, wouldn’t they have discovered all this during his tenure review or during his promotion to Chair of his department, which he later resigned because of the controversy.

Make no mistake, these attacks are politically timed and motivated by the right wing to dismantle the freedom of speech on university campuses nationwide. It is spearheaded in large part by David Horowitz and his David Horowitz Freedom Center (formerly known as Center for the Study of Popular Culture) and Frontpagemag.com, and the Association of College Trustees and Alumni (ACTA). Horowitz’s is under the impression that the current political make-up on American universities is predominately left leaning. While many may see Horowitz as kook and a windbag, the fact is, that is his modus operandi.

Horowitz works closely with Karl Rove and other top national Republican leaders, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings. He has singled out professors for intellectual ridicule and political vilification. Mastering in the art of rhetoric and spin, he has been on a campaign promoting his “Academic Bill of Rights,” – the Orwellian version of valuing intellectual diversity among faculty and protecting students whose political views differ with their professors.

Aiding Horowitz in the attack on critical thinking is [tag]ACTA[/tag], the Washington-based conservative academic “watch-dog” group which released a report last year titled “How Many Ward Churchills?” attacking “undergraduate liberal arts curriculum as it exists on America’s campuses today.” ACTA was founded by Lynne Cheney, the wife of Vice President Dick Cheney, and Sen Joe Lieberman in 1995.

After 9/11, ACTA established the Defense of Civilization Fund to support the study of American history and civics and of Western civilization. The Funds first project was the notorious report written in 2001 “Defending Civilization: How Our Universities Are Failing America,” which asserted that “colleges and university faculty have been the weak link in America’s response to the attack” and to fight this weakness American history and Western civilization must be reinstituted and expanded in our colleges.

The fact remains that academe is the only sector of American society that is distinctly divided in its response. Indeed, expressions of pervasive moral relativism are a staple of academic life in this country and an apparent symptom of an educational system which has increasingly suggested that Western civilization is the primary source of the world’s ills – even though it gave us the ideals of democracy, human rights, individual liberty, and mutual tolerance. (page 5)

We believe that the West will fight for its own survival. But only if we know what we are fighting for. … We call upon all colleges and universities to adopt strong core curricula that include rigorous, broad-based courses on the great works of Western civilization as well as courses on American history, America’s Founding documents, and America’s continuing struggle to extend and defend the principles on which it was founded. If institutions fail to do so, alumni should protest, donors should fund new programs, and trustees should demand action. (page 7)

This is disturbing parallel between what is happening in academia now and the educational scenario of Germany during the Nazi build-up and consolidation of power. After Hitler came to power in 1933, political resistance was crushed. Dissent was to be silenced; professions like law and institutions that might challenge the new regime were to be subdued and recast. Eventually, the Nazi Party dominated the teaching profession by dictating who entered it and who got promoted. By the 1940s, the Nazis had a completely compliant cadre of teachers and professors.

When CU President Elizabeth Hoffman made comments suggesting that a McCarthyite atmosphere was being fanned in connection with the Churchill case, she was pressured to resign and was succeeded by one Hank Brown, who is coincidentally a co-founder of ACTA. Now that the decision is up to President Brown, there can be no doubt that ACTA and Horowitz are licking their chops waiting to see Professor Churchill get the ax.

Since September 11, 2001 many forms of mainstream liberalism have been denounced as anti-American. Anyone who believes in the democratic value of [tag]academic freedom[/tag], who understands that protecting unfettered scholarly inquiry is crucial to developing and sustaining a healthy democratic society. Without the First Amendment, we would be stuck in one way of thinking, frozen in a single moral code, and dissuaded from collective introspection and change. Freedom of speech is part of what keeps us moving forward, and we all have a responsibility to protect it.

x-posted on Scholars and Rogues