Give National (in)Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice a Piece of Your Mind...

BREAK THE SILENCE!

VOCALIZE DISSENT!



On Sunday, June 16th National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice will be speaking at Stanford University as a part of Graduation 2002. Hundreds of Stanford students will be there to vocalize dissent to the selection of Ms. Rice, and to express our concern that the policies pursued by Ms. Rice and the Bush Administration are heightening injustice and insecurity in the world. We understand that these are not only our concerns, but also the concerns of many within the greater Bay Area, as well as the rest of the world. Therefore, we are inviting all that are able to attend. The event is free, and open to the public, and seating is virtually unlimited. Come to express your specific concerns, and to provide solidarity to the students who are organizing to make our outrage heard and seen. We have been silent too long! It is time to take our country back! Democracy is only what we make of it…



Who? : National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice

When? : Sunday, June 16th, 8:30 am

Where? : Stanford Stadium



Directions to Stanford: http://www.stanford.edu/home/visitors/directions.html

Campus Map: http://campus-map.stanford.edu/campus_map/index.jsp





Contacts and Organizing Information:



Condoleezza Rice @ Commencement Organizing Page: http://www.stanford.edu/group/rats/Condi

Stanford Community for Peace and Justice: http://www.stanford.edu/group/peace/scpj_gen_flyer.pdf

Peninsula Peace and Justice Center: http://www.peaceandjustice.org/

Bay Area Indy Media: http://www.indybay.org/







WHY SHOULD YOU CARE?



à The following is an open letter encouraging support from the Stanford Community, as well as any outside organizations or individuals who object to the policies supported by Ms. Rice:





To all those it may concern:


We would like to invite you to join us in a simple, powerful symbolic protest against Condoleezza Rice's appearance as the keynote graduation speaker at Stanford on the morning of Sunday June 16th. We are a group of Stanford students who have been meeting for several months to plan an effective protest against Condoleezza Rice's graduation appearance. What follows is a brief description of why are protesting her appearance, what we have planned, and why we have planned it. If you wish to join us, or if you have feedback or concerns, please contact Josh Zide our Courtney Dalhke by email at jzide [at] stanford.edu and c0urtney [at] stanford.edu.

We are protesting Rice's appearance for a number of interconnected reasons related to her actions on domestic and international policy fronts as National Security Advisor, and her tenure as provost at Stanford University. For a (somewhat) more complete list of our concerns, please visit our website at http://www.stanford.edu/group/rats/condi. On the international policy front, we are concerned that Rice is helping lead our nation into a strategy of international war and confrontation rather than problem solving and cooperation. The extension of the war on terrorism and the abandonment of doctrines and treaties of international cooperation, which Rice has led, is making our world a less safe and more violent place. We are concerned about the close connections between our foreign and domestic policy, Condoleezza Rice, and multinational oil interests. We are concerned about the erosion of domestic civil liberties after Sept. 11, and the possibility that Rice and others in the administration may have failed to act on foreknowledge of terrorist attacks.


Rice's tenure as provost at Stanford University, which ended during this graduating class' freshman year, gives us other reasons to protest her presence as graduation speaker. Rice consistently failed to address serious issues regarding minority and women hiring practices during her time as provost. Stanford continues to lag far behind peer institutions in the number of women and members of minority groups on its faculty, and has been the subject of a Department of Labor Investigation into charges of systematic gender discrimination. Rice firmly resisted internal efforts to address these serious problems within the University. Furthermore, Rice generally showed herself to be an enemy of community centers and minority and women issues in the student body at Stanford. We are also protesting the choice, by the University President and Board of Trustees, of Rice as and inspiring figure for our graduation. We wish to tell the University that we are not inspired by the example Rice has set as Provost and National Security Advisor, and wish the university to consider who it wishes its graduating students to emulate in their lives and careers. We wish to tell the world that we are not complicit in the foolish and destructive policies of Condoleezza Rice and the Bush Administration.

