Dear white men: Move to an Indian reservation today, get an Indian girlfriend, and beat her all you want! This is what Congresswoman Noem and her Republican lackeys want you to know.
I was raised that you never hit a woman, period. As an Indian man, I was taught this was the Lakota way and the Christian way- but I guess my parents and the bible were wrong.
Of all American women, Indian women need the most protections. 1 out of every 3 Native women will be raped, 39% will be victims of domestic violence. Kristi Noem thinks this is ok, but I am pretty sure rape and domestic violence are not very Christian.
South Dakotas Congresswoman Noem (R) and the House Republicans are trying to strip the protections for Native women from the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) this Tuesday in Congress.
Some Indian reservations up to 70% of the population is non-Native. We live in a modern society with lots of interracial dating and marriage. Arcane, outdated, federal law leaves white men who live on Indian reservations, who date and marry Native women, free to beat them.
Federal law has tied Native American Tribes hands behind their back, unable to protect their most precious and sacred asset, our own women. The Indian provisions in VAWA would fix this loophole and recognize Tribes concurrent jurisdiction with the federal government to prosecute any man who beats an Indian woman, regardless of his race.
VAWA would fix this loophole. Congresswomen Noem wants this stopped! White men should be free to beat their own Indian woman!
As an Indian guy, if I come to your town and beat one of your white women, I go to jail. If one you white guys comes to my reservation and beats one of our Indian women, you get to make a joke about it in Facebook and a free beer.
Call Congresswoman Kristi Noem (R-SD), tell her Indian women deserve the same protections as white women like her, (202) 225-2801, or your own Member of Congress by calling the Congressional operator at (202) 224-3121.*Call your congressman today and demand that they support the Violence Against Women Act, with provisions for Native woman. You can also call immediately and talk to Speaker Boehner’s 202-225-0600 and House Majority Leader Cantor’s office 202-225-2815 to tell them to do the same. Protect ALL women. Spread the word.
-
"A little while ago, I was supposed to attend a Halloween party. I decided to dress as a nun because nuns were the scariest things I ever saw"
Willeta Dolphus, Cheyenne River Lakota
From Soul Wound: The Legacy of Native American Schools, by Andrea Smith.
My Grandpa is a veteran. Served in Korea, Cyprus and elsewhere around the world as a scout with the Princess Pats II Commando. He talks freely of it, of his service and the awful things he saw.
In contrast, he never talks about his time at St. Henri’s. Not ever.
(via ayiman)
-
» Looking Back to the Future of VAWA: Suzan Shown Harjo: "Congress, Make the Streets Safe for Indian Women, Too"
In one of her columns forIndian Country Today, Suzan Shown Harjo wrote: “Only the reinstatement of tribal jurisdiction and remedies has a chance of reversing the epidemic levels of violence against Native women.” That commentary was published April 29, 2005.
Today, after years of struggle, tribal advocates are celebrating Congress passing the VAWA reauthorization, with tribal provisions. The act is now heading to President Obama for his signature.
Harjo, Cheyenne and & Hodulgee Muscogee, is an award-winning columnist and a poet, writer, curator and policy advocate, who has helped Native Peoples to protect sacred places and recover more than one million acres of land, is president of the Morning Star Institute in Washington, D.C. She’s also still regularly contributing to this publication.
The spotlight on the VAWA reauthorization, with tribal provisions, was magnified by Harjo’s 2005 ICT column, and it roused both regional and national mainstream media from their collective slumber concerning this crucial matter. There is something to the old saying “the pen is mightier than the sword.”
In light of the recent action on VAWA, and the impending action by Obama, it seems like an ideal time to revisit Harjo’s column, titled “Congress Make the Streets Safe for Indian Women, too.” Here is that work, in full.
Congress, Make the Streets Safe for Indian Women, Too, April 29, 2005
The streets of Indian country aren’t safe for American Indian and Alaska Native women.
Nearly 90 percent of the perpetrators of violent crimes against Native women are non-Indians—60 percent are white men—and Native nations can’t touch them.
Congress created this haven for non-Indian criminals on reservations and it’s up to Congress to fix it. The 109th Congress has a chance to do that very thing this year, when it considers reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.
VAWA 2005 is being drafted now to address the deplorable situation of women in American, where physical abuse is a feature of one-quarter of all marriages and where one-third of women who are treated in emergency rooms are victims of domestic violence.
