Category: Blog (Page 5 of 8)

Stephanie Luce on Living-Wage and Adjunct Organizing

Stephanie Luce imagePlease join us for our first event of the semester when we welcome Stephanie Luce, associate professor of labor studies at CUNY’s Murphy Institute for Worker Education and Labor Studies, on Thursday, September 12th, 5 p.m., in 5409 of the CUNY Graduate Center. Luce (pictured), a sociologist by training, researches living-wage movements—she’ll be speaking on that topic as well as on her experiences in adjunct and higher-ed organizing. She’s the author of Fighting for a Living Wage (ILR Press, 2004), a critical history of various living-wage campaigns across the U.S., and the co-author of A Measure of Fairness: The Economics of Living Wages and Minimum Wages in the United States (ILR Press, 2008) and The Living Wage: Building a Fair Economy (The New Press, 1998). The talk will be followed by a Q&A/discussion and reception.

An Update From the New Coordinators

As the new co-coordinators of the CUNY Adjunct Project, we’d like to offer a few remarks on our appointments and the state of the AP.

First, we’d like to express how honored we are to serve an organization that has worked committedly on behalf of graduate employees and all contingent academic workers over the last many years.

Second, we acknowledge the regrettable circumstances of the former coordinators’ departure, and we recognize that they’ve given rise to some concern, confusion, and other feelings about the Adjunct Project and its relationship to the Doctoral Students Council, especially on the part of many who have been active in the AP. We understand that the DSC will be re-evaluating its protocols for oversight of the AP and other affiliates this year, and we hope to contribute to improving these processes with the benefit of hindsight. We also hope to build on the organizing track record of the former coordinators and their predecessors.

In light of this transition, we’d like to offer everyone—both AP veterans and those who simply wish to know what we’re about—a chance to discuss these issues, ask questions, vocalize concerns, present ideas, and generally strategize for the upcoming academic year at a pre-semester meeting this Wednesday, August 21st, from 3-4 PM at the GC, room 5409.

For anyone who is not able to make this initial meeting, please join the AP Google group and listserv, follow us on Twitter, and check us out on Facebook. We’re just getting our communications up and running, and we appreciate everyone’s patience while we’re getting up to speed, but we will soon be posting important news, updated resources, and AP office hours for the fall semester. Please stay tuned!

Lastly, the hiring process for the new Labor Relations Coordinator is ongoing, but we will update everyone as soon as we can.

In the meantime, please don’t hesitate to contact us, either at our general email (theadjunctproject@gmail.com) or individually at the emails listed below.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Chancellor, Coordinator for Organization and Planning, jchancellor@gc.cuny.edu
Sean M. Kennedy, Coordinator for Advocacy and Education, kennedy.sean@gmail.com

NYSHIP Student-Led Workshop: Tues 4/16 @ 4pm!!!

Hey folks! If you have questions about how to use your NYSHIP health insurance, please come to this informal, student-run workshop. And if you’re interested in sharing anecdotes about your own experience dealing with NYSHIP, please email alysonspurgas@gmail.com or just come to the workshop.

NYSHIP Student-Led Workshop
Tuesday, April 16th, 4:00-5:00 PM, Room 5409, CUNY Graduate Center
 
Qualifying for and Retaining Enrollment in NYSHIP
 
Status of Free Contraception Through the Affordable Care Act
 
Basic Fact and Contact Sheet
 
Student-Recommended In-Network Providers
 
Billing, Benefits, and Copays
 
Common Problems/Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them
 
Food and drinks will be served. Please register here.
This Workshop is co-organized by the Adjunct Project and the CUNY Health and Wellness Committee. Please contact health@gc.cuny.edu with any questions.
ALSO: The student Health and Wellness Festival offering free health services will be held on Monday, April 15th on the C level of the Grad Center.

Call for Papers: The New Youth Movements

Call For Papers: American Anthropological Association

Annual Conference: Chicago, Illinois – November 20th – 24th, 2013

 

Panel Title:

The New “Youth Movements”: Political Subjectivity, Crisis, and Resistance

 

Panel Organizers:

Manissa McCleave Maharawal (mmaharawal@gc.cuny.edu), CUNY Graduate Center

Zoltán Glück, (zgluck@gc.cuny.edu), CUNY Graduate Center

 

In late October, 2011 Egyptian activists wrote a solidarity letter to Occupy Wall Street in which they stated: “an entire generation across the globe has grown up realizing, rationally and emotionally, that we have no future in the current order of things,” (Guardian 2011). Identifying a commonality in their struggles, the letter expresses a blunt urgency; that their generation is going to have to create “what we can no longer wait for” (ibid). This urgency was also seemingly felt by thousands around the world as youth-led movements over the past two years have toppled governments from Tunis to Montreal. Within these movements, and in their wake, new forms of political practices, political identities, and solidarities have emerged and begun to change the way that young people facing dire social and economic challenges understand their lived reality. Youth worldwide continue to be hit the hardest by the global economic turbulence and job crises (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2012) and are slated for continued economic struggles. However, as shown by their overwhelming participation in various political struggles around the globe, youth are challenging these conditions in a myriad of complex and organized ways.

This panel seeks to explore the connections and differences across and between these places and modes of resistance. We aim to foster dialogue between movements and in doing so to break down categories and boundaries of anthropologist/activist and researcher/participant in these contemporary movements. We are interested in exploring and theorizing emergent modalities of resistance, political subjectivities, and organizational forms within contemporary youth politics. In doing so we are putting forward the concept of “youth movements” as a plausible framework within which to analyze the current groundswell of youth-led political events.

