Mostrando las entradas con la etiqueta estudiantes. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando las entradas con la etiqueta estudiantes. Mostrar todas las entradas

23.8.15

Cuando muere unx estudiante (Lissette Rolón)

Cuando muere unx estudiante

Lissette Rolón Collazo
 
A José Iván Trinidad Cotto. Gracias por no guardar silencio.

Cuando muere unx estudiante, una se pregunta, ¿cuál es la lógica siniestra de la cronología, de las generaciones, de las horas? Una se cuestiona el porqué de tantas cosas. Cuando muere unx estudiante, una se queda atónita, perpleja. Cuando muere unx estudiante, se trastoca el tiempo.

Cuando muere unx estudiante queer, unx que militó en el Colectivo Queer Sin Nombre del RUM y que vivía con orgullo su diferencia (su patería), se imponen otras preguntas. ¿Por qué ciertas instituciones guardan silencio? ¿Por qué no hay una noticia iluminadora sobre las causas de su muerte precipitada? ¿Por qué no ha circulado en el Cartero Colegial una nota de duelo, un mensaje de solidaridad inequívoco para sus familiares dolientes? ¿Por qué estos silencios resultan crueles e injustificados? Porque abonan el miedo y la complicidad con una homofobia institucionalizada y cotidiana que nos aqueja demasiado todavía.

Cuando muere unx estudiante queer, se nos anuda un dolor viejo, se nos enrosca en la piel una sospecha, se nos atrinchera la rabia. Cuando muere José Iván Trinidad Cotto y casi nadie dice nada, todxs morimos un poco.


En mi nombre y en el de algunxs amigxs de Iván (Alan, Samarie, Jorge, Frances, Pedro, Gaddiel, Humberto, Manuel Alejandro, Josema, Christian y Orville, entre tantxs otrxs) envío esta nota de duelo, de tristeza y de profunda solidaridad a todas las personas que quisieron a Iván y que desde el miércoles pasado –19 de agosto de 2015– lo echan en falta. Un abrazo especial a sus familiares, a esxs que celebraron su vida queer.

José Iván Trinidad Cotto comenzó estudios en el RUM en Ingeniería de Computadoras. Luego se trasladó a Contabilidad, en la Facultad de Administración de Empresas. Fue voluntarix en las últimas dos ediciones del Coloquio ¿Del otro lao?: perspectivas sobre sexualidades queer y laboró con el Centro Universitario para el Acceso en su componente de Clubes de ciencias y matemáticas.


Que no descansemos en paz hasta que su muerte sea esclarecida y toda la gente queer en PR pueda vivir sin miedo…

29.3.15

Conversación sobre Derecho y Ciencias Sociales en la UPR-Carolina


El 12 de marzo pasado, la Asociación de Estudiantes de Ciencias Sociales y Justicia Criminal, de la UPR en Carolina, nos invitó a conversar sobre los temas de Ambigüedad y Derecho, la operación del Derecho como sistema legal y la profesión. 

Conversamos sobre los cambios en el Derecho a partir de los movimientos sociales como los de justicia ambiental, la propiedad como concepto y cómo sus entendidos afectan a comunidades económicamente desaventajadas, el derecho ambiental, entre otras. Fue una gran experiencia y dio un gusto inmenso conversar con estudiantes tan ávidos de conocer, de escuchar sobre experiencias en el mundo jurídico, con curiosidad intelectual y con mucha energía para seguir adelante. 

Agradezco a los y las estudiantes por la invitación, por formular preguntas excelentes y dar pie a una conversación interesante y reflexiva. Gracias a Kariana Rodríguez, presidenta de la Asociación y a su profesor Alexis Rodríguez por la oportunidad. Gracias también a las y los docentes de la UPR Carolina que asistieron.

Espero que coincidamos con otras iniciativas. 

Abajo algunas fotos que nos compartió la Asociación. ¡Salud!.






2.2.15

Reinicia la campaña "Women of UPR Law"

La NATIONAL WOMEN LAW STUDENTS' ORGANIZATION, Capítulo de la Universidad de Puerto Rico, comenzó el semestre pasado una campaña para dar a conocer las experiencias de mujeres estudiantes de Derecho, sus intereses, perspectivas y preocupaciones. En su blog pueden ver algunas de las entradas de esta campaña del semestre pasado. 

