http://tapinto.net/articles/mock-shooter-drill-held-at-west-orange-movie-thea
"the drill was funded by a $240,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security"
I would like to do more research into how much and what kind of training people need to become police. Is this additional training really necessary? I checked out the Basic Course for Police Officers (link posted below). A quick read through the table of contents shows me that police already receive training on how to use their weapons.
http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/njptc/pdf/Basic-Course-for-Police-Officers-BCPO.pdf
Also, how often is it necessary for police to shoot and armed person? The mayor of West Orange seems to think it can happen any time:
“Unfortunately this type of situation, where there is a shooting in a movie theater, is unpredictable. It has happened in real life and it can happen again, which is why it’s so important to train and prepare our first responders,” commented West Orange Mayor Robert D. Parisi.
So he prescribes a solution to the problem of mass shooters: train the police more. But for such a "solution" to work, police would have to be crawling around everywhere (moreso than they already are), just waiting for the mass shooter to appear, and more than likely killing more innocent blacks and latinos than an actual mass shooter would kill... It doesn't sound like the Mayor really thought through his solution. Or maybe he has other ideas, such as controlling the poor and disadvantaged!
But back to situations where police "have" to shoot armed people. Mass shooters is probably the most common example given by pro-police people because they are terrible and unfortunate tragedies that receive a lot of media attention. Even the mayor uses the mass shooter as an example for why police should shoot someone. Once again, more research is necessary, but it is my speculation that mass shooters are generally white and have mental health issues. Would it help to pay more attention to mental health care to prevent mass shootings?
How much training do police receive about when NOT to shoot or attack someone? In the section titled "legal requirements of arrest" there is one section detailed "use of force." I might be overlooking something (correct me if I am), but that is the only heading that suggests when NOT to shoot someone. Everything else seems to be about how to attack people.
I do not think it is a coincidence that the Department of Homeland Security is providing these grants at this time, when protests over police brutality and racism are escalating. When it is necessary to control the population and crowds.
____________________________________________________
My final point (and my way of relating this to MSU):
http://tapinto.net/articles/west-orange-police-film-segment-for-montclair-sta
Is it a coincidence that the MSU TV show "carpe diem" chose to highlight the police and their mock shooter training, while ignoring the nationwide problem of police shooting unarmed, often black or latino men? As thousands across the nation are protesting against the unpunished killings of Michael Brown and Eric Garner and many others; as it has become main discourse to discuss the question of race in these incidents... MSU's TV station chooses to ignore this problem, even within a "liberal" framework.
Does it matter? Who watches MSU TV? Perhaps the audience already has their opinion of the problem.
However, it is my opinion that MSU TV is being a part of the problem by not connecting its stories with wider community issues. This copies a precedent set by the more widely used media which limits the public discourse.
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Statement Condemning Islamophobia
Dear Montclarion Editors and Readers,
Students for a Democratic Society fully condemns the recent hate speech that targeted the Muslim community at Montclair State University. This despicable act is only a symptom of a larger problem in Western countries in general, and the United States in particular--Islamophobia.
Islamophobia is not the result of a clash of religious differences; rather, it is a political tool used to justify war and imperialism in the Middle East--similar to the racism and anti-communism used in the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Islamophobia is a modern manifestation of the “Orientalist” field of study that was created during the colonialist times. These studies depicted Arabic people in a racist fashion, exoticizing their traditions and culture as inferior to Western culture. Once Arabic countries became significant in the 1970’s, because of their oil and other natural resources, Orientalist and anti-Islam propaganda was spread once more, this time in an even more diluted and biased fashion. This propaganda created a fearful social climate that was accepting of the installation of puppet dictators, the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the US funded war between Iran and Iraq, the Gulf War, the more recent wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, the sanctions in Iran, and the drone strikes in Pakistan.
It is therefore necessary to combat Islamophobia and its racist implications by arming ourselves with intellect.
MSU Students--Onward and Upward!
Sincerely,
Students for a Democratic Society
Students for a Democratic Society fully condemns the recent hate speech that targeted the Muslim community at Montclair State University. This despicable act is only a symptom of a larger problem in Western countries in general, and the United States in particular--Islamophobia.