Papers topics may include:

  • Contemporary youth movements and the crisis of neoliberalism
  • Student movements and the crisis of the university
  • Youth as a political category
  • Political subjectivity and processes of radicalization
  • The historical role of youth in social change
  • The contemporary roles of youth in social movements
  • Global uprisings as “youth movements”
  • Political economy of student movements
  • Strategies, tactics and political practices of youth resistance
  • Decision-making and organizational structures of movements
  • The role of affect within youth movements
  • Contemporary forms of radical youth politics
  • Dynamics of race, class and gender within student movements
  • Politics and practices of accountability and self-governance (or “autogestion”)
  • Movement cultures, youth subcultures, and practices of resistance
  • Uses of space/production of space/place-making practices in contemporary movements
  • Papers grappling with methodological, ethical, and political issues of scholar-activism, engaged anthropology, “protest anthropology” and activist ethnography

If you are interested in participating please send a paper abstract of no more than 250 words to mmaharawal@gc.cuny.edu or zgluck@gc.cuny.edu by April 7th, 2013.

 

You Wanna Restructure What?!?!

You Wanna Restructure What?!?!

by Zoltán Glück, Conor Tomás Reed, and Alyson Spurgas

What is the Graduate Center’s “Restructuring Plan” that you’ve been hearing so much about recently? Beginning in the fall of 2012, the GC’s administration began to publicize a plan to implement a new funding and admissions scheme for incoming students. According to the GC’s website, “starting in Fall 2013 the Graduate Center will make new five-year recruitment fellowships and awards to a high percentage of the students admitted to the doctoral programs in the Humanities, Social Sciences, and Sciences. The individual doctoral programs in these disciplines will award two hundred new Graduate Center Fellowships (GCFs) and approximately one hundred new five-year Tuition Fellowships. Students in Computer Science, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Psychology, and Speech-Language-Hearing Sciences are also eligible for five-year Science Fellowships.”

Sounds pretty good, right? In short, the GC administration will grant many (but, importantly, not all) incoming students $25,000 per year for five years along with a one course per semester teaching load during years two, three, and four. But here are some of the problems:

1.) Neither of these benefits will be applied to current students;

2.) The Graduate Center will be downsizing its current student population;

3.) This restructuring has serious implications for student and faculty diversity at the school; and

4.) These plans will further stratify labor and exacerbate existing inequalities among graduate student workers at the GC and at the CUNY schools where we teach.

Concerned members of the CUNY community—in the Adjunct Project, the Doctoral Students Council; the MALS program, student chartered organizations like the Asociación de Estudiantes Latinas/os y Latinoamericanas/os (AELLA), many specific doctoral programs such as Anthropology, Computer Science, EES, English, Hispanic and Luso-Brazilian Languages and Literature, Music, Sociology, Psychology, and Theatre, people organizing across CUNY, and even incoming GC students—oppose the intended unilateral implementation of this new funding and admissions structure. First and foremost among our concerns is that ALL Graduate Center students deserve funding and a reduced teaching load.

That current students won’t be included in this new funding/workload plan deserves interrogation. We demand to know how the administration plans to support current students finishing their degrees, particularly as there is no clear plan to increase the value or number of offered dissertation fellowships, Instructional Technology Fellowships (ITFs), CUNY Writing Fellowships that can be openly applied for, or other Graduate Assistant A, B, or C fellowships that provide students with the time and resources to write our dissertations once we have completed our coursework. Instead, it appears that current students will be expected to finish their degrees by adjuncting, working outside the university, or taking out loans (like many of us already do).

Moreover, not even all incoming students will be awarded fellowships—but who makes the decision and on what basis? Although the new fellowship plan is being presented as a program that will apply to all admitted students in the near future, there are plenty of students who will be starting at the GC in the fall and who will have no funding. The lack of transparency around this is troubling.

Also in accordance with the restructuring plan, a 15-20 percent reduction of the incoming student body is expected for the coming years. As admissions are slashed, student body diversity at the GC will be drastically reduced. We can be sure that the administration will produce statistics on increased racial diversity, but the actual number of students of diverse backgrounds who are admitted will likely be reduced, and a complex understanding of diversity that includes class, geographical background, sexuality, lifestyle, and age, among other things, has yet to be demonstrated by the administration. This admissions reduction and its consequences will foster a culture of elitism at our public university, and will further erode CUNY’s historic mission to provide accessible education to students from across the five boroughs of New York City.

In connection with the above trend, we will see a reduction of discipline and departmental diversity—both at the Graduate Center and the CUNY colleges where we teach. Homogenization will invariably occur to programs like Psychology, where there are very different orientations to the field (for instance, there are diverse subfields, including: neuropsychiatry, cognitive/experimental approaches, but also critical social psych, personality psych, and psychodynamic/therapeutic approaches). We have concerns about which of these will get axed when there are fewer students to fill classes at the GC and thus to support specializations, subprograms, and community-based training clinics where students learn while simultaneously serving the underserved citizens of New York. Our fear is that a neoliberal logic about “skills,” “industry,” “marketability,” and “excellence” will be deployed when making these decisions. Indeed, we already see this happening in the form of Pathways and the broader plans to restructure education at CUNY.

Ultimately, the decisions that led up to this massive restructuring occurred in small committees behind closed doors. President Kelly often refers to the student input that was collected during their planning process: however, from what we can gather, this simply refers to students who have advocated for “better funding packages for GC students.” The administration seems to have taken this as an open invitation to pursue their own “strategic plan” and push through a set of policies that current students are deeply concerned about, but were given very little opportunity to help shape.

