therealnews--2020-03-03--In Israel Election Annexation Wins But Palestinian Led Left Surges

All donations in the US and Canada are tax deductible .
To make a secure donation by credit or debit @ @ @ @ @ location , or select PayPal .

Israel had the highest turnout since 1999. A divided Right made gains, as did the non-Zionist left Joint List. With Netanyahu as PM, the Palestinian struggle is sure to intensify.
Story Transcript
MARC STEINER: Welcome to The Real News. I’m Marc Steiner. Great to have you all with us.
Israel just held its third election in less than a year. Votes are almost all in, and it seems that Netanyahu’s Likud Party and their ultra-Orthodox partners Shas and UTJ appear to have 59 votes, two short of a Knesset majority. Two extremely interesting results, among others, emerged out of this election. The first is the size of the turnout. It was extremely high, the highest since 1999, despite attempts to sow panic over coronavirus and other issues that affected this election and the lethargy.
The second is that the Joint List, a joint Arab-Jewish party representing the non-Zionist left and Palestinian citizens of Israel, gathered more votes than ever before–despite or because of Netanyahu’s attempt to dehumanize the party and its voters–and it appears to have picked up more Jewish votes. In the days before the election, Netanyahu toured the occupied West Bank with US Ambassador David Freedman and promised that, if elected, he’ll annex large parts of the occupied territory.
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: The mapping is on its way in order to allow the imposing of the Israeli law on these territories and later getting American recognition.
MARC STEINER: We are now joined by Haggai Matar, who is an Israeli journalist and political activist. He’s executive director of 972 Advancement for Citizen Journalism and publishes 972 Magazine. Before that, he was co-editor of the Local Call, which was a Hebrew language news site co-published with Just Vision in 972. Haggai, welcome back. Good to have you with us.
HAGGAI MATAR: Thank you very much. Good to be here, Marc.
MARC STEINER: First question is this election has a number of parts to it that are fascinating. After three elections in about a year and people seem to be weary of politics, they thought it was going to be a low turnout, they didn’t spend as much money on this election as they usually do, but it spiked. So what just happened here and why?
HAGGAI MATAR: I think we still don’t know all the reasons and we still don’t have the final matrix of who exactly are the communities in which the spike occurred. What we do know is that we’re sure Palestinian citizens of Israel have come out in greater numbers than ever before giving the Joint List, as you mentioned, a bigger advantage than ever before. That might be one of the reasons why you’ve seen kind of an overall rise in attendance and participation in the elections. We still don’t know who the other communities are who came out to vote kind of in masses. That remains to be seen in the coming few days.
MARC STEINER: So let’s talk about the Joint List for a moment. It looks like they picked up a seat. Israeli citizens are about 22% of the population, but they only hold now 15 seats as opposed to 20 or 21 that might fit that demographic. So things have shifted here. I mean it’s becoming a party that’s also gathered more Jewish votes in this last election, and it seems that their participation rate that had been low, as you were saying, is now higher. So what about this political dynamic? One of the things I read in the Economist magazine was that the Joint List was now also advertising in Hebrew, appealing to the ultra-Orthodox, appealing to Ethiopian Jews and others. You saw the Israeli left/Zionist left losing votes. Did some of those go to the Joint List? I mean, what did we just witness?
HAGGAI MATAR: So yes, very much so. Not only in Hebrew, but also in Russian, and Yiddish to reach different communities within the Jewish population–immigrant communities within the Jewish population. So there’s definitely this attempt that’s fascinating on the side of the Joint List that has been generally marked as the Arab List. And sometimes commentators on television will call it the Arab List, even though Arab is not in its name and it’s Joint List of Arabs and Jews. But there’s been this attempt to reach out to Jewish communities more than ever before. People hold political gatherings in Jewish cities and towns more than ever before. I think this is sort of an assertion on the side of the Joint List saying, “We are the leaders of the left. There’s no Jewish massive left that we are kind of the appendix to. We are the leaders of the left. We invite Jewish leftists to join us.”
That is a statement of serenity, of agency on the side of the Palestinian leaders of the Joint List. I think it’s been working very well definitely with kind of the shrinking, almost collapse of the Zionist left. We see people that are saying, “Actually this is kind of the new game in town. These are the people that are making the difference.” It’s been having this beautiful effect wherein Jews are buying into this project the more Palestinians are joining in and vice versa. When Palestinians see these campaigns happening in Hebrew and they see Jewish Israelis joining, they’re also saying, “Wait a second. Jewish Israelis are now seeing us as part of the political game. We’re interested to kind of go deeper in.” That’s why we see more both Jews and Palestinians vote for the Joint List.
MARC STEINER: I have a two-part question. Let me just start with one. So when you look at parties like Meretz which was the Zionist left and they lost in their coalition with Labor Party, they lost a lot of seats. They’re down to seven, it appears. So they once were the powerhouse inside of Israel. They founded the state of Israel, the Labor Party. So where do those votes go? Do they stay home? Did they go to Benny Gantz and the Occupation Light? Do they go to the Joint List? I mean, what do you think is happening here? I’m very curious from the inside what that means. Did the Joint List have really any effect in the Ethiopian Jewish community and other parts of the Jewish world in Israel? What can you gather this early in the results? What do they tell you?
HAGGAI MATAR: So first of all, for the Zionist left, what I think has happened is really long process of about 20 years. It started, you can say, with Ehud Barak coming back from Camp David in 2000 saying, “There is no Palestinian partner. The whole vision of peace, of Israeli peace movement, that’s dead. That’s no longer relevant.” That basically killed Zionist left and it just took it a long time to just shrink over 20 years to the point where, as you mentioned, Labor, the founding party of the state now has three seats in the common Knesset, which is really nothing out of 120.
And where did people go? You rightly asked. Some have gone to the Joint List. People that are more dovish or committed to resisting the occupation, more committed to joint Palestinian-Jewish partnership, they have gone to the Joint List. Others whose kind of sole interest is just to topple Netanyahu have joined Blue and White, the general’s party, which is basically a party that’s only mandate is to topple Netanyahu. That’s their only common denominator. Everything else you can see huge differences of opinion. Within that party, the only thing they agree on is that we should end Netanyahu’s rule. So you saw people going there. Yeah, Labor and Meretz apparently did not have enough of an appeal to get people out to vote for them.
MARC STEINER: So let’s turn to Likud and what this means. I mean they campaigned in part as… I remember seeing one thing in the election calling Netanyahu a friend of God and playing… So this huge support for him despite his perhaps facing trial. And that could be another thing we can talk about at some point, but he’s almost been pushed like a demigod in some ways by his supporters. What is that dynamic about? Who are those people? Then when you look at the larger scheme in terms of this election, the right wing parties along with the ultra-Orthodox parties really won a vast majority of the Israeli vote. I mean extreme right wing parties as well. While people kind of say, “Oh, look. The Joint List is growing. They’re the voice of the left,” it seems like the right really has hold of the consciousness of Israeli citizens.
HAGGAI MATAR: Definitely. I mean we’ve been talking about Joint List. That’s kind of an important, yet small segment of what just happened here. The bigger story is definitely the fact that the right in Israel is winning. The vast majority of Jewish Israelis have voted right, either the right such as Blue and White or more extreme forms of right like Likud and further to the right. But that’s kind of a spectrum of parties that all basically agree that the occupation needs to continue, that the seize on Gaza needs to continue, the annexation of the Jordan Valley and parts of the West Bank is legitimate, that the way that Israel has been leading itself vis-a-vis Iran and other countries in the Middle East is exactly the way to go, and that the economy is just run exactly the way that it should be.
So all those things are very, very essential in my mind to the questions what it means to be Israeli, what is the future of Israel and Palestine, are basically not point of argument. That is a huge victory for the right. It’s a huge victory for Netanyahu, who for over a decade has been successful in kind of convincing Israelis that his policy is–and this is true–leading to growing financial prosperity, economic prosperity, more security for Israelis than ever before. The past decade has been one of the more peaceful ones for Israelis with the least casualties on the Israeli side that Israelis can remember for a very, very long time. So all these things basically kind of reaffirm that Netanyahu’s policy is right. Then the only arguments that you have within the right is should Netanyahu be the one to continue leading those policies or should it be someone else. Then you go into kind of more detail of should the country be more religious or slightly more secular, but kind of the big questions, the right has won the discussion.
