17 Sept 2020

Strikes mount as COVID-19 breaks out in hundreds of Spanish schools

Alice Summers

Opposition is mounting to Spain’s homicidal back-to-school campaign, amid a massive resurgence of COVID-19. On Tuesday, Spain passed 600,000 total cases (603,167), just over a week after reaching 500,000. The same day, Spain recorded 156 new deaths, bringing the highly manipulated official death toll to over 30,000 (30,004). Analyses by major newspapers show the real death toll is at least 45,000.
Nevertheless, the Spanish government, headed by the social-democratic Socialist Party (PSOE) and “left-populist” Podemos, is proceeding with its politically-criminal school reopening plans, forcing teachers back to work and threatening to prosecute parents who do not send their children to school.
Madrid education workers began a 20-day strike against the PSOE-Podemos government’s back-to-school orders Friday. Called by the anarcho-syndicalist CNT-AIT (National Confederation of Labour-International Workers’ Association), this strike comes atop a two-day strike called in Madrid by the CCOO (Workers’ Commissions), UGT (General Union of Labour), CGT (General Confedaration of Labour) and STEM (Madrid Union of Education Workers) unions, scheduled for September 22-23.
Strike action has been threatened in the Balearic Islands, Andalucía, Aragón, Galicia, Murcia and the Basque Country, amid reports of coronavirus outbreaks in numerous schools across the country. More than 200 schools have registered coronavirus-related incidents in only the first week of term, before many of Spain’s regions had even reopened education centres.
Andalucía is the worst affected so far, reporting that at least 34 schools had seen coronavirus “incidents.” Several education centres there have already been forced to close after multiple infections among teachers and students. At least one school in the Andalucían city of Sevilla has already closed; in Málaga, four classes in two schools have had to quarantine. In Granada, two schools have had to postpone opening after reporting cases among teachers. In Córdoba, seven classes in two schools, and a further two infant education centres have also had to quarantine.
The Basque Country has been the next worst affected, reporting around 30 schools with COVID-19 incidents, four of these having to close and the rest to impose measures like partial quarantines. This is followed by Aragón, which has closed 24 classrooms in 21 schools; Castilla-La Mancha, with 20 schools in isolation; Madrid, with 26 classrooms isolated in 16 different schools; and La Rioja, with 14 education centres reporting positive cases and setting up quarantines.
In Catalonia, the school term has started with 253 teachers and 210 pupils in quarantine. Navarra has also reported that 286 pupils are already having to isolate.
The struggle of workers against this manifestly unsafe back-to-school campaign faces not only the hostility of the main bourgeois parties of state, but the collusion and spinelessness of the unions.
In Madrid, the CNT-AIT only called the 20-day strike after industrial action planned by the CGT, UGT, CCOO and STEM was delayed from the start to the end of September, so as to give right-wing regional president, Isabel Díaz Ayuso, time to implement her inadequate safety measures. Four days of strike action on 4, 8, 9 and 10 September were replaced with a two-day work stoppage planned for the end of the month.
Fearing that Madrid education workers’ opposition could erupt outside the unions’ control, the CNT-AIT announced work stoppages between 10 and 30 September. This announcement in itself only came after a recently-established “Teachers Assembly for an Indefinite Strike” criticised the planned two-day strike as “insufficient,” stating that it does not “reflect the concerns of the education community.”
Unions have refused to call out teachers and other workers across Spain in a unified struggle against the reopening of schools. They have limited action to sporadic and isolated one-day or short-term mobilisations, all on different days and in only some of Spain’s 17 regions, allowing workers to let off steam while doing nothing to prevent the reckless reopening.
In the Basque Country, education workers struck for one day, Tuesday, despite the regional government’s attempts to prevent walkouts by imposing minimum service requirements. Officially, 41.9 percent of education workers took part in the strike, while the unions claimed 65–70 percent participation.
Around 40,000 education workers in the Basque Country stopped work on Tuesday, with a further 10,000 subcontractors also joining the strike. The unions reported thousands of workers also took part in demonstrations across the region: 8,000 in Bilbao, 5,000 in Vitoria and 4,000 in Donostia.
On the same day, a mere 53 teachers took part in a strike in Andalucía, called by a new union, Teachers for Public [Education] (DxP), after the main unions delayed all action until 18 September, limiting it then to only a token one-day protest. The DxP strike is to last until 16 October. In a pre-emptive attempt to prevent industrial action, Andalucía’s regional government also imposed minimum service requirements.
A one-day strike in the Balearic Islands, called by the Balearic Workers’ Union (UOB), has been delayed from 14 to 29 September, with the union calling for the regional government to come to the negotiation table.
In Murcia, a one-day strike on 23 September has been called by the CCOO and STERM (Confederation of Teaching Trade Unions), while in Galicia, a one-day work stoppage was held on 10 September. A further strike is planned for 16 September in Galicia.
Turn-out in Galicia was only around 12 percent, as the regional government effectively illegalised the strike, imposing stringent minimum service requirements. The Galician High Court ruled that 100 percent of cleaning staff, kitchen staff, medical staff and educators must be present. It cynically justifying this draconian edict, referring to the coronavirus pandemic: “this may be excessive in a normal situation,” the High Court stated, but it is “reasonable and justified by the grave crisis that we are suffering through.”
The Union of Students has also called for pupils across Spain to stay away from classrooms on three days this week (16, 17 and 18 September).
Thousands of parents and students across the country have also joined protests against the unsafe reopening of educational centres, with many refusing to send their children to school.
In the southern city of Granada, in Andalucía, parents of around half the pupils enrolled at the Tierno Galván primary school refused to send in their children. Roughly 200 of the school’s 400 children were absent, as parents protested the lack of safety protocols and sufficient staffing.
Multiple other protests took place in Andalucía, with the “majority of students” at a school in Jaén staying away, according to 20minutos.
Speaking to El Periódico, Ángeles B., mother of two primary school children from Sevilla, denounced the unsafe reopening of schools in Andalucía, stating: “Children have to learn and socialise, but what do we put first, health or education? … We are in a pandemic, people are dying. I don’t understand why the Andalucían government hasn’t hired the teachers we need to have classes with fewer kids. … I’m not going to let them [the government] tell me that I am irresponsible for not sending my children to school.”
Many children in A Coruña, in the northern region of Galicia, were also kept home from school by their parents. Parents, teachers and children protested outside schools, carrying placards reading “My classroom isn’t safe,” “They need to protect us!” and “More ventilation, more security, safe education!,” among other slogans. Similar demonstrations took place across the country.