As well, during his “office hours” last December, Provost Chase Robinson assured students that the administration was “looking into” ways of making funding at the GC more equitable, but offered no information on how the administration was actually going to make that happen. We want to know why there was no workload reduction or monetary supplementation for current students. It appears that EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK is not something this administration believes in.

Fundamentally, we need to create a robust culture of transparency and accountability at the Graduate Center, and take clear steps towards participatory budgeting and campus governance that welcomes involvement from all students, faculty, and staff. As this Restructuring Plan unfolds, we see the administration promise support for select well-publicized projects, but not for the general financial needs of students outlined above. While millions of dollars in capital funds have been raised for an exclusive rooftop lounge and library basement renovation, the administration claims it can’t find money to fund current students or maintain departments’ current sizes. Exciting developments in radical scholarship are being made with future Graduate Center/Schomburg Center fellowships, and with current programs such as the Advanced Research Collaborative, JustPublics@365, and Revolutionizing American Studies, but this shouldn’t end up increasing stratification (particularly as many of these programs speak out against stratification). The Graduate Center’s motto for academic support shouldn’t be “nice money, if you can get it.”

Labor Concerns

We wish to also underscore the effects that the Restructuring Plan will have on labor within departments where we teach. How will it affect solidarity, labor relations, morale, and our own undergraduate students when these new Graduate Center Fellows (GCFs) suddenly teach next to “regular old” Enhanced Chancellor’s Fellows (ECFs), who teach next to other less-funded Graduate Teaching Fellows (GTFs), who teach next to unfunded adjuncts trying to finish their dissertations, who teach next to long-time non-doctoral student adjuncts, who teach next to junior tenure-track faculty—all of whom teach next to full-time tenured professors? Dividing the workplace in this way will further increase a culture of competition and foster resentment among contingent workers–when we need more than ever to be united and stand in solidarity.

Furthermore, the thorny labor issue remains as to what kind of job protection doctoral students workers have under the Professional Staff Congress’s (PSC) current contract. Graduate Assistants, including GTFs (which are classified as Graduate Assistant Cs), are identified in the contract as graduate students, not laborers. The elusive language of Article 11.2(a) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement by which all union members are covered on “Classification of Titles” of Graduate Assistants complicates the process of filing grievances or taking sick leave, for instance. Such alarming labor situations have recently arisen as one teaching fellow being fired from his position with no clear recourse or due process available, and another teaching fellow being told she would have to relinquish her fellowship if she took maternity leave. If we are to utilize and truly benefit from our status as PSC union members, we must challenge the fact that our “employment, retention, evaluation, and assignment” as workers is problematically based upon our “status, progress, and evaluation” as graduate students. We are members of the PSC’s bargaining unit, whether we sign a union card or not; it is imperative that we take advantage of this status and pressure our union leadership to fight on behalf of us as workers, especially since the Graduate Center’s administration seems so hell-bent on making us invisible as such.

And what about the negative effects this will have on faculty at the Graduate Center–how will the department size reductions and encroaching campus elitism affect who gets hired to teach at the GC?  What will happen to non-central line CUNY faculty when many Graduate Center hires in full-time lines are from outside CUNY, and hiring draws less and less on qualified faculty at the various CUNY campuses?

Reduction of Student-Controlled and Library Study Space

The Restructuring Plan will also erode the only student-directed space in the building. The Doctoral Students Council, student clubs, and 5th floor event spaces (5414, 5409, 5489, etc.) are slated to be displaced from their current fifth floor location and moved to the library basement where the C-level computer lab, classrooms, and GC archives currently exist. In this process we will also lose valuable student-utilized workspaces. The C-level computers will relocate to the second floor of the library, which will be more cramped than ever. As overworked students who often have a hard time finding adequate space for studying, reading, and writing, we need more quiet study areas, not less! We anticipate that these changes will make the Graduate Center less welcoming to students and less hospitable for community-building and organizing. The student government and clubs deserve the right to our own space!

Some of this building restructuring has been occurring for a few years now, as seen with the Psychology department’s not-too-graceful reconfiguration of programs last semester, and robust centers like CLAGS and CPCP being cooped up in small office spaces. We also remember the first floor “Foundation Lounge” space being halved and otherwise shrouded in dim lighting in 2010 and since then, and that the library staff and IT help desk staff have been shuffled around in the library. The most recent assault on community-controlled space has taken the form of the implementation of the new digital signage system (on the first floor and in the hallways) which has replaced what was once a thriving community bulletin board culture on every floor of the building.

Students Fight Back!

The spring 2013 semester started off with a bang when GC students began mobilizing around a variety of issues at the first Adjunct Project meeting of the semester in mid-February. Approximately fifty students from diverse departments attended, and we formed several working groups: one devoted to exposing and combating the administration’s Restructuring Plan; one dedicated to devising a counter-report to CUNY’s official Kroll Report on the events of November 21, 2011 at Baruch when students were attacked by police; one group which will plan an alternative education budget (alongside the Free University of NYC); and a group devoted to developing broad organizing strategies, platforms, and analyses to interrogate and fight the trends toward privatization and austerity that we see happening across CUNY.

At the center of GC student organizing right now is the fight against the administration’s plan to restructure, downsize, and further stratify the student body at our school. Room by room, floor by floor, GC Departments are taking action. Momentum has increased substantially over the last month: departments are beginning to organize themselves and openly question the adverse impacts that restructuring will have on their programs (for a great example, see the psychology department’s emergency response website: restructure.commons.gc.cuny.edu).

