2014 Resolutions 2 of 5

Submitted by the Chicana Caucus; Co-Sponsors: Tejas Foco; Compas-Rene Nuñez Political Action Caucus; So Cal Foco.
Resolution to establish an Ad Hoc Committee on Institutional Violence

Whereas NACCS at the 2013 Conference passed the resolution that called for the “2014 Chicana Plenary’s theme to address and initiate structured processes toward the elimination of Institutional Violence against Chicanas, Chicana feminists, Queer and Trans Chican@s ;”

Whereas, the 2013 resolution marked the 30th anniversary of the Chicana Plenary created to address these issues, and recognized that there are still “unsettled issues” before us;

Whereas, the 2013 resolution recognized that the 2014 Chicana Plenary on Institutional Violence would address the need for assessment, community organizing, curricula development and academic research;

Whereas the 2013 resolution recognized gender-based violence within our communities and homophobia are rampant in academic institutions including Chican@ Studies Departments;

Whereas the resolution called upon NACCS as a professional body to assist NACCS, its membership, and Chican@ Studies Departments to address misogynist and homo/transphobic violence;

Whereas the 2013 resolution called for creating space for public discussion as well as provide the educational foundation to intervene and prevent violence against Chican@ Feminist, Lesbian, Queer, Jota, and Trans Chican@ people and politics;

Whereas the 2013 resolution recognized the developing theory, praxis, and values of community accountability that offer an approach by which we can address, respond to, and transform the violence;

Therefore be it resolved that the National Board establish an Ad Hoc Committee that would put into action the 2013 resolution;

Be it further resolved, that the Ad Hoc Committee be comprised of representatives nominated or picked from each FOCO and caucus;

Be it further resolved, that the Ad Hoc Committee be comprised of a simple majority of representatives from the FOCOs and Caucus.

Be it further resolved that the Ad Hoc Committee on Institutional Violence be placed under the charge of the past chair of NACCS;

  • that the past chair will convene the Ad Hoc Committee at least four times a year; that one of those meetings be held at NACCS annual conference.
  • Be it further resolved that the responsibilities of the Ad Hoc Committee on Institutional Violence

  • conduct an assessment of Chican@ Studies Departments to collect data ascertaining inequalities of sex, gender and sexualities, inclusive of confidential and anonymous responses from Chicana, Queer and TransChican@ students, faculty, and staff;
  • determine priorities of the assessment collection.

  • Be it further resolved
    , that the National Board commit NACCS to following up on the 2013 items that were voted upon:

  • continue to build bridges between NACCS and MALCS in jointly addressing institutional violence with dialogue and action leading toward its eradication;
  • that NACCS Board develop guiding policies, practices and structures that create cultures of community accountability;
  • that NACCS Board call on the entire NACCS community to take action to end the violence that divides us.
  • Sponsor: Chicana Caucus
    Co-Sponsors: Tejas Foco; Compas-Rene Nuñez Political Action Caucus; So Cal Foco.
    Contact: Patricia Trujillo 505-747-5448, patriciatrujillo@nnmc.edu ; Marisol Moreno 323-610-5371, Marisol.moreno@csulb.edu

    *********************************

    Pros:

      1. Provides information about Institutional Violence on various campuses.

    Cons:

      1. NACCS does not have paid Staff to conduct the research, develop and analyze the database.
      2. Doing the work and developing the database has financial implications.
      3. The Chicana Caucus membership can conduct the research.
      4. The Caucus does not need Board approval to take action.
      5. Space for panels is always available by submitting proposals for the annual conference

    7 Responses to “2014 Resolutions 2 of 5”

    1. Marisol Moreno Says:

      2014 NACCS Resolution to Establish an Ad Hoc Committee on Institutional Violence.

      CHICANA CAUCUS PRO RESPONSES TO CONS:

      1. NACCS does not have paid Staff to conduct the research, develop and analyze the database.

      PRO RESPONSE:
      While NACCS eliminated the Research Division in 2010, it remains committed to critical research that addresses systemic inequality based on class, race, gender, and heterosexual privileges in U.S. society. This resolution is not requesting that the Ad Hoc Committee on Institutional Violence be implemented by a paid or unpaid NACCS Staff. Rather, this resolution asks for the committee to be comprised of representatives nominated, self selected, or appointed from each FOCO and Caucus. This resolution is endorsed and co-sponsored by the Tejas Foco, COMPAS Caucus, LBMT Caucus, and the So Cal Foco.

