Academic Freedom

Support academic freedom and Senate Study Bill 1163 
From the Iowa State Daily 02.27.13

     Gov. Terry Branstad recently stated that Iowa State should speak with “one voice” and have “one mission” when it comes to agricultural research. Branstad’s comment identifies a political agenda that has constrained diverse research and open dialogue on our campus. His comment not only mistakes the mission of Iowa State to serve the people of Iowa and its core value of intellectual freedom, it implies that diverse and, perhaps, even dissenting ideas regarding agricultural research are not welcome at Iowa State. Bruce Rastetter’s recent attempt to “educate” Jerald Schnoor, University of Iowa professor, about the nature of his research and the Regents’ pressure to limit the scope of research at Iowa State's Harkin Institute illustrate the need for greater protection of academic freedom and diversity at our Iowa universities in the face of political influence from our Regents. We refuse to let such overstepping set precedent that such actions are acceptable.

     As we have witnessed through recent events, diverse voices are treated as threatening rather than strengthening academic dialogue at our public universities. In addition to Rastetter’s email and the pulling of Sen. Tom Harkin’s papers, we have seen this same pressure to speak with “one voice” in the examples of the 2009 Leopold Center director search in which “cows eat grass” became a controversial statement, the discouragement of questions on campus regarding Iowa State’s then-partnership in Regent Rastetters’ AgriSol project in 2012, or the university and Regents’ support of the “Beef is Beef” beef industry rally at Iowa State last spring. Branstad and others in power are successfully shaping “one voice” at Iowa State in regards to agricultural research — the voice of the corporate agricultural lobby.

     In their argument against mandatory conservation regulations, the Iowa Farm Bureau publicly states that there is not a “one-size-fits-all solution” to water quality improvement because we have great diversity in soils and landscapes across Iowa. How can we expect Iowa State to produce the research needed for such a diverse landscape if we must speak with only one voice? The Farm Bureau’s statement highlights how the corporate agricultural lobby values diversity when politically convenient (as in fear of federal intervention or regulation) yet, as illustrated through recent events at the University of Iowa and Iowa State, uses their connections and influence to discourage diversity when it questions their agenda. Is this really about diversity? Or a political agenda that furthers private gain over public good?

     As many of us who are students and faculty at Iowa State know, we do not speak with “one voice.” Our agricultural research engages a diversity of perspectives and questions, as research at a public university should. Wendy Wintersteen, dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Iowa State, recently spoke in praise of diversity in regards to the hiring of Theressa Cooper, new assistant dean of diversity in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Wintersteen described the hire as an example of how the college is “reaching out and increasing diversity because diversity brings strength, different ideas, different viewpoints, and different ideas brings in innovation.” We applaud Wintersteen’s statement and look forward to a continued emphasis on the cultivation of diversity of both research and thought at Iowa State. We need your help to create a campus welcoming to the diversity of ideas, viewpoints and innovation highlighted in our dean’s statement.
This is an issue of academic freedom that is important to the present and future of our university, no matter what party you belong or don't belong to politically. Why? Because the examples listed above jeopardize the credibility of our institution and the value of our degrees. Iowa State’s research and reputation are strengthened by diverse and even differing perspectives, world views and approaches. “One voice” weakens Iowa State’s potential to address very real concerns such as climate change, childhood hunger, declining rural communities, or water impairment. ISU faculty, staff and students, we need your support as we stand up to this pressure to speak with “one voice.” Citizens of Iowa, we need you to write your senators in support of Senate Study Bill 1163, the Regents Accountability and Transparency Act, to prevent some of the real or perceived threats to academic freedom that have occurred during the last few years.

     Perhaps when we begin to see agricultural research through this diversity of ideas, diversity of students and researchers, and diversity of systems, we might be able to celebrate the reputation of our public university again, as well as the social and biological diversity of our state.