To complement this department-focused work, we are also building an inter-departmental, GC-wide response, with diverse student and faculty voices speaking out against these changes. To this end, multiple departments came together at 7pm on Tuesday, March 19th, in the GC 8th floor cafeteria to hold Department Town Hall meetings. Each group focused on how the Restructuring Plan will impact their specific department, and what their most urgent needs are. At the end of the evening, we converged to collectively discuss common issues and strategize ways to draw critical attention to these changes and to devise a plan of action to prevent them from being implemented. Our next GC-wide response will gather again at 7pm on Tuesday, April 9th, in the GC 8th floor cafeteria.

We have also been speaking back to the administration about their plans. On Monday, February 25, 2013, President Kelly held a Community Meeting (see cunyadjunctproject.org/2013/02/26/gc-community-mtg-audio-questions-next-steps) which was open to students, faculty, and staff at the Graduate Center. At this meeting, he formally announced plans to usher in the Restructuring Plan for admissions, funding, and class offerings. Many concerned students attended and the Adjunct Project helped to organize (through crowd-sourcing) a set of collective questions articulating some of the concerns outlined above.

Campus-based actions and organizing strategies are being planned for the coming weeks and months, with attention to an arc and pace of connecting Spring to Summer to Fall 2013 organizing. Here is a preview of some of the possibilities we’ve begun articulating to this end (please contribute to this list!):

  • “Transparency Day”: set up tables in the GC lobby with t-shirts and markers so students can write our own funding/debt/workload/degree progress situations on t-shirts and engage each other, faculty, and staff in conversation around issues of contingency and precarity.
  • Fifth Avenue fundraiser: draw attention outside on Fifth Avenue to the difficult economic situation for many people just inside our gilded doors by doing busking, readings, extemporaneous lectures, etc. for donations.
  • GC lobby, library, and cafeteria speak-outs—inform and galvanize these heavily trafficked sites in our building on the issues laid out above. For a place like the Mina Rees Library’s C-level, it’s quite literally a critical moment of “use it or lose it!”
  • MAKE ART! (infographics, banner drops, creative guerrilla outreach, occupy the digital signage boards with counter-restructuring messages, etc.)
  • Pack President Kelly’s second Community Meeting on May 7 with diverse attendance, critical questions, and concrete alternatives, while connecting GC administrators’ culpability to CUNY Central, NY City and State, and the national public higher education crisis.
  • Reach out to incoming students for solidarity and participation—they’re not our enemies, but rather crucial allies in this fight!
  • Re-examine the PSC’s current collective bargaining agreement for information on the rights of doctoral student workers; build a campaign around pressuring our union to fight for doctoral student contingent workers to have more job security and benefits such as sick/parental leave and better pay. EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK!
  • Revisit the “A Note on What it Means to Have an Adjunct as an Instructor” paragraph that many GTFs and adjuncts already include on their syllabi, and build a campaign around rewriting this and encourage all contingent workers to include it on their syllabi. We can also use it as a way to start conversations with our students and full-time faculty in our departments about contingent worker exploitation at CUNY (see cunyadjunctproject.org/get-involved/organizingeducation/bring-it-to-class).
  • Participate in such upcoming Graduate Center events as “The University Beyond Crisis” on April 8 (see revolutionizingamericanstudies.commons.gc.cuny.edu/the-university-beyond-crisis-monday-8-april-2013), and such city-wide events as May Day, in which the Free University of NYC will host multiple Free U’s around NYC in order to “Turn the City into a University” (see freeuniversitynyc.org).
  • Look to other models of university campaign escalations that have been effective recently (Cooper Union, Chile, Puerto Rico, Quebec).

All of us need to collectively rise to the occasion. We can actively inform each other in the general GC body of these issues through one-on-one conversations, classroom announcements, staff break-room discussions, department meetings, emails, tablings, flyering, digital signage, and other kinds of publicity. We can call attention to these problems on a range of media outlets. Let’s work together as concerned students, faculty, and staff on building an effective campaign! The CUNY Graduate Center’s future is worth it, and so are we.

Race, Class, and Disaster Gentrification

By Zoltán Glück

First published at Tidal (http://tidalmag.org/race-class-and-disaster-gentrification/)

Red Hook Houses Without Power After Hurricane SandyIn the days and weeks following Hurricane Sandy the inequalities at the heart of New York City could scarcely be missed.  While hundreds of thousands of public housing residents went without heat, hot water or electricity, Mayor Michael Bloomberg rushed to get the stock exchange up and running within 48 hours—a stark reminder of whose lives and well-being are valued by current administration. In the immediate aftermath of disasters such contrasts lay bare the violence of race and class.  Who is able to leave and who is able to return are questions about access to resources, vulnerability, and the existing geographies of economic and social inequality. But it is through the process of reconstruction that existing racial and class iniquities are truly reproduced and deepened. In New York City, as the power has finally come back on for residents and as reconstruction efforts plod along, it is perhaps time for a look at how these dynamics are playing out.