After much discussion within our group, we have decided that we wish to avoid disrupting Rice's speech or the graduation ceremony itself. For many of us, our graduation is an important personal triumph. Our families and friends will have traveled thousands of miles to congratulate us and share our success - by allowing Rice's appearance to disrupt our graduation, we are letting Rice and the forces she represents win out over our own lives and struggles. Tactically, we do not think it is practical or useful to disrupt her speech. She will have an amplified voice, and previous attempts to disrupt graduation speakers at Stanford have shown that disrupters can easily be colored negatively by a speaker with a microphone. We wish to make as strong a statement as possible without directly interfering with the ceremony. To this end, we have decided to engage in the following activities:

1. Through education during the weeks leading up to graduation we hope to use this event as an opportunity to educate and stimulate debate on campus about Rice's actions as Provost, her involvement with Chevron, and role as National Security Advisor.
2. Distribution of red flyers to be worn by graduates to protest Rice's appearance and/or politics.
3. Collection of a petition of protest to the Board of Trustees signed by students and faculty.
4. Protesting/leafleting/carrying signs before the ceremony and during the "Wacky Walk" segment of graduation.
5. When Rice begins speaking, we hope that as many students, parents, faculty, and community members as feel comfortable will join us in turning our backs on Rice and her destructive politics, and standing for the duration of her speech with our backs to the stage.

We have chosen these actions because we think that they will effectively achieve our goals of sending a strong statement both to the University and the world without disrupting those who wish to enjoy graduation in spite of Rice's appearance, or making it possible for Rice or the media to label us as hooligans or disrespectful people.


We hope that many members of the Stanford community will choose to join us in working on these activities. We would also like to invite activists and communities from outside of Stanford to join us in working on the graduation day protest and back turning. The more voices are joined together in these actions, the more powerful the impact they will make.

Again, if you have questions and concerns, please contact Josh or Courtney at jzide [at] stanford.edu or c0urtney [at] stanford.edu.





CONDOLEEZZA RICE: MORE DETAILED ACTIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS



à The following is a student-organized petition that details many of Ms. Rice’s actions and associations, from Stanford, to Chevron, to her role in the Bush Administration. In less than two days, over 100 signatures have already been collected. Follow the links for more info, or do your own research by typing keywords in your favorite search engine:





A Petition Objecting to the Selection of Condoleezza Rice as Commencement Speaker for Stanford Graduation 2002





Condoleezza Rice is undoubtedly an intelligent, accomplished, and eloquent speaker. Yet, in her roles as National Security Advisor, Stanford Provost, and member of the Chevron Board of Directors, she is directly involved with policies that many of us within the Stanford community find abhorrent. We wish to communicate to the Board of Trustees and the President of Stanford that by selecting Dr. Rice as commencement speaker, they are affiliating the university in an official capacity with values that are deeply offensive to a large portion of the university community.





Although we are a diverse group of individuals with varying viewpoints and political beliefs, we are united in our feeling that the policies of Condoleezza Rice are not representative of us as individuals, or of the Stanford community as a whole. By signing this petition, we are demonstrating our discontent with one or more of the policies in the attached pages, and with the selection of Condoleezza Rice as the commencement speaker for Stanford's Graduation 2002.





With the support of National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, the Bush Administration has taken the following actions, many of which have the potential to threaten our national security:



* Killed more Afghan civilians than died in the World Trade Center (over 3,800, according to officials within the Afghan government), as well as Northern Alliance and Canadian troops, in a U.S. bombing campaign where one out of every three bombs missed its intended target. Besides the thousands of accidental deaths, and the infrastructure destroyed (including mosques, hospitals, and Red Cross facilities), over 1.2 million refugees fled the country. The number of refugees that have died of starvation, dehydration, or disease since then is yet to be recorded. Despite all this, we still have no better idea where to find Bin Laden, or who has a propensity for mailing anthrax. Read more:

observer: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4371533,00.html

bbc: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1740000/1740538.stm

media-alliance: http://www.media-alliance.org/mediafile/20-5/dossier/herold12-6.html