Amy Alesch is a graduate student in plant pathology and microbiology. Andrea Basche is a graduate student in agronomy. Angela Carter is a graduate student in sociology. Nahed Msayleb is a graduate student in agricultural and biosystems engineering. Eric Ports is a graduate student in community and regional planning. Marie Louise Ryan is a graduate student in sustainable agriculture. 

Don't poison the children

 

    Recent news that the continued usage of lawn chemicals on school grounds is even being considered is disturbing. The current lawn care contract cost the ICCC District over $429,000, and it is unclear how much of that sum was for pesticides. Apparently the School Board’s discussions regarding renewal of the contract for lawn care include some uncertainty about whether and when to allow the use of lawn chemicals. 

     In using the system called “Integrated Pest Management”, how is it decided when it is necessary to apply pesticides? Quality Care, the district’s current applicator, is well-known for it’s ‘four times a year’ application work on area lawns: chemical fertilizer and early weed control in the spring; chemical fertilizer and pest control in early summer; chemical fertilizer and chemical weed control in early fall; and another application of chemical fertilizer before winter sets in. Is there an industry standard recommending these applications when weed numbers per square foot or yard reach a numerical level? The fact is, it’s never necessary and the school board should not be weighing the health and safety of the children vs. the questionable aesthetics of a weed free lawn. Nitrogen, which does help lawns grow thicker (which helps keep weeds from becoming established), is easily supplied by applications of organic corn gluten, although sweet clover is a purely natural provider of soil nitrogen.

     When Roundup first appeared, it was advertised as ‘not harmful to children or pets’, and ‘ not persistent, quickly degrading’. But quite soon it became clear that Roundup causes lymphoma in dogs and that it is far more persistent than first thought. Dogs play on lawns and dogs are considered fit for use in medical research because dog physiology is sufficiently similar to human; children play on the grass too and the conclusion to be drawn is obvious. 

     The latest research shows Roundup to be even more toxic than previously thought, because it contains “confidential” and unlabeled ingredients that affect all living cells, according to the journal Toxicology.

     When it appeared, Roundup was just the latest in a string of chemicals that the chemical industry claimed were ‘harmless’ or ‘relatively harmless’ and that subsequently were shown to be exceedingly toxic.  It is finally being recognized that the widely used organophosphate pesticides – which are neurotoxins –are a probable cause of Parkinson’s disease, the increased incidence of ADHD, and other neurologically based disorders.

Good rules to remember are:

    1) A “safe pesticide” is an oxymoron. There is no such thing. And “safely applied” and “used correctly” are phrases designed to lull consumers into illusions under which they will buy the product.

    2) Because children have so many rapidly growing tissues they are especially vulnerable to pesticides’ dangers.

As educated persons in charge of our children’s schools, school board members should know these two rules. If they don’t, they must educate themselves to understand them. If they do know and yet persist in allowing lawn chemicals to be used on school lawns, they should resign or be removed from office because they are knowingly putting children into serious danger.

     Dandelions and sweet clover in a lawn do not cause it to be ugly and both are more resistant to drought than grass.  It does require some thought to see a lawn sprinkled with the yellow and white flowers as pretty, but many potential adverse effects to our children’s health would be averted if a majority of the School Board can look at such lawns and think, “that’s healthier and prettier than weed free, look-alike sprayed yards.”

 

     It’s time to let science rule what we do to our environment:  stopping pesticide use on school property is one good place to start.

http://www.chem-tox.com/pesticides/

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27101.cfm  

(scroll down to the section on Roundup)

http://lawncare.about.com/od/weedcontrol/a/organic_weed.htm

http://www.the-organic-gardener.com/organic-weed-control.html 

http://landscaping.about.com/od/weedsdiseases/a/organic_yards.htm

http://www.ehow.com/list_6147672_common-pesticides-herbicides.html

Carol deProsse

Caroline Dieterle

Single Ticket Voting and Garbage Cans

 

Preserve single ticket voting

     We do not agree with the Press Citizen’s recent editorial advocating for legislative action to eliminate the ability to vote for all candidates of a single party by filling in a single oval. Although there is no evidence to support whether straight ticket voting negatively affects independent candidates, retention of judges or the outcome of ballot issues, it seems to us that people who want to vote for or against something know it when they enter the voting booth and will do so (if they don't know maybe it's best they not cast an uninformed vote.) Do you want to vote for all Democrats or all Republicans, but want to vote against the proposed new jail? Simply fill in one oval for the party of your choice, then flip your ballot over and fill in the ‘no’ oval on the jail. Do you want to vote more selectively? Simply go down the list and vote as you want. 