While Native women also sustain injuries in abusive relationships, most of the men who assault Native women are strangers or acquaintances (80 percent), rather than intimate partners or family members (20 percent), according to a U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics report,American Indians and Crime (1992-2002), issued in December 2004.
This statistical profile and a raft of other studies, including the 2000National Violence Against Women Survey, report that:
● American Indian and Alaska Native women are more than twice as likely to be victims of violent crime than other women in America.
● American Indian and Alaska Native women suffer sexual assaults at a rate of more than three times that of women of other races.
● more than one in three American Indian and Alaska Native women will be raped during her lifetime.
● the rate of violent crime experienced by American Indian women is nearly 50 percent higher than that reported by black males, the second highest gender/race category victimized by violent crime.
Most violent crimes are committed intra-racially, as with white-on-white crime. This is not the pattern in Indian country, where 88 percent of the perpetrators of violent crime against Indians are non-Indians.
Why can’t Indian governments punish these violent non-Indians and why should Congress step in? It’s a long, complex history, but the short answer is that the federal government made this jurisdictional mess and should take every opportunity to clean it up.
Over a century ago in the name of “Indian civilization,” the federal government criminalized tribal traditions and took control of the reservations. When the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government did not have jurisdiction over Indian murders of Indians, Congress enacted the Major Crimes Act, authorizing federal jurisdiction over murder and other serious offenses involving Indian people.
Congress expanded federal jurisdiction, effectively restricting tribal authorities, under the Assimilative Crimes Act and myriad gaming, environmental, repatriation, arts and other laws.
Tribal jurisdiction and remedies were limited under the federal tribal termination policy. Starting in the 1940s, Congress gave selected states certain criminal and civil authorities over Indian offenses. In the 1968 Indian Civil Rights Act, Congress restricted the sentencing authority of tribal courts to one-year imprisonment and a $5,000 fine. The Supreme Court ruled in 1978 that Indian tribes cannot prosecute non-Indians in criminal matters.
That brings us to the present situation where Native nations cannot punish non-Indians who harm Indian women in Indian territory, or can only give them a slap on the wrist.
There are many reasons that the federal and state governments aren’t doing a better job at bringing these bad men to justice. Basically, it comes down to geography and connectedness. The federal and state agents don’t live where the crimes are being committed and the victims aren’t their neighbors.
Only the reinstatement of tribal jurisdiction and remedies has a chance of reversing the epidemic levels of violence against Native women.
In VAWA 2005, Congress can address the jurisdictional void that prevents Indian tribes from prosecuting non-Indians perpetrating these crimes.
VAWA was signed into law in 1994 and reauthorized in 2000. VAWA 2000 mandates that protection orders from one tribe or state be afforded full faith and credit in outside jurisdictions. It also clarifies that Indian tribes have full civil jurisdiction to enforce protection orders, including authority to enforce any orders through civil contempt proceedings, exclusion of violators from Indian lands and other “appropriate mechanisms.”
Some states do not comply with the federal mandate and exhibit hostility toward affording full faith and credit to protection orders issued by tribal courts. Alaska’s executive branch has challenged a state judge’s decision allowing enforcement of a banishment order issued by the Native Village of Perryville. The Minnesota Supreme Court in 2003 rejected a proposed statewide court rule for the consistent enforcement of all tribal court orders.
Advocates are working with legislators and staffers on the reauthorization of VAWA, which is set to expire this September. Advocates in Indian country would do well to work (and work fast) with the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the Judiciary Committees to develop a bill that could stand alone or be folded into VAWA 2005.
A meaningful VAWA provision for Indian country would restore tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians in the area of violent crime against women. Proponents should be prepared for the inevitable discussion about review of tribal court decisions and opt-in/opt-out mechanisms.
At the very least, Congress should provide necessary funding to study full faith and credit implementation problems, in particular with regard to tribal domestic violence protection orders, and should withhold certain federal monies (unrelated to domestic violence prevention and response) from states that refuse to comply with VAWA’s full faith and credit mandate.
VAWA’s effect in Indian country would be strengthened by provisions ensuring tribal law enforcement officers’ access to national databases that track criminal history; a national database of tribal protection orders and tribal adult sex offenders to track serial offenders who travel between different Indian nations; an increase in funding for tribal governments and programs providing infrastructure and services to survivors of rape, stalking and domestic and dating violence; and a Tribal Division within the Office on Violence Against Women to act as the liaison to tribal governments on issues unique to Indian nations and Indian women.