Este semestre la NWLSO continuará la campaña, esta vez incluyendo a profesoras de Derecho. Felicitamos a la organización por esta y otras iniciativas en las que amplían las perspectivas y adelantan los temas de equidad y la importancia de las perspectivas de género en el mundo jurídico. Agradezco, además, la invitación que me extendieron para participar de la campaña y la oportunidad de abordar el tema de la libertad.

¡Visiten su blog!

2.6.13

Una propuesta: Estado, democracia y los hippies en Arendt

En el verano de 1970, el escritor alemán Adelbert Reif, entrevistó a Hannah Arendt. La entrevista, traducida al inglés por Denver Lindley, giró en torno a controversias en ese entonces contemporáneas, como los movimientos estudiantiles en Estados Unidos y en Francia, la oposición a la Guerra de Vietnam, el concepto ‘revolución’ y otros temas políticos. La entrevista fue publicada en 1971 en la NYRB.

En otro momento comentaré algunos asuntos interesantes respecto a cómo Arendt veía los movimientos estudiantiles y las universidades en términos políticos y su distinción entre asuntos ‘internos’ y ‘externos’ respecto a las universidades. En esta entrada, sin embargo, me interesa destacar dos cosas que surgen al final de la entrevista: (1) la propuesta de Arendt –de orden institucional-- sobre la democracia y lo que hoy día se conoce como democracia participativa y deliberativa; y (2) un comentario puntual sobre la diferencia de su propuesta (que nace bajo la premisa del espacio de la polis como el espacio de ‘lo político’) con lo que fueron los movimientos hippies en Estados Unidos y sus motivaciones. (Pongo el comentario en negrillas).

Esto último lo comento en tanto hoy día parece interesante analizar una serie de movimientos que yo llamaría de ‘retirada’, que enfocan su resistencia al mercado y la política (en su precariedad actual) en alternativas que tienen su base en cierta idea de ‘autogestión’ (énfasis aquí en el prefijo 'auto'). Estas propuestas, que son ciudadanas y que surgen de sectores medios, son de corte más individual y, por lo tanto, una podría analizar cómo despolitizan ciertos temas (e.g. proyectos de agricultura a escala familiar, como huertos caseros, consumo ecológico o ‘saludable’, por nombrar algunos). Si bien estos proyectos se justifican frente a la homogeneización y masificación imperante, los mismos, como muchos han señalado, dependen de posibilidades e iniciativas individuales y parecen renunciar a un cuestionamiento más estructural o sistémico, renunciar o abandonar ‘lo político’, en el sentido arendtiano. Otra alternativa sería ver estas iniciativas en el largo plazo y pensar cómo una vuelta o regreso a lo micro podría –si de alguna manera- poner en jaque el estado de cosas actual. Esto requeriría otra entrada, pero el comentario de Arendt en esta entrevista sobre los hippies arroja alguna luz para un buen debate sobre esto.

Sólo una precisión más: la propuesta aquí resumida por Arendt -valga enfatizar que es una entrevista- hay que entenderla en relación con sus escritos, en los que desarrolla abordajes muy particulares sobre los conceptos revolución, lo político, la libertad, el pluralismo y la acción. En On Revolution, Arendt explicita mucho más abarcadoramente lo que aquí expone. Llama la atención cómo otros teóricos más contemporáneos han desarrollado parte de lo que aquí ella expone como su propuesta institucional (e.g. Habermas). ¡Salud!

“When I said that none of the revolutions, each of which overthrew one form of government and replaced it with another, had been able to shake the state concept and its sovereignty, I had in mind something that I tried to elaborate a bit in my book On Revolution. Since the revolutions of the eighteenth century, every large upheaval has actually developed the rudiments of an entirely new form of government which emerged independtly of all preceding revolutionary theories directly out of the course of the revolution itself, that is, out of the experiences of action and out of the resulting will of the actors to participate in the further development of public affairs.

