For A Sputtering Arab-American Institution, A Labor Strike Is Its Best Hope

For A Sputtering Arab-American Institution, A Labor Strike Is Its Best Hope

For A Sputtering Arab-American Institution, A Labor Strike Is Its Best Hope

By : AA, KB, FK, MJ, HM, NN, AS,WY

As individuals dedicated to empowering the Arab-American community, we are alarmed by the decline of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC). Arab America needs a proactive and inclusive civil society organization. ADC must reform to meet its mandate as the flagship Arab-American civil rights organization.

As former members, chapter presidents, donors, interns or supporters of the organization, we are concerned that ADC finds itself at its lowest point after three decades of existence.  All of the current female staff members at the national office have been on strike for a week.  This follows publicly made sexual harassment claims by several past female employees.     

Scandal After Scandal

Over the past two years, ADC has been at the center of scandals that have pushed it into the margins, making it even less representative of the community it was founded to serve. In 2011, ADC convention planners disinvited Malek Jandali, a Syrian-American pianist whose music was a call for freedom in Syria (Click here to read the Washington Post article). ADC mismanaged the affair. After the canceled performance, many called into question its ability to lead, represent and mediate differences within the community. 

Over 770 people signed a petition calling on ADC to reform, starting with new leadership on its board of directors (Click here to read the petition). After these reforms the signers pledged to “commit ourselves to reviving the ADC as an organization that protects and supports the human rights of Arabs in the U.S. and across the Arab world.”  The reforms never came.  It was a missed opportunity to move in a new direction.

This year, highly respected Arab-American leaders Rana Abbas and Michigan state representative Rashida Tlaib came forward publicly to disclose that they suffered sexual harassment when they worked with ADC’s Michigan director, Imad Hamad.  ADC merely suspended him, hired an attorney to conduct an investigation, absolved Hamad of any wrongdoing, and retained him as an advisor.  The board did not disclose much about the report or the basis for their conclusion. The lack of transparency and accountability calls into question the legitimacy of the conclusion. Several members of ADC-Michigan’s board resigned in protest (Click here to read about the rsignations).

Rather than taking the proper course of action, ADC’s chairman terminated its communications and advocacy director, Raed Jarrar. This was a mysterious move. Jarrar had invigorated ADC’s new justice for Alex Odeh campaign and was not involved in any of the controversies that have plagued ADC. The reason Jarrar was let go was that he, along with his co-workers, inquired internally about the sexual harassment investigation, raising concerns about it and the board’s decisions.

Female Staff Strike

In response to Jarrar’s firing, all of ADC’s female staff at the national office took to collective action.  They went on strike starting Monday, 21 October 2013. ADC’s chairman dismissed their concerns as if charges of sexual harassment in the organization are none of their business. Telling them their opinions do not matter is hardly the response one expects of a grassroots, civil rights organization’s head. 

By refusing to work, they lose salary and risk their jobs and livelihood. They have so far stood on nothing but the strength of their convictions. 

By working together to take a courageous stand, these young, female Arab-Americans represent the best potential of an organization wrecked by a leadership who has abandoned ADC’s civil rights spirit. Their commitment to principle highlights the very reasons we as former ADC members were initially drawn to the organization as activists, college students, and young professionals. 

At time of this article’s drafting, the strike was still ongoing. 

ADC Failing by Any Measure

The organization’s recent missteps only alienate prospective members and remind former members and supporters why they left.  However, the controversies and the strike are tied to a deeper problem: ADC is failing, and failing by any and all measures.

ADC appears to have more former members than current ones.  Almost all of the chapters it lists on its website are defunct.  Recent elections for ADC’s Washington, DC chapter attracted just two attendees.

ADC raised fewer donations annually since 2008, according to its tax forms (Click here to access tax info). The portion it raises from its shrinking membership is minimal, showing its weakness as a grassroots organization.  ADC has fewer employees today than it had at the end of its first decade. Its media presence also declined since 2006, as a Lexis-Nexis search proves. It has not released a publication since 2011, when it put out a compilation of scholarly writings on 9/11 (Click here to access compilation).

ADC’s national conventions–which once galvanized thousands of Arab Americans from across the country–drew fewer over the years. The youth in our community stays away in droves, finding little inspiration in an organization that lost its way years ago.   