MARC STEINER: So let’s close with this. I’m curious to take this one more step. So when you look at the Trump plan that was just an absurd plan around Israel, Palestine, hardly even mentioning the Palestinians, and Netanyahu making very clear that annexation may step up and continue and then he campaigned talking about Arabs want to destroy us all, where does this leave the future? I mean you’ve written in the past, Haggai, some things that were kind of not [Pollyanne-ish 00:10:45] at all, but optimistic, saying things can change. Where does this leave the next year, two years, three years with annexation going into the West Bank, taking not just settlements, but making them part of Israel proper? I mean what do you think is about to happen? What do you think we’re about to see, where the struggle will go next?
HAGGAI MATAR: Well first of all, it’s hard to say because as you mentioned, we still don’t know who’s going to form a government. The possibility of a fourth round of elections is still out there. We don’t know what kind of a government we’ll have. So it’s very hard to predict exactly what things will look like. What we do is that annexation has been happening on the ground anyway. My colleague [Marin Rappaport 00:11:24] has written very precisely that one of the reasons that Netanyahu has not been able to really kind of get people behind him specifically around the deal of the century, he came back saying, “This is an historic event. We finally got recognition. We finally got acceptance for annexation,” and generally Israelis were like, “Okay. That’s fine.” Nobody was excited. Nobody was celebrating. The reason is because that annexation has become a fact on the ground already, that the kind of stamp, legal stamp on it probably doesn’t mean that much to people.
So we might see more of that legal stamp, but the reality on the ground has been happening for a very long time. You asked about kind of optimism. I think one of the things that real annexation, legal annexation and the US support for such annexation might cause, would be for progressives and for countries around the world to really need to rethink their policy of Israel. For 25 years, almost 30 years of the complete demise of any sort of peace process, you’ve had the world basically saying, “This place is going to two-state solution. It’s about to happen. We just need to keep it on life support for the time being.” I think that reality is just no longer there. Israel is very clearly not interested. Israelis are very not interested in ending the occupation. The White House is supporting Israel in maintaining the occupation. Now, we need people to decide.
I think one of the things that’s happening and it’s probably very relevant today on Super Tuesday looking at candidates, seeing how are they responding, how are they thinking about holding Israel to account with all these actions of occupation, human rights abuse, annexation, and so on. So I think what gives me hope is seeing the shifts in the progressive discourse in different places, most in the US, about Israel. I think that might be something that would lead to change here.
MARC STEINER: I mean it might even be that, if you look at some of the polling among Palestinian Israelis, the idea of being part of the government, A, and B, for a singular democratic state of all Palestinians and Israelis in one place could pick up steam the more the occupation continues and gains strength. That could be the political opposition. That would be an interesting dynamic to watch over the next coming years if we have that much time.
HAGGAI MATAR: I don’t think that that will work. I don’t see Jewish Israelis binding to such an idea. They would more likely kind of backtrack to, “Okay. Okay. Let’s go back to two states. That will make more sense.” We could see that. I think it’s more likely, but definitely. I mean this is polarizing. This is a time for change. We’ve seen kind of the status quo sustain itself for a very long time. I think it’s kind of running out of options in terms of how to keep up things exactly as they are.
MARC STEINER: Well, Haggai Matar, thank you so much for joining us here today on The Real News. We look forward to many more conversations and look forward to more of your work and writing at 972. Thanks for your work and thanks for being part of our discussion.
HAGGAI MATAR: Thank you very much for having me.
MARC STEINER: My pleasure. I’m Marc Steiner here for The Real News Network. Thank you all for joining us. Let us know what you think. Take care.
Studio: Dwayne Gladden, Taylor Hebden
Production: Genevieve Montinar, Taylor Hebden, Andrew Corkery
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-03-03--Venezuela’s Revolutionary Humanized Birth Plan

Despite U.S. sanctions, medicine shortages, and on-going economic crisis, Venezuela has been quietly implementing one of the world’s first nationwide plans to support pregnant women across the country and to humanize birth in Venezuela.
Story Transcript
MICHAEL FOX: This is a story you likely haven’t heard. It’s a story about empowerment in unexpected places. It’s a story about hope amid crisis. Venezuela is that county. U.S. sanctions are rattling the economy. Inflation is through the roof. Medicine is scarce and expensive. Hospitals are in bad shape. But according to Health Minister Carlos Alvarado, maternal mortality has actually dropped in recent years.
MARITZA TORRES: I attribute it to the impact of the actions of the National Humanized Birth Plan.
MICHAEL FOX: That’s Maritza Torres. She’s a mother, a grandmother, and a long-time social worker and doula, someone who gives support to women before, during and after birth. She’s also currently one of the trainers of thousands of birth facilitators in a landmark nationwide plan in Venezuela to provide birth support to every pregnant woman in the country.
MARITZA TORRES: The National Humanized Birth Plan was born in July 2017. And it was created because one of the few millennium goals that we couldn’t reach was the issue of maternal death. We had, and still have, maternal death far too high. President Nicolas Maduro took a very heroic step within the terrible context of the multifaceted war that we are facing. And he highlighted that this issue of caring for our women, protecting our women–and particularly those who are carrying life and giving birth–was more important than anything else. And from his own experience as a father, because his children were also born in humanized births, he brought as a top priority, the creation of a national Humanized Birth Plan. And when we talk about a national plan, this is a state policy so that women receive ongoing support.
Usually when we talk about state policies, it means that you have to go ask for an appointment or fill out a bunch of paperwork and it takes a while for you to benefit from the support. Well, this was different. And it was an incredible idea because it created a plan to educate the women and the leaders in the poorest communities where the humble women die during childbirth because they don’t have anyone to attend to them and they don’t have knowledge about how it works. Through these women, these community leaders who participate in women’s movements and other organizations in the Bolivarian process, they said: “I want to be a community promotor of humanized birth,” which is a new figure that was created especially for this plan. They received training and education which was provided by those of us with experience in humanized birth.
With this plan, our dreams are being realized. Because as doulas and birth facilitators, we wanted the women of Venezuela’s poorest communities to also receive this support and this education, this preparation, so that their experience in pre, during ,and post-birth with breast-feeding was harmonious and they wouldn’t have to pay for it. And this miracle was created with president Maduro. He created the plan, and we all jumped on board. And in the beginning, it was amazing because the women came in the thousands wanting to be trained. Of course, we couldn’t train them all at the same time.
The plan said 10,000 women should be trained. Why 10,000? Because according to the statistics, 500,000 babies are born each year in Venezuela. So that would mean that 500,000 were pregnant and had their babies. So the idea is that each of these 10,000 women promotors could accompany 50 women over one year. The idea is that each woman could have support. There’s something important to highlight here. We are not just talking about just giving them classes. This is not about teaching them about a law. This is not about something that is outside of the interests of these women. Sometimes they are alone. Sometimes they are in very vulnerable situations not just financially, but with domestic violence. So it’s important that the women are close to where they live.
The promoter should go do her work in the community where she lives, and she will contact the pregnant women in her neighborhood or the women who are nursing. And she is going to support them and accompany them to live their experience in a more conscious way. We want for women who decide to continue with their pregnancy, because that’s their decision, we want them to be conscious that they need to take care of themselves; that they need to go to the doctor; that they need to take their vitamins; that if there is domestic violence, the Venezuelan state has policies and laws that protect the rights of the women against violence. Many women don’t know, in particular women in the poorest communities. So promotors have the tools and the information, and they help women to become empowered; that they feel that they are no longer alone.
On the day of the birth, the promotor is not going to accompany the mother because we haven’t yet trained birth facilitators or doulas. But what they are going to do is give them the tools. The National Humanized Birth Plan has a key component, which are the pregnancy birth circles. This is a meeting that takes place once a week for two hours. The humanized birth promotor, who was trained to facilitate this, brings the mothers together in their community close to where they live. During these two hours, we do three important things. The first half-hour we do physical activity, which are all prenatal activities. Afterward, one hour of sharing ideas and Shared Reflection over basic issues: food; rest; nutrition; the issue of interpersonal relations, which is so important during pregnancy–strengthening this connection with the baby inside.
We discuss all of these issues that are dealt with in private sector. And after all of this, we do relaxation; creative visualization; creating the place of our dreams; and giving women the same tools that you pay for in the private sector so that they can, within their own context, in their barrio, experience a happy pregnancy. We talk about first, a desired maternity, safe because they are supported and happy; to enjoy maternity. And fathers and family members come to these meetings, and if the mothers have other children. In other words, it’s communal work. Our Constitution has a very important pillar: that is co-responsibility. What does that mean in the world of humanized birth?