Congress can continue with the same jurisdictional system that devalues Native women and handicaps Native nations, or it can fill the jurisdictional void with something that might just work.
If Congress fails to act, the reservation streets will remain safe for violent non-Indians and the Indian women and their children and grandchildren will suffer. How is that good for anyone but the bad people?
-
» College Health Plans Respond as Transgender Students Gain Visibility
Over the last decade, as activists started pushing colleges to accommodate transgender students, they first raised only basic issues, like recognizing a name change or deciding who could use which bathrooms. But the front lines have shifted fast, particularly at the nation’s elite colleges, and a growing number are now offering students health insurance plans with coverage for gender reassignment surgery.
No college or university offered such treatment just six years ago, but whenBrown University said last week that its student health plan would be extended to cover sex-change surgery beginning in August, advocates for transgender students said Brown would become the 36th college to do so. Twenty-five additional colleges do not cover surgery, but their student plans do cover related hormone therapy, and 20 universities have plans that cover some or all sex-change treatments for their employees, according to the Transgender Law and Policy Institute.
Those lists include many of the top American universities — Harvard, Stanford, Cornell, Penn, Emory, Northwestern, the University of California system, Yale, Princeton, M.I.T., Washington University and others. Colleges are not required to provide health coverage for their students, many of whom are still covered by their parents’ plans, but they generally do.
The idea still seems radical to plenty of people; last year, when Sandra Fluke, a law student, became famous for speaking in favor of an insurance mandate for contraceptive coverage, conservatives painted her as part of a fringe element because she also supported sex-change coverage.
But since 2008, the American Medical Association has advocated the same thing, for treatment of gender identity disorder. Other medical groups, like the American Psychiatric Association, have taken the same position. Several major insurers have taken the stance that the treatment, including surgery, can be considered medically necessary. The Internal Revenue Service considers the expenses tax-deductible.
The issue directly affects only a tiny number of students; no one knows how many. But universities recognize that their insurance plan sends a signal to the much larger number of students for whom the rights of transgender people have taken a place alongside gay rights as a cause that matters.
“Students notice whether the issues that they care about, that make them feel like it’s a more comfortable and welcoming place, are being discussed and addressed,” said Ira Friedman, a doctor who is associate vice provost for student affairs at Stanford and director of the student health center there. Stanford began covering sex-change surgery in 2010.
Princeton says on its Web site that it has been named a “top 10 trans friendly university” and that “recently, we launched an online guide” for transgender students. The university’s student policy covers hormone therapy but not surgery, but it is, along with Yale, one of several in that category that say they are considering adding surgical coverage.
“The university is actively exploring the possibility of offering benefits for gender reassignment surgery,” for both students and employees, said Martin A. Mbugua, a Princeton spokesman.
In this field, colleges and universities may be lagging behind the corporate world; the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay rights group, says that about one-quarter of Fortune 500 companies have health plans that cover sex changes, and a larger number cover hormone therapy.
“It is often more a knowledge and will gap than a mechanics and cost issue,” said Deena Fidas, deputy director of the Human Rights Campaign’s workplace project. “You have to start with Transgender 101, if you will, and demystify.”
Sex reassignment surgery encompasses a variety of procedures that alter the anatomy to create physical traits of the opposite gender, sometimes but not always including genital reassignment. Surgery is typically preceded by psychological counseling, and often by hormone treatments. The treatment can cost tens of thousands of dollars, but college administrators say the additional cost of covering the services is negligible because so few people seek medical treatment for gender reassignment, and fewer still have surgery.
Campus activists say that the colleges that are covering sex-change treatments now are those that, 5 to 10 years ago, were among the first to take smaller steps like allowing a student who was born biologically male but identifies as female to have a female roommate and use a women’s restroom. For colleges that have not yet confronted such questions, “gender reassignment is a high bar,” said Shane Windmeyer, executive director of Campus Pride, a national group that supports students who do not fall into the usual categories of sexual identity or orientation.
“Trans issues are new to many campus communities,” he said. “You ask a lot of administrators about it, even at places that are familiar with lesbian and gay and bisexual issues, and they look at you kind of blankly.”