Students return to UK universities: Build campus safety committees!

Danny Knightley

Students are set to return to universities from Monday just as COVID-19 is spreading rapidly once again. What is described as “the UK’s biggest annual migration” involves hundreds of thousands travelling to campuses and shared accommodation, even as restrictions were reintroduced this week limiting private gatherings to just six people.
There has been a 43 percent increase in infections this week alone, driven by a huge spike in cases amongst 17-29 year olds—the same cohort that will be in and around campuses. The rate of infection among this age group is now more than double the national average and rising.
While many universities considered the possibility of transitioning entirely to online learning for this first term, most have committed to at least some face-to-face contact, on the grounds that campus living “is a key part of the university experience for many.” But a key part of the university experience is surviving it and not passing an aggressive virus onto one’s friends and loved ones.
To add insult to injury, the generation that is expected to return to colleges and universities is being blamed by the government and media for spreading COVID-19. Health Secretary Matt Hancock accused young people of ignoring social distancing rules, risking a second wave of the pandemic. “Don’t kill your gran by catching coronavirus and then passing it on,” he said, in particularly cynical and cruel remarks.
Rather than establishing mass testing to ensure the campuses are COVID-safe, the government has announced that testing will be restricted to essential workers due to shortages. Six months on the testing system is highly inadequate, with those unwell unable to get tests or being told to travel hundreds of miles. That it is collapsing now is entirely due to the reopening of schools, with infections spreading among teachers and pupils.
Campus reopenings will exacerbate this dire situation. Students from all over the country, who had previously been mixing in well-defined groups, are being thrown into close proximity with friends and strangers. This is particularly dangerous in COVID hotspots such as Manchester or Leicester, which will see 100,000 and 40,000 students arriving, respectively. These cities have already had some form of local lockdown, have come out of it or are about to go into one. Many other cities will inevitably follow.
It is urgent that students and educators take matters into their own hands and place no trust in the government, fake opposition parties or the university institutions. Campus safety committees must be built to ensure appropriate safety procedures are put in place to protect the health of students and staff, and fight for increased testing on campuses.
Blaming young people for the spread of the virus is a blatant attempt to conceal that the real policy of the Johnson government, Labour Party, Liberal Democrats and all the media is to allow the virus to spread—so-called “herd immunity.” This eugenics-style aim, combined with systemic greed, corruption, incompentence and stupidity, has already led to tens of thousands of deaths, and will cause many more.
The Conservatives and the Labour Party are united in their efforts to “reopen the economy,” driving workers back into unsafe workplaces, opening schools and now universities. For the last months, they have encouraged people to eat and drink out, go the gym and “return to normal,” even as the virus spreads. Young people constitute the majority of the workforce in the bars, pubs, retail, fitness and delivery services that have been pushed back into operation. If they are fortunate to still be working, they will be travelling from their accomodation and campuses to these workplaces
The Lancet warned earlier this summer that without an effective track and trace testing system, the reopening of schools would likely lead to a second wave of COVID-19. Given the higher level of autonomy and higher degree of movement among university students, this warning applies even more strongly to the return to campuses across the country.
The University and College Union (UCU) has said more than a million students moving around the country was “a recipe for disaster.” Yet it is not mobilising its members against this. Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer lamented the incorrect A-level results given to potential university students, but there is no statement yet by him or the National Union of Students in response to the murderous drive of the Johnson to get students back to university and paying their fees.
There is widespread opposition among students and teachers, who have raised concerns over the testing policies and alternate learning styles advanced by universities, with numerous petitions and protests demanding a return to online learning.
This opposition is echoed internationally, with graduate students at the University of Michigan in the US taking strike action to demand the shutdown of in-person learning amid the coronavirus pandemic. On September 10, they voted by more than 700 to 400 to reject a proposal from the university administration, which did not meet their main demands, to continue their strike to ensure safe studying conditions for students.
Students are struggling economically, in addition to the health dangers. Between March and July, unemployment rose by 62,000 to 1.2 million—a jobless rate of 4.1 percent. This is before the government jobs furlough ends in November. Young people are the hardest hit, with the number of unemployed 16-24 year olds rising by 76,000. As a result of economic uncertainty, the numbers enrolling for university have increased by 3.5 percent. Jo Grady, the leader of the UCU, has warned that higher numbers will make social distancing even harder.
Regardless of the precise learning styles adopted by universities, students are still expected to pay the same inflated fees of £9,250 for online learning and limited access to resources. As most work in events or in the service industry, young people have seen their employment opportunities vanish over the last six months. More and more students are struggling to support themselves, with one in five unable to pay their rent. Swansea University, for example, reports an average increase of 190 percent in applications for its hardship fund while Cardiff Metropolitan said it had seen a 125 percent increase.
The International Youth and Students for Social Equality (IYSSE), the student and youth movement of the Socialist Equality Party (SEP), is committed to opposing these conditions. The fight to defend health and safety against the unsafe reopening of schools, workplaces and universities requires the mobilisation of the working class against the Tory government, its Labour allies, and the capitalist system as a whole.
This Saturday, September 19, the SEP is hosting an online meeting for educators and students in support of those who stand against this murderous drive for a return to universities. We demand that the return of students to university is postponed until effective testing measures are put in place to reduce the risk of transmission among the student population and university staff. We demand an end to tuition fees, the full refund of fees already paid out for this year’s tuition, state funding of higher education for all, as a right, the cancelling of student debt, and the reintroduction of a living grant to cover accommodation and other essential expenses.