     Many voters prefer straight ticket voting; forcing every voter to go down a sometimes long list of candidates and issues and vote separately for each one would lengthen the time it takes to vote, lead to longer lines during heavy voter turnout elections and perhaps discourage some from voting at all. This legislation is promulgated by the Republican Party, which is working across the country to make it harder for people to vote.

   Carol deProsse
     Caroline Dieterle 

Council says 'no' to garbage container ordinance; good riddance to a bad idea

     Prompted by complaints from some residents in the North Side the proposed piece of legislation, which would have required residents to keep their garbage cans behind the building line, appeared on the Council agenda last week. We are glad the Councilors decided to shelve it. This ordinance would have created unnecessary expense for many home owners, would not have solved the problem of some people allowing unsightly trash to bulge out the top of their bin, and it would have punished the many residents who do not over-stuff their garbage containers. Those who recycle and compost do not produce enough garbage to necessitate the behemoth containers the City makes us use and we are already having to haul these monsters back and forth from house to curb; doing this from the back yard would double the insult. Some lots in Iowa City are so small that residents really do not have a choice about where to keep their behemoth containers; in front of the building line is the only or the best and easiest option, particularly for the elderly or infirm.

    A few random thoughts on garbage containers:

Smaller cans for smaller producers.

      
Provide a smaller size as an option for many;
No matter how big a can is given to some people they will still overflow it;

Provide more aesthetically pleasing cans; and

Enforce the ordinance requiring garbage to be inside the can with the lid shut, which is a public health issue.

Larger cans for larger producers.

    Carol deProsse
     Caroline Dieterle 

City Manager's Attitude Hurts All County Residents

Iowa City            JohnsonCounty

      Current relations between Iowa City and Johnson County lead one to conclude that either City Manager Markus is in desperate need of a basic civics tutorial on Iowa local government, or he is adopting an exceedingly selfish “me first and the devil take the hindmost” policy in his dealings with the County.  

     Since he has stated publicly that he wants to stay here for the rest of his active career it seems that ignorance is the more likely reason for his intransigence. He spent many years in Michigan where local government is structured far differently and the county does not play the role that it does in Iowa: 

http://ci.bangor.mi.us/PDFs/Government/Michigan%20Local%20Government%20Structure.pdf      

With a strong township structure the system is more diffuse in Michigan, but here the city is a mere pimple on the face of the County (or as with Coralville, a running sore).

     In Johnson County the cities are starving the County by their use of TIFs and are still expecting the County to take care of all the key services that it is responsible for under the Code of Iowa. This cavalier and shortsighted view has got to STOP.

     With those thoughts we reprint -- with permission and some minor editing -- the comments of Supervisor Rod Sullivan in his latest edition of Sullivan’s Salvos. If you are interested in subscribing to Rod’s weekly comments, mostly on county business, you may do so by sending an email to rodsullivan@mchsi.com with the word ‘subscribe’ in the subject line.

--Carol deProsse
   Caroline Dieterle

An Open Letter to City Manager Tom Markus

Dear Tom:

You blew it. There was a great opportunity for Iowa City and Johnson County to work together, but you blew it.

OK – let me get the obvious out of the way. I am speaking for myself, and not the whole Board of Supervisors. (I have a disclaimer that says as much at the end of every edition of Salvos. Today is no different.) Let me also say – if individual Board members disagree with me, you should ask them to explain their own theories. You deserve to know how the people that represent you think.

