The rules– which Occupiers said were delivered with too little warning– additionally prohibit them from sleeping, camping and storing sleeping equipment on plaza grounds. Dozens of Austin Police Department officers lined the plaza and prevented bystanders from encroaching on the mezzanine area. The heated confrontation ended in five arrests, said Deputy City Manager Michael McDonald.

Occupy Austin being shut down Friday night. (Trey Perry)

“Police were grabbing people, pushing people back and being extremely rough.”

At 9:45 p.m. Occupy Austin protestors were told about the new rules and asked to leave the encampment by 10:30 p.m. Those who failed to comply were arrested on criminal trespass charges, said APD Commander Steve Deaton. At 11:15 p.m., roughly 30-50 police officers formed a line on each side of City Hall Plaza, which remained intact even after the arrests.

After leaving the plaza and beginning a march near the I-35 frontage road, O’Connell said APD jumped out and attacked protestors with batons, held some to the ground and made targeted arrests. Occupiers were also threatened with pepper spray, although none was used.

With the exception of a woman who suffered a seizure and prompted the EMS to the scene, Commander Deaton said all arrests were made without injury or harm to occupiers or officers. Deaton countered charges that the eviction was not delivered with sufficient warning, saying 24 hours notice of the new rules “wouldn’t have mattered,” –occupiers that were willing to vacate would have done so either way. And if APD and the City had given more notice, said Deaton, protestors would have found a way to flood the site, creating a more challenging situation for the police.

“If they knew about this in advance, they would have called as many people as they could to come to City Hall,” he said. “It could have been a big safety concern.”

“Other cities are being given 24 hours notice to disperse, we were given no warning and told we had an hour to leave,” O’Connell said.

City Manager Marc Ott and McDonald expressed their approval of the way the police conducted themselves Friday evening. They said compared with other cities, law enforcement and city officials’ relationship with Occupy is much less severe and confrontational. For instance, the city provided buses for those Occupiers seeking shelter during the eviction.

“The officers did everything they could to prevent arresting anyone. We are really proud of how it was handled,” said McDonald.

As the Texas Independent previously reported, the relationship between Occupy Austin and city officials has oftentimes been a rocky one, escalating in late October with roughly 40 arrests.

The tents and sleeping bags, commonplace items at Occupy Austin for the past four months, were characterized as “homeland terror hazards,” by Deaton. Many personal items belonging to the occupiers were thrown away on site.

O’Connell stresses that Occupy Austin is not only undeterred, but determined now more than ever. Litigation against the city should not be ruled out as a next step, he said.

“Occupy Austin will continue, despite the police violence,” said O’Connell. “We are now more energized. We have seen a lot of what we haven’t seen before and we’re not going to stand for it.”

A copy of the new city rules, Tweeted by Occupy Austin, can be found here.

Image of Occupy Austin: Trey Perry.

Ted Cruz speaks at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana.

When Texas voters will get to make their choice in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate is still undecided, but the candidates and outside groups have raised and spent millions of dollars during the wait. Ted Cruz, the former solicitor general of Texas, trails by 18 points in the latest poll, behind Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. However, Cruz may be gaining momentum with the help of contributions from outside the state, and from outside expenditure groups spending on behalf of Cruz.

According to Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) data, Cruz has raised more money through contributions than either Dewhurst or former Dallas mayor Thomas Leppert. Cruz has raised more than $2.8 million in campaign funds, and 96 percent has been from individual contributions. Dewhurst has raised $4.6 million and Leppert has raised $5.1 million, but 48 percent and 52 percent of their campaign cash has come through self-financing.

Cruz’s total of $2.7 million in contributions exceeds the $2.4 million in contributions to both Dewhurst and Leppert. However, the amounts of contributions coming from out of state to the Cruz campaign are more than Dewhurst and Leppert have received from out of state combined. According to the CRP data, $558,749 in contributions have been made to Cruz’s campaign from out of state, making up 26 percent of his total contributions. While Leppert has received $292,202 (12 percent), and Dewhurst has received just $80,000 (3 percent).

A significant portion of out of state money coming to Cruz’s campaign, over $200,000, has come from the Washington, D.C., area. This has included contributions from attorneys at law firms such as Jones Day and from employees of Koch Industries, Inc. Cruz has also received contributions from investment bankers at Goldman Sachs and from employees of conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute.