* Designated Iran, Iraq, and North Korea the “Axis of Evil,” with secondary “Axis of Evil” status bestowed upon Libya, Syria, and Cuba in early May, 2002. Besides the fact that this statement has been objected to by much of the rest of the world, this type of simplistic, inflammatory rhetoric is downright dangerous in the messages it sends domestically and abroad, for the way that it allows no room for diplomacy and leaves us no course of action but war. Read more:

sf chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/02/10/IN93023.DTL

bbc: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1971000/1971852.stm



* Lobbied for a new war in Iraq, and continued the brutal sanctions regime that is responsible for the death of one Iraqi child every 12 minutes (UNICEF). Since the sanctions were put in place in 1991, two consecutive UN officials in charge of resource distribution within Iraq have resigned, citing the “4,000 to 5,000 children dying unnecessarily every month due to the impact of sanctions” and their affect on the “breakdown of water and sanitation, inadequate diet and the bad internal health situation.” While the Bush Administration recently lobbied to make the “oil for food” program more beneficial to the Iraqi people, many see this move as a cosmetic effort to ease political pressure rather than a real reform. Read more:

cnn: http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/05/06/time.out/index.html

ipa: http://www.accuracy.org/iraq/

bbc: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_183000/183499.stm

bbc: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_642000/642189.stm



* Expanded the “War on Terrorism” by sending U.S. troops to Yemen, Georgia, and the Philippines. Some suspect the latest wave of troops to Georgia is part of the administration’s plans to establish a U.S. base on Russia's border and near Iraq. Already over 600 U.S. soldiers are training in the Philippines and Yemen may receive over 100 green berets. Read more:

Wpost: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16552-2002May27.html



* Engaged in racial/religious profiling. Since September 11th, over 1200 immigrants have been secretly detained and/or deported, often without any charges or trial, and without contact with family members. Additionally, thousands more have been subject to phone and e-mail taps. This issue is especially relevant to the Stanford community, since many Arab or Muslim international students may not be able to attend Stanford due to increased student visas restrictions, and designated “sensitive” areas of study such as engineering. Students that are able to attend will be subjected to enhanced FBI surveillance. Read more:

bbc: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1628000/1628125.stm

bbc: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1873000/1873365.stm

stanford daily: http://stanforddaily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=8140&repository=0001_article

stanford daily: http://stanforddaily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=8193&repository=0001_article



* Abandoned the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to pursue an expensive (and quite probably ineffective) nuclear defense shield, a move that has alienated allies and may spur a new arms race. This drastic policy shift was advised against by Colin Powell, but strongly supported by Dr. Rice. Read more:

sf chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/12/12/MN178112.DTL

bbc: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_774000/774518.stm



* Pursued the possibility of developing mobile/usable nuclear weapons that could be used in “counter terrorism” activities and created a “nuclear hit list”, a policy that completely undermines the fundamentals of nuclear deterrence and effectively makes the U.S. a “rogue nation.” Read more:

bbc: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1864000/1864173.stm



* Upgraded Plan Colombia from a multi-billion dollar part of the “war on drugs” to an official part of the “War on Terrorism.” Colombia is recognized by such groups as Human Rights Watch to have the worst human rights situation in the Western Hemisphere, yet Plan Colombia deepens the human rights crisis by putting billions of dollars into the hands of the Colombian military, who have consistently been shown to be corrupt and linked to the “terrorist actions” (e.g., extrajudicial killings, kidnappings) that we are allegedly trying to stop. While feared by some as “a new Vietnam,” this move is also very closely linked to U.S. oil interests. One of the companies that will benefit the most is Occidental Petroleum, a corporation notorious for its displacement of the native U’wa people in the Colombian Andes. Read more:

North American Council on Latin America: http://www.nacla.org/

bbc: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1622000/1622904.stm

ran: http://www.ran.org/ran_campaigns/beyond_oil/oxy/uwa_facts.html



* Implicated in Attempt to subvert democracy in Venezuela, by allegedly providing U.S. monetary and military backing in a failed coup to oust democratically elected President Hugo Chávez and further U.S. interests in the region. While the Bush Administration has denied any involvement, evidence seems to prove otherwise. This incident has seriously widened the gulf between the U.S. and Latin American leaders, and has discredited U.S. foreign policy as a whole. Read more:
New York Times: “Bush Officials Met With Venezuelans Who Ousted Leader.” April 16, 2002; A1

New York Times: “U.S. Bankrolling Is Under Scrutiny for Ties to Chávez Ouster.” April 24, 2002
indymedia: http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=179951&group=webcast

bbc: http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1985000/video/_1985670_ven22_palast_vi.ram



* Tightened the 40-year-old embargo on Cuba, despite recommendations by a bi-partisan Congressional group and former President Jimmy Carter that sanctions be lifted altogether.

sf chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2002/05/15/national0838EDT0532.DTL

sf chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2002/05/15/national1013EDT0565.DTL