You screwed the County when it came to the Animal Shelter and now you are being disingenuous when it comes to SEATS negotiations. I do not trust you. I do not like the way you do business.

It was not always this way. Yes, Iowa City has always assumed itself to be superior to Johnson County. That mild arrogance is just Iowa City. It is almost heartwarming.  (DELETE ‘For you”) But Iowa City was never malicious. As a matter of fact, Iowa City used to be quite friendly and helpful where Johnson County was concerned. Things took a turn for the worse during the whole JECC debacle, but we were recovering from that. You blew it.

So Tom. Let’s talk a bit about YOUR “theories” as they apply to local government.

First of all, Iowa City recently put out a press release on the SEATS program. In the first sentence of the 5th paragraph, it stated: "Johnson County has firmly indicated that they intend to phase out funding of para-transit services."

That sentence is patently false. Johnson County is committed to continuing to provide SEATS services in EVERY case where SEATS is a County responsibility. The only "phasing out" is the decision Johnson County made to "phase out" a $500,000+ annual subsidy to Iowa City. I would like the public record to reflect the reality rather than your gross misrepresentation.

Johnson County's commitment to pay for para-transit services has been demonstrated for 40+ years.  Now it is time for Iowa City to step up and meet its federally mandated responsibilities.

The press release goes on to state: “Central to these discussions is the issue of having each community fund their equitable portion for the services provided to their residents. Iowa City firmly believes that our residents should pay an equitable share of costs for these critically important para-transit services. However, we also understand that our residents pay taxes to both Iowa City and Johnson County and further believe that equitable funding shares should include the source of tax dollars regardless of the governmental entity that collects them.”

That would be great. But it is not true. You do not REALLY want equitable funding and you apparently don’t mind gouging the County.

Want to pay equitably, Tom? We can get together a bill for Ambulance services – about 80% of the calls occur in Iowa City. Your Public Health bill will be huge – you can cover the costs of inspecting all the restaurants, tattoo parlors, swimming pools, saunas, etc. You’ll also owe quite a bit for WIC and Child and Maternal Health – most of those clients come from Iowa City. Don’t even get me STARTED on alcohol issues!

A high percentage of the people who use Johnson County Conservation areas/trails are from Iowa City. We will need to charge you accordingly. Almost all of our Medical Examiner calls occur within Iowa City limits. That will cost you well over a million bucks. The County has an annual Mental Health budget of over $15 million. Most of the clients live in Iowa City. Your check for $12 million can’t arrive soon enough!

Iowa City residents can pay a surcharge every time they use the Recorder’s Office. Most of our births, deaths, marriages, divorces, and property transactions are in Iowa City. Same goes for the Treasurer’s Office - whenever they pay taxes or renew plates. These offices cost money to run, you know! Oh, and the Treasurer collects and distributes all of Iowa City’s annual property taxes – over $70 million. We are going to need to begin charging a small fee for this service; perhaps 1%. Surely you don’t object!

Iowa City cops can start paying to drop prisoners off at the jail. Better yet, build your own goddamned jail! Iowa City puts the most people there anyway! And you’ll be getting a bill for Iowa City residents who access the Courts. The County Attorney will need to charge about $400/hour to prosecute all Iowa City cases. That will be a lot, but don’t worry – it should be under $10 million!

Johnson County is spending about $4 million on human services. Ummm…. I hate to break it to you, but –yeah. Mostly Iowa City. Plus we pay to house DHS and Juvenile Court. The people using those offices are largely from Swisher. (Whoops! I mean largely from Iowa City! Just seeing if you are still paying attention!) Veteran’s Affairs? Almost all Iowa City. But that is a relatively small budget.

And last but certainly NOT least – we’d love the millions in TIF money you have stolen over the years!

Still want “equitable funding”, Tom? Yeah, that is what I thought! It makes for a great sound bite, but in reality, your “principled stand” is all bullshit.