In 2007, Campus Pride added sex reassignment coverage to its annual “inclusiveness index,” which rates several hundred colleges and universities.
The colleges providing sex-change coverage tend to have large contingents of socially liberal, privileged students, who take for granted that they can and should voice their views. Administrators at several campuses said it was students who brought the issue to their attention.
Calling it a lobbying campaign “would be an overstatement,” said Margaret Klawunn, vice president for campus life and student services at Brown. “But students had been asking about it, so we’d been looking at it for a couple of years, whether our health plan was in line with our nondiscrimination policy.”
-
» Op-ed: Protect Native American women, pass the Violence Against Women Act - By Katrice Romero
AS the Violence Against Women Act comes to a potential vote in the Senate this week, women across the nation have been left to ponder their worth and to what extent the U.S. government cares to protect them from violence, especially Native American women. For Native Americans, the Violence Against Women Act has struck a chord that tugs on the heartstrings of sovereignty.
Native American women suffer some of the highest rates of violent crimes. At least 70 percent of Native American female victims were victimized by non-Native American perpetrators, according to a 1999 Department of Justice report. This problem is complicated by jurisdictional constraints over crimes committed by non-Native Americans on tribal lands because tribes do not have jurisdiction to prosecute their crimes.
Rather, jurisdiction is vested in federal authorities and agencies often hundreds of miles away from the reservations and the communities they are charged to protect, leaving tribes defenseless to protect their own Native American women. The only appropriate response to the severity of violence against Native American women is for Congress to pass a Violence Against Women Act that protects them.
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., has been audaciously pivotal in writing an act that strengthens protections for the nation’s most vulnerable populations. She has recognized and invited Native American women leaders to the chambers of Congress, embracing her congressional responsibility to not only the 29 federally recognized tribes in Washington state, but to all tribes across the nation.
The Senate is voting on a version of the Violence Against Women Act that extends limited jurisdiction to tribes over domestic violence crimes committed on Native American lands by non-Native Americans. Last year, the House passed its own version, eliminating the Native American provisions. The controversy for the House lies in whether the Native American provisions are constitutional.
U.S. representatives who oppose the act are ignoring another constitutional matter. The United States government has a unique government-to-government relationship with Native American tribes as sovereign nations and a trust responsibility to Native American people. Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power to regulate commerce with Native American tribes. While tribes retain sovereign power, Congress has assumed the responsibility for the protection and preservation of Native American people.
Congressional efforts such as the Major Crimes Act, Indian Country Crimes Act and the Tribal Law and Order Act are all evidence that the U.S. government is cognizant of the concern for public safety on Native American lands. However, despite congressional efforts, Native American tribes remain powerless to protect Native American women who fall prey to violence due to tangled federal laws and policies.
Congress has a vested responsibility to respond to the heinous degree of victimizations against Native American women. Congress has the power to pass laws that govern Native American tribes and their members and, therefore, the power to further protect Native American women from violence lies wholly in Congress.
The Violence Against Women Act reauthorization brings to light the sovereignty of Native American tribes. Reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act with provisions for tribal court jurisdiction over non-Native Americans who commit domestic violence crimes on Native American lands would uphold, honor and respect tribes as sovereign nations.
At the heart of sovereignty is the responsibility of government to protect its citizens. A Violence Against Women Act with Native American provisions intact rightfully extends those protective measures.
Despite efforts to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the Violence Against Women Act in 2012, the House GOP has held a flagrantly negligent, uncompromising stance on its version of the bill. Members refused to reauthorize it by the end of the term — a first since the law passed with bipartisan support in 1994.
The U.S. government has distinct legal, treaty and trust obligations to provide for the public safety of tribal communities. Passing a Violence Against Women Act that protects Native American women is more than a piece of legislation, it’s a fiduciary responsibility.
Katrice Romero is a member of the Nooksack Indian Tribe in Washington state. She is studying for a master’s degree in social work at the University of Southern California.
-
» In VAWA Vote, Senate Overwhelmingly Passes Violence Against Women Act
WASHINGTON — The Senate easily passed its Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bill on Tuesday, officially punting the issue to the House, where Republican leaders still haven’t signaled how they plan to proceed.
The bill passed 78 to 22. It already had 62 cosponsors, which ensured its passage, but it picked up additional support from a handful of Republicans who weren’t already sponsoring it.