When a woman gets pregnant and decides to have the baby, it’s not just her that’s pregnant. It’s her partner, although he’s not there, he’s also pregnant; her mother; her brothers and sisters; her relatives; her other children. It’s a community and how can we help her. Her boss is pregnant if she is working; her friends and neighbors are pregnant; and the Venezuelan state is pregnant, which is co-responsible to care for her life. Because in Venezuela, life is important. Yeah, we have a lot of problems. It’s true that a lot of women still die. There are still places that can’t or don’t want to treat the women. But now, the National Humanized Birth Plan was a brilliant idea from the beginning. The idea is for the promotors to work hand-in-hand with the local Barrio Adentro community health clinics which are located throughout the country in every barrio.
Nevertheless, this aspect hadn’t been implemented as completely as we had wanted. So recently, president Maduro, during an event commemorating the health mission, he said that Barrio Adentro now should assume control of humanized birth. That doesn’t mean that we are going to stop our work, but rather that now this connection is strengthened. The Women’s Ministry does not deal with the medical realm. What we have to do is join the two. And this brings up another fundamental principle of our Constitution and our revolutionary policies. It’s not just a ministry, it’s everything. I am profoundly thankful. I wish everywhere in the world could have an idea about what we are doing here. People need information.
We in Venezuela are suffering under this savage war; ruthless. But we will overcome. We will overcome. Because we believe, and we love this country. I’m 71 years old. And I am happy to be able to serve my country in this area, humanized birth, which is one of the most beautiful things in life. We’ve been at it for three years, fighting for the Humanized Birth Plan, for humanized birth. And this fills me with joy. Sister doulas, midwives throughout the world, you need to know that here in Venezuela we are working for the same cause. The international week for humanized birth is in mid-May, and the slogan is always: Women, be respected; women, demand your rights; women, don’t let them treat you with violence. It’s your physiological process that Mother Earth made you perfectly to have it.
We need to take back our power and the information–the education, the knowledge and consciousness of who we are. That’s what gives us strength. We need to remember that we are women.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-03-03--Turkey Weaponizing Refugees as Idlib Fight Escalates

Turkey opens European border allowing refugees to flee, Greek military tear gases refugees. Why? To force EU to back Turkey in Syria while Russia backs Assad.
Story Transcript
MARC STEINER: Welcome to The Real News. I’m Marc Steiner. Good to have you all with us.
Refugees are now streaming over the border, the Turkish border, by land and sea to Greece and Bulgaria. The Turks had agreed to a multibillion dollar deal with the European Union to keep Syrian refugees in Turkey. So why are they opening their borders? Well, it starts with a battle in Idlib that’s really escalating. Last week, 33 Turkish soldiers were killed by the Syrian military because the Turkish troops were there to aid the rebels currently trying to fight for control of Idlib. Foremost among those groups, it’s interesting to talk about, is Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which is affiliated with Al Qaeda. Now Turkish president Erdogan is stepping up the war. Now, he’s killed 19 Syrian soldiers, at least, with a drone strike on Monday.
The Turkish prime minister is trying to force the EU to support Turkey in Northern Syria and reports from Idlib speak of nearly a million people being displaced by this fighting. So as he announced Friday, he’ll open the border to allow refugees from Idlib to march straight to Europe if UE does not support him. Now he’s literally manipulating the xenophobia and racism in Europe to gather international support for his military incursions. Within hours of his announcement, NATO held an emergency meeting, condemned the attacks by the Syrian military, and started preparations for an intervention in Syria. We’ll see what that really means. And just hours ago, Erdogan announced he was flying Thursday to meet with Putin. Meanwhile, the refugees are being played with their lives, pawns in a great global conflict.
And we’re joined once again by professor Edmund Ghareeb, who teaches at the American University in Washington and at the George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs. He’s the first Mustafa Barzani Distinguished Scholar in Global Kurdish Studies at AU in D.C. His most recent book is The Historical Dictionary of Iraq, co-written with Beth Dougherty. And Edmund, welcome back, good to have you with us.
EDMUND GHAREEB: Thank you very much.
MARC STEINER: So this is such a convoluted situation. Let’s talk a bit about what some people are positing as part of the strategy here, which is that Erdogan thinks that if he opens the floodgates, and allows refugees to come through using them, that he will force Europe to back him in Syria. Now, how real is that?
EDMUND GHAREEB: Well, there is no doubt that the President Erdogan is in a very difficult spot right now in part because of his own policies towards Syria and towards the region. But Turkey really faces a big problem. You will have about over three million refugees already inside Turkey. The fighting that’s taking place now in Northern Syria and an attempt by the Syrian military to regain control of the two main highways, one the M5 and M4, which link Aleppo, which is the economic capital of Syria, with Damascus and with Latakia on the Mediterranean Sea. So basically this attempt by the Syrian government, which has at least made some gains in opening some parts of these roads, the M4 is still blocked.
Also, there was a takeover of the city of Saraqib, a strategic city which connects both the M4 and M5. And then the Syrian opposition with the help of the Turkish military were able to regain control over last week of the city of Saraqib, which they had controlled since the early days of the conflict in Syria. But today, there are a news stories that the Syrian army has regained control over Saraqib, and so that they are going to be at least able to open one of the roads, and that there is still fighting going on in the Zawiya Mountain area, which also links a road between Aleppo and Latakia. So that is putting a lot of pressure on the Turkish government, which after the attacks began demanded that the Syrian government return to its early positions before the advances that they made. And of course, that’s highly unlikely.
MARC STEINER: But do you think that this move by the Turkish government to open borders allowing refugees in will change what the EU is doing? We saw today he saying he was going to meet with Putin, we saw that that Trump had said that he’s going to try to push the EU into giving Patriot systems and helping to help the Turks. So the question is, I mean, will this work? I mean, will the EU acquiesce? Will they continue giving money to Turkey? I mean that’s part of the game here, right?
EDMUND GHAREEB: That’s a very, very good question. Primarily because on the one hand, the Turks before the fighting started and as things appear to be, we’re going to see some escalation there. The Turkish government said that it does not need NATO, does not need the Europeans, and they have the capability to go with this conflict on their own. However, what we saw since then is that Turkey has requested missile batteries from the United States, or even from the Europeans, and they have asked NATO to intervene. Although NATO was not consulted when Turkey sent its troops inside another country’s territory and to Idlib. And now Turkey’s expecting help and saying that it’s the responsibility of NATO to help. Although, as we know, the NATO charter basically says that if a member country is attacked, then the other countries are committed to helping it. But it does not say that if you attack another country that we are to support you.
And today it became clear that the Secretary of Defense Esper said that the United States is not likely to support Turkey in Idlib militarily. Of course, the idea that there may be some logistical support, some intelligence support, maybe some equipment might be given to Turkey. But that question of the US becoming involved, that’s a very difficult… a different question. It’s very difficult. President Trump now is basically saying he’s the one who implements his promises and he has this agreed to reach an agreement with the Taliban where he’s going to pull US forces from Afghanistan. So he’s not likely to jump into another war, especially on the eve of the election.
MARC STEINER: So what’s going on now, though? You have Russia in the mix. Russia backs Assad, clearly, and has been backing Assad for a long time. They didn’t say anything when the Turkish government went across the border into Kurdish territories. They made a $400 million deal with Turkey for an air defense system. But now the conflict is literally between Russia, Syria on one side and Turkey on the other. So where can this go? I mean, what could this lead to? I mean, and also given that Erdogan’s talking about seeing Putin sometime this week.
EDMUND GHAREEB: Yes, Erdogan was trying to get the Europeans and the US to support him. Once he realized that the Russians were supporting the Syrian position, particularly because the Russians believed that Erdogan did not fulfill his promises, his commitments, according to the Sochi agreement. They were supposed to separate the radical from the moderate forces in Syria. It was supposed to disarm or at least take away the heavy weapons from Al-Qaida and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which you mentioned earlier. They were also supposed to help open the two main highways to traffic for trade M4 and M5. And he did not fulfill these, so the Russians believed that, although that was supposed to take place before the end of 2018, that the Turkish government had more than one year and a half to do that. And they did not implement it, so they decided to support the Syrian government stand.
Now President Erdogan decided that this would threaten his position, his ambitions, his role in Turkey, and of course the groups that he supported, members of the Syrian opposition inside Syria. So he decided to challenge the Syrian Army. And with the support of the Russians, what we saw is that there was an attack that took place against Turkish forces where 33 soldiers were killed, and tens of soldiers were wounded. Now, interestingly, the Turkish president did not blame the Russians. He blamed the Syrian army. And that meant that although he had recently angered President Putin, he did not want to break the ties with Putin, especially if he could not count on Western support. But he went to the Ukraine. He said he would help train the Ukrainian army. He also said that the Crimea should be returned to the Ukraine, which of course infuriated the Russians. So that’s another issue.