      2. Doing the work and developing the database has financial implications.

      PRO RESPONSE:
      This resolution does not have financial implications for NACCS–it is not requesting funding from the membership fees or organizational revenue sources. Membership on this ad hoc committee is voluntary.

      3. The Chicana Caucus membership can conduct the research.

      PRO RESPONSE:
      Critically addressing institutional violence furthers NACCS’ mission and has long term advantages for NACCS, our communities, and the growth of Chicana/o Studies. This is an issue that requires collective undertaking as institutional violence affects us all.

      4. The Caucus does not need Board approval to take action.

      PRO RESPONSE:
      The formation of an Ad Hoc Committee on Institutional Violence establishes the pivotal organizational basis for NACCS to take action. It reflects NACCS’ commitment to “initiate structured processes toward the elimination of institutional violence.”

      5. Space for panels is always available by submitting proposals for the annual conference.

      PRO RESPONSE:
      The implementation of an Ad Hoc Committee on Institutional Violence as part of the core structure of NACCS creates a broader platform to open spaces for dialogue and transformative action in conjunction with our communities and institutions.

    2. Marisol Moreno Says:

      NACCS CHICANA CAUCUS PRO RESPONSES TO CONS:

      1. NACCS does not have paid Staff to conduct the research, develop and analyze the database.

      PRO RESPONSE:
      While NACCS eliminated the Research Division in 2010, it remains committed to critical research that addresses systemic inequality based on class, race, gender, and heterosexual privileges in U.S. society. This resolution is not requesting that the Ad Hoc Committee on Institutional Violence be implemented by a paid or unpaid NACCS Staff. Rather, this resolution asks for the committee to be comprised of representatives nominated, self selected, or appointed from each FOCO and Caucus. This resolution is endorsed and co-sponsored by the Tejas Foco, COMPAS Caucus, LBMT Caucus, and the So Cal Foco.

      2. Doing the work and developing the database has financial implications.

      PRO RESPONSE:
      This resolution does not have financial implications for NACCS–it is not requesting funding from the membership fees or organizational revenue sources. Membership on this ad hoc committee is voluntary.

      3. The Chicana Caucus membership can conduct the research.

      PRO RESPONSE:
      Critically addressing institutional violence furthers NACCS’ mission and has long term advantages for NACCS, our communities, and the growth of Chicana/o Studies. This is an issue that requires collective undertaking as institutional violence affects us all.

      4. The Caucus does not need Board approval to take action.

      PRO RESPONSE:
      The formation of an Ad Hoc Committee on Institutional Violence establishes the pivotal organizational basis for NACCS to take action. It reflects NACCS’ commitment to “initiate structured processes toward the elimination of institutional violence.”

      5. Space for panels is always available by submitting proposals for the annual conference.

      PRO RESPONSE:
      The implementation of an Ad Hoc Committee on Institutional Violence as part of the core structure of NACCS creates a broader platform to open spaces for dialogue and transformative action in conjunction with our communities and institutions.

    3. Audrey Silvestre Says:

      The LBMT Caucus voted unanimously in support of the resolution

    4. Luz Calvo Says:

      I am supporting this resolution because I have seen firsthand the effects of institutionalized violence on the bodies and spirits of queer Xican@ faculty and students. While I understand that it is not fair to add this to the work of unpaid staff, the way that I read this resolution, the work will be done by members. I believe that if we as NACCS members are to operate out of a place of honesty and integrity, we will be willing to take on this work.