Senators who voted against the bill included Republicans John Barrasso (Wyo.), Roy Blunt (Mo.), John Boozman (Ark.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), John Cornyn (Texas), Ted Cruz (Texas), Mike Enzi (Wyo.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Orrin Hatch (Utah), James Inhofe (Okla.), Mike Johanns (Neb.), Ron Johnson (Wisc.), Mike Lee (Utah), Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Rand Paul (Ky.), Jim Risch (Idaho), Pat Roberts (Kansas), Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Jeff Sessions (Ala.).
The bill authorizes $659 million over five years for VAWA programs. It also expands VAWA to include new protections for LGBT and Native American victims of domestic violence, to give more attention to sexual assault prevention and to help reduce a backlog in processing rape kits. Created in 1994, VAWA has helped to strengthen programs and services for victims of domestic violence, dating violence and stalking.
Ahead of the vote, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the bill’s sponsor, questioned why anybody would vote against his legislation since it just expands protections to vulnerable groups.
“It is difficult to understand why people would come in here and try to limit which victims could be helped by this legislation,” Leahy said. “If you’re the victim, you don’t want to think that a lot of us who have never faced this kind of problem, sat here in this body and said, ‘Well, we have to differentiate which victims America will protect.’”
Senators voted on a few amendments to the bill. They voted 93 to 5 to include a provision targeting human trafficking, and 100 to 0 on a provision to ensure child victims of sex trafficking are eligible for grant assistance. They rejected amendments by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to consolidate certain Department of Justice programs and to allow grants for sexually transmitted disease tests on sexual assault perpetrators.
VAWA typically gets reauthorized with little fanfare. But Congress failed to do so last year amid House Republican objections to provisions in the Senate bill that expanded protections for LGBT, Native American and undocumented immigrant victims of violence. This year’s Senate VAWA bill includes the LGBT and Native American provisions, but leaves out the piece for undocumented immigrants. Leahy has pledged to attach that piece to immigration reform legislation.
The onus is now on House Republican leaders to advance VAWA. They haven’t given any indication as to what their bill will look like or who will sponsor it, and even some in their own party are pressuring them to get moving. Seventeen House Republicans wrote to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on Monday night urging them to “immediately” pass a bipartisan VAWA bill. They didn’t specifically endorse the Senate bill, however.
“Now is the time to seek bipartisan compromise on the reauthorization of these programs,” the letter reads. “VAWA programs save lives, and we must allow states and communities the opportunity to build upon the success of current VAWA programs so that we can help even more people.”
-
» R*d*k*ns: Proof Of Indian Kill - By Suzan Shown Harjo
Native American organizations have called for the Washington pro football franchise to end its team’s despicable name. Why? Because it’s a racial slur and—no matter how many millions it spends trying to sanitize it and silence Native Peoples—the epithet is not, was not and will not be an honorific.
Many Native people cannot bear to say or hear the R word, while some use it or “skins” in the same way that some African American people use the N word, but are not okay with those of other races using it. Lawyers for the team’s owners cite any use of the R word by Native persons to support their contention that we are fine with it; they’ve even spied around Facebook for use of the term by the Native young people who filed suit in 2006 in the ongoing Blackhorse et al. v. Pro Football case.
Edward Bennett Williams was the franchise’s only owner to meet with Native people who oppose the name, and that was in 1972. Owners have maintained in court since 1992 that the name “honors Indians.” But in overlapping litigation of 21 years and counting no Native representatives have testified that they are honored, while Native friends of the court have stood up against the name and the “honoring” myth.
At the same time, the franchise’s owners have said that the name means only the football team and has nothing to do with Native Peoples. What then, pray tell, do they mean to suggest by that “Indian” profile and feathers (and by that stereotype-laden fight song, which didn’t stop being offensive just because “scalp ’em” was removed)?
The Washington “Indian” head was pasted on the sides of garbage bins on most D.C. street corners from the 1970s to 1990s. Then, the complexion of the “Indian” matched the team’s burgundy color. Gradually, but not so subtly, the color changed to the brown-black of the “Indian” skin on today’s helmets, which begs the question: Is someone considering a commensurate name change to target the supposed skin color of other people, and how fast would that repugnant idea be shot down by the fans, who don’t notice, don’t mind or look the other way now.
