Labor Mural Wants to Be Free

3 of 11 panels from the mural: The 1937 Strike Scenes from an unsuccessful strike attempt to create better conditions for women workers. Frances Perkins FDR's  Labor Secretary, and untiring labor activist, a Maine Labor icon. Rosie the Riveter Maine's version of WWII women workers participated as ship-builders.

Control of information is where the battle for hearts and minds is being waged in the 21st century. That's why Bradley Manning is being tortured for allegedly leaking the Collateral Murder video and other raw truths about military occupation. That's why Julian Assange of WikiLeaks is a wanted man for distributing the information. And that's why Maine's governor took down the mural depicting labor history created by Judy Taylor for the lobby of the Department of Labor.

The Maine labor mural had a hearing in Federal District Court in Bangor today on a charge that the governor violated citizens' First Amendment right of access to the mural by removing it.

Appropriately enough, the court proceedings were open to the public, and we were treated to an entertaining show. Judge Woodcock was clearly enjoying himself, and he hinted broadly that it would not have been unwelcome if either the plaintiffs or the defendant had filed for discovery in order to produce the mural in the courtroom. The judge rightly noted that few present had actually ever seen it, and that they are unlikely to now that it is believed to be stored “in a broom closet.”

The case seems to hinge on whether or not the mural's removal can be considered “government speech” which the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld 1st amendment rights for; as a legal concept, the judge noted, government speech is pretty freshly minted. Would a person viewing the mural reasonably think that it contained a message from his or her government? Or just a personal vision expressed by the artist? He speculated that portraits of the founders of giant paper companies and ship builders may be planned to replace the mural, according to the governor.

The plaintiffs argue it is the latter, while the state argued through its lawyers that it had spoken (perhaps less than eloquently) when the mural was removed last month under cover of darkness.

Despite expressing the reluctance of federal courts to interfere in state business, the judge had prepared  some interesting questions for both sides. To the plaintiffs: Doesn't each successive administration remove art from the walls of public buildings, and put up other art, and doesn't this constitute a benefit of democratic governance, wherein the people are supposed to have spoken at the ballot box that brought the administration to office?

Counsel for the plaintiffs: If the art had been removed because the color scheme was displeasing, yes. If it is removed because the content is deemed unwelcome – as the governor clearly stated in the verbal pissing match that led up to the mural's removal – then that is a violation of the right, not just to speak, but to listen.

Judge Woodcock then asked counsel for the defendant: Suppose the governor were to enter the state library, find a number of books there on the history of labor objectionable, and burn them? Would that be permissible?

In a room full of oldsters, it's pretty clear what that hypothetical referred to.

The judge promised to render a decision quickly, but he's known for writing long opinions – so don't hold your breath. Other avenues remain, including a pending demand from the U.S. Dept. of Labor for a refund of its $60k contribution via grant whose terms have now been violated; the fact that the state museum actually has responsibility for the art in state buildings; and the breach of contract with the artist, who is entitled to be consulted in the event of her work's removal, and wasn't.

At a rally that followed the hearing, in Peirce Park under a monumental statue of lumberjacks at work, artist Nathasha Mayers spoke dressed as a truck with Maine open for  business  exploitation painted on the side. Artist Rob Shetterly said the mural deserved to be seen because it showed the truth  about labor history in Maine. And several speakers represented labor, none more eloquently than retired RN Kathy Day. The nurses at Eastern Maine Medical Center have been struggling for a contract that guarantees adequate staffing levels, and Kathy clearly explained how society as a whole often benefits from workers' struggles.

Kathy Day, Food AND Medicine, Bangor, April 19, 2011

Not enough nurses to provide adequate care? Not enough air traffic controllers to spell each other through the wee hours? Weak protection for child laborers? Eventually, somebody's going to get hurt.

"the public is stunned and listless"

A quote from one of my favorite blogs, Organizing Notes by Bruce Gagnon:

At the same time we witness the "big deal" that was cut in Washington DC last night to "save the federal government from shutdown". The deal will slash another $40 billion from social programs as the Republican controlled House of Representatives, the Democrats, and Obama continue their relentless assault on social progress. This $40 billion is equal to what the Pentagon spends on the Afghanistan occupation in about three months. But we are not supposed to notice. 

In many respects the public is stunned and listless.

Abu Graib prisoner tortured by U.S. troops, as ordered by their officers. The release of these photos is what sent my husband and I back to vigil every week on the bridge where we first met, just before Shock & Awe.

I was stunned this week when a colleague invited me into his class to observe a lesson that is part of a unit on WWII. Studying the rise of Nazi Germany, the students were taking up the question, How can people participate in horrors like being concentration camp guards? Or just stand by silently while their government does such things?