Islamophobia is not the result of a clash of religious differences; rather, it is a political tool used to justify war and imperialism in the Middle East--similar to the racism and anti-communism used in the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Islamophobia is a modern manifestation of the “Orientalist” field of study that was created during the colonialist times. These studies depicted Arabic people in a racist fashion, exoticizing their traditions and culture as inferior to Western culture. Once Arabic countries became significant in the 1970’s, because of their oil and other natural resources, Orientalist and anti-Islam propaganda was spread once more, this time in an even more diluted and biased fashion. This propaganda created a fearful social climate that was accepting of the installation of puppet dictators, the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the US funded war between Iran and Iraq, the Gulf War, the more recent wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, the sanctions in Iran, and the drone strikes in Pakistan.
It is therefore necessary to combat Islamophobia and its racist implications by arming ourselves with intellect.
MSU Students--Onward and Upward!
Sincerely,
Students for a Democratic Society
Friday, October 12, 2012
Board of Trustees Votes Unanimously to Increase Tuition
By Shawmaf Zane Khubba
On July 26, 2012, the Board of Trustees of
Montclair State University unanimously voted to increase tuition (including the
“elected” Student Trustee Alex Bychkov) by 3.9%, making tuition over $11,000,
and increasing the trend of making education a privilege of the wealthy and not
a right of citizens of a democracy.
This decision would have passed over in
silence—as intended by the administration, who barred students from speaking at
their meetings—were it not for members of the student activist group on campus,
Students for a Democratic Society, and several of their allies, who voiced
their opposition. The activists showed up at the meeting with dissenting picket
signs in their hands and black duct tape over their mouths, in accordance with
the no speaking rule. They waited as each of the trustees voted until Alex
Bychkov, the student trustee, showed his loyalty to the administration by
voting in favor of the tuition increase. At this point, the dissenting
students, outraged (but not surprised), began to shout: “SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!”.
They shouted until the board members adjourned the meeting early and slithered
out of the room. Susan Cole, the President of MSU, left the quickest, before
any light was cast on her extravagant salary and benefits, which have been
increasing just as steadily as our tuition. On her contract for the year of
2011, a $125,000 bonus was justified as an “incentive” for her to stay.
Apparently the incentives of our educators are of no comparable import, as
their salaries and benefits have stagnated, despite inflation.
About a week following the
meeting, several members of SDS, some of whom were not even at the meeting,
received a letter from Dr. Karen L. Pennington, rebuking them for their protest
and admonishing them that further such actions would result in “disciplinary
action”. Moreover, in a comment infused with irony, Pennington informed them
that their actions constituted censorship of the board members. Apparently it
is not censorship to squelch the voice of students at meetings addressing
matters which concern them directly, like where their tuition money is going to
be spent.
ANTIWAR RESOLUTION RAISES EYEBROWS, AND PULSES
By Carter Pan-Jacobs
This past Wednesday, the 26th, the SGA Legislature heard a
controversial resolution in which Montclair State's student
government, the representatives of the students' interests, speak out
against the war in Afghanistan, which "celebrates" its eleventh
anniversary on October 5. The resolution was met with strong
resistance by the Student Veteran Association, who read it as
anti-military. The resolution's author, Mark Ludas, defended his
positions, noting that he employed the input of a veteran, Chief
Justice Gil Balanzat, in writing the resolution in order to maintain
neutrality towards the armed forces while directing the disapproval
squarely at the endless war itself.
In a tense back-and-forth, Ludas admitted the validity of the
Veterans' desire to be involved in the writing of such a bill. Rather
than force the issue and see it fail among an increasingly negative
narrative, the resolution was tabled pending collaborative revision
between Ludas and the Student Veterans. "I feel more came out of it
this way than if we'd just pushed through a resolution that left some
people feeling hurt or ignored," Ludas said. "The new resolution will
have even more legitimacy."
This past Wednesday, the 26th, the SGA Legislature heard a
controversial resolution in which Montclair State's student
government, the representatives of the students' interests, speak out
against the war in Afghanistan, which "celebrates" its eleventh
anniversary on October 5. The resolution was met with strong
resistance by the Student Veteran Association, who read it as
anti-military. The resolution's author, Mark Ludas, defended his
positions, noting that he employed the input of a veteran, Chief
Justice Gil Balanzat, in writing the resolution in order to maintain
neutrality towards the armed forces while directing the disapproval
squarely at the endless war itself.
