Assorted comments from Facebook
Animas SDS
this is, of course, legal lingo and open to legalistic interpretation,
and what Alray unfortunately seems to be doing (aside from presenting
himself as our voice and representative without any sort of democratic
process placing him in such a position other than that he started a
facebook group) is accepting the State's legalistic interpretation at
face value.
but the issue IS rather straight-forward. the state of colorado no
longer wants to reimburse the school for the DIFFERENCE between in
state and out of state tuiton for the tuition waiver. this means they
will continue to pay in state tuition (how many reservations in
Colorado?) and also in state for out of state native students, and
then the school would have to find some sort of other way to pay for
the difference between in state and out of state for the out of state
native students. this amounts to a significant amount of money that
could actually sink the school as a whole, and an amount the school
will be hard pressed to compensate for.
unfortunately the school, if this bill passes, will probably propose
to pay for the difference by further privatizing the use of the old
FLC land near Hesperus, but bringing in rancher's cattle, leasing oil,
gas, and mineral rights, etc. WE MUST NOT ACCEPT THIS. see my
discussion on this group about envisioning the future of that land for
more on this....
—————
again this is legalistic BS that is totally open to interpretation,
which is why it is generating so much confusion. the official position
of the STATE is that the waiver is NOT under threat (this assumes FLC
can somehow pay for the difference between in and out of state tuition
for native students, which they NEVER WILL BE ABLE TO unless they
either devastate the old FLC land [which by law is supposed to be used
to support the waiver] or allow the vision of the people to transform
that land in to what it has the potential to be: one of the world's
leading research and education facilities in permaculture and
sustainable agriculture) and that they are NOT breaking the law or
violating the precedents established by earlier Supreme Court cases.
but again, THESE ARE LEGALISTIC INTERPRETATIONS OPEN TO ARGUMENT AND
DEBATE. we must always remember this. unfortunately, what i saw today
seems to be that Alray, the self-appointed voice of this movement
(which he certainly isn't, despite his invaluable effort through the
almighty organizing tool that is facebook [note tone of facetious
sarcasm]), has accepted the legalistic interpretation of the letter of
the law as presented by the State of Colorado. to me this is a
mistake.
while I applaud Alray's efforts and thank him for all he has done, it
is clear that i am not alone in rejecting him as the representative of
my interests and my voice.
we will speak for ourselves....
—————
the self-appointed "leadership" of this movement seems to be accepting
of the State's stance and are repeating (and thus assisting in
legitimating) the State's argument that they are not violating court
precedents or treaty obligations.
—————
i think today's student forum left a lot of people with the wrong
impression and perhaps more confused than filled in. again i feel
Alray and ASFLC are taking the State's interpretation of the letter of
the law at face value, which i believe to be a strategic and tactical
mistake. but that's how it goes when you're talkin' legalistic mumbo-
jumbo.
—————
again i must hammer in that this is all legalistic interpretation. the
assertion that the waiver is not under threat is the STATE'S position
and it is highly unfortunate to see the self-proclaimed "leadership"
of this movement accept that at face value and even legitimate it by
repeating it.
the STATE claims the treaty is not being broken. Alray repeats this,
like a good politician and mediator of movements. but it is clear that
there are MANY of us, including Roberto and myself, who see and
understand things very differently.
we do not seek factionalism, but we will not compromise and negotiate
with power for the sake of feigned unity.... See More
there has been NO sort of democratic process placing Alray as our
representative or voice. all he did was start a facebook group. i do
not wish to diminish his efforts, but am concerned by his apparent
attempt to place himself in a position of leadership WITHOUT any sort
of horizontal or democratic process in place to legitimate him as
such. he lists himself as the "president" of this group, but he
behaves like its dictator.
ALL POWER TO THE PUPIL!
—————
[the argument that the bill doesn't affect the waiver] ASSUMES that
funding CAN come from different places, which is debatable. if you
ASSUME the school can figure something else out, then sure, what you
say is true.
the problem is that the school CANNOT come up with that money by any
other means (aside from what i've already wrote elsewhere and don't
feel like typing all over ... See Moreagain) and this is only the tip
of the ice berg in the state's budget crisis. the fact of the matter
is that your tuition waiver IS at risk because FORT LEWIS is at risk
of NOT BEING ABLE to pay the difference, not because the bill directly
revokes the waiver or anything.
though the bill does not DIRECT revoke the waiver, it EFFECTIVELY does
by putting the school in a financial position it will most likely
never be able to compensate for aside from totally fucking wrecking
the old FLC land through heavy privatization of its use, which many of
us will never allow to happen.