One of the things the class considered was research psychologist Philip Zimbardo on the nature of systemic evil. Here you can see his lecture which raised the central questions: Are there intrinsically bad apples? Do bad barrels make bad apples? And if so, who or what makes the bad barrels?
My colleague warned the class, both at the beginning and then again right before the video, that they would be seeing graphic images of torture and abuse from Abu Graib prison in Iraq. The students were given permission to not view the images; no one left the room, but I did notice one girl looking down at her desk.

Most of the students are in the 10th grade and by chance this section of the class on Modern World Studies was full of able students who value their own learning. I've had them all in class before, and I knew this about them. They were relatively quiet during the class I observed, but there was some discussion, and it appeared they were paying attention.

At the end of the period there were a few minutes left, and I wondered aloud how many were seeing the Abu Graib photos for the first time. Answer that left me stunned: all of them. The whole class of about twenty teenagers had not only never seen any of the Abu Graib photos but THEY HAD NEVER HEARD OF ABU GRAIB. At all.

I am stunned. But I will be damned if I am listless.

Most of the teachers I've discussed this with reference the fact that they grew up discussing current events with their parents. That was back in the days when families had dinner together. Also the days when the news had a little bit more real information in it.

Nowadays, ten thousand Muslims and their allies could march down Broadway in the middle of a Saturday in NYC, and the New York Times could completely ignore it. (The Portland Press Herald completely ignored a large immigration march I joined in Maine a couple of years ago, also.)

So before I go off to my day job, I will do my second job, spreading real news. This report is from Peter Titus, who attended both the April 9 NYC antiwar march full of Muslim families for peace, and a same day labor rally in Times Square. I think it was scheduled for the same time deliberately to compete with the antiwar march, which began being organized last July when a date was set, and was attended largely by those who didn't vote for Obama the first time -- and have no intention of even pretending to support the Democratic Party.

Having attended both events (I stopped by the Times Square labor event around 12:30 PM) my observation is that the short, punchy labor gathering attracted around 6,000-7,000.  I counted about 1,500 per packed "pen" of which there were three between 42nd and 39th streets, plus 500 in the way-back "pen" and another 1,500 along the other side of the street comprised of "pen-free" people.  The participants were overwhelming union members. The theme was "stop the war against workers". I don't recall any of the speakers offering a way to actually stop this war, however the audience was big, militant, and ready for action. By comparison, our antiwar march an hour later  was attended by a huge throng, easily twice the size of the labor event.  I could not say it was more energetic or more willing to put up a fight because both groups scored hight points here according to my unofficial scorecard. The large turnout was probably the result of extensive outreach, especially involving at the Muslim community. In contrast to the labor event, our event also offered a way forward for working people by demanding an end to the wars and occupations. Both events shared one thing in common: they were completely ignored by the N.Y. Times which failed to mention either milestone event.

The mainstream press ignored this event also. Maine State House Hall of Flags, April 4, 2011 rally to bring our war $$ home.

Maine Hogwash

This isn't the first time a mural about the people who work has caused trouble. Rockefeller Center tore down the mural that Diego Rivera and others had created in NYC in 1933 because the artist declined to obliterate Lenin's face. Ben Shahn organized the artists to oppose this. I wonder what he would say about the plan to remove the murals from the Labor Dept.

Maine's beautiful Dept of Labor mural by artist Judy Taylor was on the Daily Show, Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, in the NYT and the Christian Science Monitor  even before today's rallies (there were two). An educational news conference in front of the mural by the Union of Maine Visual Artists and other artists and art supporters was held at the Dept. of Labor today at noon, while a slew of msm and indy media outlets carried stories about the murals.

Of interest also: there may be a state law saying that the governor doesn't have responsibility for the works of art on display in Maine public buildings. Instead, the State Museum does. I wonder if that's true.

Meanwhile, the whole hogwash continued to flow.

Maine's governor stated not just once but twice yesterday that he would tax the rich -- if only he could find any.

Bangor Daily News coverage here. Several online comments suggested he start looking in Bar Harbor -- where the Obama family went on vacation last summer.

Then there were posts like this one: “I cannot imagine being a company working with the Department of Labor to solve a labor relations issue and being called to a meeting in the Cesar Chavez” room."

Kind of like how people of color feel when they're in a public building and all the portraits are white?

This reminds me of a favorite quote from Cesar Chavez. Asked how he organized he said, first I talk to a person, and then I talk to another person. The questioner said, I know, but how do you organize people. And Chavez said, I told you.

✌ ✌ ✌ ✌ ✌ 

My historical novel about working people in Maine is available to read on Kindle.