Two buildings, its since-vacated Georgetown headquarters and its half-built center in Dearborn (click here for more info) are shrines to this organization’s insolvency and mishandling of funds.

Time for Accountability

Instead of sparking activity and boosting pride among Arab-Americans, ADC is a dysfunctional, shrinking operation. The fault must lie firstly with those on the board of directors who have been managing its demise over the past decade or so through different ADC presidents. 

If ADC has any hope to recover from this downward spiral, it lies in what these four young Arab-Americans are doing. Sadly, the normal mechanisms of accountability are broken because its membership has declined so dramatically. The strikers are challenging an organization too many others have given up on.  They demonstrate what it can become if voices like their’s are empowered.

We urge the board of directors to heed the strikers’ call.  Then, they must bring into the board’s leadership a chairperson who is visionary, inspirational and welcoming of wide participation.  This is needed to highlight–in very clear terms – that the board of directors will advance the interests of an Arab-American community that needs an effective and dynamic advocacy organization. The stewards of the organization, its board of directors, must recognize this.  ADC cannot recover without it. 

Statement by Ammar Askari, Khaled Beydoun, Fadi Kiblawi, Manal A. Jamal, Hoda Mitwally, Nadine Naber, Atef Said, and Will Youmans. The authors are former ADC members, supporters or chapter presidents.


 
If you would like to sign your name to this statement,
just type your name in the comments section below.

American Elections Watch 1: Rick Santorum and The Dangers of Theocracy

One day after returning to the United States after a trip to Lebanon, I watched the latest Republican Presidential Primary Debate. Unsurprisingly, Iran loomed large in questions related to foreign policy. One by one (with the exception of Ron Paul) the candidates repeated President Obama`s demand that Iran not block access to the Strait of Hormuz and allow the shipping of oil across this strategic waterway. Watching them, I was reminded of Israel`s demand that Lebanon not exploit its own water resources in 2001-2002. Israel`s position was basically that Lebanon`s sovereign decisions over the management of Lebanese water resources was a cause for war. In an area where water is increasingly the most valuable resource, Israel could not risk the possibility that its water rich neighbor might disrupt Israel`s ability to access Lebanese water resources through acts of occupation, underground piping, or unmitigated (because the Lebanese government has been negligent in exploiting its own water resources) river flow. In 2012, the United States has adopted a similar attitude towards Iran, even though the legal question of sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz is much more complicated and involves international maritime law in addition to Omani and Iranian claims of sovereignty. But still, US posturing towards Iran is reminiscent of Israeli posturing towards Lebanon. It goes something like this: while the US retains the right to impose sanctions on Iran and continuously threaten war over its alleged pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Iran should not dare to assume that it can demand the removal of US warships from its shores and, more importantly, should not dream of retaliating in any way to punitive sanctions imposed on it. One can almost hear Team America`s animated crew breaking into song . . . “America . . . Fuck Yeah!”

During the debate in New Hampshire, Rick Santorum offered a concise answer as to why a nuclear Iran would not be tolerated and why the United States-the only state in the world that has actually used nuclear weapons, as it did when it dropped them on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki- should go to war over this issue. Comparing Iran to other nuclear countries that the United States has learned to “tolerate” and “live with” such as Pakistan and North Korea, Santorum offered this succinct nugget of wisdom: Iran is a theocracy. Coming from a man who has stated that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools, that President Obama is a secular fanatic, that the United States is witnessing a war on religion, and that God designed men and women in order to reproduce and thus marriage should be only procreative (and thus heterosexual and “fertile”), Santorum`s conflation of “theocracy” with “irrationality” seemed odd. But of course, that is not what he was saying. When Santorum said that Iran was a theocracy what he meant is that Iran is an Islamic theocracy, and thus its leaders are irrational, violent, and apparently (In Santorum`s eyes) martyrdom junkies. Because Iran is an Islamic theocracy, it cannot be “trusted” by the United States to have nuclear weapons. Apparently, settler colonial states such as Israel (whose claim to “liberal “secularism” is tenuous at best), totalitarian states such as North Korea, or unstable states such as Pakistan (which the United States regularly bombs via drones and that is currently falling apart because, as Santorum stated, it does not know how to behave without a “strong” America) do not cause the same radioactive anxiety. In Santorum`s opinion, a nuclear Iran would not view the cold war logic of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) as a deterrent. Instead, the nation of Iran would rush to die under American or Israeli nuclear bombs because martyrdom is a religious (not national, Santorum was quick to state, perhaps realizing that martyrdom for nation is an ideal woven into the tapestry of American ideology) imperative. Santorum`s views on Iran can be seen one hour and two minutes into the debate.