Where Cruz has most benefited from outside money has been from outside expenditure groups. According to CRP data, there has been $1.1 million spent by outside groups in Texas, and every penny has been either in support of Cruz or against his opponents. Senator Jim Demint’s Senate Conservatives Fund has spent $575,057 supporting Cruz as the “conservative alternative to Dewhurst,” and Dick Armey’s Freedom works spent $30,000 in supporting Cruz. The Club for Growth has spent $468,760 criticizing Dewhurst for his position on taxes and health care.

Texas Air National Guard Predator Drone

Since the end of the Iraq War and the beginning of the end of the war in Afghanistan, the defense industry is looking for new ways to cash in on government contracts. The Associated Press reported that since the 9-11 terrorist attacks, annual defense industry profits have nearly quadrupled and nearly reached $25 billion in 2010. Defense contractors are now looking toward domestic and border security as areas ripe with the potential of government contracts, especially with a little nudging from lobbyists and campaign contributions to members of Congress including those from Texas.

As The Texas Independent has reported, increased violence in Mexico fueled by the war between drug cartels and the Mexican government has also fueled the rhetoric of politicians on the American side calling for the militarization of the countries’ border. The push for the increased militarization of the border has been led by members of Congress who advocate for the defense contractors that benefit from the militarization of the border.

A review of the government contracting database found that General Atomics and its subsidiaries received billions of dollars in government contracts over the last decade. General Atomics brought in more than $451 million from 210 transactions with the U.S. government since 2000, most of which were for research contracted through the Department of Energy. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems additionally received more than $84 million from 37 transactions with the Department of Defense, mostly for the maintenance of Air Force aircraft.

General Atomics Technology Corporation has received the most lucrative contracts of all the General Atomic companies. In the last decade the company has received more than $10 billion in contracts, mostly through the Department of Defense but also through the departments of Energy, Homeland Security, the Interior, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Nearly $2.2 billion has been received specifically on unmanned aircraft, most of which has gone to the Department of Defense. However, more than $107 million has come from the U.S. Customs Service through the Department of Homeland Security.

Compared to other defense contractors, General Atomics political action committee has spent less on political campaigns. Since 2004 General Atomics has contributed more than $1.8 million to Congressional campaigns, while during that same time period Lockheed Martin has contributed more than $6.5 million.

Since the U.S. House Unmanned Systems Caucus, otherwise known as the “Drone Caucus,” was founded in 2009 during the 111th Congress, General Atomics and other defense contractors have contributed to its members’ campaigns. Center for Responsive Politics records show that both co-chairmen have received contributions from the General Atomics PAC. Rep. Buck McKeon has received $64,000 and $7,400 has been contributed to Rep. Henry Cuellar’s campaigns. McKeon has also received $4,800 from General Atomics CEO Neal Blue, and another $4,800 from his brother Linden Blue.

So far during the 2012 campaign cycle the General Atomics PAC has contributed $68,500 to fifteen caucus members. While General Atomics’ political action committee’s most generous contributions often went to California lawmakers where the company is based, a significant number of Texas lawmakers also received generous contributions. During the 2010 election cycle, Rep. Chet Edwards and Rep. Kay Granger both received $10,000 contributions and Rep. Silvestre Reyes received a $7,000 contribution.

Reyes, who represents District 16 which includes the city of El Paso and borders Mexico, has benefited the most among Texas Drone Caucus members from campaign contributions from the defense industry. According to Center for Responsive Politics data, in the current election cycle Reyes received $29,000 from the defense aerospace industry and $28,000 from the defense electronics industry. This included $6,000 from Lockheed Martin.

General Atomics has made up in contracts, and then some, what they have spent on lobbying Congress and federal agencies. Since 2005, General Atomics has spent nearly $17 million on lobbying, including $720,000 specifically for General Atomics Aeronautical Systems. According to the Center for Responsive Politics database, in 2011 General Atomics concentrated its efforts in lobbying the National Defense Authorization Act (HR 1540) as well as Department of Defense Appropriations Act (HR 2219) for provisions related to unmanned vehicles and sensors.