In a tense back-and-forth, Ludas admitted the validity of the
Veterans' desire to be involved in the writing of such a bill. Rather
than force the issue and see it fail among an increasingly negative
narrative, the resolution was tabled pending collaborative revision
between Ludas and the Student Veterans. "I feel more came out of it
this way than if we'd just pushed through a resolution that left some
people feeling hurt or ignored," Ludas said. "The new resolution will
have even more legitimacy."
Interview with Missa Ferguson
By: Greg Tuttle
Greg: As a commuter do you feel that there are services that could be implemented better?
Missa: Parking is a stick up my ass. I also have terrible food allergies and I can't eat anything on campus (gluten free food). Any service for commuters is not well advertized. There should be some sort of short term parking that doesn't cost an arm and a leg for students who are only on campus for a short period of time.
Greg: What is the atmosphere like here at MSU?
Missa: It's not as welcoming as it could be. Campus is unattractive, not charming when they're ripping my school apart its not happy. It's like high school but bigger and uglier and I have to pay for it.
Greg: As a commuter do you feel that there are services that could be implemented better?
Missa: Parking is a stick up my ass. I also have terrible food allergies and I can't eat anything on campus (gluten free food). Any service for commuters is not well advertized. There should be some sort of short term parking that doesn't cost an arm and a leg for students who are only on campus for a short period of time.
Greg: What is the atmosphere like here at MSU?
Missa: It's not as welcoming as it could be. Campus is unattractive, not charming when they're ripping my school apart its not happy. It's like high school but bigger and uglier and I have to pay for it.
Friday, August 3, 2012
Letter from the Administration About the Action Against Tuition Hikes
The informal "NOTES" are by SDS member Aldo Guerrero
Dear [Insert Name Here]
During the course of the past year you and other members of the student body have shown an interest in University issues, and it is perfectly appropriate to seek to understand and to express views about matters that have an impact on your life. Until this last Thursday, you and a small group of others often identified as SDS, have with few exceptions expressed your views in a manner that was reasonably consistent with University policy, and the University has been accepting and accomodating *(NOTE#1) of your chosen form of expression. However, on Thursday, July 26, 2012, your actions crossed a line and were in clear violation of University policy because they disrupted an important University activity, the meeting of the Board of Trustees, and because they deprived other members of the University community of their rights.
Differences of view and expression of differing views in a University community are completely acceptable. However, it is never permissable to shout down others when they are speaking in order to prevent them from being heard because that action does not constitute the exercise of free and open expression of views, it constitutes censorship *(NOTE#2). Quite simply you do not have the right to prevent the duly elected representative of the students from performing his role in speaking as a member of the Board of Trustees *(NOTE #3), or to prevent any other member of the Board from participation in his or her responsiblities *(NOTE #4). As Winston Churchill said, "Everyone is in favor of free speech *(NOTE #5). Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage."
I encourage you to take the time to familiarize yourself with the University' "Policy and Procedures Concerning Demonstrations and Aseemblies," *(NOTE #6) and if you have any questions about that policy, you are welcome to contact the Office of the Dean of Students to discuss those questions. Please note that any further violation of the University policy will make you subject to disciplinary action.Sincerely, Karen Pennington Pc: Rose Mary Howell *(NOTE #7)
*1 Yes, they helped us by bureacratizing the process to have the occupation, threatened us with phony security fees, gave us only half of the quad, and refuse to let students speak at BoT meetings
*2 Because not letting students speak at BoT meetings totally constitutes "the exercise of free and open expression of views." I bet it's also not "censorship."
*3 This guy voted FOR the tuition increase and did not speak out against it.
*4 I don't quite understand how we PREVENTED anyone from participating in "his or her responsibilites." This is the third time we do such an action and they blatantly ignored us to continue their bureaucratic responsiblities. They also blocked 3 students from participating in the tuition hearings.
*5 Here we go, administrators pretending to be EXPERTS on free speech. Do they expect us to not be "outraged" by the fact that they undemocratically raise tuition every damn year without having students voice out their concerns in every board meeting? What about raising it over a conference call last year without the full board or even the "elected" student trustees being present?