I live in Iowa City. My home is assessed at $162,000. I pay about $1400 (44%) of my taxes to Iowa City. I pay about $550 (17%) of my taxes to Johnson County. (About 37% goes to the ICCSD.)

Now that I think about it, Tom – why don’t you put your money where your mouth is and charge Iowa City residents based only upon the services they use? If your theory works on the city level, why not the individual level?

I have never had a fire, and don’t wish to pay for the Fire Department (and their fancy fireplaces). So chop that off my taxes. The public art you have chosen is not to my liking – I’ll take a refund on that, too. Senior Center? I’m not even 50 yet.

Streets? Frankly, the plowing is piss-poor. I’m not paying full freight there. Cut my share in half. Building inspectors? Used one once, and paid a fee to do so. Count me out.

Parks? I use a lot of them. But none on the west side. Put my bill for them at 75%. My kids are basically grown, so no more paying for soccer fields or swimming pools for me. Let the users pay, right Tom?

Oh, and salaries! Your $160,000 salary?  I believe in paying a livable wage, so put me down for my share of the $50,000 I think you are worth.

OK – I will freely admit that I have been cheeky in presenting these examples. But the fact remains, my examples are EVERY BIT as legitimate as your arguments re: SEATS. Iowa City residents may be paying a tiny bit too much in one area – they are paying a tiny bit too little in others. If folks are too upset by this, they have recourse!

We have a great system in County government – we vote. If the majority of the people want me gone, I’m gone. You, meanwhile… there is NOTHING I can do to get rid of you. I’d have to recruit 4 candidates who all agreed to fire you. All 4 would need to win, that takes two election cycles. You are pretty untouchable – I’ll give you that!

Markus, you should probably focus on the 44% of my taxes that is your job! If you want to be a County Supervisor, you should run for the job! Meanwhile, the city I have called home for 30 years is getting worse, not better. Tom – you have work to do. Why don’t you quit whining about Johnson County and do it?

By the way, I am happy to discuss any and all of this in any public forum. I prefer a public forum, where minutes are kept or recordings are made. See, I have nothing to hide, this is public business – may you have the courage to discuss it in public!

I have known/visited Iowa City my whole life. I have lived in Iowa City for 30 years. I am an Iowa Citian. I am not going anywhere. You, on the other hand, are a hired gun. You are going to be here 2-3 more years, then take the retirement you want to deny your cops and firefighters and retire to someplace you consider home. And I’ll be here to clean up your mess. I care about this City, and I care about this County. You decided to put my town's future in the balance. You now have a fight on your hands and may the best man win.

Supervisor Rod Sullivan

'No': ICCSD Proposed Diversity Policy

                                                                                                     
 

     It shall be the policy of the board to provide equitable learning environments for the students attending ICCSD. It is the board's policy that greater diversity and enhanced learning will be the result of establishing the following goals . . .   

                  

     

The School Board is split 4-3 on the proposed policy.

    

     Putting a whole new meaning on the generally accepted understanding of 'minority' in today's political climate, the draft policy defines "minority students" to “mean those students receiving free or reduced price lunches” and "non-minority students" as “those not receiving free or reduced price lunches”. These definitions cement in writing that the diversity policy addresses low socioeconomic black children attending the ICCSD and further stigmatizes this segment of our school age population.

     

     We hope that those who haven't done so and who are interested in this issue will go to this link http://www.edline.net/pages/ICCSD/and read the policy for themselves. Here is a sample:

     

         “No more than 10 percentage points of difference between the comprehensive high schools (grades 9-12) with the highest and lowest percentages of minority students at such schools in the District;

     

          No more than 15 percentage points of difference between the junior high schools (grades 7-8) with the highest and lowest percentages of minority students at such schools in the District; and

         

          For each elementary school (grades K-6), no more than 15 percentage points above the mean percentage of the district-wide percentage of minority students for all students in grades K-6.”

     

     The rest of the policy is equally obtuse; the four members of the School Board who support this policy need remedial work in how to write a coherent document. If you haven’t read the policy and think you support it, start from ground zero and see if you change your mind.