Australian police raids seized copies of Chinese diplomatic communications

Mike Head

More revelations are appearing that point to what lay behind last week’s sensationalised media reports that Chinese authorities had subjected two Australian journalists to midnight raids, forcing them to leave the country.
It is increasingly clear that this development was bound up with an escalating US-led offensive against China, in which both the Trump administration and the Australian government are taking extraordinarily provocative actions.
While Washington is taking unprecedented action to force the Chinese firm ByteDance to sell the video sharing app TikTok to an American company, Australia’s Liberal-National government is orchestrating matching moves against Beijing.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) reported yesterday that Australian police agencies have at least twice this year accessed the communications of Chinese diplomats, in violation of international law, triggering a sharp deterioration in relations between the two governments.
Such material is protected by the Vienna conventions on diplomatic and consular relations, which are also enshrined in Australian law. But communications involving Chinese officials were seized in operations targeting John Zhang, a Chinese-Australian citizen who was a part-time electorate officer for a New South Wales (NSW) state Labor Party MP, Shaoquett Moselmane.
In January, at Sydney International Airport, Australian Border Force (ABF) officers searched Zhang’s computers and phones when he, his wife and their daughter returned from lunar new year celebrations in China. According to Zhang, the officers read and copied email and phone exchanges with Chinese embassy and consular officials in Australia.
Zhang’s devices were again accessed in June when Australian Federal Police (AFP) and Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) officers raided his home, company and the NSW Parliament.
In a blaze of publicity, Moselmane was also raided before dawn on June 26—accused by various media outlets of being a “Chinese agent.” Last week, Chinese authorities revealed that four Australian-based Chinese journalists were raided at the same time, and were told not to report the police operation. The journalists later left Australia.
As required by the ASIO Act, Attorney-General Christian Porter personally authorised the raids, exposing the involvement of Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s government at the highest levels.
The ABC reported it was told that Zhang’s computers and phones contained a long history of emails, messages and records of calls with Chinese diplomatic and consular officials and some of their family members. They included the most recent Sydney consul-general, Gu Xiaojie, and officials and families at the senior ambassadorial level in Canberra.
Zhang last month wrote to Porter, Foreign Minister Marise Payne and Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton, complaining of the unlawful downloading of these communications from his laptops and phones.
These developments indicate the degree to which the Australian government and its security agencies, working closely with their US counterparts, are ratcheting up moves designed to inflame tensions with China.
This is the context of last week’s much-dramatised departure from China of the last two journalists there representing Australian media outlets—the ABC’s Bill Birtles and the Australian Financial Review’s Michael Smith. It seems to be the result of Australian government provocations.
The Australian Foreign Affairs Department, which would have known of the earlier secret operations against Zhang and the four Chinese journalists, had advised the pair to leave China. They were both booked on flights for the next day, when the Chinese authorities instructed them not to leave until they answered questions relating to a legal case.
The Australian embassy in Beijing then further intervened, hosting the two journalists in diplomatic residences for five days until a deal was worked out for them to speak to the Chinese police and then leave the country.
If the Chinese embassy had taken similar action in response to June’s raids on Chinese journalists, the corporate media would have been full of headlines accusing Beijing of blocking police and legal proceedings.