In 2005 General Atomics Aeronautical Systems paid Copeland, Lowery & Jacquez $60,000 for lobbying services. However, since 2006 they paid Innovative Federal Strategies $660,000 for lobbying, after Copeland, Lowery & Jacquez lobbyist Letitia White joined Innovative Federal Strategies, who also employs Drone Caucus member Rep. Joe Wilson’s former scheduler, Jessica Eggimann as a lobbyist.

Image: Texas Air National Guard Predator Drone (source: Wikimedia Commons)

A Texans for Public Justice report found that Perry’s regent appointees have contributed over $6 million to his campaigns since 2000. Those appointed to the boards of regents at the University Texas System, Texas A&M University, Texas Tech University and University of Houston have given the most money to Perry’s campaigns.

Walker is the president and CEO of EnerVest Ltd, an oil and gas company that is described on its web site as “using private equity” to “acquire onshore properties with proven reserves, enhance and build up those assets, then sell prudently three to five years out.” In addition to being a Texas Tech alum, Walker is also a member of the National Petroleum Council, past chairman of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, and a past board member of the Natural Gas Council.

While Walker has contributed to Perry’s campaigns, four other Texas Tech Regents have contributed significantly more. According to Texas Ethics Commission records, Walker has contributed $75,000 to Perry’s gubernatorial campaigns, which is still above the $64,343 average from Texas Tech regent appointees. In addition to contributions to Perry’s campaigns, Walker also donated $1,000 to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and $7,000 to Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst.

Before the donations to Perry’s campaign, Walker also initially contributed $26,000 to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison’s campaign for governor, and it has been alleged that regents that supported Hutchison’s challenge of Perry faced political retribution. The Austin-American Statesman reported that two Texas Tech appointees said that Perry’s campaign pressured them to resign after they endorsed Hutchison.

Walker has been a much more active contributor to federal campaigns than he has to state campaigns. A review of Federal Elections Commission records found that Walker has contributed more than $73,000 to 22 different candidates, including $2,500 to Perry’s failed presidential campaign. In addition, Walker has contributed another $38,500 to political action committees, including $26,250 to the Republican National Committee.

The vast majority of Walker’s contributions have gone to Republican candidates. While he has contributed to several candidates from Texas such as more than $8,000 to Sen. John Cornyn and nearly $10,000 to Rep. Pete Olson, Walker has also contributed to candidates elsewhere including $2,400 to Sharon Angle in Nevada and $4,800 to Carly Fiorina in California.

The super PAC is headed up by former Perry chief of staff and Texas lobbyist Mike Toomey — who donated more than $100,000 to his own organization­ — and Dallas County GOP finance chair G. Brint Ryan, who gave $250,000 to the group. Toomey’s close 25-year association with Perry and his record of heavy lobbying in the Texas Legislature drew criticism, as the newly formed super PAC rules bar candidates from coordinating in any way with its members. In addition to some 500 lobbying contracts over two decades worth up to $26.4 million, Toomey’s clients contributed $5.5 million to Perry campaigns over the years, The Texas Independent previously reported.

The Texas-based major GOP campaign contributors include some of the most prolific donors to not only the former presidential contender’s gubernatorial efforts, but to Republican causes and candidates nationwide.

Bob Perry, a Houston homebuilder and perennial financial supporter of the Texas governor and Republican candidates, donated $100,000 to the super PAC. With an estimated net worth of $650 million, Bob Perry has doled out $3.2 million to Gov. Rick Perry’s gubernatorial bids over the years. From 2005 to 2010, Bob Perry and his wife spent more than $18 million on Texas candidates and PACs, with ­the majority of those funds directed toward Republican causes, as The American Independent previously reported. In 2006, Bob Perry contributed more than $9 million dollars to GOP Senate and House candidates across the country, solidifying himself as the largest political donor in the nation at the time.

No stranger to donating to GOP-linked super PACs, the multi-millionaire backed Karl Rove-aligned super PAC American Crossroads with $9.5 million — accounting for nearly half of the PAC’s funds, according to the most recent data from the Center for Responsive Politics. An ardent GOP donor nationwide, Perry’s largess benefited 527 group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth– the organization in charge of attacking Sen. John Kerry’s military service during the 2004 presidential election —  with some $4.45 million. Perry also doled out $3 million to Progress for America Voter Fund, a group that poured $28.8 million into George W. Bush’s reelection in 2004, according to Mother Jones.