As loathsome as it is for the franchise to impose this false identity, its name is even more vile, because it is rooted in the commodification of Native skin and body parts as bounties and trophies. Some Europeans arrived here with millennial history of chopping off enemies’ heads and mounting them on stakes, and of scalping, skinning, dismembering and other tortures and trophy hunting. Some Native Peoples engaged in ritual versions of some of these practices, while many did not, but beheadings and grave robbing were so unusual that they remain prominent in Native oral histories.
Many Native Peoples became prey of European countries, companies and colonies, and of Americans, whose bounty proclamations set targets, proof of “Indian kill” and prices. Some bounties were paid for any person of a stated Native nation, in which case a captive, dead body or scalp with hair or ears or other cultural identifier would suffice. Others were paid on a sliding scale for men, women and children, in which case at least the front skin or scalped private parts would have to be produced in order to establish the rate of pay.
The British bounty on the Mi’kmaq Nation (Halifax, 1749), for example, was a straightforward “ten Guineas for every Indian Micmac taken or killed, to be paid upon producing such Savage taken or his scalp.”
More complex were the Massachusetts Bay bounties against the Penobscot Nation in 1755 (prices in pounds)—male prisoners (above age 12), 50 each, or for scalps “as Evidence of their being killed,” 40 each; and female prisoners or males (under 12), 25 each, or their scalps, 20 each—and Pennsylvania bounties against the Lenni Lenape Nation in 1756 (prices in Pieces of Eight): 130 for the “Scalp of Every Male Indian Enemy” and 50 for the “Scalp of Every Indian Woman, produced as evidence of their being killed.”
There are some who claim that the “scalp evidence” has nothing to do with Indian or bloody skin, because they cannot find the words skin or red in bounty documents. They do not allow that scalp is skin and that the skin of the head, with or without hair, is insufficient evidence of gender or age. (They also claim that Native people introduced themselves as “Red Skin,” because that’s how Europeans translated to English what Native men said in their tribal languages, when they likely said they were a Red, Blood or Related Person or Man.)
Cheyenne Scholar Dr. Leo Killsback did not obscure meaning in his November 2012 ICTMN column: “The bodies of the 39 Dakota men” (who were federally hanged at Mankato, Minnesota in 1862) “were skinned and preserved by the Mayo Clinic for further ‘scientific’ study.”
Records of military and congressional investigations into the 1864 Sand Creek Massacre illustrate that “scalping” and other terms were euphemisms for Colorado Volunteers mutilating Cheyenne people and wearing and displaying genitalia, fetuses and other “battle trophies.”
Native Peoples from ocean to ocean have long experience with twisted words, meanings and thinking, and we recognize echoes of a past that we do not want to repeat. This issue is part of cultural reclamation and protection of sovereign identity and good name that are ongoing in Native nations today.
Suzan Shown Harjo, Cheyenne & Hodulgee Muscogee, is an award-winning columnist and a poet, writer, curator and policy advocate, who has helped Native Peoples to protect sacred places and recover more than 1 million acres of land.
-
» Utah School District's Response to 14-Year-Old Gay Teen's Tragic Suicide Is Deplorable
TRIGGER WARNING: SUICIDE, HOMOPHOBIA
On Thursday, November 29th, the principal of Phuong Tan’s son’s school called her at work to tell her that her son, 14-year-old David Phan, had been suspended and needed to be picked up. When she asked why he’d been suspended, she was brushed off — “perhaps because of her heavy accent,” Tran told The Salt Lake Tribune. It’s reported that “what she understood” was that “another student had complained and when district officials searched David’s backpack, they found a condom.” Furthermore, ”[the principal] told me: we will discuss on Tuesday.”
But when Tuesday came around, it was far too late. On Thursday, Phuong Tan took David home, made him lunch, and, at David’s insistence, returned to work, at which point David, “an avid outdoorsman who worked at local gun shows, practiced at local firing ranges and wanted to serve his country in the Army,” then took a 22-caliber pistol with him to a pedestrian bridge near Bennion Junior High’s campus and killed himself in front of his stunned peers. He’d left a note behind in his room reading: “I had a great life but I must leave.”
It’s impossible to know what specifically triggered David, but David’s classmates attest that David was frequently bullied in school, and Queerty reports that on November 28th, a boy had sent David a singing telegram from another boy, “and though he laughed along with his classmates, his cousin revealed that he was indeed mortified.”