So what he is trying to use now, as you pointed out, the refugees, this is a potent weapon against the Europeans. The Europeans found out that having this large number of refugees is likely to have tremendous effects on the domestic politics of the European countries–whether it’s Germany, whether it’s Italy, whether it’s Greece, whether it’s France–for two reasons. One, because there are terrorists who could join these refugees, and we have seen attacks in a number of European cities. The second factor is the rising xenophobia within some of the European countries because of this influx of foreign refugees, mainly Syrian refugees. And so as a result, we see today that the Greek government has decided it’s not going to allow any what they call illegal refugee or immigrant into their territory. And they’ve sent their troops as well as their police into the area to prevent this influx of refugees.
The European Union also is in a difficult spot. On the one hand, they know that they are being manipulated, they are being pressured by Turkey. And in fact, they find themselves in a very tough position with their own domestic populations and amongst themselves. Because some of the Europeans, particularly the East Europeans, take a much tougher line against influx of refugees. So now they have to decide whether they are going to support, provide assistance and aid for Turkey, or whether they’re going to help Turkey in its Syria campaign. I find it difficult to believe that the Europeans are going to become involved in another confrontation in Syria, particularly since they have had problems recently with Turkey as a result of an agreement between Libya and Turkey concerning the oil and gas in the Mediterranean, which brought conflict between Greece and Cyprus and Egypt with Turkey. And also because of the Turkish intervention in Libya and supporting the government in Tripoli. These are issues which are of a great deal of concern to the Europeans.
MARC STEINER: It is. We don’t have time to do this today, but it’s really interesting. We said that complexity’s all part of what’s happening now. It’s almost how… We’re watching the shadow of the Ottoman Empire rising in the mist.
EDMUND GHAREEB: Yes.
MARC STEINER: All right. Let me just close with this very quickly. In the middle of all this, we can’t forget the weaponizing of refugees, and the situation of the refugees in Syria and Turkey at this moment; and living in the camps in Greece and Bulgaria. And hard camps, really. That’s a piece of this and all the politics that we also come out to get.
EDMUND GHAREEB: Yeah. That’s the tragedy. I think the real tragedy of what’s happening in Syria. That we’re seeing also a lot of hypocrisy on the parts of different countries which speak about caring for refugees and wanting to solve the problem of the refugees and help with this humanitarian crisis. But in reality, we find that many countries are closing their doors. Which to a certain extent, you can understand that in some places. But nevertheless, the fact that there are severe sanctions on the Syrian populations, very harsh sanctions, the Syrians are paying a very heavy price both within their own country and in a number of other countries. Lebanon, for example, is a small country of four million people. It has about one and a half million Syrian refugees.
MARC STEINER: Right.
EDMUND GHAREEB: Turkey is a country of close to 18 million people, much larger territory, and complaining about three and a half million refugees. And of course that’s also a legitimate concern, because the Turkish population were becoming very angered, very much angered by the presence of Syrian refugees. And also by the rumors that president Erdogan may give citizenships to many of these Syrians to help him electorally inside Turkey. And in fact, that’s why we saw this defeat of the AK Parti. In part, that’s one of the main reasons the AK Parti lost control of cities like Istanbul, which is almost like a third of the population of Turkey. And Ankara and a number of other major cities.
MARC STEINER: It’s a complex story. And Edmund Ghareeb, I appreciate you taking time with us here at The Real News and helping us unpack it.
EDMUND GHAREEB: Thank you. It’s a pleasure. Thank you.
MARC STEINER: And of course, it’s one of the stories we will be staying on top of. And I’m Marc Steiner here for The Real News Network. Let us know what you think. Take care.
Studio: Adam Coley, Will Arenas
Production: Genevieve Montinar, Will Arenas, Andrew Corkery
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-03-03--California Agrees to Pay $53 Million for Neglecting Black and Brown Students

KIM BROWN : Welcome to The Real News .
I ’ m Kim Brown .
So imagine sending your kid to school every day and by the time they reach the third grade , they still can ’ t read .
That ’ s what ’ s been happening with children attending underperforming elementary schools in California .
Kids either reading far below their grade level or not being able to read it all .
Well , some parents , teachers and advocacy groups banded together and sued the state , arguing that literacy is a constitutional right .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 53 million settlement , much of which will be earmarked towards 75 schools that needed it the most .
And today we ’ re joined with Maisie Chin .
Maisie is from a group called Cadre , which is an organization that was one of the lead plaintiffs in this lawsuit .
Cadre is led by black and Latino parents whose kids attend the Los Angeles Unified School District and they work to stop the push out crisis in schools serving low income neighborhoods of color .
Maisie is the executive director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joins us today from New York .
Maisie , thank you so much for being here .
MAISIE CHIN : Thank you for having me .
KIM BROWN : So let ’ s get some more information about exactly what the nuts and bolts of the suit was .
This was filed back in 2017 and it named California ’ s Department of Education and State Board of Education as defendants .
And a girl named Ella was the lead plaintiff .
So , what were the circumstances that compelled this lawsuit ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ just want to put in context , given your introduction that this is obviously clearly a national crisis .
So we recognize the opportunity to really push the state of California , given that we do have the right to education in our state constitution .
To really start to look at the pillars that impede and that if the pillars are not in place that quality education is just not achievable .
And so we took literacy , there were a group of students in both Los Angeles and Stockton who were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I mean they were even behind in some cases in first and second grade .
And that they were being approached with this idea of telling their story , but there was also older kids who had been behind in their earlier grades .
And so we were seeing both immediate impact as well as students who had already suffered from not being able to read in an early grade .
KIM BROWN : When you say that children were reading many grades below their level , it really set in my mind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all , how we are over 60 years removed from Brown vs Board of Education and separate but equal was ruled unconstitutional .
And yet a lot of areas , a lot of school systems are still dealing with that exact thing .
MAISIE CHIN : Absolutely .
I think that ’ s what I wanted to say is this is a long road .
It ’ s , like we ’ ve sort of made a dent in another part of the road .
As many folks know , this is all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the educational process .
The basic needs that need to be met to ensure that literacy can even be achieved .
Those are things that we ’ re all still fighting for .
So the promise of the right to literacy is really what inspired this lawsuit and inspired Cadre to join it .
Because many of our parents were those same children decades ago but they were living their adult lives trying to be advocates , successful advocates for their children who are still going to school in the same systems of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this right to literacy is really intergenerational struggle .
That ’ s why our parents decided for Cadre to join it .
And when they heard the stories of young people who were eight or nine and couldn ’ t write their name or were unable to demonstrate a complete sentence , it brought them back to their own literacy journeys .
And I think that ’ s what ’ s really been the biggest opportunity here is to actually share the intergenerational impact of this crisis .
KIM BROWN : So there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can relate to being under taught or ill prepared going through public school .
But then there is some people who can not relate to what you ’ re talking about at all .
So if these children were being sent to school every day , what did their school day consist of ?
If they weren ’ t being taught how to read and write , what were they doing ?
MAISIE CHIN : Well , I think that is a great mystery .
One of the plaintiffs in our lawsuit , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the schools where a couple of the plaintiff ’ s students went to school , really shared stories about the fact that when you ’ re disengaged from what you ’ re being taught or you don ’ t understand it obviously , and there are other things possibly going on at home or in your surroundings that that leads primarily to behavioral issues or challenges or behavior .
It manifests this behavior .
And so many cases there was attempts to do instruction but without those additional supports be it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ culturally respectful and responsive and relevant materials at the time for that one on one type of instruction .
Without those supports , without that model , and everyone reading at the same time , the same page at the same hour of the day , the children who fall behind are definitely just going to become more and more disengaged .
And that ’ s why we really saw this as an opportunity to link the two together .
What we really saw this as an opportunity to say there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get pushed out .
There is a disengagement that is happening because the conditions for learning are not there .
And often low test scores are blamed just on the student being not on par .
And Mr Moak and others and our parents and we have also always known for decades that not being able to read leads usually to behavioral challenges that then cause children to be pushed out .
KIM BROWN : So I want you to go back and define if you could the term push out because I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a generally known term or it ’ s not universal .
So tell me what you mean by preventing push out of students , especially students of color that come from certain neighborhoods in LA .
MAISIE CHIN : So that is actually a great question .
This term push out .