Lesser-known donor Dallas-based Chief Oil and Gas CEO Trevor Ress-Jones, described as the “fastest-rising star in Republican big-money circles,” also gave Make Us Great Again $100,000. Ress-Jones similarly contributed to American Crossroads, giving $1 million during the 2010 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

But the largest donation came from Dallas billionaire and head of the Contran Corporation, Harold Simmons, whose holding company contributed a total of $1 million to the pro-Perry super PAC. A major Perry donor, Simmons and his wife are the fourth-largest spenders in Texas state politics, contributing more than $1 million during the 2010 election cycle, including $350,000 to Gov. Perry, as The American Independent previously reported. While spending millions in influential state lobbying dollars, Simmons has come under fire for his efforts to build a radioactive waste dump in West Texas despite contamination risks. The Dallas businessman, said to have pioneered the controversial “leveraged buyout” practice, is known for backing GOP candidates and issues. Simmons has donated millions to Swift Boat Vets, and like Ress-Jones and Perry, he gave generously to American Crossroads, doling out $5 million so far during the 2012 election cycle, according to Center Responsive Politics data. In fact, the Contran Group ($7 million) and Perry Homes ($2.5 million) top the list of donors to American Crossroads as of this year, ranking as the first and second biggest funders of the conservative 527 organization.

Notably, the review points out the study of evolution– a contentious topic for the Texas State Board of Education in recent years­– is “all but ignored” from Kindergarten through fifth grade. And middle school standards aren’t much better when it comes to evolution, the report finds. A distortion, typically used by Creationists to argue against Darwinian macroevolution, shows up in the seventh-grade standards. Additionally, the word “evolution” is never actually used in any of the middle school curriculum and the definition of “natural selection” is omitted. While high school standards fared better when it came to evolution, the Institute concludes that with an insufficient foundation prior to high school, Texas students will likely be ill equipped to handle science in the coming years.

With a State Board of Education notorious for its largely anti-evolution stance– having been previously led by Young Earth creationist, Don McLeroy– the criticism is nothing novel for the state. In 2009, the board’s conservative bloc sought unsuccessfully to reinsert the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution into course material, a term many see as used to deliberately dilute the teaching of evolution.

McLeroy told the Texas Independent he is “very pleased” with the study and believes it only serves to validate the role he and the conservative bloc played in crafting the standards.

“The work of religious conservatives has been vindicated,” he said, pointing to the report’s positive review of high school evolution standards. When asked about the poor evaluation of middle school standards, McLeroy said blame could fall on the writing teams and review committees and/or the whole board who could have stepped up to improve them. “In the end, what we wrote was legitimate, sound science and the study proves it.”

Broken down into content and rigor (five out of seven) and clarity and specificity (one out of three), the standards received a total score of six out of 10. Physical science standards offered glaring gaps and omissions, high school physics lessons were oftentimes redundant and “riddled with errors,” while Texas life standards were characterized as “woefully imbalanced.” In general, standards were found to be “confusing,” “frustratingly vague,” and prone to leaving “too much to the imagination.”

University of Texas at Austin evolutionary biology Professor David Hillis, who served on the SBOE science standards review committee three years ago, said the “C” grade was a fair assessment.

“The SBOE removed, added and changed a lot of our recommendations and we ended up with weaker standards,” said Hillis. “They could have been much stronger and been given an A or B grade, but instead we are left with science standards that are ambiguous and confusing for both students and teachers.”

Earlier last year in a rare show of approval, scholars and science groups lauded the SBOE’s decision to forgo Intelligent Design/Creationist backed supplemental materials, the Texas Independent previously reported. While the March 2010 Republican primary ousted the most vocal creationist, former board chair McLeroy, and the last general election ushered in more moderate candidates– ­breathing renewed hope to science advocates in the ability of SBOE members to side with evolution– all 15 seats are up for grabs during the next election, due to redistricting.

The Fordham Institute is also responsible for assigning Texas’ controversial social studies standards a “D” grade last year, for its factual misrepresentations and “politicized distortion of history.” Because those standards were pushed by the board’s conservative bloc, the highly critical study’s origin came as a surprise to many, as it was commissioned by a conservative education research group staffed with former Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administration officials.