The latest revelations further underscore the sweeping scope of, and political agenda behind, the “foreign interference” laws jointly pushed through parliament in 2018 by the Liberal-National government and the opposition Labor Party, setting a global precedent hailed by the US political establishment.
The raids against Moselmane, Zhang and the Chinese journalists are seen as the first test of these laws, which the Australian government has been under US-linked pressure to put into practice.
US President Trump listens to remarks by Australia PM Scott Morrison during a White House function in September, 2019. (Official White House photo by Shealah Craighead)
Search warrants seen by the ABC reportedly show that the AFP is investigating whether China’s Sydney Consul Sun Yantao worked “covertly” with Zhang to influence political opinion in Australia. That is an offence that carries up to 20 years’ imprisonment under the foreign interference legislation.
The allegedly “covert” discussions consist of a discussion group on WeChat, which reportedly mostly consisted of sharing articles, speeches, jokes and memes, and to organise social outings. WeChat is used by millions of people around the world.
As a prominent figure in the Chinese-Australian community, Zhang has been far from “covert.” He has made no secret of his relationships with China’s embassy in Canberra and its Sydney consulate, and has boasted in media articles of his ties with Australia’s political elite
One cited 2014 blog by Zhang indicates the type of “soft diplomacy” being practised by China, like every other country. Speaking of Moselmane, he wrote:
“Through these influential friends in Western society, China’s social and economic development is better understood and China's cultural values are better accepted.” Zhang expressed the hope that “the gap between East and West will gradually disappear.”
Instead, however, first under Obama and then Trump, Washington has intensified its military and economic confrontation, seeking to prevent China from ever challenging the hegemony over the Asia-Pacific and much of the globe established by the US through World War II.
No doubt, whatever activities the Chinese embassy conducts pale into insignificance compared to those of the US embassy. It has intervened to overturn at least two Australian governments—those of prime ministers Gough Whitlam in 1975 and Kevin Rudd in 2010—that were regarded as insufficiently reliable in implementing the US alliance.
The US embassy’s collaboration with “protected sources” in the Labor Party to oust Rudd was documented by leaked US cables published by WikiLeaks. Once Julia Gillard was installed as prime minister, she aligned the country completely behind the Obama administration’s anti-China “pivot to Asia.”
Moselmane and Zhang have been accused of making pro-China statements and of criticising the foreign interference laws as part of an anti-China witch hunt. To make such political views a crime is an outright assault on free speech.
Zhang has launched a High Court challenge, exposing the nebulous nature of the accusations hurled against him and charging the government and ASIO with violating the implied freedom of political communication in the Australian constitution.
Interviewed on national television last Sunday, Home Affairs Minister Dutton took the threat to freedom of speech further. He said any foreign journalists in the country who provided a “slanted view” of Australian affairs might come under similar scrutiny from the security agencies.
The initial targets of these police raids may be figures linked to China but they will not be the last. Already, media reports have described former foreign minister and NSW premier Bob Carr as a “mentor” of Moselmane. Even those in the political establishment, like Carr, can be victimised if they differ with the ferocity of the anti-China drive because it affects the lucrative profits that sections of the ruling class derive from iron ore and other exports to China.
Beyond that, anti-war opposition and political dissent can be criminalised, as part of a drive to whip up a poisonous wartime-like atmosphere. As the WSWS and the Socialist Equality Party have warned, the foreign interference laws contain sweeping offences, ranging from treason to breaching official secrecy and cooperating with a “foreign” organisation. These provisions could be used to outlaw opposing Australian involvement in a catastrophic US-led war against China.