I realized as I was using it that it may not be as familiar .
So I appreciate the chance to explain that for us , push out is really shifting the focus of what most people would consider drop out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school and not finishing school .
Push out really refers to the reality that there are numerous pressures and forces and conditions that often lead me to leaving school as really the best option .
When we first started doing this work a couple of decades ago there were also many , many stories of children sort of in council though , because it just wasn ’ t worth it for them to keep coming .
And it ’ s almost like if they were counted on the roster , then they had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t show up for the test but they didn ’ t do that well , certainly that hurts a lot of schools bottom lines .
And there has been a couple of decades where students were actually either encouraged to leave by counselors and school personnel or they actually left because nothing was actually in place for them to succeed .
And the trauma of then being in a place that you completely don ’ t relate to .
KIM BROWN : So some of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit hail from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Elementary in LA , Van Buren Elementary in Stockton , and another school in Inglewood .
I ’ m sorry , the name escapes me at the moment .
The children who were part of this lawsuit came from these schools .
What engaged them to , I guess , be selected to be part of this lawsuit ?
To be the plaintiffs .
And what was their take about it ?
How did the kids feel and did they understand exactly what was happening in terms of this lawsuit moving forward ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ like this that are based on children ’ s experiences , it takes a long process of building a relationship of trust , primarily with the parents to , you know , I have multiple interviews to really find out what ’ s going .
Our attorneys did a lot of groundwork before we even actually got introduced to the lawsuit .
There had already been a lot of fact finding , story gathering .
And really at the end of the day , I want to just say , I think it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the parent and their parent or guardian really feeling that they can share their story without retaliation , without backlash .
And so that ’ s a necessary condition , I think for most of these lawsuits to even come forth .
And so they ended up spending time with attorneys and really telling their story over and over again , trying to find out exactly what the type of instruction they got .
When the parents advocated for their students and went to the office and said , “ My child @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s responses ?
And certainly the parent ’ s story of advocacy around their children that repeatedly asking for more support and not getting it , that was also part of the story .
And then certainly our attorneys looked at writing samples and books that compared these students at these schools to other students around the state .
Looked at the resources that were devoted to literacy , compared those to other places around the state .
So , really it was a composite , I would say of lots of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ picture .
Literacy was in crisis , but certainly there was not the urgency and the supports to address it .
KIM BROWN : In fact , according to the lawsuit , 11 of the nation ’ s 26 lowest performing large school districts are in California .
And some of the plaintiffs , as I mentioned , hail from schools in that area .
But another component of the settlement , and tell me Maisie if I ’ m getting this right or wrong , is that the state has to advise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reduce the disparity in disproportionate rates of discipline between black and brown students versus that of white and Asian students .
Can you elaborate on that for us ?
MAISIE CHIN : Well that is one of the most , for us at Cadre and our parent leaders who ’ ve been working on school push out and ending it for 18 years , that was a very important part of the remedies that we sought .
We wanted to make sure that a crisis in literacy or a low test score @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much bigger picture .
That these students were attending schools that have always been poorly resourced , under resource .
And at LaSalle there was a momentary investment and infusion of resources .
Wonderful materials , a special intervention program designed for the most struggling readers , a faculty member who is dedicated and devoted to servings young people .
That to teach the class there was all kinds of supports put in place .
And then those supports were taken away because the grant was over for whatever reason , the resources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was that if the resources were there , even in the most dire situations , that progress could be made .
And I think what ’ s important about this lawsuit is that when those resources are not there , and to link it , as I mentioned earlier , to this notion that when you ’ re disengaged from learning and you start acting up , and first of all you might be six or seven or eight years old , that in the schools that are more resourced and supposedly higher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crises with resources and support .
In the very under-resourced schools , these crises are often left to linger .
Students are passed on getting further and further behind .
So they accumulate being behind at even greater degrees and then it becomes much more difficult to address later on even if there are more resources .
So what we ’ re hoping is that by serving these elementary schools , catching these students at the earliest stages , earliest indications of being behind , the other effects of poverty , whether it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , having parents who are incarcerated or not having your parents period .
You know , not having physical safety and security .
That all these root causes are analyzed as part of the problem .
And that the solutions that these schools , if they are eligible to receive the money and they apply to receive some extra infusion of money , that they will address this problem holistically .
And address the conditions that other conditions that are necessary for any literacy intervention to actually be successful .
KIM BROWN : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 53 million with the state of California .
It still has to be approved , I believe , by the state legislature .
And $ 50 million is supposed to go directly to 75 underperforming schools .
My obvious question is , is that enough money and how long will $ 50 million last 75 schools given the amount of , I guess you could say neglect that these students have endured , as you mentioned , over a period of generations .
MAISIE CHIN : So $ 50 million is half @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bucket .
And we know that .
So the hope is that in the three years that we have , we can use this additional $ 50 million , that it will set a precedent .
And so it will guide other districts , other schools to begin to opt in to using their resources as well .
Any district at any time could essentially create the very same program that this settlement includes .
And they could inspire and cause their schools to do a root cause analysis to address this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be used for the other sort of associating factors that impede a child ’ s ability to learn .
Most of the time funding is restricted from doing that .
I ’ s often very , very prescriptive .
And so we are truthfully hoping that this is a precedent setting .
It creates a template to learn from and to figure out how best to deploy our resources going into the future , especially when California ’ s up and has choices ahead of us in November to actually create a huge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still have to be much better at how we deploy them .
And quite frankly , our parent leaders have seen money been thrown at the problem for decades .
And yet the fact that we had to file this lawsuit was proof positive that money in and of itself is not the answer .
It ’ s really how we ’ re deployed .
The truth of the matter that is allowed to come to the surface whether parents are fully engaged in the solution , whether the intergenerational effects of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in is taken into account .
And it was very important for us that coming out of this , that a lack of literacy is not blamed on the child , the child is not solely to blame and neither is the parent or neither is the community .
And that we start to humanize this literacy crisis .
One that is happening in so many communities around the country , certainly not just in California .
KIM BROWN : Exactly .
Well 11 out of 26 which is nearly half of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are in California .
And hopefully the settlement of the lawsuit , Ella T vs the State of California in which the state has agreed to settle for $ 53 million to contribute to underperforming schools .
And to address literacy rates among children , especially in the third grade is where this benchmark was mainly set .
So we ’ ve been speaking today with Maisie Chin from the group Cadre , which is an organization , one of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit .
Cadre is led by black and Latino @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Los Angeles Unified School District , and they work to stop the push out crisis in schools serving low income neighborhoods of color .
Maisie , we appreciate your time today .
Thank you so much .
MAISIE CHIN : Thank you so much for having us so we could share this story about why we joined this historic lawsuit .
Thank you .
KIM BROWN : And thank you for watching the Real News network .

California parents and teachers won the settlement by arguing that literacy is a constitutional right. The generational neglect of schools in communities of color shows ‘separate but equal’ is still the norm in California public schools.
Story Transcript
KIM BROWN: Welcome to The Real News. I’m Kim Brown. So imagine sending your kid to school every day and by the time they reach the third grade, they still can’t read. That’s what’s been happening with children attending underperforming elementary schools in California. Kids either reading far below their grade level or not being able to read it all. Well, some parents, teachers and advocacy groups banded together and sued the state, arguing that literacy is a constitutional right. And now California has agreed to pay a $53 million settlement, much of which will be earmarked towards 75 schools that needed it the most. And today we’re joined with Maisie Chin. Maisie is from a group called Cadre, which is an organization that was one of the lead plaintiffs in this lawsuit. Cadre is led by black and Latino parents whose kids attend the Los Angeles Unified School District and they work to stop the push out crisis in schools serving low income neighborhoods of color. Maisie is the executive director and co founder of Cadre and she joins us today from New York. Maisie, thank you so much for being here.
MAISIE CHIN: Thank you for having me.
KIM BROWN: So let’s get some more information about exactly what the nuts and bolts of the suit was. This was filed back in 2017 and it named California’s Department of Education and State Board of Education as defendants. And a girl named Ella was the lead plaintiff. So, what were the circumstances that compelled this lawsuit?
MAISIE CHIN: Well, certainly I just want to put in context, given your introduction that this is obviously clearly a national crisis. So we recognize the opportunity to really push the state of California, given that we do have the right to education in our state constitution. To really start to look at the pillars that impede and that if the pillars are not in place that quality education is just not achievable.
