http://www.galvestondailynews.com/

 

By CHRISTOPHER SMITH GONZALEZ | Posted: Saturday, December 13, 2014 12:40 am

TEXAS CITY — College of the Mainland trustees approved settling a lawsuit brought by a former tenured professor, but did not reveal many details about the agreement.

Trustees at a meeting Friday unanimously agreed to settle with David Michael Smith.

Smith filed the lawsuit in federal district court against the college, its president, Beth Lewis, and its former vice president of instruction.

The lawsuit sought about $2 million in damages and attorney fees.

The settlement agreement still must be executed and finalized.

“I feel like it is in the best interest of the college to settle and move on,” Board President Roney McCrary said.

McCrary said terms of the agreement would remain confidential except that Smith would not be getting his job back as part of the settlement.

Smith would not comment.

Lewis recommended that Smith’s employment be terminated for insubordination and disrespectful treatment of other employees.

Smith was fired in August of 2013.

In the lawsuit Smith argued his termination was in “retaliation of his exercising and fighting to protect his and others’ First Amendment rights.”

Smith had butted heads with the college administration repeatedly in his 15 years at the college. He had filed two previous First Amendment lawsuits — the college settled the most recent in 2013 for $36,000.

The college requested a summary judgment but U.S. District Court Judge Gregg Costa ruled there was sufficient evidence to allow a jury to decide.

Smith was seeking about $700,000 in lost salary and $175,000 to $250,00 for lost benefits.

The lawsuit also sought $750,000 in compensatory damages for “stress, depression, anger, worry (and) emotional loss,” and as much as $350,000 in attorneys’ fees, bringing the total of damages and fees to about $2 million.

by  James Thompson

People of conscience in the United States and around the world have recently been disgusted by the brutal murders of African-American males in the United States. What’s worse is that the terrorist police officers have so far escaped prosecution. Of course, I am referring to the cases of Michael Brown in Missouri and Eric Garner in New York.

Many people have commented on the militarization of the US police force. There is a long history of police terrorism in this country. Local police have consistently been used by the upper-class to enforce racism and protect the property rights of the wealthy. In the US, the police are clearly unarmed of the state and their mission is to terrorize working people, particularly working people of color.

In Houston, many of us remember the famous photograph of a person in KKK regalia exiting a Houston Police Department patrol car in the 1970s. We also remember the brutal slaying of civil rights leader Carl Hampton and, more recently, the racist execution of James Byrd by white supremacists.

Very recently, anti-immigrant racists in Texas and elsewhere have formed unlawful militias to terrorize immigrants.

The legacy of terrorism, brutality and racism is long in nature and national in scope.

However, the recent events are particularly despicable. The court decisions create the impression that racism is okay even when it leads to murder.

The first African-American president of the United States, Barack Obama, has called for peaceful protests as a reaction to the failure of the courts to put the murderous police officers on trial even though there are videos documenting their murders. This should give people of conscience pause to consider the efficacy of protests in redressing social grievances.

Peaceful protests as a first step in reaction to police brutality are always a good idea. However, a serious movement to oppose police brutality is needed. A serious movement would include political activity as part of the struggle against police brutality.

People of conscience should work together in a united effort to elect people to public office who will fight for the interests of working people and particularly working people of color.

One place to start would be to enact legislation that would harshly punish racist terrorist action by both private and public law enforcement organizations.

One model for new legislation in the United States would be the “Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.” There has been a great deal of negative propaganda against the USSR produced by the US government and the largest corporations since 1917. However, the reality is that the USSR had a long history of supporting civil rights internationally. Many black leaders in the United States received a great deal of support from the USSR. Most notable was Paul Robeson, but there were many others, including Angela Davis.

Article 36 of the USSR Constitution (p. 38) reads (Citizens of the USSR of different races and nationalities have equal rights.

Exercise of these rights is insured by a policy of all round development and drawing together of all the nations and nationalities of the USSR, by educating citizens in the spirit of Soviet patriotism and Soviet internationalism, and by the possibility to use their native language in the languages of other peoples of the USSR.

Any direct or indirect limitation of the rights of citizens or other establishment of direct or indirect privileges on grounds of race or nationality, or any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness, hostility or contempt, are punishable by law.”

There is no longer a USSR to stand up for and advocate for the rights of African-Americans in the United States. It is up to the people of the United States to take on this role and demand that our citizens not be brutalized by the vicious, paid, stooges of the bourgeoisie. Until working people fight for political power, the brutality will continue and expand.

Wake up, people of the United States! What Gus Hall used to call a “whiff of fascism” has expanded into a stench of fascism. A unified movement of working people can turn this around!

By James Thompson

It’s the opportunism, stupid!

No one will argue that the election results of 2008 are the same as the election results of 2014. Many people in the US, including this writer, were thrilled when an African-American was elected to the Oval Office. It was especially thrilling when Pete Seeger sang “This Land Is Your Land” during inauguration events. Many people were excited because of the candidate’s campaign promising “Change” and “Progress.”

The candidate’s campaign promises to address many progressive issues after the horrors of the Bush administration were like an oasis in a very harsh desert. Promises to close the Guantánamo Bay naval base, provide healthcare for all and provide support for labor unions made us all feel good about the election.

However, progressives quickly noted that the thumping hangover after the inauguration festivities was unusually severe.

Rally against Ted Cruz 12/7/2013

Here we are in 2014 and Guantánamo Bay is still alive and well. Legislative proposals for “Medicare for All” initiated by John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich were thrown under the bus in favor of a Republican health care plan ironically dubbed “Obamacare.” Many people are noticing that “Obamacare” falls far short of “Healthcare for All.” The “Employee Free Choice Act” was the talk of the town leading up to the 2008 elections. This legislative proposal, if it had been passed, would have strengthened labor unions and would have made it easier to form and join a union. Soon after the 2008 collections, this proposal was unceremoniously thrown under the bus as well.

Many progressives choked back their tears but vowed to support the first African-American President in the history of the United States no matter what.

The opening shots against progressives after the 2008 election was followed by capitulation to and collaboration with the most extreme elements of the right wing political sector. President Obama has distinguished himself by deporting more immigrants than George Bush ever dreamed of. He has ramped up more wars around the globe than George Bush ever dreamed of. He has done this in a disgusting repudiation of his Nobel Peace Prize. He has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all previous presidents combined. He has truly been a friend of the corporations and the enemy of working people.

Why is he the enemy of the working people? It’s the opportunism, stupid! Obama’s administration has been focused on attempting to strike deals with the ultra-right wing as he sells working people down the river. The really sad part is that the ultra-right has ridiculed him, and attempted to thwart his efforts to support their causes.

Working people are not stupid. They can recognize opportunism easily since they have had to deal with it for centuries. A wolf in sheep’s clothing is not a new opponent for working people.

So, what did working people do in the 2014 elections? They sat on their hands and did not vote. Voter turnout in Texas was 28%. Only the ugliest Republicans and a few diehard Democrats showed up to vote. This was in stark contrast to the 2008 election.

Why should working people vote for candidates masquerading as progressives who, when in office, outdo the nastiest right wingers in pushing the agenda of the 1%?

The people of the US always want the best of everything. They want the best cars, best houses, best jobs and best sports teams on the planet. In the 2014 elections, they had a choice between two opportunistic parties. They chose the better opportunists of the two, the Republicans. Republicans are, hands down, the best opportunists in the country.

Just think what the people of the US would do if they had a real choice and could vote for a candidate or party of candidates that really fought for their interests.