—————
What we must remember is that the assertion that the waiver is not at
risk and that this will not affect you rests on the assumption that
FLC will be able to find a way to pay for the difference between in
state and ... See Moreout of state for out of state native students
attending FLC through the waiver. this will only happen three ways: 1)
they pay for it by gutting aspects of the college unnecessary for
quality education, such as our over-bloated and over-paid
administration and our over-funded sports teams. 2) They (further)
privatize the old Fort Lewis land near Hesperus and allow ranchers to
bring cattle on for graising, open up leases for oil, gas, and mineral
rights (all of #2 this is unacceptable and must be resisted at all
costs). OR 3) students and faculty with vision transform that land
into a financially profitable and off the grid permacultural and
sustanable agriculture research and education facility. I stand behind
option number 3. I am a life-long Durango resident with vested
interests in this community, an Summa Cum Laude FLC alum, and the son
of a retired philosophy professor who once chaired the department at
FLC. Fort Lewis has the opportunity to use that land to create one of
the world's foremost permaculture facilities, which in turn would
support the tuition waiver, educate students and involve all
departments, improve the schools image, aid habitat restoration and
potentially indigenous cultural perservation, and lead the way towards
a sustainable future. How could they say no? Lack of vision, that's
how. If we don't present such an option to them in a way that looks
better (primarily financially, though they are also extremely image
conscious) than privatization of the land's use to support the waiver,
they'll opt for the option that looks like it's going to make them the
most money. If we do it right, we can present them with one they
cannot refuse. But if we don't, they will gut that land, which was
once an indian boarding school and holds enough anthropogenic trauma
already. if anything, it needs to be allowed to heal.
ALL POWER TO THE PUPIL!
—————
like i've said before, the fact of the matter is that the state's
budget itself is in crisis, and all higher education in this state is
in HUGE trouble. this is just the beginning, the the coming gutting of
CO's education budget is likely to dwarf that of California. and so
will our response. if you weren't paying attention to the recent
occupation... See More movement within the UC system, you should look
into it,
anyways, this statement may be a little ahead of its time, but the
truth is that the only thing that is going to save FLC and higher
education as a whole in the coming budget crisis is a focus on
relocalization and post-carbon, true cost economics. FLC, through the
land with which it was entrusted, has the opportunity to lead the way
towards a sustainable future, restore the land, provide reparations to
indigenous people (yes, i said it, REPARATIONS!) through education and
cultural preservation, and honor the sacred trust in ways never before
imagined or envisioned.
i've said it before and i'll say it again. the ancestors and
descendants are watching what we are doing here today. so let's be
warriors.
_
hahaha and the point i TOTALLY forgot to make which was the whole
reason i started writing that comment is that the only thing that will
save us, as listed above, must come FROM THE PEOPLE. as Roberto says,
this is "we" time, not "me" time.
—————
The Land Itself: Envisioning the Future:
Another thing to talk about is the land itself. If/when the state
revokes their reimbursement of the out of state portion of the waiver,
the school is going to try to privatize the land's use even further
and present that as a means with which to pay for the tuition waiver
(which indeed the law says it is supposed to).
They want to sublet it to ranchers to put more cows on and lease parts
of it for mineral, oil, and gas extraction. WE MUST NOT ACCEPT THIS!
That land has incredible potential to be transformed into a
permacultural education and research facility, using sustainable
agriculture to pay for the waiver in the event of the state's
revocation of the reimbursement.
There are unused houses out there. Thousands of acres. Habitat
restoration potential. All departments and all students would benefit
from such use. Ethnobotanists could study the return of native plants
during habitat restoration. Many departments could get involved in the
surveying of the land and testing of the soil and water. The business
and economics departments could help run the books and maintain
transparency. Etc. ad nauseum.
There is also the potential to take such a facility off the grid
(certainly the wind and solar energy potential on the land alone is
highly significant, and there are amazing federal and state level
grants available for such infrastructure at the moment) and sell the
excess power generated back to LPEA, which I believe they are required
by law to purchase.
ANY DEAL NEGOTIATED MUST NOT COMPROMISE THE HEALTH OF THIS LAND!
That was a boarding school once and the land itself holds the trauma
of what happened there. We cannot let the abuse continue further,
visited upon the land by the short-sightedness of the school
administration and lack of vision of the student body.
If we can present a plan that would put the land to good, positive,
educational use yet would also turn a profit to support the waiver and
school, how can they say no?
Though profitability comes first, FLC is also a particularly image
conscious school. We need to frame this in a way that lets them know
they can either look really good by allowing the students to do
something great with that land or really BAD by privatizing its use
further in an effort to support the waiver.
As students, alumni, faculty, workers, and community members, what do
YOU envision as the potential use of the old Fort Lewis campus land
near Hesperus?
Our ancestors and descendants are watching what we are doing here
today...