And so we took literacy, there were a group of students in both Los Angeles and Stockton who were reading three, four levels below. I mean they were even behind in some cases in first and second grade. And that they were being approached with this idea of telling their story, but there was also older kids who had been behind in their earlier grades. And so we were seeing both immediate impact as well as students who had already suffered from not being able to read in an early grade.
KIM BROWN: When you say that children were reading many grades below their level, it really set in my mind a couple of things. First of all, how we are over 60 years removed from Brown vs Board of Education and separate but equal was ruled unconstitutional. And yet a lot of areas, a lot of school systems are still dealing with that exact thing.
MAISIE CHIN: Absolutely. I think that’s what I wanted to say is this is a long road. It’s, like we’ve sort of made a dent in another part of the road. As many folks know, this is all stemming from decades of historical exclusion from the educational process. The basic needs that need to be met to ensure that literacy can even be achieved. Those are things that we’re all still fighting for. So the promise of the right to literacy is really what inspired this lawsuit and inspired Cadre to join it. Because many of our parents were those same children decades ago but they were living their adult lives trying to be advocates, successful advocates for their children who are still going to school in the same systems of maybe worse conditions actually. And so this right to literacy is really intergenerational struggle. That’s why our parents decided for Cadre to join it. And when they heard the stories of young people who were eight or nine and couldn’t write their name or were unable to demonstrate a complete sentence, it brought them back to their own literacy journeys. And I think that’s what’s really been the biggest opportunity here is to actually share the intergenerational impact of this crisis.
KIM BROWN: So there’s a lot of people that can relate to being under taught or ill prepared going through public school. But then there is some people who cannot relate to what you’re talking about at all. So if these children were being sent to school every day, what did their school day consist of? If they weren’t being taught how to read and write, what were they doing?
MAISIE CHIN: Well, I think that is a great mystery. One of the plaintiffs in our lawsuit, Mr Moak who was a teacher at one of the schools where a couple of the plaintiff’s students went to school, really shared stories about the fact that when you’re disengaged from what you’re being taught or you don’t understand it obviously, and there are other things possibly going on at home or in your surroundings that that leads primarily to behavioral issues or challenges or behavior. It manifests this behavior.
And so many cases there was attempts to do instruction but without those additional supports be it enough teachers, enough individual attention, culturally respectful and responsive and relevant materials at the time for that one on one type of instruction. Without those supports, without that model, and everyone reading at the same time, the same page at the same hour of the day, the children who fall behind are definitely just going to become more and more disengaged. And that’s why we really saw this as an opportunity to link the two together. What we really saw this as an opportunity to say there’s a reason why young people and children get pushed out. There is a disengagement that is happening because the conditions for learning are not there. And often low test scores are blamed just on the student being not on par.
And Mr Moak and others and our parents and we have also always known for decades that not being able to read leads usually to behavioral challenges that then cause children to be pushed out.
KIM BROWN: So I want you to go back and define if you could the term push out because I don’t think it’s a generally known term or it’s not universal. So tell me what you mean by preventing push out of students, especially students of color that come from certain neighborhoods in LA.
MAISIE CHIN: So that is actually a great question. This term push out. I realized as I was using it that it may not be as familiar. So I appreciate the chance to explain that for us, push out is really shifting the focus of what most people would consider drop out and then the individual act of leaving school and not finishing school. Push out really refers to the reality that there are numerous pressures and forces and conditions that often lead me to leaving school as really the best option.
When we first started doing this work a couple of decades ago there were also many, many stories of children sort of in council though, because it just wasn’t worth it for them to keep coming. And it’s almost like if they were counted on the roster, then they had to be tested. If they didn’t show up for the test but they didn’t do that well, certainly that hurts a lot of schools bottom lines. And there has been a couple of decades where students were actually either encouraged to leave by counselors and school personnel or they actually left because nothing was actually in place for them to succeed. And the trauma of then being in a place that you completely don’t relate to.
KIM BROWN: So some of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit hail from three specific elementary schools: LaSalle Avenue Elementary in LA, Van Buren Elementary in Stockton, and another school in Inglewood. I’m sorry, the name escapes me at the moment. The children who were part of this lawsuit came from these schools. What engaged them to, I guess, be selected to be part of this lawsuit? To be the plaintiffs. And what was their take about it? How did the kids feel and did they understand exactly what was happening in terms of this lawsuit moving forward?
MAISIE CHIN: Well, certainly lawsuits like this that are based on children’s experiences, it takes a long process of building a relationship of trust, primarily with the parents to, you know, I have multiple interviews to really find out what’s going. Our attorneys did a lot of groundwork before we even actually got introduced to the lawsuit. There had already been a lot of fact finding, story gathering. And really at the end of the day, I want to just say, I think it does come down to both the student and the parent and their parent or guardian really feeling that they can share their story without retaliation, without backlash.
And so that’s a necessary condition, I think for most of these lawsuits to even come forth. And so they ended up spending time with attorneys and really telling their story over and over again, trying to find out exactly what the type of instruction they got. When the parents advocated for their students and went to the office and said, “My child is behind.” What were the school’s responses? And certainly the parent’s story of advocacy around their children that repeatedly asking for more support and not getting it, that was also part of the story.
And then certainly our attorneys looked at writing samples and books that compared these students at these schools to other students around the state. Looked at the resources that were devoted to literacy, compared those to other places around the state. So, really it was a composite, I would say of lots of pieces of information to really paint this picture. Literacy was in crisis, but certainly there was not the urgency and the supports to address it.
KIM BROWN: In fact, according to the lawsuit, 11 of the nation’s 26 lowest performing large school districts are in California. And some of the plaintiffs, as I mentioned, hail from schools in that area. But another component of the settlement, and tell me Maisie if I’m getting this right or wrong, is that the state has to advise the public school systems about how best to reduce the disparity in disproportionate rates of discipline between black and brown students versus that of white and Asian students. Can you elaborate on that for us?
MAISIE CHIN: Well that is one of the most, for us at Cadre and our parent leaders who’ve been working on school push out and ending it for 18 years, that was a very important part of the remedies that we sought. We wanted to make sure that a crisis in literacy or a low test score was seen in the context of a much bigger picture. That these students were attending schools that have always been poorly resourced, under resource. And at LaSalle there was a momentary investment and infusion of resources. Wonderful materials, a special intervention program designed for the most struggling readers, a faculty member who is dedicated and devoted to servings young people. That to teach the class there was all kinds of supports put in place. And then those supports were taken away because the grant was over for whatever reason, the resources ended.
And so what that proved was that if the resources were there, even in the most dire situations, that progress could be made. And I think what’s important about this lawsuit is that when those resources are not there, and to link it, as I mentioned earlier, to this notion that when you’re disengaged from learning and you start acting up, and first of all you might be six or seven or eight years old, that in the schools that are more resourced and supposedly higher achieving, they tend to solve these crises with resources and support. In the very under-resourced schools, these crises are often left to linger. Students are passed on getting further and further behind. So they accumulate being behind at even greater degrees and then it becomes much more difficult to address later on even if there are more resources.
So what we’re hoping is that by serving these elementary schools, catching these students at the earliest stages, earliest indications of being behind, the other effects of poverty, whether it be hungry or not having stable housing, having parents who are incarcerated or not having your parents period. You know, not having physical safety and security. That all these root causes are analyzed as part of the problem. And that the solutions that these schools, if they are eligible to receive the money and they apply to receive some extra infusion of money, that they will address this problem holistically. And address the conditions that other conditions that are necessary for any literacy intervention to actually be successful.
KIM BROWN: So Maisie, the settlement amount is $53 million with the state of California. It still has to be approved, I believe, by the state legislature. And $50 million is supposed to go directly to 75 underperforming schools. My obvious question is, is that enough money and how long will $50 million last 75 schools given the amount of, I guess you could say neglect that these students have endured, as you mentioned, over a period of generations.
MAISIE CHIN: So $50 million is half a drop, if that, in the bucket. And we know that. So the hope is that in the three years that we have, we can use this additional $50 million, that it will set a precedent. And so it will guide other districts, other schools to begin to opt in to using their resources as well. Any district at any time could essentially create the very same program that this settlement includes. And they could inspire and cause their schools to do a root cause analysis to address this holistically and to allow the funds to be used for the other sort of associating factors that impede a child’s ability to learn.
Most of the time funding is restricted from doing that. I’s often very, very prescriptive. And so we are truthfully hoping that this is a precedent setting. It creates a template to learn from and to figure out how best to deploy our resources going into the future, especially when California’s up and has choices ahead of us in November to actually create a huge infusion of resources for education. We still have to be much better at how we deploy them. And quite frankly, our parent leaders have seen money been thrown at the problem for decades. And yet the fact that we had to file this lawsuit was proof positive that money in and of itself is not the answer. It’s really how we’re deployed. The truth of the matter that is allowed to come to the surface whether parents are fully engaged in the solution, whether the intergenerational effects of the community that they’ve been living in is taken into account.