Overall, results nationwide were found to be “deeply troubling,” as most states received a D or F grade for their science standards; just six states earned As.

(Image of Darwin: Wikimedia Commons)

A predator drone (source: Wikimedia Commons)

The increased violence in Mexico fueled by the war between drug cartels and the Mexican government has also fueled political rhetoric on the American side, calling for the militarization of the countries’ border.

Any discussion of United States immigration policy usually begins with talk of “enforcement first,” and this has included proposals for increased use of military technology and equipment along the 1,969 miles of border. The push for the increased militarization of the border has been led by members of Congress who advocate for the defense contractors that benefit from the militarization of the border.

The voices calling for increased border security have come from the floor of the Congress as well as state capitols in the South. Texas Gov. Rick Perry has been a loud critic of the Obama Administration’s policy toward border security and a proponent of increased militarization of the border. In February 2009 Perry requested 1,000 military personnel and aviation assets to secure the border, and in March of 2010 he directed two Texas National Guard helicopters to the border.

While the discussion of security along the border often centers around an increase of “boots on the ground” in the form of more Border Patrol agents or even members of the National Guard, the eye in the sky is what some advocates say will increase security along the border. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), also known as drones, have been flown along the border since as early as 2004 when the Border Patrol reportedly tested an Israeli made Hermes drone.

Since 2004 the Border Patrol has added several Predator-B drones, manufactured by the California-based General Atomics Aeronautical System, to its fleet of more than 300 aircraft. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano released a statement in 2010 that the agency was considering expanding drone use along the Texas-Mexico border. DHS Spokesman Matthew Chandler said that “before border security mission can commence, DHS must secure the infrastructure.”

Texas congressional leaders have been a loud voice for increased use of drones along the border. In April 2010 during a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. John Cornyn pressed Napolitano on increased use of drones in Texas. Cornyn went so far as to place a hold on Michael Huerta’s nomination by President Obama to deputy administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration until DHS deployed a second drone to Texas. DHS eventually approved the deployment of another drone in June 2011, and it arrived in Corpus Christi in October.

In April 2011 three Texans on the House Homeland Security Committee requested that the Obama administration increase the number of drones in Texas. Two of those calling for an increase, Democrat Rep. Henry Cuellar (Texas-District 28) and Republican Rep. Michael T. McCaul (Texas-D 10), are members of a bipartisan group of lawmakers that advocate for the use of UAVs.

The U.S. House Unmanned Systems Caucus, otherwise known as the “Drone Caucus,” includes 50 House members from both parties. According to the group’s website, its mission is “to educate members of Congress and the public on the strategic, tactical, and scientific value of unmanned systems; actively support further development and acquisition of more systems, and to more effectively engage the civilian aviation community on unmanned system use and safety.”

While the Drone Caucus boasts membership from throughout the country, California and Texas have a combined 17 members. Rep. Cuellar co-chairs the caucus along with Republican Buck McKeon (Calif.- D 25). Members from the Texas delegation include Reps. McCaul, Mike Conaway (Texas-D 11), Gene Green (Texas- D 29), Pete Olson (Texas-D 22), and Silvestre Reyes (Texas-D 16).

The caucus works closely with the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI). The AUVSI membership includes drone manufacturers General Atomics Aeronautical Systems and Northrop Grumman as “Diamond” members and Lockheed Martin and Boeing as “Platinum” members. Cuellar and McKeon are both scheduled to speak at the AUVSI’s Unmanned Systems Program Review on Feb. 8 and 9, along with influential members of the military and the defense industry.

In April 2011 Texas Rep. Blake Farenthold said that “UAVs provide a vital force multiplier effect in securing our borders as Mexican drug cartels grow bolder by the day in their operations on both sides of the border.” However, the cost of drones compared to their actual benefits is not as clear cut.

According to a report by the Government Accounting Office on high-tech border-security programs, drones have “significant infrastructure costs with the highest cost risk.” The DHS has reportedly spent $242 million in drone contracts with General Atomics, the parent company of General Atomics Aeronautical System. Since they began flying along the border, drones have flown more than 11,500 hours, and DHS officials have claimed that they have led to seizures of about 46,000 pounds of drugs and the detention of about 7,500 people. However, according to Associated Press reports, in 2010 alone a record 254,000 pounds of cocaine were seized along with 3.6 million pounds of marijuana, and 463,000 people were detained, so the drones have made a relatively small contribution to border enforcement overall.

Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Latino Literature

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer famously wagged her finger at President Obama when he visited the state a week ago. Today, though, it is Brewer who is on the receiving end of a scolding as the Latino community rises up in protest against a law banning ethnic studies in the state’s schools.

In 2010 Brewer signed HB 2281 into law, which effectively banned ethnic studies programs in public schools throughout the state. The law states that school districts or charter schools shall not include in their program of instruction any courses or classes that include the promotion of the overthrow of the United States government, resentment toward a race or class of people, are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group, or advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.

It was thought by many that this legislation was aimed directly at programs designed to highlight Latino contributions to society, specifically at the Tucson Unified School District’s (TUSD) Chicano studies program. Arizona state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Huppenthal publically criticized TUSD for what he called “an unbalanced, politicized and historically inaccurate view of American History being taught.”

Huppenthal also noted at the end of the press release that “minority students’ academic growth, year after year, substantially lags behind other TUSD schools and Arizona peers. This is unacceptable. Every child needs access to a quality public education, and these children are being underserved. In a world in which quality education holds the keys to opportunity and success, these minority students are being consigned to a lesser future. They deserve better.”

However, an independent audit ordered by Huppenthal and conducted by Cambium, a company that Huppenthal selected; found that the programs are in fact legal. New America Media reports that the audit found that “no observable evidence was present to suggest that any classroom within Tucson Unified School District is in direct violation of the law [Arizona Revised Statutes] 15-112(A).”

Nicolàs Kanellos, Brown Foundation Professor of Hispanic Studies at University of Houston and Director of Arte Público Press (APP), told The Texas Independent that the policy has been driven by an anti-immigrant ideology.

“Mr. Huppenthal, even before he became superintendent, was a legislator introducing anti-immigrant legislation and attempting to ban ethnic studies programs,” Kanellos said. “When he became superintendent he felt empowered to take them on, even though he has never been able to provide any evidence that these books violate the law calling for the overthrow of the government or the promoting of one race over the other, etc.”

APP is the largest publisher of contemporary U.S. Latino literature, and two APP books are on the banned list in Arizona. “Message to Aztlan,” by Rodolfo Corky Gonzales and “Chicano! A History of the Mexican Civil Rights Movement,” by Arturo Rosales were included in the seven books confiscated by Tucson Unified School District officials following the dismantling of the district’s Mexican-American Studies program.

Kanellos specifically cited Gonzales for being one of the “most important civil rights leaders,” mentioning a poem within the book, “I Am Joaquin,” which deals the conflicting identities of Latinos.

“It addresses that Chicanos are both Mexican and American, and have been both the oppressors and the oppressed,” he said. “It’s a healing piece not directed at Anglos but for Hispanics to come to terms with their history. It is just the opposite of the terms that Huppenthal has characterized them as.”

The loss of control by the current power structure is what Kanellos believes is the driving force behind these policies.

“I truly believe that the motivation is the fear of losing power as the demography of the Southwest changes,” he said. “It is about sustaining the power that comes from asserting a white monolithic Eurocentric history without acknowledging that we live in a multicultural society with contributions from minorities. If they really want to know how they can prevent dropouts and low performance from the Latino community, then teach them about their history, about the contributions made by Chicano leaders.”

Tony Diaz, a writer originally from Chicago, who lives in Houston, is the founder of an organization that promotes Latino literature called Nuestra Palabra.

“Our mission is to promote Latino literature and literacy,” Diaz told The Texas Independent. He talked about grassroots activism that has come in response to the Arizona ban on ethnic studies.

“This has been brewing for about a year,” he said. “The boiling point was actually cancelling the classes and quantifying the books. What really offended us down to our soul – they took the books out of the classes in front of the kids and boxed them up, and that was such a cultural offense we felt we had to do something.”

Diaz addressed what he sees as misconceptions and fear about the Latino community, and those stereotypes have led to these types of situations.

“There is a lot of it that is fear of the Latino community, as we are not conveyed through the mainstream media as individuals,” he said. “We have been portrayed as gangbangers, drug dealers, and low class workers.”