In early November, 2012 I attended a meeting in the Red Hook loft apartment of the self-styled neighborhood power broker, Kirby Desmarais, the purpose of which was to build stronger lines of communication between various groups working on relief efforts in Red Hook. These included Occupy Sandy, the NYPD, the National Guard, a representative from Mayor Bloomberg’s office, and a sizeable group of small business owners in Red Hook: over 30 people in total. The meeting itself was uneventful, the National Guard did not plan to do any more than distribute boxes of freeze dried meals, the Mayor’s Office could not promise anything concrete, and 76th Precinct Police Captain Schiff remained mostly silent. Occupy Sandy would continue to collect and redistribute material donations, provide hot food, and build its databases of residents requiring home-delivered meals and needing medical assistance. Those of us working with Occupy Sandy began to feel uncomfortable as it became increasingly evident that the underlying purpose of the meeting was for the group of small business owners to establish direct lines of access to the various institutions with power over the recovery effort. One particularly disturbing aspect of the meeting was its racial composition. In this predominantly working class Black and Latino neighborhood, the small business coalition who were hosting the meeting had only managed to invite one single long-term black resident, a well-known local organizer, Reg Flowers. Such an exclusion of black community leaders from the table was, as Reg put it, at the very least “problematic and it may even be dangerous.” Sadly, such exclusions are also increasingly common and they bear witness to the important role played by gentrification in shaping the forms of recovery and reconstruction in Red Hook after Hurricane Sandy.

From the outside, Red Hook recovery efforts have been lauded in both the media and in activist circles as a stirring example of “community” self-empowerment and mutual-aid. What is less evident from most of these superficial accounts, however, are the deep social fissures and inequalities that are hidden beneath facile notions of “community.” The emergent pattern of racial and class-based exclusions in Red Hook have historical roots; they are also emblematic of a process that I am calling here disaster gentrification: that is, the use of disasters, such as Hurricane Sandy to initiate or consolidated gentrification projects.


First Community AssemblyClass and Race in Red Hook

Before Hurricane Sandy hit, Red Hook was already on the cutting edge of Brooklyn gentrification and had been for a few years. Urban homesteaders had moved in, lured by the waterfront, the aura of feeling slightly farther away from the rest of the city, and what the New York Times glibly calls “the pioneer spirit that has brought chicken coops, beehives and funky bars to a once-desolate industrial stretch of Brooklyn.”[1] As some of this growth has come through the reconversion of previously empty warehouses and industrial areas, Red Hook is often presented as benign form of urban regeneration and creative re-use of a post-industrial landscape. But as with the pioneers of old, people lived in Red Hook before the recent influx of entrepreneurs.

Red Hook has long been a working-class neighborhood. Much of the neighborhood’s urban fabric dates back to its 19th century history as a major hub of maritime commerce. Since the construction of its first port in the 1840’s Red Hook has been home to waves of immigrant populations; Irish, German and Italian workers came for employment on its docks. By the 1920s it could claim to be one of the busiest freight ports in the world. The first of the Red Hook Houses were built as part of a Federal Works Program initiative under FDR in 1938 to accommodate the growing number of dockworkers. Administered by the New York Housing Authority (NYCHA), these tall brick structures are still a defining feature of the neighborhood. Home to 8000 people, they remain the largest affordable housing tract in Brooklyn (and the second largest in New York City). The last installment of the Houses were built in 1955. Then, with the advent of containerization in the 1960s, shipping moved to the larger ports of New Jersey and Red Hook’s economic vitality declined.

During the latter half of the century Red Hook followed the pattern of many de-industrializing urban areas in the United States: white flight opened up space for Blacks, Latinos, and one of New York City’s first Puerto Rican communities. Meanwhile, disinvestment and capital flight from Red Hook, as in many other parts of Brooklyn, left the neighborhood derelict and abandoned by government, public services, and landowners alike. As the late great geographer Neil Smith has argued, neighborhoods like Red Hook were “lost” for capitalist profit extraction: practices such as redlining ensured that no new capital would be invested in these enclaves of urban poverty. This set the stage for Red Hook’s more recent history of gentrification. As Smith argues, gentrification is effectively a “back to the city movement for capital,”[2] through which such “lost” urban spaces are re-conquered for the purpose of profit extraction. Of course, the conquest of the “new urban frontier” inevitably entails the displacement of those who once lived there. [3] Thus, as capital began moving back to the city, it spelled a disaster for working class people across Brooklyn: eviction, harassment, highly racialized tough-on-crime policies, the forcible displacement and dismembering of communities.

Census data bears witness to the rapid transformations that have been reshaping neighborhood like Red Hook. Economic indicators show that Red Hook has seen its median monthly rents increase by upwards of 70% along the water front since 2000 (and 101% in the area directly above the Red Hook Houses), on par with the most rapidly changing census tracts in Williamsburg over the same period.[4] The growing economic disparities in the neighborhood are also evident in this rental data: the median rent at the Red Hook Houses is still $369 per month while loft apartments a block away on Delevan street are listed at 1,900$ per month.[5] This “rent-gap” between what working-class residents have been paying for decades and the promise of ever-rising rental incomes from an affluent gentrifying class is what fuels both property speculation and the forced evictions of long-time residents. Such processes are at the heart of Brooklyn’s changing political economy—they have also had dramatic impacts on the changing racial demographics of its neighborhoods.

Slide1

As a recent Fordham study has shown, Brooklyn is home to four of the country’s most rapidly changing neighborhoods as measured by racial composition. In Bed-Stuy, for example, the white population has grown by over 600% over the past decade. Meanwhile, the Center for Urban Research estimates that Brooklyn lost 50,000 African Americans to economic displacement between 2000 and 2010.[6] Red Hook has lost 17% of its Black population and 14.4% of its Hispanic population over the same period. As people are priced out of the neighborhood, block-by-block census records show that the Black and Brown population of Red Hook has quickly receded away from the main commercial strip of Van Brunt street and is now predominantly concentrated in the Red Hook Houses.[7] The old Puerto Rican community of the waterfront has vanished, displaced by affluence and whiteness.