     

     The Board majority that favors passage of this mind twisting policy must rethink its position. A 4-3 vote is, as Sarah Swisher stated recently, enough to pass the policy, but her belief that after its passage the minority dissenters should get on board and work to implement it is wishful thinking.  The superintendent and school administrators will implement the policy, not the board; and after implementation begins, it may become clear that the majority was wrong to pass it.

      We - and apparently a large number of parents in the district - are not certain exactly how the proposed policy is to be carried out. Until clarification of the practical aspects of implementation is provided, the vote on the policy should be held in abeyance.  For example:

      If it is determined that a given school should have ‘x’ number of students transferred out, but more than ‘x’ students express interest in relocating, how will the decision of which students go and which remain behind be made? Who will be the final authority? What would be the impact on those who want to transfer out, but are not selected to go?

     Similarly, assume it is determined that ‘x’ number of students should be transferred out, but less than ‘x’ students express interest; will students who don’t want to be transferred be forced to do so in order to meet the goals set by the diversity policy?

The policy states that the “Superintendent shall not fail” in the implementation of the Board’s wishes on this matter. It is hard to believe that this policy will achieve the desired numbers without collateral damage, so we must ask ourselves if the policy isn’t also intended as a thinly disguised way to some day achieve what the Board can’t bring itself to do now: dismiss Superintendent Stephen F. Murley.

     Citing  "some" evidence as "seeming" to support the conclusion that students do better in schools where the disparity between free-lunch (minority) and not free-lunch (non-minority) is within "acceptable range" is a shaky basis upon which to decide to transfer out free lunch kids (minority) and transfer in not-free lunch kids (non-minority.) And why would any parent volunteer to transfer a child who is performing satisfactorily in his/her current school into a school where a majority of the students haven't been performing well, possibly have more unmet emotional needs, and still need much remedial work to get to grade level?

      What makes the majority of the School Board believe that free lunch kids (minority) and non-free lunch kids (non-minority) who have been transferred in or out will be accepted and welcomed by their new classmates into their cliques? The transferred children will likely be stigmatized immediately and may be isolated socially in a way that can be extremely painful: around income levels. 

     

     How will children who are transferred in and out get to their new schools? Will transfer buses go around to all the schools picking up the transfers and then dropping them off at the school they are now to attend -  and later picking them up and bringing them back to their home neighborhood at the conclusion of the school day?  What happens to students wanting to stay later for extracurricular activities or get back to their old school in order to participate in after school activities there? This is not a way to achieve healthy neighborhoods or good neighborhood schools.

     

     History has proven busing to be inadequate in addressing socioeconomic integration; and making everyone average is not a good long-term goal. Equality of opportunity is a worthier end for which the ICCSD should strive. 

      

     A more sensible solution for improving schools that are not demonstrating adequate academic performance would be to upgrade their physical structures; equip all classrooms with the latest technology; reward the teachers and administrators in those schools who use innovative and successful measures to improve student achievement; and provide top notch librarians as well as additional teacher aides, counselors and social workers.

          

     --Carol deProsse

     --Caroline Dieterle

Contact the School Board at: board@iccsd.k12.ia.us

Bits and Pieces

Supervisor Vacancy 

Kevin O'Malley

New Pioneer

     With rumors swirling that the Supervisors might allow an appointment to fill the vacancy created by Sally Stutsman's move to the Statehouse they voted to hold an election on March 5, 2013.

   Two Democrats have so far expressed interest for this seat: Mike Carberry and Terry Dahms. The candidate to be on the ballot on the Democratic ticket will be chosen at the party's convention on March 13. Information can be found at www.jcdems.org.

   There are two years remaining in Stutsman's term; it would have been an overtly political move to allow three people (Auditor Travis Weipert, Recorder Kim Painter and Treasurer Tom Kriz) to select the person for this vacancy. When Janelle Rettig was appointed a few years ago it was because there were only a few months remaining in the vacancy created by the death of Supervisor Larry Myers. She then had to run a full bore campaign anyway because Lori Cardella of Solon managed to get enough signatures to force an election, a move many people believed was based on Lori's personal prejudices against Janelle's 'lifestyle'.

