Protect Water Protectors

Fossil fuel advocates ignore First Amendment rights

Evers failed to protect the protectors

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers turned his back on environmental protectors, including major supporters and Wisconsin’s federally enrolled Native tribes, when he failed to veto Assembly Bill 426 and signed it into law as Act 33.

The bill, co-sponsored by Washington County Rep. Rick Gundrum, expanded the definition of energy provider under state law and made peaceful protest on property owned, leased, or operated by companies engaged in oil, water or gas production or transmission a felony offense, punishable by up to a six-year prison sentence and up to a $10,000 fine.

The bill was modeled after proposals by ALEC, the ultra-conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, and the Council of State Governments in response to the protests at Standing Rock against the Dakota Access Pipeline. Wisconsin became the tenth state to pass similar legislation. Evers’ press release echoed the ALEC and oil and gas industry talking points, indicating the bill was needed to “ensure each energy provider is treated the same under the law while still protecting the right to exercise free speech and the right to assembly.” Evers added that he wanted the Legislature to work with Wisconsin tribal nations in the future “before developing and advancing policies that directly or indirectly affect” them. Given the final language of the new law, neither the tribes nor many of the state’s environmental groups were satisfied.

Maria Haskins, of the tribal advocacy group Menikanaehkem Inc., noted, “neither the energy industry nor the state of Wisconsin has consulted any tribal government about how this legislation would infringe on the sovereignty of Wisconsin’s twelve Indian Nations.”

Thirty-six groups signed letters delivered to the governor urging him to veto the bill. They included the ACLU, Sierra Club, the landowner group 80 Feet is Enough and others. Their concerns included claims that the new law infringes upon constitutional rights to protest and a loss of landowner rights. The letters point to the possibility of more people of color being sent to prison trying to protect our water.

Fourteen more national groups including Greenpeace, the National Lawyers Guild, PEN America, Defending Rights and Dissent anhers also asked Evers to veto the bill. Their letter concluded, “special protections designed to protect the energy industry from protests, including non-violent civil disobedience, do nothing to protect the public or worker safety. They do threaten our democracy by chilling dissent.”

Elizabeth Ward of Sierra Club-Wisconsin called out the governor for failing to protect the environment and make good on his campaign promise to address climate change. “Governor Evers had the opportunity to demonstrate leadership on climate change, and he opted not to. The need to stand up for water protectors, Tribal members, and landowners with oil pipelines running through their property has been crystal clear with the recent pipeline fights in Wisconsin and around the country. It’s disappointing that the governor was unwilling to do so and instead supported this bill that helps the fossil fuel industry continue to lock us into a climate catastrophe,” she noted.

Chris Ott, the executive director of the ACLU of Wisconsin, vowed to monitor the enforcement of this law and “oppose any attempts to infringe on the freedom of speech or criminalize people for making their voices heard.”

Unfortunately, Governor Evers sent a conflicting message by signing this bill into law. He previously appointed a task force to focus on actions to combat climate change led by Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes. In doing so, Evers signaled his support of efforts to rein in the destructive impact the use of fossil fuels has on our environment. His failure to veto this “pipeline protection” bill undercuts his own task force and calls into question Evers’ commitment to protecting our environment.

Human Beings Are Not Mascots

Human Beings are not Mascots
Teach Respect Not Racism

Imagine a high school choosing to name its sports mascot an “Old White Guy” or a “Crazy Christian.” The surrounding community would rise up as one to say how inappropriate and demeaning to the elderly Caucasian or the practicing Christian. We would not tolerate such an insult, even us old white guys who might find it mildly amusing to be so honored.

It amazes me that surrounding community members still find it appropriate to continue to use Native American figures as mascots and school symbols and name their sports teams after them when it is clear that many indigenous peoples are offended by these portrayals and object to their continued use.

The Wisconsin Association of School Boards, the organization that represents and serves public school boards across Wisconsin, is circulating a resolution requesting those few public-school districts still using Native American names and mascot imagery to change their names and mascots to create more inclusive and welcoming learning environments for their students. So far, 17 districts have signed on and others have voluntarily changed their practices. Some districts have learned from the past and made the change. But 31 districts across the State still use their Indian or Chief names and mascots, including Menomonee Falls High School and the Kewaskum school district.

The Menomonee Falls district has taken up the challenge and is holding community listening sessions to gauge public support. The district’s superintendent has come out in favor of changing their mascot and name. Community members have spoken in favor of the change while other have voiced support for continued use. Community groups have urged the board to change the mascot and imagery, including the American Civil Liberties Union. The school board will vote on the issue in December.