In response to the banning of these books, Diaz and other activists are smuggling them into the state.

“We have to be Librotraficante,” Diaz said. “We have to become outlaws again. We’re going to take all the ‘wet books’ that are illegal in Arizona back across the border.”

The Librotraficante Banned Book Caravan will be smuggling “contraband books” back into Arizona from March 12 through 18, and will stage readings and teach-ins.

Diaz believes that this issue has united the Latino community.

“This has galvanized us in a way I’ve never seen,” Diaz said. “Once we lay these tracks it’s going to be like a train. We’re not the sleeping giant, we’re the working giant. We’re going to make sure the American dream is realized for all the young people.”

Image: Creative Commons/iamusa

The fight to ensure transparency at some of Texas’ unregulated, unlicensed crisis pregnancy centers (or CPCs) waged on Thursday afternoon, as anti-abortion advocates sought to convince Austin City Council members that a measure passed two years ago­– and currently being met with a federal court challenge by the same activists– is an uphill battle they should back down from. The Council saw otherwise, unanimously voting to update language of an ordinance requiring CPCs post signs outside their doors specifying if they employ licensed health care providers or provide medical services regulated by state or federal authority.

Typically faith-based, CPCs routinely come under fire for spouting medically inaccurate information and misleading pregnant women seeking abortions, making the signage an important issue for reproductive rights advocates and health professionals.

As the Texas Independent previously reported, Austin-based CPC operators and religious groups filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Austin over the 2010 mandate this October, calling the precautionary measure an infringement on their free speech rights and religious freedom. The groups contend it should be up to the CPCs to dictate what information is given to clients– not under the government’s purview.

While the original language mandated centers clearly disclose they do not refer for or provide abortions or comprehensive birth control services, the council members say after reviewing similar federal cases, the new, simplified language is likely to hold up better in the long-term legal battle.

Representatives of the Liberty Institute, a conservative legal and advocacy group, and various Austin CPCs and members of Catholic organizations spoke in opposition to the transparency measure, characterizing it as unconstitutional and a “blatant violation of the First Amendment.” When asked by sponsor of the ordinance, Council Member Bill Spellman, if the rule broke constitutionality, a city attorney countered it was “completely constitutional.”

While supporters of the ordinance outnumbered those who opposed it, anti-abortion advocates like Stephen Casey with the Texas Center for Defense of Life argued the ordinance is part of a larger, expressed ideological attack waged by the “pro-abortion agenda.” After the vote, the coalition of anti-choice groups and CPCs said they will not be deterred by the ruling and will continue to fight the ordinance in court.

Proponents see the transparency notice as a public health and basic safety measure in truthful consumer protection and a necessary step to elucidate the oftentimes misleading services provided by CPCs. Sarah Wheat, executive director of Planned Parenthood Central Texas, said women who visit CPCs, usually pregnant and vulnerable, should not have to “guess” what is being offered there. CPC online and billboard advertising, said Wheat, is not in sync with what’s actually found at the sites– while it appears they provide a full range of medical reproductive services, in reality most CPCs primarily offer faith-based counseling.

Criticisms fall in line with a Texas Independent investigation conducted in March 2010 that found Austin-based CPC and plaintiff in the federal case against the city­ Austin Life Care, mixed their religious and educational materials and blurred the line between counseling and religious proselytizing by inundating potential volunteers with overt religious references.

Council members expressed some confusion as to whether or not the CPC receives state dollars– they do. Plaintiff and testifier Austin Life Care generated more than $27,500 from the state in fiscal year 2009-2010. In fact, the state’s Alternative to Abortion Services Program, which allocates taxpayer funds to Texas CPCs, received a 232 percent increase in funding over the past six years. Most recently, the Texas Legislature reinfused the program with $300,000 atop the $8 million per biennium already in place to the network in charge of doling out funds while drastically slashing $74 million to state regulated women’s health centers, like Planned Parenthood, that provide basic medical services to low-income women and serve thousands more clients than CPCs.