Similar violent processes of displacement and conquest have led the New Orleans Tribune to describe gentrification as “the new segregation.”[8] Gentrification may be analyzed as economic project which displaces the poor and benefits the affluent, but it also articulates itself as a racial project whose violence is vested on people of color. Where it unfolds in neighborhoods like Red Hook, such processes bear out Stuart Hall’s famous argument, that “race is … the modality in which class is lived.” As Hurricane Sandy swept through Red Hook, its waters swept over a social geography already deeply injured by the racial and class inequities of gentrification. It is thus imperative for reconstruction efforts to take these existing divisions seriously, because to ignore them is to be complicit in reproducing and deepening them.

 Recovery Work and Disaster Gentrification

Dynamics of race and class have impacted Post-Sandy recovery work from the start. On the one hand, the sheer urgency relief work during the first few days created an initial atmosphere of solidarity, cooperation, and mutual-aid with residents and incoming activists working, cooking, and canvassing together. I became heavily involved with Occupy Sandy at its inception and helped set up the recovery hub at the Red Hook Initiative on day after the storm where the words “community-powered recovery” were repeated often and proudly. Indeed, it was inspiring and invigorating to see such spontaneous good-hearted, meaningful, and highly effective work being done. However, the lack of analysis around race and class was evident very early on and lead to a number of problems in the day-to-day dynamics of recovery work.

Occupy Sandy Hub at Red Hook Initiative

One of the first problems we encountered was the casual racism of charity work. During the first few days after the storm a well-intended Christian group began partnering with the NYPD to distribute supplies using NYCHA housing police. They also asked the police to provide “crowd control” for the lines of predominantly the Black and Latino residents waiting for much needed supplies such as flashlights, pampers and baby formula. This use of the police put an immediate strain on the relationship between local residents and activists and created a scenario in which race and resources separated the two groups: inside—a group of predominantly white volunteers managing resources; outside—people of color waiting in line in the cold for hours, with the police doing “crowd control.” This highly racialized treatment of aid-recipient as potential criminals was symptomatic of the staggeringly different ideologies concerning what recovery and reconstruction should look like: the philanthropic Church group thought of themselves as providing a service (which apparently required security). This was a stark contrast to the collaborative, solidaristic, mutual-aid project that Occupy Sandy had been trying to build over the course of the first weeks. Weekends were difficult for similar reasons. The neighborhood would be inundated with (predominantly middle-class white) volunteers who were dispatched to canvass, cleanup, gut dry walls, and distribute food. Much good work was done, but the racial stratification of volunteers and residents clearly began to reinforce existing oppressions, turning aid-recipients into passive agents in a process they had increasingly less and less control over.

A second and more serious way that existing structures of oppression were reproduced and deepened was through the activity of a group of small business owners in Red Hook. On December 5th, 2012, more than a month after the storm, Mayor Bloomberg finally came down to pay a visit to the storm-ravaged neighborhood. He did not bother to stop at the Red Hook Houses—home to 8000 of Red Hook’s approximately 11,000 residents—where his administration repeatedly failed to come to the assistance of tenants living without heat, electricity, and in some cases without even running water for weeks. Instead Bloomberg’s visit included stops at the upscale Fairway super market on Van Brunt street and a meeting with local NGOs and members of ReStore Red Hook, a coalition of small businesses in the neighborhood. Of course, in the eyes of city government these are the constituents that matter. It is to them that questions are posed about the neighborhood’s recovery needs. It is to them that recovery grants and special low-interest rate reconstruction loans are offered (currently the predominant means of disaster relief offered by the government). Or, as Kirby Desmarais once gleefully put it: “They are prioritizing the businesses in Red Hook because they know that they feed the community so well.”

This is the myth that is often repeated by the entrepreneurs: that “small businesses keep Red Hook alive.” What is quietly elided, however, is the question of who and what is being kept alive? As the figures on economic displacement indicate, it is not the working-class Black and Latino Red Hook which is being “kept alive” by these businesses—and $19 skirt steaks at Home/Made are clearly not priced to provide sustenance for this community. Rather, as small businesses take up the mantle of speaking for “the Red Hook community” they are also putting forward a vision of what such a community should look like. It is telling that the conversation with Bloomberg reportedly focused on “how to attract more shoppers to Red Hook,” re-opening the subway stop at Smith and 9th street, and how to increase foot traffic along Van Brunt street. This vision of recovery and reconstruction is clearly a vision of gentrification-based recovery.

The agenda of the small business coalition was captured succinctly by ReStore Red Hook founder, Monica Byrne, at a community meeting in early November: “we will not stop until every single small business in Red Hook re-opens its doors again.” As a vehicle for fund-raising, grant applications, and political lobbying, ReStore Red Hook has become a pivotal actor in the dynamics of recovery and reconstruction in the neighborhood. The example of a large grant awarded by the Brooklyn Community Foundation in December for Sandy recovery work is symptomatic. Through personal connections with Carlos Menchaca, Christine Quinn’s official liaison in Red Hook, a coalition of five organizations in Red Hook (including NGOs, residents and small businesses) were able to secure a large grant from the Brooklyn Community Foundation. Without any community oversight over how such funds ought to be disbursed, 80% of the funds were ultimately allocated to ReStore Red Hook. In a neighborhood where over 70% of the population lives in public housing, to allocate 80% of incoming resources to small businesses along a gentrifying corridor simply callous. It is also a form of institutional racism reproduced and replicated through everyday practices. By mobilizing cultural, legal, and political capital to control incoming resources and funnel them towards small businesses, this coalition is indirectly working to disempower and displace the working-class Black and Latino community of Red Hook.