And it was very important for us that coming out of this, that a lack of literacy is not blamed on the child, the child is not solely to blame and neither is the parent or neither is the community. And that we start to humanize this literacy crisis. One that is happening in so many communities around the country, certainly not just in California.
KIM BROWN: Exactly. Well 11 out of 26 which is nearly half of the largest underperforming school districts in the country are in California. And hopefully the settlement of the lawsuit, Ella T vs the State of California in which the state has agreed to settle for $53 million to contribute to underperforming schools. And to address literacy rates among children, especially in the third grade is where this benchmark was mainly set.
So we’ve been speaking today with Maisie Chin from the group Cadre, which is an organization, one of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. Cadre is led by black and Latino parents whose kids are enrolled in the Los Angeles Unified School District, and they work to stop the push out crisis in schools serving low income neighborhoods of color. Maisie, we appreciate your time today. Thank you so much.
MAISIE CHIN: Thank you so much for having us so we could share this story about why we joined this historic lawsuit. Thank you.
KIM BROWN: And thank you for watching the Real News network.
Studio: Bababtunde Ogunfolaju, Cameron Granadino
Production: Genevieve Montinar, Cameron Granadino
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-03-04--The Establishment Strikes Back: Biden Pulls Ahead on Super Tuesday

JAISAL NOOR : Super Tuesday results are coming in .
Voters in 14 states along with American Samoa went to the polls on March 3 to allocate over 1300 delegates , one third of all pledged delegates in the Democratic primary .
Voters faced long lines and waited for hours to vote in both Texas and California , tantamount to voter suppression .
Not all the results are in , but as of 8:00 AM on Wednesday , March 4 , former Vice President Joe Biden picked up 399 delegates ; winning nine states including Virginia , North Carolina , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Minnesota , and Texas where he was boosted by an endorsement by former presidential candidate Beto O ’ Rourke .
Biden ’ s campaign was boosted after a decisive win in South Carolina and endorsements from former rivals Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar .
JOE BIDEN : We won Minnesota because of Amy Klobuchar and we ’ re doing well in Texas because of Beto O ’ Rourke .
JAISAL NOOR : As projected , Senator Bernie Sanders won the state of California–the largest delegate count of the night–along with Utah , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vermont ; adding 322 delegates to his total .
BERNIE SANDERS : And when we began this race for the presidency , everybody said it couldn ’ t be done .
But tonight , I tell you with absolute confidence , we are going to win the Democratic nomination and we are going to defeat the most dangerous president in the history of this country .
JAISAL NOOR : 536 delegates are still to be awarded .
Senator Elizabeth Warren placed third in Massachusetts , failing to win her home state and winning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 50 .
ELIZABETH WARREN : My name is Elizabeth Warren .
And I ’ m the woman who is going to beat Donald Trump .
JAISAL NOOR : The Warren Campaign was reportedly assessing the path forward on Wednesday .
The former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg announced he ’ s dropping out of the race after spending over half a billion dollars on his campaign but failing to win a single state .
After top finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire and Nevada vaulted Sanders into front runner status , the Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ momentum to exceed expectations on Super Tuesday .
But with half of the primary still ahead and seven states voting in primaries on March 10th , it ’ s unclear if that momentum will hold .
The establishment argument against Sanders is that he ’ s not electable , he ’ s too extreme , and could cost Democrats control of the House .
We got a response to those claims from some of the 10,000 Bernie Sanders rally attendees in Springfield , Virginia on February 29 .
So his critics say he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a socialist ; and they say he ’ s going to lose to Trump and the Democrats are going to lose the House .
How do you respond to that ?
SAMI ALAMIRI : Those people who are talking about socialism , they don ’ t know what socialism means .
What does capitalism mean ?
This is United States of America for everybody .
But we have the majority .
The middle class people and lower class people have to have the right to have decent life too .
LIZ MUNSEY @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wide variety of voters here for Sanders–some people who even used to be former Republicans .
In 2016 , we went with what the establishment Democrats wanted , and we ended up losing that election .
So I think we need to put the power back in the people .
JOHN BENTRUP : I think his Democratic Socialism is far different than socialism .
He ’ s definitely not a Communist .
People will try to do that , but I think that they ’ ll be wrong and I think the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond that .
MARQUIS LEWIS : I think that my biggest counterpoint to that is the only Democrats who have to worry about losing if Bernie is at the top of the ticket is if they themselves are not trying to align themselves with Bernie ’ s vision .
If you ’ re for the Green New Deal , if you ’ re for Medicare for All , if you ’ re for the people , the people are going to come and support you .
But if you ’ re the kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Well , the people voted me in , but I ’ m not really going to do all the issues .
I ’ m not going to take care of the issues that actually matter to them , ” then yeah , the people aren ’ t going to show up for you .
But if you have a commitment to people , if you have a commitment to the issues of justice , of love , of trying to create an actual equitable world , the people are going to come for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Richard Ojeda in West Virginia was this close , very , very close to winning the congressional seat that he was running for , and he ran on progressive ideas .
He didn ’ t run as a Democrat .
He ran as a populist , right .
And I think if you focus on ideas like that , if you just focus on the policy proposals , if you focus on anti-establishments , then you can run a campaign down-ballot , down-ticket or otherwise in which you can actually motivate people to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Bernie ’ s critics say he ’ s too far left , he ’ s a socialist , he has expressed sympathies with Castro in Cuba ; and because of those reasons , he ’ s going to lose to Trump in the general election and they ’ re going to lose states like purple states like Virginia–he can ’ t win these states .
That is the top argument against him right now .
How do you respond to that ?
OLIVIA BREWSTER : I respond that we ’ ve had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beliefs and people are just labeling him without really knowing what his issues are about .
KATHRYN BREWSTER : My favorite president is FDR and Bernie says he ’ s the new FDR .
And it ’ s worked before and it can work again , so don ’ t count it out this time .
JAISAL NOOR : In the past , he ’ s praised people like Fidel Castro , and because of that , he ’ s going to lose to Trump .
PUJAN BARAL : So , another news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , “ Why does Bernie support all these dictators , like from Cuba ?
” You should have looked at the reaction from the crowd , because everyone started laughing .
And she was like , “ Why is everyone laughing ?
” Because it ’ s so outrageous that you are saying that this righteous man and this man who is rational on all points of his record , the way he ’ s been consistent on all of his policies , that he would support such things like an authoritative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the South Carolina debate he had the same position as Obama in terms of saying that the education program in Cuba brought an increased literacy rate there .
JIM AMSTER : If somebody at this point in time knows that they ’ re going to vote for Trump , they ’ ve already made up their mind and facts won ’ t change their mind .
That ’ s the America we ’ re sadly living in today .
Honestly , Bernie Sanders has done a lot to explain how he definitely is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Cuba that helped literacy .
That ’ s something that we should definitely strive for , better education .
And if somebody can ’ t get on board with that idea and the idea that he wasn ’ t praising a dictatorship , but rather the positive aspects of an influx of money and effort into an education system , well then… I don ’ t like that .
It ’ s sad .
JAISAL NOOR : Senator Warren also supports Medicare For All and she and her supporters say she ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in position to actually make it happen , to actually implement that plan .
Why not support Senator Warren ?
LIZ MUNSEY : So I actually do really like Senator Warren .
I think if Bernie weren ’ t in the race , I ’ d be supporting her .
But there is a level of just raw passion and a longer history of wanting to do the right thing .
LAYLA ALNOZAILY : I also like his stance on issues in the Middle East , like in Yemen and Palestine .
JAISAL @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate ever on stage to take such a strong stance in defense of Palestinian rights ; called Netanyahu are racist at the debate .
How did that make you feel ?
What was your response ?
LAYLA ALNOZAILY : It was so amazing .
It was so amazing , especially because he is Jewish , and a lot of people would not expect that from somebody who is Jewish .
I feel like he got a lot of Muslim support after doing that .
It was very nice .
JAISAL NOOR : You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to you ?
And you can talk about what ’ s happening there ?
LAYLA ALNOZAILY : There has actually been a Civil War going on there .
I have a lot of family that lives here .
My whole dad ’ s side lives there .
The people there , they live off a dollar a day and they ’ re starving .