   I hope the delegates elect Mike Carberry; Carberry has a better position on the issue of TIFs and will probably be a bit more independent in his thinking. Dahms served admirably as chair of the JC Dems, but is pretty buddy-buddy with state Senator Bob Dvorsky, a big TIF proponent and a legislator not inclined to push for more tightening of TIF.

jrettig@co.johnson.ia.us
pharney@co.johnson.ia.us
rsullivan@co.johnson.ia.us
tneuzil@co.johnson.ia.us

   I will miss Kevin O'Malley as Iowa City's Director of Finance. Kevin was always fun to talk to about City business and taught me a little something about TIFs in the process. He was everything a good public employee should be including being accessible to citizens. I wish him good times in his retirement.

   Having failed in its plans to build a new store at the corner of College & Gilbert Streets the board should welcome the renewed opportunity to talk to the city about acquiring land directly east of the Unitarian Church for a somewhat larger store; such a move would keep New Pi financially viable, remove any need for TIF assistance, and maintain a location in the downtown. This would also allow the City to raze the old store and build an attractive parking lot for City employees. It would be ideal if any building on this site were in harmony with the other structures on this block: Iowa Avenue and Van Buren, Washington and Linn Streets.
   The board should also undertake a survey of members to gauge support for the possibility of cooperatively working with the City toward a City built and maintained structure for the Farmer's Market in the planned Riverfront Crossings District south of town; this would be a perfect spot for the construction of a larger New Pi, one that would serve the greater community in a mixed-use setting with plenty of parking and open space.

--Carol deProsse

                               

Not Time Yet For A Bigger Jail

Until changes happen, 'no' to a new jail

      There isn't much to be said about having another jail vote in May except what this article by Professor Jeff Cox states most eloquently in the December issue of The Prairie Progressive. The committee that has been formed to address the issue of race in Johnson County incarceration can meet and come up with all the suggestions they want, but until those suggestions are implemented and measurable changes occur we see no reason to vote for a new, bigger jail, especially one that has simply reduced the number of beds by about 60, but will "rough in" the additional cells so they can be funded separately by the Supervisors through the budget process.

--Carol deProsse

--Caroline Dieterle

Don’t You Dare Use the “R” Word

    The successful campaign to defeat the new Johnson County jail produced unusual political alliances. The small Vote No committee included libertarians, Republican central committee members, Trotskyites, AARP officers, and a few aging Democrats with civil liberties sympathies. On the other side was the entire Democratic Party in Johnson County, including all local elected officials who took a position with the honorable exception of city council member Jim Throgmorton.

     The organizations that endorsed the jail constitute a virtual catalog of the local Liberal Establishment: the Johnson County Democratic Party, Iowa City Federation of Labor, Johnson County Bar Association, Iowa City City Council, League of Women Voters, University of Iowa Student Government, Iowa City Area Crimestoppers, Johnson County Local Homeless Coordinating Board, Painters & Allied Trades District Council 81, Public Professional & Maintenance Employees Local 2003, and (my favorite) The “Friends of Historic Preservation”.

     How could all of these liberal organizations endorse a proposal to jail even more victims of the war on drugs, and more African-Americans? The answer to that question lies in the initial success of the Jail Coordinating Committee in disguising the causes of over-incarceration in Johnson County. Approximately 50 beds were needed to deal with jail overcrowding, which still left 80-100 to explain. Jail advocates said that we must “plan for growth”, but they were unable to explain who would be incarcerated in the new jail cells.

     Local statistics about race were readily available to anyone who asked: 40% of those incarcerated locally are African Americans, who constitute slightly less than 6% of the population of Johnson County. All the Vote No campaign had to do was cite these figures to cause an electoral turnaround among many Iowa City liberals (note the voting totals at Horace Mann and Longfellow schools). Sheriff Pulkrabek responded to these figures with a series of dizzying nonsequiturs, while other liberal Democratic leaders responded with simple indignation that you would dare raise the race issue.