This new form of government is the council system which, as we know, has perished every time and everywhere, destroyed either directly by the bureaucracy of the nation states or by the party machines. Whether this system is a pure utopia –in any case it would be a people’s utopia, not the utopia of the theoreticians and ideologies—I cannot say. It seems to me, however, the single alternative that has ever appear in history, and has reappeared time and again. Spontaneous organization of council systems occurred in all revolutions, in the French Revolution, with Jefferson in the American Revolution, in the Parisian commune, in the Russian revolutions, in the wake of the revolutions in Germany and Austria at the end of World War I, finally in the Hungarian Revolution. What is more, they never came into being as a result of a conscious revolutionary tradition or theory but entirely spontaneously, each time as though there had never been anything of the sort before. Hence the council system seems to correspond to and to spring from the very experiences of political action.

In this direction, I think, there must be something to be found, a completely different principle of organization, which begins from below, continues upward, and finally leads to a parliament. But we can’t talk about that now. And it is not necessary since important studies on this subject have been published in recent years in France and Germany, so that anyone seriously interested can inform himself.

To prevent a misunderstanding that might easily occur today: The communes of hippies and dropouts have nothing to do with this. On the contrary, a renunciation of the whole of public life, of politics in general, is at their foundation; they are refuges for people who have suffered political shipwreck –and as such they are completely justified on personal grounds. I find the forms of these communes very often grotesque – in Germany as well as in America –but I understand them very well and have nothing against them. Politically they are meaningless.

The councils desire the exact opposite, even if they begin very small –as neighbourhood councils, professional councils, councils within factories, apartment houses, etc. There are indeed councils of the most various kinds, by no means only workers’ councils; workers’ councils are a special case in this field.

The councils say: We want to participate, we want to debate, we want to make our voices heard in public, and we want to have a possibility to determine the political course of our country. Since the country is too big for all of us to come together and determine our fate, we need a number of public spaces within it. The booth in which we deposit our ballots is unquestionably too small, for this booth has only room for one. The parties are completely unsuitable; there we are, most of us, nothing but the manipulated electorate. But if only ten of us are sitting around a table, then each expresses his opinion, each hears the opinions of others, then a rational formation of opinion can take place through the exchange of opinions. There too it will become clear which one of us is best suited to present our view before the next higher council, where in turn our view will be clarified the influence of other views, revised of proved wrong.

By no means every resident of a country needs to be a member in such councils. Not everyone wants to or has to concern himself with public affairs. In this fashion a self-selective process is possible that would draw together a true political elite in a country. Anyone who is not interested in public affairs will simply have to be satisfied with their being decided without him. But each person must be given the opportunity.


In this direction I see the possibility of forming a new concept of the state. A council of this sort, to which the principle of sovereignty would be wholly alien, would be admirably suited to federations of the most various kinds, especially because in it power would be constituted horizontally and not vertically. But if you ask me now what prospect it has of being realized, then I must say to you: very slight, if any at all. And yet, perhaps, after all –in the wake of the next revolution.”

3.2.13

UPR Students Reap the Fruits of Struggle (Gamelyn F. Oduardo Sierra)

Compartimos este ensayo de nuestro querido exalumno y hoy abogado Gamelyn Oduardo Sierra, una de las voces estudiantiles más importantes y con un compromiso genuino y siempre activo en la reivindicación de los derechos de los estudiantes y por una Universidad de Puerto Rico accesible y de calidad. Gamelyn pasa revista de uno de los resultados tangibles de los últimos años de activismo estudiantil y narra su perspectiva del proceso. Gracias Gamelyn por compartirlo. 

¡Que se escuchen sus voces en cada esquina y rincón del mundo!. Salud!.
--

UPR Students Reap the Fruits of Struggle 
Gamelyn F. Oduardo Sierra

SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO- Almost two years after the militant student strikes that swept the University of Puerto Rico (UPR) for months in a row, the $800 tuition fee hike that was one of the immediate causes for controversy was repealed by the Board of Trustees of the UPR in a surprise move last Saturday.   There was an immediate explosion of social media, while students agreed to take the college town of Río Piedras by storm in celebration.

The delayed victory of the student movement of the UPR, along with the recent victory of the students in Quebec, both having repealed the tuition fee hikes imposed by neoliberal governments through militant prolonged student strikes, stand as undisputed testimony of the fact that social movements that strive in militancy, creativity, and respect for diversity of tactics can be victorious, even against the most voracious neoliberal foes. 