My community, Kewaskum, has ducked the issue so far. Here the problem is larger as the village is named after Chief Kewaskum, a Potawatomi chief. The school mascot is an Indian as are those who play sports for the school. Kewaskum shares an even bigger issue because both the village president and a member of the school board who is also a Republican member of the state Assembly have been vocal adherents of the “let’s stop with the political correctness” defense of continuing use of the name and imagery. Rep. Tim Ranthum, the school board member, even wants to put larger Indian chief logos on school sports field fences, claiming the name as a matter of community pride. He recalls proudly when prominent community members used to attend sporting events in full native regalia. He claims to be honoring the past chief, even though his descendants see no honor in the practice.

There have been been published studies showing that Native American students enrolled in schools that use people like them as mascots and terms like Indian for members of the school’s sports teams do not feel welcomed or included in their learning environments and do not do as well academically as similar students in schools with mascots and sports team names that do not appropriate their likeness or heritage.

Wisconsin law used to make it relatively easy for marginalized students to challenge the use of their heritage or racial identity. They did not have to show actual harm in order to prevail. In 2013, Wisconsin changed the law shifting the burden to the student aggrieved to show harm and also added a requirement for a community petition signed by 10 percent of the district population to force a change. This change did not end the controversy as Wisconsin tribes continue to lobby for teaching respect, not racism. So far, the Republican Legislature has not listened or acted with respect toward those who find the mascots, names and images offensive and insulting.

This is also a national problem, especially when you consider the NFL’s Washington Redskins and Kansas City Chiefs. Not to mention the Atlanta Braves baseball team and the Chicago Blackhawks hockey team. Pressure has been mounting on these franchises to change their identities and demeaning use of native names, images and heritage.

Those who lived on these lands long before the invasion of the Anglo-Europeans deserve more respect than they are given. We need more robust curriculums on Native American customs, history and environmental stewardship in our schools. With a deeper understanding and appreciation of indigenous people and how we might benefit from many of their ways of living in harmony with their environment, perhaps we can find better and less offensive mascots and sports team names.

Recusal Required

Senator Johnson Must Recuse in any Impeachment trial involving Ukraine

Wisconsin’s Republican U.S. Senator Ron Johnson has put himself in a box that is impossible to get out of when it comes to impeachment proceedings in the Senate involving President Trump’s call to the Ukrainian President. 

As Chairman of the Senate’s foreign relations sub-committee on Europe and a member of the Senate’s bipartisan Ukraine caucus Johnson was smack dab in the middle of the conversations and meetings being considered by the House of Representatives for an article of impeachment against President Trump that involve withholding of U.S. military aid in exchange for Ukrainian help with investigations of 2020 presidential candidate and former Vice-President Joe Biden and Biden’s son, Hunter. 

Johnson has been quoted in newspaper accounts as having learned of the withholding of the military aid to Ukraine and that it was done to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. He had direct communications with President Trump who assured him that there was no “quid -pro-quo” for the aid to flow and Ukraine going forward with the desired investigations. Johnson also met with Ukrainian officials who claim that Ukraine assisted Democrats in the 2016 election. Johnson attended the inauguration of the Ukrainian president who spoke with President Trump. Johnson also unsuccessfully lobbied Trump to let the Ukrainian military aid flow. He stated publicly that he was satisfied with Trump’s statements to him that there was no “quid pro quo” involved with the aid and a Ukrainian investigation of the Bidens. 

In order to understand the problem, it is important to understand the process of presidential impeachment. The U.S. House of Representatives is charged with bringing articles of impeachment forward. Think about articles of impeachment as similar to charges in a criminal complaint or indictment filed by a prosecutor. The articles then form the outline for a trial in the United States Senate where two-thirds of the Senators have to vote to convict in order for the president to be removed from office. In that trial, each Senator sits as a judge or member of a jury, and has to decide if the facts presented are first, true and second, sufficient to warrant impeachment and removal of the president from office. 

If you were facing a criminal trial, would you want one of the witnesses to the facts of your case to then turn around and act as the judge or member of the jury charged with determining if those facts are true?  Would you want that same person to then determine if those facts were sufficient to establish your guilt? I bet you would not.

The rules governing criminal and even civil trials in the United States strictly prohibit witnesses from serving as fact finders and judges in the same trials where they give testimony. The reasons are clear and obvious. We want our trials to be free from bias or even the appearance of bias by those charged with making credibility decisions and applying the law to facts determined to be true. If such a situation arose in our courts, the judge who had first-hand knowledge of the facts of a case before her or who actually gave evidence in the case would be required not to decide the case and to step aside from all decisions in the matter.

In this particular case, Senator Johnson was asked directly if he would step aside, or recuse himself, from his judicial role in any impeachment trial involving the Ukrainian allegations. On Tuesday, Johnson indicated that his close involvement would not cause him to recuse himself from an impeachment trial of President Trump. He claimed that he would “listen to the case very respectfully” and “not prejudge anything.”

Senator Johnson, that just is not good enough. If you want the trial to be fair, you must step aside and not vote on any allegations involving Ukrainian matters or the solicitation of foreign governments to interfere in the 2020 presidential election. Wisconsin voters expect fair and unbiased proceedings, regardless of party loyalty.