    5. Julia Curry Says:

      We spoke extensively about this resolution in the Northern California Foco where Clarissa came to get support. Of course we support the any effort that not only addresses, but makes an impact on the violence we experience as Chicanas and Chicanos in higher education and in every corner of society. My only concern is that when the Chicana Caucus formed it did not form to give others the responsibility for addressing institutional patriarchy, gendered inequality, and power inequality. We formed the Caucus to be the proactive body on all of those fronts- not because we were the only ones responsible but because we knew that if we left it to others to do it may not be done. This resolution does not address the way we are reviewed in our departments and institutions. It does not prevent anyone from denying promotion or tenure – the fact is many people fear their own departments. I was denied tenure by a unanimous vote in Chicana/o and Ethnic Studies at Berkeley in 1997. What could this resolution have done for me? How does it prevent men and women in our departments from carrying out the same reviews that result in annihilation for the junior people? And heaven forbid you should survive and move on and thrive because then the institutionalized violence in our peers will come back to get you. I am not hopeful that this kind of endeavor will make any change in the lives of the women and men in our communities who suffer from economic, political, physical, and spiritual trauma. I have no faith in this resolution and I have no faith in the good will of people who want to study the problem but when they see it happening they stand by and say nothing and do nothing. No thanks. And as for the MALCS and NACCS bridges, what happened to the MALCS that was created as an opposition to NACCS-where women could thrive in a woman only space? Why ask NACCS to clean the elitist, masculinist, power-hungry and deceitful spaces when in the end there is no real change in terms of equity?

    6. Kathryn Blackmer Says:

      The discussion on the resolutions to me is an example of Institutional Violence. People have been told that they speak too much, have no right to speak, or are being manipulated and yet who is making the other accountable? What is the meat to this resolution? How will the leaders of the Chicana Caucus carry out this work? Will this just be a hash tag and then move on?

      To speak out against “bullying” does it require you to “like” the individual? Agree with a side to make it count/not count? Will you speak up only if you think the person being challenged can’t fend for themselves? I’ve had conversations, with males and females, on the “wisdom” on some comments but I wonder if they do the same with the others. Accountability? Transparency? Deceitfulness? These are the words that are being thrown out there at members of your organization. Correct or incorrect but does it make it right?

      Three essays have appeared from “scholars” that in my mind are “questionable” – as of 2006 have no record of membership, have never registered, and are non existent online not even in our own conference programs. And yet they express a deep history of the organization that only long term members might have. Have you wondered? At least with “Anonymous” who know someone wishes not be be identified. But we are lead to believe that these are real scholars. Perhaps there are private conversations about these essays so that individuals protect themselves from the bombardment of emails as we have seen. My credibility has already been placed in question through exaggerations and half truths. How do we plan to then approach Institutional Violence if we don’t make everyone accountable. I hear threats of libel which to me is the way to keep people quite. I hear intimidation. I hear, to quote “Lupe”, more Orwellian action from others and I would even state McCarthyism. Beware of speaking as you will be brought before a tribunal of unknowns. Fear, be fearful to speak. That to me is institutional violence. Asking questions and speaking out are being interrupted on one side as inviting violence upon oneself. While on the other seeking justice and democracy.

    7. Antonia Castaneda Says:

      Chicana Caucus posting of June 15, 2014:

      We appreciate and thank all who have commented on Resolution # 2, the Chicana Caucus Resolution. The Chicana Caucus, as a formally organized Caucus of NACCS, exercised our right to submit a resolution, which is co-sponsored by other NACCS Caucuses and Focos, at the 2014 Annual Conference. We followed NACCS’ procedures for submitting a Resolution; revised the Resolution per the Executive Committees’ comments, and resubmitted it. The Executive Committee determined it needed to go to the Non- Consent agenda for a vote of the NACCS membership, which is where it is now. Tomorrow, June 16, 2014, is the final day to vote. We encourage all NACCS members to vote for Resolution # 2. We await the result of the vote. Thank you