As such, ReStore Red Hook represents the consolidation of the gentrification project after Hurricane Sandy. It is the vehicle through which a gentrifying class in-itself has become a gentrifying class for-itself. It is the consolidation of a class project insofar as it actively organizes a small business class around a common interest. But it must also be understood as a consolidation of whiteness. As meetings in loft apartments become conspicuously racially homogenous and resources are syphoned away from the Black and Brown residents of the neighborhood, disaster gentrification is also project that “ReStores” segregation, poverty, and white supremacy.

Towards a Disaster Anti-Capitalism

As the coalition of small-business owners in Red Hook began to control the direction of reconstruction in the neighborhood, they also began to push Occupy Sandy organizers out. Frequently, insider vs. outsider language and appeals to “the community” were used to keep Occupy organizers out of meeting spaces or to question their legitimacy on listservs and in public meetings. Meanwhile, the Occupy Sandy relief hub at the Red Hook Initiative was displaced after its first week of operation when the RHI board of directors decided that they needed to “return to our normal programming.” Contentiously, RHI continued to collect disaster recovery funds even as their own involvement in the recovery efforts scaled back enormously. According to one source who attended a closed meeting with RHI, the non-profit has accumulated over $2 million in Sandy recovery donations. Conspicuously, the eviction of Occupy Sandy from RHI occurred precisely after organizers began to ask questions about how RHI  was allocating the recovery funds. A number of us who had originally helped set up the relief hub at RHI after the storm urged them to use a participatory budgeting method for distributing the resources, however the organization has remained completely opaque about how such resources will be used. Indeed, after the initial days of spontaneous good will and solidarity, NGOs and small businesses in Red Hook began jockeying for position and funding to the detriment of pan-neighborhood solidarity, not to mention social justice. In this atmosphere of self-serving political myopia many of us who worked to start a “People’s Recovery” in Red Hook left or were pushed out; some went to other nodes in the Occupy Sandy network, while others withdrew from the recovery efforts completely. In this context, we may draw a number of lessons from the intersections of disaster-recovery and disaster-gentrification in Red Hook.

To begin with, the social justice work of Occupy Sandy organizers in Red Hook was particularly vulnerable to being sidelined, subverted, and evicted due to the fact that they did not have deep roots or strong alliances in the neighborhood. Such alliances and ties would have been pivotal for building more effective resistance to the intense political and economic forces of disater gentrification. By comparison, in neighborhoods such as Sunset Park, where Occupy has been engaged in community organizing and anti-gentrification work for the past year, the post-disaster organizing has been more enduring and robust. In the immediate wake of the storm, Occupy activists organized a number of community assemblies in Red Hook with the aim of building a decision-making body through which direct community oversight of recovery efforts might be achieved (including an ill-fated campaign to demand rent abatement from NYCHA). Such efforts were effectively undercut as the important decisions over resource allocation and negotiations with politicians were happening elsewhere. Without a deep organizing base in the neighborhood, Occupy Sandy’s medium-term projects in Red Hook foundered. Ultimately, in order to resist disaster gentrification it is crucial to have a pre-existing base of anti-gentrification organizing. Such a base would have also provided more susatinable, effective, and meaningful ways for “outside” organizers to plug in. Much good political organizing work was done in the days after the storm, but without strong neighborhood alliances this work was quickly demobilized, coopted, and neutralized.

In the long run, the conversation about a just reconstruction must also find strategic ways to talk to small business owners. Despite the short-term gains that ReStore Red Hook might achieve through back-room deals with state functionaries and donation drives, theirs is a losing strategy in the long run. The true beneficiaries of Hurricane Sandy will not be small businesses, but rather the large banks who provide reconstruction loans, the companies who receive the reconstruction contracts, and the emergent industry of eco-disaster-capitalism which sees social catastrophe as a business opportunity. Loan providers are already projected to make $1 billion in profits annually from these loans.[9] By contrast, as of late January, out of the 1,119 small businesses that had applied for federal loans in Brooklyn, only 89 had been approved.[10] Those “lucky” enough to be approved will be saddled with huge debts for years to come and some will even have to put up their homes as collateral.[11] Such a system individualizes and atomizes the burden of reconstruction; it also tears apart the fabric of our communities, pushing some into narrow and self-serving alliances, leaving others to fall through the cracks entirely. Indeed, the petty battles over the pittance of resources and funding that do come to neighborhoods like Red Hook end up reinforcing racial and class divides and destroying neighborhood solidarity. As Tom Agnotti has pointed out, such divisions leave neighborhoods vulnerable and fractured in the face of large-scale developers who are then able to move into the neighborhood without much (unified) resistance.[12] If recent talk about moving toxic sludge from the Gowanus canal to a site in Red Hook materializes, all of the neighborhoods residents will stand to lose from the effects of environmental racism and broken solidarities.

Ultimately, with the increasing frequency of ecological calamity around the world, social justice activists must begin imagining long-term and pre-emptive strategies for coping with disaster. This means deep neighborhood-based political organizing adequate to the needs of the nascent modality of resistance, something we might call disaster anti-capitalism.

 


[1] Buckley, Cara, and William K. Rashbaum. “Power Failures and Furious Flooding Overwhelm Lower Manhattan and Red Hook” October 29th, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/nyregion/red-hook-residents-defy-evacuation-warnings-drinks-in-hand.html. (Accessed,  February 1st, 2013)

[2] Neil Smith. “Towards a Theory of Gentrification” Journal of the American Planning Association. Vol. 45.4. 1979.

[3] Neil Smith. The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City. Routeledge: London. 1996.