* Lobbied for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the nation’s largest remaining pristine wilderness. The administration first tried to do this under the guise of solving the California energy crisis (which has recently been revealed to be in large part caused by Enron, the largest corporate donor to Bush’s presidential campaign at $1.8 million). Now it is pushing the same plan as a method to defend against terrorism. In reality, besides incurring likely environmental catastrophes, drilling in the wildlife refuge will only feed a tiny fraction of U.S. oil consumption (2%), at best. The same amount of oil could much more easily be conserved by increasing U.S. fuel efficiency standards by 1.5mpg (according to Professor Jane Woodward at Stanford), but the Administration has steadfastly refused to do so. Read more:

bbc: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1336000/1336960.stm

New York Times: “How Enron Got California to Buy Power It Didn’t Need” May 8, 2002; C1

bbc: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1338000/1338569.stm

dow: http://www.defenders.org/wildlife/arctic/arissue.html



* Rejected the Kyoto Protocol to combat global warming in March, 2001, despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that the U.S. is by far the worlds largest producer of greenhouse gases (both cumulatively and per capita). While over 150 countries have ratified the treaty, the current lack of U.S. involvement will put island nations like Tuvalu out of luck as sea levels rise, and continue to subject the rest of us increased floods, droughts, fires, and other extreme manifestations of a changing global climate. Read more:

sf chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/10/29/MN55318.DTL

greenpeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/

uk guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4286947,00.html



* Pulled out of the creation of an International Criminal Court (signed onto by Clinton), and vowed to do everything within the Administration’s power to subvert it. This is primarily out of concern that a functioning ICC will allow war crimes charges to be brought against top-level officials within the U.S. government. More:

wall street journal: U.S. to Pull Out Of World Court On War Crimes. May 6, 2002; A4

bbc: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1970000/1970312.stm



* Failed to act on pre-September 11th intelligence, despite ample evidence that the CIA, the FBI, and the Bush Administration had prior warning. This burden falls especially heavily on Dr. Rice’s shoulders, since one of the primary roles of the National Security Advisor is to relay information concerning domestic and international terrorist threats to the White House (Time). On May 16th, Dr. Rice blatantly lied to defend the White House by stating “I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked plane as a missile. All this reporting about hijacking was about traditional hijacking.” Considering the widely publicized terrorist attempts to fly planes into the Eiffel Tower (1994) and CIA headquarters (1995), and a 1999 CIA report detailing the possibility of al-Qaeda operatives hijacking and flying planes into strategic targets, Dr. Rice’s statement is obviously false:

uk guardian: http://www.observer.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,718264,00.html

new york times: Pre-Attack Memo Cited Bin Laden. May 15, 2002; A1

ap: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20020524/D7JMQ9J82.html

media monitors: http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html

msnbc: http://www.msnbc.com/news/635213.asp “The lesson of Air France Flight 8969”





While Provost at Stanford University (1993-1999), Condoleezza Rice consistently failed to address serious issues regarding minority and women hiring practices. Dr. Rice also weakened various popular campus groups and programs, particularly those addressing the needs of women and minorities. A short list of Dr. Rice’s actions:





* Repeatedly denied tenure to female and minority professors while exacerbating Stanford’s distinction as one of the least diverse among elite universities in the United States. When Dr. Rice left the position of Provost in 1999 Stanford’s tenured faculty was 14% female, significantly lower than the national average of 25%. Read more:

stanford report: http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/report/news/april1/sawislak41.html

ccsf guardsman: http://www.ccsf.edu/Events_Pubs/Guardsman/s980227/cps07.htm

stanford magazine: http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/1999/marapr/articles/female_faculty.html



* Defended Stanford's hiring and tenure processes while fielding a formally filed complaint from 15 female professors documenting discriminatory practices. Dr. Rice’s slight-of-hand statistics (see 6/17/98 Stanford Report, "Differing on data regarding tenure") were the core of Stanford's defense against a report from the Female Faculty Caucus that eventually led to a formal complaint filed by 15 professors with the Department of Labor. Read more:

faculty senate: http://www.stanford.edu/dept/facultysenate/archive/1997_1998/reports/106056/106057.html



* Weakened the Student Workshops on Political and Social Issues (SWOPSI) program which had supported dozens of student initiated courses, some of which have gone on to be the extremely popular courses incorporated by the academy. Her hollow claim: "lack of funds."