     There is a considerable degree of denial about race among Iowa City liberals. It would be worthwhile having a video of the meeting of the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which was actually divided on whether to take a position on the issues of racial disparity raised by the Vote No campaign. One member denied that the 40/6 ratio should even be discussed as evidence of racism on the local level, and this denial has continued after the defeat of the jail. Jail supporter and Press Citizen columnist Bob Elliott, normally a reasonable person, published a post-defeat article entitled “lies, damn lies, and statistics” in which he suggested that even raising the issue of racial disparity was an “insinuation” of racism in the community, as if that were intrinsically outrageous. Pro-jail statistician John Neff posted on Facebook an outright denial that racism was an important factor in the 40/6 ratio.

     Well, perhaps these liberal Democrats are right, and there is no racism at all to be found in our well-meaning and color-blind People’s Republic of Johnson County. It is certainly true that calling people racists, or even public policy issues racist, is counterproductive. But it is equally true that this community needs to face up to the racial polarization that has occurred in Johnson County, and especially in Iowa City, over the growth of a working class African American population. The proposed jail does not exist in isolation from other racial issues that have not been addressed.

     In 2009 a homeless immigrant from Africa, John Deng, was shot and killed by an off-duty Sheriff’s Deputy dressed in civilian clothes. This incident was referred by County Attorney Janet Lyness to the office of Iowa Attorney General Thomas Miller, who issued a report in September of 2009 that is well worth reading. Like almost all reports on police killings, the report exonerates the officer, but in this case the racially charged nature of the incident is simply whitewashed. The report wades through a cloud of contradictory evidence, but it appears that one way to read this incident is that a white man came out of a bar and got into a fight with a highly intoxicated black man because he was spilling cans, apparently retrieved from dumpsters, on to the street. It is possible that John Deng was using what the report describes as a “small knife” to defend himself against this attack, although that is unclear. What is clear is that an off-duty (white) sheriff’s deputy arrived, intervened in the fight, watched the white man knock the black man down, ordered the white man to leave (which he refused to do), and then when the almost unbelievably intoxicated black man (blood alcohol of .295) stood up, shot and killed him. As far as we know, County Attorney Lyness never filed any charges against the white man. John Deng has been, for the most part, forgotten.

     As the investigation into the John Deng killing proceeded, the Iowa City Council was imposing an unprecedented curfew on young people. Unlike other Iowa cities, Iowa City had never imposed a teenage curfew, largely on civil liberties grounds. Why impose one in 2009? In the color-blind language of the curfew resolution: “Whereas, persons under the age of eighteen are particularly susceptible by their lack of maturity and experience to participate in unlawful and gang-related activities..... the City has found that there has been a significant breakdown in the supervision and guidance normally provided by parents and guardians for juveniles resulting in an increase in crimes and other unacceptable behavior”, etc. In other words, we now have black teenagers in town, and therefore must put them under police supervision.

     Two years later the irresponsible behavior of black young people came up again. For many years white bus passengers have waited in cold weather behind the glass doors of the Old Capitol mall, watching for the bus. As the number of African-American students at City High and Southeast Junior High grew, many came downtown after school, and made the mall a kind of gathering place. In response to complaints about their behavior, a new apartheid-style sign appeared: “Stand Ten Feet Back from the Door”, complete with a security guard to enforce the rule. Now bus passengers either have to wait outside in the cold, or stand behind the sign under the supervision of a security guard.  As someone who grew up in the legally segregated south, I can recognize signs telling black people where to stand and sit when I see them. So can they.

     Jail advocates will no doubt be back soon with new proposals to incarcerate

more African-Americans and more victims of the war on drugs. Perhaps this time around, we can actually have a community conversation about how to deal with issues of racial justice in Johnson County.

— Jeff Cox