David Phan’s family, however, has always been accepting of his sexual orientation. Queerty reports that ”David came out to his older brother and other family members a year ago. Then about three months ago, he came out to his mother and finally his father, Nhuan Phan, who hugged him, told him he loved him and wanted him to be safe.” As reported by the Salt Lake Tribune, David’s family said David was “well-loved with a strong family support system, but could not deal with the bullying and the burden of being a gay Asian student in a school they believe did not support him.”
The lack of support David received from the school during his short life was, unfathomably, amped up in the wake of his death.
Ben Horsely, the Granite School District Spokesperson, is called out by name in a letter delivered to the Superintendent by the ACLU essentially asking Horsely to stop talking about David Phen. On November 30th, Horsely told local media that David had been receiving counseling at school and had spoken to counselors “about other issues in his personal life” but had “purportedly failed to report the bullying to counselors and denied being bullied to counselors in response to their direct questions.” (Although any good counselor knows that bullied kids are often reluctant to report the bullying in fear of attracting additional bullying!) Horsely insisted David was having “significant personal challenges on multiple fronts” and that he had “mental health” issues.
This is problematic on two levels: first, the content of his counseling sessions is, legally, confidential information that should not be released to anybody, let alone the press. Secondly, this was how David’s parents learned their son had been in counseling at all.
David’s father, Nhuan Phan, said: “We have a right to know as parents. Nobody told us anything.” Horsley “clarified” that David was seeing a “guidance counselor, not a mental health specialist” and that the school was apparently only obligated to notify the family “when needed” (which the ACLU disputes).
Horsley even went so far as to tell the media “that David had been searched for weapons on November 29” which the ACLU notes was clearly an attempt to “imply the school had some reason to suspect that David might have a weapon.” From the ACLU’s letter:
These improper statements are particularly disconcerting because none of the District’s alleged concerns about David’s mental and emotional health had ever been communicated to David’s parents before this tragic event occurred. By leaking purported information about David to the media, the District appears to be attempting to smear David and his family in order to avoid answering questions about whether the District failed in its obligations to protect David from the bullying he reportedly experienced for several years at the hands of other students…
Before setting out the legal problems with these public statements by the District, it must be pointed out that their apparent motivation is extremely problematic on a human level. Specifically, the District’s public statements in the immediate wake of this tragedy seem to be motivated by a desire to shield itself from criticism or liability for failing to protect David from bullying. Even worse, District officials selectively released confidential and protected information about David in a manner making it difficult not to conclude that it was trying to cast suspicion on David and his character…. now is certainly not the time for the District to start public maneuvering and posturing at the expense of a family facing such a devastating loss. No amount of media spin will change the underlying facts.
In the rest of the letter, the ACLU lays out the legal violations made by the school district and implores them to stop talking about David Phan. Horsley is a staunch Republican, passionateMormon (see: Horsley’s twitter feed) and graduate of the George W. Romney Institute of Public Management at Brigham Young University (a University which prohibits anybody from “promoting homosexual relations as morally acceptable.”) Horsley has served on Republican Party commissions and ran (unsuccessfully) for office in the Utah House of Representatives in 2010, during which he declared that Arizona was the only state handling immigration laws properly and effectively. Did Horsley’s background impact his perspective on anti-gay bullying or was he solely motivated by saving face? (Today, Horsley has been kept busy by another situation in his district involving an 11-year-old bringing a gun to school for “protection” from another “Connecticut style incident.”)
We also have a lack of anti-bullying legislation throughout Utah: according to sexetc, public schools in Utah do not have a Safe Schools Law, anti-bullying laws to protect students based on sexual orientation or gender identity, or a statewide anti-discrimination law that includes sexual orientation or gender identity. As David’s parents suggested, it’s difficult to imagine that David could’ve ever felt fully accepted in a prominently Mormon and prominently white county with no anti-discrimination protections for gay students. Then Horsley exacerbated the situation after David’s death by showing no respect for the humanity of David’s grieving parents.
But David was a boy, a teenage boy with his entire life ahead of him, a life tragically cut short. Friends who spoke to the press at a candlelight vigil held in David’s honor on November 29th describe David as “a kind, friendly soul.” Fellow ninth-grader Hunter Evensen said David was “one of the sweetest guys I’ve ever known” but that kids picked on him and called him names. Kaleb King, another ninth-grader, said “I hated when people [bullied him]. I felt so bad for him.”