For some commentators, the struggle of the UPR is a premonition of things to come in the island.  Antonio Carmona Báez, former professor at Political Sciences Department of the UPR, and current professor at the University of Amsterdam, commented on a picture taken by the former student strikers who, while holding up their left fists, hold a red flag that reads: “VENCIMOS”: 

“These are no longer my students, but they are mine...I identify with them. These are the students of the UPR who struggled, who were willing to give their lives for future generations, who audaciously defended public education confronting tyranny and the neoliberal lie. Victory has been achieved, almost two years later. I am proud of you and forever grateful for your example. Forward compañeros and compañeras! Yesterday the university, it is now time to take the entire country.”

The student movement of the UPR, as we know it today began in 2005, with a student strike that went on for over one month, over tuition fee hikes.  At that time students agreed with the administration to get an extension of the period of payment and a five-payment plan, for students that struggled with economic hardship.     During the years between 2005 and 2009, the students of the UPR, were active in different struggles, including the defense of the Theater of the University from privatization, reclaiming the need for more courses and the expansion of academic offerings, as well as the preservation of the Social Sciences Book Reserve, and the protection of services provided to students.  In addition to that, they exercised constant solidarity with the professor’s, and workers’ claims for better working conditions.  Students were particularly instrumental in supporting the striking Teachers Federation, one of the most militant unions in the island, in their 2008 strike as a part of the bumpy road to a collective bargain with the government. 

In 2009 a “state of financial crisis” was declared in the Island.  This gave way to cuts on government spending and to the lay-off of over 20,000 government workers. Government imposed neoliberal policies crippled all state-owned schools, and public services in general. The student Movement in the UPR originally intended to organize a massive general strike to fight back against the neoliberal government policies of Republican Rising star, Luis Fortuño.

Structures were born to organize students to fight this neoliberal offensive, not only in the University but also with a macro-perspective, organizing for a nation-wide general strike of all organized sectors. The social momentum ended as the 24-hour general strike was one of the most massive mobilizations in the last years.  As the union and civic leadership backed out from the idea of a more prolonged strike, the student movement again turned to itself, to the University and its issues. 

The University’s budget had been reduced by about 300 million dollars in the last 10 years.  This had caused a deficit of about 200 million dollars. The Board of Trustees of the UPR, implemented policies directly affecting students that received tuition waivers as a benefit for their outstanding academic performance, or for their participation in Sports, for example.  There was also talk of imposing raises in tuition fees to students was being discussed at the moment, and also the possibility of privatizing University property through the Public Private Partnership Model. By then, students and their allies were already organized to fight back.

Students formed Action Committees. Similar Committees eventually proliferated in a nation-wide scale, and in the Río Piedras Campus.  They were constructed as a United Front of students from all political backgrounds in Puerto Rico, who were willing to defend public education and workers rights.  Holding radical democracy as a flag, against the dictatorial styles of the Board of Trustees, administration, and the government, organized students took to the bases, through information, and direct action.

Pickets and rallies were held, hand outs were given out, public forums were organized and documentaries were shown, guerilla billboards were put up, murals were painted, letters were sent, and Buildings were occupied in protest. The 2010 student strike was approved on 13th of April 2010 by an Assembly of thousands of students and soon spread through 10 of the 11 campuses through the island.  It went on through mid-summer 2010 and received massive support form labor unions, the community and religious groups, amongst others.  Students demanded and obtained the protection of the existing tuition waiver system, a statement of the University Board of Trustees, in which they agreed to not raise tuition fees or to privatize any of the Campuses in any way, including Public Private Partnerships, and a general amnesty for all striking students and workers. Students were clear that they had won the battle, but not the war.

As the first semester of the 2010-2011 semester came about, the Board of Trustees, insisted on imposing a “fee” of $800 to every student, while reducing worker’s benefits and services to students.  The state legislature had enacted laws to impose restrictions on Student Assemblies, and passed a bill prohibiting strikes at the University.  Action Committees were active organizing protests against the most recent attacks on higher education.