Citing the Texas Independent, a NARAL Pro-Choice Texas report noted that between 2006 and 2010, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) has never conducted an on-site evaluation of the program, and that almost 25 percent of CPCs investigated employed at least one counselor who was not vetted by the Department of Public Safety and Family Protective Services. CPC counselors aren’t obligated to be licensed or supervised and are reimbursed at a higher rate than medical and mental-health professionals who provide women’s health services to Medicaid patients.

University of Texas at Austin student and reproductive rights advocate, Katy Waters drew attention to the logical contrast between anti-abortion activists’ ‘informed consent’ argument while promoting the recently enforced controversial state pre-abortion sonogram law and their dismissal of the argument when pro-abortion activists use informed consent to prop up the disclosure rule.

Attorney Blake Rocap of NARAL challenged the speech rights violation claim, saying the burden placed on CPCs is so miniscule that it doesn’t rise to the level of a First Amendment infraction. The ordinance’s new language, said Rocap, is crafted narrowly enough to likely find success in court.

Similar federal cases in Baltimore and New York have blocked implementation of CPC sign disclosures. If CPCs fail to comply with the signage measure in Austin, they face a Class C misdemeanor and may incur up to a $450 fine. The rule is expected to take effect Feb. 6.

(Mary Tuma/Texas Independent)

Even as authorities continue to stifle the public protest, the Occupy Movement has found new venues for activism. The movement has grown on college campuses around the country. From the organization of an Occupy UMASS to the continued activism of students at Occupy UC Davis, college campuses have acted as an incubator of the Occupy Movement.

In Texas the Occupy Movement has been embraced by colleges and universities around the state. As the Texas Independent reported, student led protests have been organized at some of the state’s flagship campuses. At the University of Texas in Austin, Occupy UT has been organizing to take action on a variety of issues in conjunction with other student organizations.

According to the student newspaper the Daily Texan, Occupy UT hosted a student forum on education the day after participating in the Martin Luther King Jr. Day March. As with many other Occupy movements on college campuses around the country, the cost of and access to higher education has become a major part of the dialog.

On the group’s web site is posted a list of grievances entitled “Declaration of the Occupation of the University of Texas at Austin.” Included are a range of issues from the cost of tuition and the rise in student loan debt, to the university’s ties to the military-industrial complex, major corporations, and major banks. However, the group is not officially recognized as a student organization by the university, and this has created some conflict between the students and the administration.

The Daily Texan reported that university officials have said that lack of communication between Occupy UT and the administration has prevented the students from enjoying the same privileges of other student organizations. However, a recent change in administration policy effectively banning camping on campus has been seen as a direct action against the student activists.

Trevor Hoag, a member of Occupy UT, told the Texas Independent that the administration has said that if the student activists want to have a physical occupation that it would have to be done under very specific parameters. Some of these parameters included keeping the number of tents low, the encampment would be required to maintain a certain aesthetic, and students would not be allowed to camp overnight.

“I think it’s pretty clear that this administration is trying to save face and prevent a public occupation,” said Hoag. “When the faculty council brought up the rules regarding camping on campus I think it was obvious that they were worried about the movement on campus and what it would look like if there were a physical occupation on campus.” Hoag went on to say that he thinks this is about preventing protest, but that it will not prevent Occupy UT from moving forward with protests and events.

“Occupy UT is the umbrella organization,” said Hoag. “We are trying to get other groups to unite toward common causes. This week we are going to have a walking tour partnering with the African Studies department on campus, and a professor is going to lead a talk about the statues and buildings on campus and the history of racism.” On campus  a statue of Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederate States, and other statues and buildings named after Confederate figures and Ku Klux Klan members have all stirred controversy.

Hoag downplayed any friction between Occupy UT and the administration saying that “there is not necessarily any bad blood.” The major conflict between the two groups, says Hoag, is between the student activists’ desire to protest and the administration’s requirements to allow those protests. “The university wants any form of protest to be highly highly controlled,” said Hoag. “They will say yes we will work with you, but they want that protest to be controlled.”

While Hoag admits that they do have some “legitimate concerns” about safety, he says that it is mostly about control. “At the end of the day the administration would be more well served to say that we can take the criticism, they shouldn’t be threatened by us,” said Hoag. Despite the complications he believes that the Occupy Movement will continue at UT and throughout the country. “The city occupies and the national occupy groups are all going strong,” said Hoag. “Even the places where the camps were brutally dismantled, they are still going strong.”