Now David’s family is working with Steven Ha, an activist who works with both the Vietnamese and gay communities, to assemble a group of local gay activists to address suicide prevention for gay youth. Ha told The Salt Lake Tribune: “We’re not interested in suing but working with credible sources. That’s how we want David to be remembered.” Citing letters he’s gotten from other Asian teenagers who have considered suicide, Ha notes: “We don’t want another incident like this to happen.” (Those interested in helping can email him at steven.ha.usa@gmail.com.)
On the day of David’s funeral, his family released the following statement about their son’s brief, brilliant and promising time on this earth:
“David was an adored son, beloved by his close knit parents, older brother, and large extended family. David’s home life was full of support and unconditional love. His parents are devastated to have lost their young son who rarely left their side. Many of his peers and members of the community have confirmed that David was an amazing student and extraordinary friend.
David shielded his parents from the horror he was facing and his negative experiences at Bennion Jr. High. The last few days have been an absolute living nightmare to learn that he was bullied in school where he was supposed to be in a safe learning environment. It is time for us to turn the hate David endured by bullies into a learning experience to strengthen a divided community. Let us not deny the numerous accounts that David was a victim of serious bullying at school. Allow his family and friends the ability to heal by us all taking accountability and to move towards conversations and practices that will enable us to prevent other children from enduring this unbearable pain.”
-
-
The Native American Health Center in Oakland, California is joining the grassroots BUY NATIVE campaign by promoting local Indian entrepreneurs at its “Red Friday—Holiday Indian Market” event on November 30.“We wanted to create an opportunity for these vendors to promote themselves and give people a chance to get their holiday gifts,” Jordan Skye Paul, a member of the Colorado River Indian Tribes and a Nez Perce, Hopi and Lakota descendant, told Indian Country Today Media Network.
Skye Paul, the event coordinator at the Health Center, said Black Friday and Native American Heritage Month inspired the creation of the inaugural event. A simple post by a friend on Facebook gave birth to the idea, she said.
Her friend Levi Jared, Navajo, posted:
“The annual upcoming ‘Black Friday’ frenzy is almost here. I’m all for buying gifts for the holidays, but I love supporting local business owners, Native artisans, crafts people, etc., rather than corporations. What about organizing a ‘Red Friday’ event featuring the works of Native artists and local business? I’d gladly spend my money there on meaningful gifts that help support families and people trying to make a living. Food for thought.”
“He was more than happy to have the idea be passed along and come to life,” Skye Paul said.
The Native American Health Center in Oakland will host Red Friday indoors (due to the weather) on November 30 from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. The crafts fair will feature about 20 vendors including artists, designers and jewelers—most of them urban Indians in the San Francisco Bay area. Among the artwork sold will be: “Aztec jewelry and clothing, Tibetan tapestry, lots of beadwork, various quilts, and one Native entrepreneur will be working on building her small business selling Native foods,” Skye Paul said.
“We’re not charging vendors, we’re just opening up the space and promoting their work,” said Skye Paul, who added that the Native American Health Center will operate a booth selling items like water bottles and t-shirts with all proceeds from the Center’s sales benefiting scholarships for Native youth.
The Native American Health Center was established in 1972 and has six physical sites in the bay area. In addition to offering medical, dental and behavioral health services, the Center works closely with the community.”We have programs for our Two Spirit community; we have an HIV/AIDS program, an Alcohol and Drug Program, a suicide prevention program to name a few,” Skye Paul said.
The Center expects a strong turnout at Red Friday. “We have almost 14,000 followers on Facebook,” and promotion of the event has received an overwhelmingly positive response, Skye Paul said.
“We are spreading the word this holiday season in support of the BUY NATIVE campaign to buy from our local Native entrepreneurs,” Skye Paul said. “We hope to make this an annual celebration!”
Learn more about Red Friday at www.facebook.com/RedFridayNov30. Visit the Native American Health Center website at www.nativehealth.org.
-
(via Native American T’Giving - HuffPost Live)
Thanksgiving is traditionally filled with cartoonish figures of Pilgrims and Indians. How do Native Americans approach the season?
note: I’m actually surprised that they decided to video interview 4 or 5 native intellectuals on the subject and history. way to go (for once) huffpo