Under pressure from the Middle States Commission for Higher Education, risking the University’s accreditation, and all kinds of pressure from the administration, three General Student Assemblies took place.  One to elect our Committee of Student Negotiation, to begin engaging in talks to prevent the conflict; as another group of students became involved in a lobbying campaign, to get recurrent founds for the University.  Another Assembly approved a referendum to measure the student body’s opinion on the tuition hikes. 98% of students opposed the hikes.

The State Supreme Court declared the constitutionality of the law that prohibited student strikes in the University.  After that, the police was called into the Río Piedras campus for the first time in over 30 years.  Police occupied all of the campuses that dared threaten to go on strike.  Then all kinds of expression and free speech inside Campus grounds were banned by the administration.  The riot police enforced this in full force.  As the Administration did not respond to student’s demands, we went on strike again.  The second strike began the 14th of December 2010. 

Students had everything against them, but still went ahead.  Constant marches in an around campus with hundreds of students were used to implement the strike.  They were followed closely by every kind of police, from sharpshooters to common clothes, to mounted on horseback police, to special arrest divisions.  Sometimes, as marches were forced out of the University, students took the streets. 

Soon the student press read: “from the beginning of the student strike, all kinds of speech has been prohibited inside and outside of the University”, referring to the common practice of police clashing with students and throwing their gasses even at peaceful demonstrations outside university grounds.  Police intervention with students was brutal and ruthless since the beginning.  As the doors closed for the Negotiating committee, it was evident that the administration had substituted dialogue with violence.

While students were chased and arrested for handing out flyers during this second strike, many others were pressured by their professors to take their final exams even in the chaos of what some came to call the “police-campus”.

During January 2011, civil disobedience was practiced to continue implementing the strike, with the numbers of arrested reaching more than 300. Excessive force of police officers was met with active resistance by the support groups in a “new kind of civil disobedience”, that tended to mix the usual non-cooperation with law enforcement, with active resistance to officers in the field. 

By February 2011, the new semester had begun with a huge walkout that ended in a stalemate in which a human chain of university workers and professors standing between riot police and students prevented a bloodbath. On the second day of school, students said enough. This time, the police got pepper sprayed and students made them back down by the hundreds in a spontaneous march in which they screamed “Fuera, fuera, fuera policía”.

The day after that, the police intervened with students during the painting of a street called “conscience street” inside campus grounds. After that, there was absolutely no fear among the remaining student ranks.  Students fought back ferociously. Thousands marched. The police went, and then came back. Until students, after about two years of non-stop struggle, decided to put the strike on hold in another general assembly at the end of February 2011.  As they knew that they were in it for the long haul, they organized a symbolic non-stop reading of Gabriel García Marquez’s Cien Años de Soledad.

It is now a tradition in the UPR, that as the governments hand-picked President gives his address to the graduating class, most of the students in the audience turn around, giving their backs to the him and the administration that has done the same to the student body, during the last years.

As the strike came to an end, almost two years ago, some students were able to pay, with help from a scholarship fund that was approved by the state legislature under student pressure. Many students were expelled for their participation in the student strikes. Now, after two years of less-affordable education, and after the materialization student’s predictions regarding the administration’s plans to reduce the size of the most important public university in the country, the newly elected majority of the state legislature, began this quarter responding to student demands by assigning more recurrent funds to the UPR, as the student movement had proposed since the very beginning. 

  The Board of Trustees has corresponded, in a unanimous vote, eliminating the $800 fee that almost doubled the costs of higher public education in Puerto Rico.    It is the first time in history that a tuition fee hike has been repealed in the island, but students are clear that there is a long way to go.  There will be no rest for the student movement, or for the powers that be, until the expelled students are allowed to study in the UPR.  Students are also grounded in the fact that structural change is needed, and that the change they refer to can only be achieved through a grassroots reform of the University that makes it a truly autonomous and democratic institution.   That being so, students have made it clear that they will not stop, until public higher education is declared a right, and not a privilege; until the University must promotes access to the working class, and other marginalized sectors and social groups to the student body, and until education is freed from the invisible hands of the market economy, to be finally understood as a process of liberation against oppression, and for the achievement social justice.

 Still, through the hallways of my alma mater we can hear the sirens wailing, and a uniform chorus of students that repeats “...no nos pararán, el que no crea que haga la prueba”. “We will not be stopped, if you don’t believe us, just make the try”.

poder, espacio y ambiente's Fan Box