*6 Perhaps in our response, SDS should encourage them to read a book about democracy or something along the lines of "Who Rules the University." lol
*7 Dean Howell hasn't had enough of us since the "Town Meeting" and SGA elections huh. lol
Dear [Insert Name Here]
During the course of the past year you and other members of the student body have shown an interest in University issues, and it is perfectly appropriate to seek to understand and to express views about matters that have an impact on your life. Until this last Thursday, you and a small group of others often identified as SDS, have with few exceptions expressed your views in a manner that was reasonably consistent with University policy, and the University has been accepting and accomodating *(NOTE#1) of your chosen form of expression. However, on Thursday, July 26, 2012, your actions crossed a line and were in clear violation of University policy because they disrupted an important University activity, the meeting of the Board of Trustees, and because they deprived other members of the University community of their rights.
Differences of view and expression of differing views in a University community are completely acceptable. However, it is never permissable to shout down others when they are speaking in order to prevent them from being heard because that action does not constitute the exercise of free and open expression of views, it constitutes censorship *(NOTE#2). Quite simply you do not have the right to prevent the duly elected representative of the students from performing his role in speaking as a member of the Board of Trustees *(NOTE #3), or to prevent any other member of the Board from participation in his or her responsiblities *(NOTE #4). As Winston Churchill said, "Everyone is in favor of free speech *(NOTE #5). Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage."
I encourage you to take the time to familiarize yourself with the University' "Policy and Procedures Concerning Demonstrations and Aseemblies," *(NOTE #6) and if you have any questions about that policy, you are welcome to contact the Office of the Dean of Students to discuss those questions. Please note that any further violation of the University policy will make you subject to disciplinary action.Sincerely, Karen Pennington Pc: Rose Mary Howell *(NOTE #7)
*1 Yes, they helped us by bureacratizing the process to have the occupation, threatened us with phony security fees, gave us only half of the quad, and refuse to let students speak at BoT meetings
*2 Because not letting students speak at BoT meetings totally constitutes "the exercise of free and open expression of views." I bet it's also not "censorship."
*3 This guy voted FOR the tuition increase and did not speak out against it.
*4 I don't quite understand how we PREVENTED anyone from participating in "his or her responsibilites." This is the third time we do such an action and they blatantly ignored us to continue their bureaucratic responsiblities. They also blocked 3 students from participating in the tuition hearings.
*5 Here we go, administrators pretending to be EXPERTS on free speech. Do they expect us to not be "outraged" by the fact that they undemocratically raise tuition every damn year without having students voice out their concerns in every board meeting? What about raising it over a conference call last year without the full board or even the "elected" student trustees being present?
*6 Perhaps in our response, SDS should encourage them to read a book about democracy or something along the lines of "Who Rules the University." lol
*7 Dean Howell hasn't had enough of us since the "Town Meeting" and SGA elections huh. lol
SDS Protests against Tuition Hikes
On July 26, the Board of Trustees of Montclair State University unanimously voted to raise tuition (including the so-called "elected" Student Trustee Alex Bychkov) by 3.9%... but not without a fight.
The video includes AFT Union President Richard Wolfson speaking against tuition hikes unless the administration considers "managerial cuts" in the administration aka "Chopping from the Top." This is something that SDS has been advocating the entire year in light of Susan Cole's bonus along with other perks (free housing, free car, free housekeeing, free driver, free credit card, extra compensation after her resignation etc.) The FULL contract can be found here.
SDS members along with supporters shouted "SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!" repeatedly to express their disapproval. And as is standard practice with this Board of Trustees, they completely ignored the students and continued with their bureaucratic meeting.
The video includes AFT Union President Richard Wolfson speaking against tuition hikes unless the administration considers "managerial cuts" in the administration aka "Chopping from the Top." This is something that SDS has been advocating the entire year in light of Susan Cole's bonus along with other perks (free housing, free car, free housekeeing, free driver, free credit card, extra compensation after her resignation etc.) The FULL contract can be found here.
SDS members along with supporters shouted "SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!" repeatedly to express their disapproval. And as is standard practice with this Board of Trustees, they completely ignored the students and continued with their bureaucratic meeting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)