When it comes to Islam, religion is scary, violent and irrational, says the American Presidential candidate who is largely running on his “faith based” convictions. This contradiction is not surprising, given that in the United States fundamentalist Christians regularly and without irony cite the danger that American muslims pose-fifth column style- to American secularism. After all, recently Christian fundamentalist groups succeeded in pressuring advertisers to abandon a reality show that (tediously) chronicled the lives of “American Muslims” living in Detroit. The great sin committed by these American Muslims was that they were too damn normal. Instead of plotting to inject sharia law into the United States Constitution, they were busy shopping at mid-western malls. Instead of marrying four women at a time and vacationing at Al-Qaeda training camps in (nuclear, but not troublingly so) Pakistan, these “American Muslims” were eating (halal) hotdogs and worrying about the mortgages on their homes and the rising costs of college tuition. Fundamentalist Christians watched this boring consumer driven normalcy with horror and deduced that it must be a plot to make Islam appear compatible with American secularism. The real aim of the show, these Christian fundamentalists (who Rick Santorum banks on for political and financial support) reasoned, was to make Islam appear “normal” and a viable religious option for American citizens. Thus the reality show “All American Muslim” was revealed to be a sinister attempt at Islamic proselytizing. This in a country where Christian proselytizing is almost unavoidable. From television to subways to doorbell rings to presidential debates to busses to street corners and dinner tables-there is always someone in America who wants to share the “good news” with a stranger. Faced with such a blatant, and common, double standard, we should continue to ask “If Muslim proselytizers threaten our secular paradise, why do Christian proselytizers not threaten our secular paradise?”

As the United States Presidential Elections kick into gear, we can expect the Middle East to take pride of place in questions pertaining to foreign policy. Already, Newt Gingrich who, if you forgot, has a PhD in history, has decided for all of us, once and for all, that the Palestinians alone in this world of nations are an invented people. Palestinians are not only a fraudulent people, Gingrich has taught us, they are terrorists as well. Candidates stumble over each other in a race to come up with more creative ways to pledge America`s undying support for Israel. Iran is the big baddie with much too much facial hair and weird hats. America is held hostage to Muslim and Arab oil, and must become “energy efficient” in order to free itself from the unsavory political relationships that come with such dependancy. Candidates will continue to argue over whether or not President Obama should have or should not have withdrawn US troops from Iraq, but no one will bring up the reality that the US occupation of Iraq is anything but over. But despite the interest that the Middle East will invite in the coming election cycle, there are a few questions that we can confidently assume will not be asked or addressed. Here are a few predictions. We welcome additional questions from readers.

Question: What is the difference between Christian Fundamentalism and Muslim Fundamentalism? Which is the greater “threat” to American secularism, and why?

Question: The United States` strongest Arab ally is Saudi Arabia, an Islamic theocracy and authoritarian monarchy which (falsely) cites Islamic law to prohibit women from driving cars, voting, but has recently (yay!) allowed women to sell underwear to other women. In addition, Saudi Arabia has been fanning the flames of sectarianism across the region, is the main center of financial and moral support for Al-Qaeda and is studying ways to “obtain” (the Saudi way, just buy it) a nuclear weapon-all as part and parcel of a not so cold war with Iran. Given these facts, how do you respond to critics that doubt the United States` stated goals of promoting democracy, human rights, women`s rights, and “moderate” (whatever that is) Islam?

Question: Israel has nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them in the past. True or false?

Question: How are Rick Santorum`s views on homosexuality (or the Christian right`s views more generally) different than President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad`s or King Abdullah`s? Can you help us tease out the differences when all three have said that as long as homosexuals do not engage in homosexual sex, it`s all good?

Question: Is the special relationship between the United States and Israel more special because they are both settler colonies, or is something else going on?