* Recommended all ethnic community centers be housed in a single building (Old Union), effectively making it a "people of color" colony on the campus. Only the Black Student Union's resistance prevented her vision from being achieved - and for that they were left to dwell in a dilapidated building surrounded by asphalt until the roof deteriorated so badly they finally received some CIP funds.



* Fired Cecilia Burciaga, the highest ranking Chicana at Stanford (25 years at Stanford) and Resident Fellow at Casa Zapata. Budget cuts were again cited as the rationale. This hostility to Stanford’s ethnic communities prompted the 1994 hunger strikes.


* "Negotiated" with MEChA hunger strikers on 4 demands - NONE of which the university fully honored. As provost, Dr. Rice pulled every stall tactic and symbolic-grant maneuver in the book to prevent the apparent agreement between the hunger strikers and the university administration from being made official. Her office also quietly ignored the recommendations from several university commissioned-reports on women, people of color, and the queer community.



* Denied departmental status to the African & African American Studies, and other emerging ethnic studies programs, by supporting the proposal of a Comparative Studies on Race and Ethnicity department to counter demands for Chicano studies and Asian American studies. The AAAS "compromise" signaled the end of hopes at Stanford to gain departmental status for individual ethnic studies, so as with the Old Union proposal, the efforts to pursue teaching and research that recognized a race analysis at Stanford were consolidated. This denied them the status that many other university’s—including Harvard and Princeton—have been able to provide for their various ethnic studies departments.

* Refused to address the University’s failure to find a director for the Stanford Center for Chicano Research (SCCR), weakening it to the point where Stanford had "no choice" but to fold its remnants into the Rice-sanctioned CSRE Research Institute.


* Overturned a 1969 vote by the Academic Senate that had ended ROTC use of Stanford facilities (after stripping the instructors of faculty status) by signing an agreement with the Reserve Officers Training Corps authorizing the use of Stanford facilities and obtaining credit for classes on campus.






In the 10 years that Condoleezza Rice sat on the Chevron Board of Directors (1991-2001) she failed to respond to the numerous environmental and human rights abuses that the company was committing. These abuses include:





* Environmental degradation and human rights abuses in Nigeria: "Chevron's massive environmental destruction in the Niger Delta has caused serious problems for the local people. Specifically, Chevron's dredging has salinated the fresh water supply, destroyed riverbeds and the natural ecosystem, and caused erosion. Indeed, several villages are at such extreme risk from erosion that they may simply be swallowed up. In other areas, the water level is now too low, due to silt, and boats can no longer pass nor fish survive. In sum, Chevron's activities have destroyed local people's homes and fisheries, leaving them without means of support and ruining their fresh water supplies" (earthrights.org). In July, 2002 victims of gross human rights abuses associated with Chevron's oil production activities in the Niger Delta region filed suit against Chevron in federal court in San Francisco. The case is based on two incidents: the shooting of peaceful protestors at Chevron's Parabe offshore platform and the destruction of two villages by soldiers in Chevron helicopters and boats. The latter of these incidents occurred while Dr. Rice chaired Chevron’s Public Policy Committee (1999-2001), who’s stated purpose was to “identify, monitor and evaluate domestic and foreign social, political and environmental issues” and “recommend to the board policies and strategies concerning such issues.” Read more:

court documents: http://www.earthrights.org/chevron/complaint.html



* Environmental degradation and human rights abuses in Richmond, CA: Between 1991 and 1995 Chevron was accused of violating the federal Clean Water Act by bypassing its refinery’s treatment system and discharging waste water that exceeded toxicity limits into San Francisco Bay. Just a few years earlier it paid $540,000 to settle a lawsuit stemming from earlier violations. Even in normal operation, the Richmond refinery is California’s fifth worst polluter, emitting about 1 million pounds of chemicals into the air and 500,000 pounds into the Bay each year. Each year, this largely African American, Latino and South East Asian community is exposed to the millions of pounds of dioxins (the most toxic group of synthetic chemicals known) dumped into the environment by the Richmond refinery. Dioxins cause numerous health problems, including cancer and birth defects, and even the EPA admits there is no safe threshold for dioxin exposure.

project underground: http://www.moles.org/ProjectUnderground/motherlode/chevron/wto2001_nov.html