Half the population is supposed to die by the end of this year of starvation , something that ’ s so preventable .
He was like , took a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We need to talk about what ’ s going on in Yemen.
” He had my heart from there .
JAISAL NOOR : Yeah .
And it ’ s funny because a lot of people say , “ Bernie hasn ’ t gotten anything done , ” but that was a bipartisan resolution they passed with the Republican Senator .
People have called what ’ s happening in Yemen a genocide and it ’ s backed by Saudi Arabia .
LAYLA ALNOZAILY : It is .
It ’ s definitely a genocide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of it .
And I appreciate his stance on it and saying that it needs to be dealt with because it ’ s really important .
JAISAL NOOR : For The Real News , this is Jaisal Noor .

The Democratic establishment gives Biden a big boost, Sanders solidifies second place, Warren finishes a distant third, and Bloomberg is knocked out of the race.
Story Transcript
JAISAL NOOR: Super Tuesday results are coming in. Voters in 14 states along with American Samoa went to the polls on March 3 to allocate over 1300 delegates, one third of all pledged delegates in the Democratic primary. Voters faced long lines and waited for hours to vote in both Texas and California, tantamount to voter suppression.
Not all the results are in, but as of 8:00 AM on Wednesday, March 4, former Vice President Joe Biden picked up 399 delegates; winning nine states including Virginia, North Carolina, former candidate Amy Klobuchar’s state of Minnesota, and Texas where he was boosted by an endorsement by former presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke. Biden’s campaign was boosted after a decisive win in South Carolina and endorsements from former rivals Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar.
JOE BIDEN: We won Minnesota because of Amy Klobuchar and we’re doing well in Texas because of Beto O’Rourke.
JAISAL NOOR: As projected, Senator Bernie Sanders won the state of California–the largest delegate count of the night–along with Utah, Colorado, and his home state of Vermont; adding 322 delegates to his total.
BERNIE SANDERS: And when we began this race for the presidency, everybody said it couldn’t be done. But tonight, I tell you with absolute confidence, we are going to win the Democratic nomination and we are going to defeat the most dangerous president in the history of this country.
JAISAL NOOR: 536 delegates are still to be awarded. Senator Elizabeth Warren placed third in Massachusetts, failing to win her home state and winning only 42 delegates for a total of 50.
ELIZABETH WARREN: My name is Elizabeth Warren. And I’m the woman who is going to beat Donald Trump.
JAISAL NOOR: The Warren Campaign was reportedly assessing the path forward on Wednesday. The former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg announced he’s dropping out of the race after spending over half a billion dollars on his campaign but failing to win a single state. After top finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire and Nevada vaulted Sanders into front runner status, the Democratic establishment coalesced around Biden, giving him momentum to exceed expectations on Super Tuesday.
But with half of the primary still ahead and seven states voting in primaries on March 10th, it’s unclear if that momentum will hold. The establishment argument against Sanders is that he’s not electable, he’s too extreme, and could cost Democrats control of the House. We got a response to those claims from some of the 10,000 Bernie Sanders rally attendees in Springfield, Virginia on February 29.
So his critics say he’s too radical, he’s a socialist; and they say he’s going to lose to Trump and the Democrats are going to lose the House. How do you respond to that?
SAMI ALAMIRI: Those people who are talking about socialism, they don’t know what socialism means. What does capitalism mean? This is United States of America for everybody. But we have the majority. The middle class people and lower class people have to have the right to have decent life too.
LIZ MUNSEY: I think we have a pretty wide variety of voters here for Sanders–some people who even used to be former Republicans. In 2016, we went with what the establishment Democrats wanted, and we ended up losing that election. So I think we need to put the power back in the people.
JOHN BENTRUP: I think his Democratic Socialism is far different than socialism. He’s definitely not a Communist. People will try to do that, but I think that they’ll be wrong and I think the American public for the most part will see beyond that.
MARQUIS LEWIS: I think that my biggest counterpoint to that is the only Democrats who have to worry about losing if Bernie is at the top of the ticket is if they themselves are not trying to align themselves with Bernie’s vision. If you’re for the Green New Deal, if you’re for Medicare for All, if you’re for the people, the people are going to come and support you.
But if you’re the kind of politician who is like, “Well, the people voted me in, but I’m not really going to do all the issues. I’m not going to take care of the issues that actually matter to them,” then yeah, the people aren’t going to show up for you. But if you have a commitment to people, if you have a commitment to the issues of justice, of love, of trying to create an actual equitable world, the people are going to come for you hands down.
ERIK ESCOBAR: Richard Ojeda in West Virginia was this close, very, very close to winning the congressional seat that he was running for, and he ran on progressive ideas. He didn’t run as a Democrat. He ran as a populist, right. And I think if you focus on ideas like that, if you just focus on the policy proposals, if you focus on anti-establishments, then you can run a campaign down-ballot, down-ticket or otherwise in which you can actually motivate people to go out to vote.
JAISAL NOOR: Bernie’s critics say he’s too far left, he’s a socialist, he has expressed sympathies with Castro in Cuba; and because of those reasons, he’s going to lose to Trump in the general election and they’re going to lose states like purple states like Virginia–he can’t win these states. That is the top argument against him right now. How do you respond to that?
OLIVIA BREWSTER: I respond that we’ve had people in the past that have similar beliefs and people are just labeling him without really knowing what his issues are about.
KATHRYN BREWSTER: My favorite president is FDR and Bernie says he’s the new FDR. And it’s worked before and it can work again, so don’t count it out this time.
JAISAL NOOR: In the past, he’s praised people like Fidel Castro, and because of that, he’s going to lose to Trump.
PUJAN BARAL: So, another news report asked me that today. She said, “Why does Bernie support all these dictators, like from Cuba?” You should have looked at the reaction from the crowd, because everyone started laughing. And she was like, “Why is everyone laughing?”
Because it’s so outrageous that you are saying that this righteous man and this man who is rational on all points of his record, the way he’s been consistent on all of his policies, that he would support such things like an authoritative dictator. As you said, in the South Carolina debate he had the same position as Obama in terms of saying that the education program in Cuba brought an increased literacy rate there.
JIM AMSTER: If somebody at this point in time knows that they’re going to vote for Trump, they’ve already made up their mind and facts won’t change their mind. That’s the America we’re sadly living in today.
Honestly, Bernie Sanders has done a lot to explain how he definitely is praising the literacy programs that were enacted in Cuba that helped literacy. That’s something that we should definitely strive for, better education. And if somebody can’t get on board with that idea and the idea that he wasn’t praising a dictatorship, but rather the positive aspects of an influx of money and effort into an education system, well then… I don’t like that. It’s sad.
JAISAL NOOR: Senator Warren also supports Medicare For All and she and her supporters say she’s got, she’s better in position to actually make it happen, to actually implement that plan. Why not support Senator Warren?
LIZ MUNSEY: So I actually do really like Senator Warren. I think if Bernie weren’t in the race, I’d be supporting her. But there is a level of just raw passion and a longer history of wanting to do the right thing.
LAYLA ALNOZAILY: I also like his stance on issues in the Middle East, like in Yemen and Palestine.
JAISAL NOOR: He is probably the first candidate ever on stage to take such a strong stance in defense of Palestinian rights; called Netanyahu are racist at the debate. How did that make you feel? What was your response?
LAYLA ALNOZAILY: It was so amazing. It was so amazing, especially because he is Jewish, and a lot of people would not expect that from somebody who is Jewish. I feel like he got a lot of Muslim support after doing that. It was very nice.
JAISAL NOOR: You mentioned Yemen. Why is that important to you? And you can talk about what’s happening there?
LAYLA ALNOZAILY: There has actually been a Civil War going on there. I have a lot of family that lives here. My whole dad’s side lives there. The people there, they live off a dollar a day and they’re starving. Half the population is supposed to die by the end of this year of starvation, something that’s so preventable. He was like, took a stand against and he was like, “We need to talk about what’s going on in Yemen.” He had my heart from there.
JAISAL NOOR: Yeah. And it’s funny because a lot of people say, “Bernie hasn’t gotten anything done,” but that was a bipartisan resolution they passed with the Republican Senator. People have called what’s happening in Yemen a genocide and it’s backed by Saudi Arabia.
LAYLA ALNOZAILY: It is. It’s definitely a genocide, and the people are suffering daily because of it. And I appreciate his stance on it and saying that it needs to be dealt with because it’s really important.
JAISAL NOOR: For The Real News, this is Jaisal Noor.
Production: Jaisal Noor
Post-Production: Cameron Granadino
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.