[4] For a map of census rental see NYTimes “Mapping America” project: http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/explorer (Accessed January 12th, 2013)

[5] See, for example: http://www.brownstoner.com/blog/2012/01/rental-of-the-day-5-delevan-street/ (Accessed January 12th, 2013)

[6] http://www.urbanresearchmaps.org/plurality/#nabes

[7] A compelling visualization of this data is available through the Center for Urban Research interface here: http://www.urbanresearchmaps.org/comparinator/pluralitymap.htm (Accessed January 12th, 2013)

[8] Beaulieu, Lovell. “Gentrification: the new segregation?” New Orleans Tribune, 2012.

[9] Strike Debt. “Shouldering the Costs: Who will pay in the Aftermath of Hurricane Sandy?” December 2012. http://strikedebt.org/sandyreport/ (Accessed February 1st, 2013)

[10] Feldmen, Emily. “Hard-Hit Small Businesses Denied Post-Sandy Loans” January 25th, 2013.http://brooklynbased.net/email/2013/01/hard-hit-small-businesses-denied-post-sandy-loans/ (Accessed February 1st, 2013)

[11] Sataline, Suzanne. “Why a victim of Sandy doesn’t want an S.B.A. loan” February 12th, 2013. http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/why-a-victim-of-sandy-doesnt-want-an-s-b-a-loan/?src=rechp (Accessed February 1st, 2013)

[12] Angotti, Tom. “Ikea and Red Hook’s Racial Divide” Gotham Gazette, June 2004. http://old.gothamgazette.com/article/landuse/20040615/12/1008 (Accessed February 1st, 2013)

Friday Roundup: Student Movement Stories

Originally published on March 1st on at Student Activism (http://studentactivism.net/2013/03/01/friday-roundup/). This occasional roundup of student movement stories is put together by Isabelle Nastasia, a CUNY undergrad, New York Students Rising organizer.

Rest in Power, Trayvon Martin:

The Acts of Courage and Kindness that Came After Trayvon Martin’s Death – Colorlines

Marching to Sanford  (a short documentary featuring the Dream Defenders, a coalition of black and brown youth fighting for immigration reform and an end to the school to prison pipeline and the prison industrial complex.)

Updates on educational injustice:

[Trigger warning: racist costumes and racial exploitation] USC Frat Planned a ‘Racist Rager’ Until a Mexican-American Students Put Them on Blast – Colorlines

Batraville and Lew Dod are Shortsighted, Unethical – Yale Daily News (Sneak peek: “As early as this April, Yale plans to welcome a training center for interrogators to its campus.”)

The Latest Education Craze Could Very Well Worsen the Achievement Gap – Colorlines (Good analysis of whats wrong with MOOCs)

[Trigger warning: discussion of sexual assault and sexist university policy] UNC Sexual Assault Survivor Faces Honor Code Violation after Speaking publicly about Abuse – HuffPo (Think Progress wrote more about this, too)

Harvard Helps the Less Fortunate – Socialist Worker (Do not be deceived by the title…)

The Next Hate Fest  – NY Post (Alan Dershowitz sets his sights yet again on CUNY as he targets an upcoming Queer conference on “Homonationalism and Pinkwashing”)

Day Laborers Group Respond to Syracuse University Immigration Analysis – Syracuse

Don’t Be Misled by Tuition Equity – Daily Tangrum

Examples of radical student movement-building, tactics and strategy: 

Oregon House Passes Tuition Equity  – Oregon Live

Whither a Russian Student Movement? – The Nation

Quebec Students Protest Fee Hike – HuffPo

Les Bureaux De Leo Bureau Blouin et de Pierre Duchesne Vandalises – La Presse (In French but can be easily translated via google translation)

Les Medias Et la Hausse des Frais de Scolarite de 2005 a 2010 – IRIS (In French but can be easily translated via google translation)

Students Occupy University President’s Office to Protest Naming University Stadium After Private Prison Company – Think Progress

Games of Theories – Inside Higher Ed

A Protest Resignation – Inside Higher Ed

N.C. Students Sieze Power – Technician

Too Radical or Too Ineffective? Lets Just Tackle Apathy  – Technician

Building an Inclusive Climate Movement – The Nation (Report from the divestment and climate conference at Swarthmore this past weekend)

UPDATE: audio & questions list from Feb 25 Pres Kelly Community Mtg, March 8 next steps

CUNY Graduate Center President Kelly held a Community Meeting on
Monday, February 25, 2013. A group of students, faculty, and staff
raised critical questions about the Fall 2013 GC Restructuring Plan,
CUNY Pathways, the Kroll Report, insurance coverage, and other issues.
These questions had been openly crowd-sourced beforehand to encourage
campus-wide input in shaping this forum.

We also announced an alternative Community Meeting for Friday, March
8, 3-5pm at GC room 5414 — a setting where students, faculty, and
staff can interact and strategize responses to the lack of general
participatory democracy and transparency at the Graduate Center, and
how specifically to counteract the worst aspects of the Fall 2013
Restructuring Plan.

Recording of the February 25 event:

https://soundcloud.com/adjunctproject/2-25-13-kelly-community-mtg

Questions list: 2.25.13 Questions for President Kelly

Flyer for the March 8 gathering: March 8 community mtg fullsheet

Please share this information openly and often across departments,
offices, centers, and club spaces, especially as our GC building
bulletin board spaces are being taken away by the day.

in mutual support,
Alyson, Zoltán, and Conor
Adjunct Project Co-coordinators

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2024

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑

 OpenCUNY » login | join | terms | activity 

 Supported by the CUNY Doctoral Students Council.  

OpenCUNY.ORGLike @OpenCUNYLike OpenCUNY