A coalition of 50 groups representing immigration, homelessness, LGBTQ+, women, environmental, seniors, housing, faith, healthcare, student, labor, low income, and many other interests, are “Rising Up for Justice Inauguration Day” today in San Jose.
The day started with a gathering near the fountain at Cesar Chavez Park and continued with a march to the Federal Building at noon.
It ends with a program at 1pm inside the San Jose City Hall council chambers that includes indigenous, homeless and DACA students, Aztec dancers, a family affected by police brutality, African drummers, a transgender man, and other speakers and cultural performances. The program caps it all off with an open mic.
“Since many of the groups participating use our building as a meeting space, it was only natural for us to host the entire coalition,” said Dr. Sharat Lin, of the San Jose Peace and Justice Center. “We are glad to support and foster the creation of such a unique event.”
The newly formed coalition is focused on unity, feeling that the common thread that unites them all is their opposition to the incoming administration’s platform of hate and fear. Many of the participating groups have been the subject of similar hate crimes or targeted by proposed legislation—they see their commonalities and the benefits of increased advocacy.
“The goal of our event is to engage, educate and empower people who may have never been involved in this kind of movement before,” student organizer Ulises Reyes said. “We’ve purposely chosen speakers who are active in their communities” adding “it’s important to keep people involved in their communities after the event.”
Rise Up for Justice Inauguration Day strives to keep participants educated about upcoming community meetings, city council and board of supervisor meetings and keeping them informed via handouts and riseup.forjustice.us.
Participants were encouraged to use the Indivisible Guide indivisibleguide.com to further engage their local officials and make their voice heard. Keep up with the conversation about the march at #RU4Justice and @RUForJustice.
The opinions in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of San Jose Inside.
A perfect illustration of the Democrats’ problem:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/democrats-trump-administration-wilderness-comeback-revival-214650
“What’s clear from interviews with several dozen top Democratic politicians and operatives at all levels, however, is that there is no comeback strategy—just a collection of half-formed ideas, all of them challenged by reality. And for whatever scheme they come up with, Democrats don’t even have a flag-carrier.”
I don’t recall SJI publishing anonymous content before and hope this is an inadvertent omission. It appears to violate the ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists at http://www.spj.org/ethics-papers-anonymity.asp
Authorship has changed from “Guest Columnist” to “Rise Up For Justice” since originally posted. Perhaps the source hopes to avoid culpability should the demonstration become violent.
Interestingly, Matthew Sahagian, the Sunnyvale owner of riseup.forjustice.us neglected to anonymously register the domain despite his linkedin profile as a web engineer and employed by a web development company.
We often publish Op-Eds from outside submissions. Some formatting issues resulted in the op-ed not having a proper byline and disclaimer at the end when posted.
JK
AMUSED,
For whatever it’s worth I did not write the above, and I honestly don’t know who did. Your suggestion that I should have registered anonymously for the domain seems to suggest that I should have something to be afraid of for voicing my opinions. Is that what you are implying here?
Checked with 3 people that handle domain registrations for clients and a 4th person that works in net security.
All urge anonymous registration. Pro and cons: https://www.godaddy.com/domainaddon/private-registration.aspx and https://luxsci.com/blog/dangers-of-private-domain-registrations-and-whois-masking.html
You didn’t answer my question. Are you implying that I should have something to be afraid of for voicing my opinions?
Josh, Thanks for the prompt response. SJI provides a valuable public service by publishing this type of material. But the point still remains: it warrants a name rather than an anonymous attribution. Names are required by mainstream media for good reason. Otherwise, it’s tough to discern fake news, hoaxes, or propaganda.
We don’t know if the item is the product of Mr. Sahagian (self described “Web developer, atheist, communist and generally alright guy.” https://medium.com/@mattsah ), Mr. Reyes ( “student organizer”, but lacking any specific school association or credibility) or someone else.
It’s also helpful for organizations. We’ve seen conflicting claims from organizations such as Black Lives Matter. Person A makes a claim, then it’s disavowed by Person B. Publishing an attribution helps groups sort out their communication procedures.
Please consider a name requirement for outside submissions.
I have to agree with ‘Amused’. If a source is too afraid to stand by his/her words, then the reporter has a few ethical options. These are just off the top of my head:
• Interview others who are willing to give their names
• Investigate corroborating facts, and write the story without quoting the anonymous source
• If using an anonymous source, make it clear where they’re coming from: their organization, etc. Everyone has a motive, and readers have a right to know the source’s motive.
• If using an anonymous source is the only option, then be sure to print opposing views. Let the readers decide.
Woodward & Bernstein were about the last of the real reporters. They dug into the story and held on like pit bills. But now reporters are lazy, using far too many anonymous sources, and avoiding the tedious legwork of vetting whatever those self-serving sources say. There is always a story behind the story.
There is far more ‘fake news’ in the media today than on many internet sites. That’s why the UN, the Democrats, the EU, and the rest of that ilk are working constantly to shut down sites they don’t like. They simply don’t want the public to have access to all points of view. Instead, they want the public to see only the official narrative. That’s the path to dictatorship.
Right now the government is using blogs like Facebook to do their censoring for them. Personally, I don’t see much difference between FB and the government. They work hand in glove, like the government and the Federal Reserve (a private corporation). And who gets the shaft? The public—you know, the ones who pay the freight.
Finally, some well meaning advice for Josh, who wrote:
“Some formatting issues resulted in the op-ed not having a proper byline and disclaimer at the end when posted.”
But the byline is still Rise Up For Justice, which is like saying, “A Republican said…”. Readers want the individuals who are promoting this event. Either identify them, or don’t use them.
You could be the next Jack Woodward, Josh. It’s up to you.