Trump’s China tariffs ruled illegal by World Trade Organisation

Nick Beams

The World Trade Organisation ruled on Tuesday that tariffs imposed on $234 billion worth of Chinese goods in 2018 are illegal under international trade regulations.
But the decision is not going to yield any relaxation of the Trump administration’s trade war against China and its assault on the international trading system more broadly. Rather it will see its further intensification.
The decision, made by a three-person panel of the WTO, is the result of action launched by China against the imposition of tariffs by the US in 2018 under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, which empowers the American president to take action against countries deemed to be acting against US commercial interests.
The panel found that “the United States has not met the burden of demonstrating that the measures are provisionally justified.”
China took action on the grounds that the US measures contravened the most-favoured nation principle because they were not applied to all WTO members but singled out China. The panel agreed.
“China has demonstrated that the additional duties apply only to products from China and thus fail to accord to products originating in China an advantage granted to like product in all other WTO members,” it said.
In a statement on the decision, China’s Ministry of Commerce said it “approves of the objective and fair ruling of the expert group” and described the WTO as the “core of the multilateral trading system which forms the cornerstone of multilateral trade.” It said China hoped that “the American side will fully respect the ruling of the expert group.”
There is no chance of that.
Under WTO rules, the US has 60 days to appeal the decision. But that will not take place. This is because the Trump administration has rendered the WTO appeals system inoperable by refusing to back the appointment of new judges to the appellate body when the terms of existing members expired. As a result, the appeals process has been unable to function since December last year.
The attack on the appeals system is part of a broader campaign against the WTO, with key sections of the administration reaching the conclusion that it should be abolished because its decisions have been to the detriment of the US while benefiting China.
These positions, which are supported by the Democratic Party, were on display in the reaction to WTO decision by key figures in the administration and the Republican Party.
US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said the panel report confirmed what the Trump administration has been saying over the past four years. “The WTO is completely inadequate to stop China’s harmful technology practices.”
He claimed the panel did not dispute the “extensive evidence” submitted by the US of intellectual property theft by China but “the WTO provides no remedy for such misconduct. The United States must be allowed to defend itself against unfair trade practices, and the Trump administration will not let China use the WTO to take advantage of American workers, businesses, farmers and ranchers.”
Speaking to reporters on the WTO decision, Trump said he would consider the ruling. That consideration is certain to involve further attacks on international trade rules.
“Maybe we’ll have to do something about the WTO because they let China get away with murder. We’ll take a look at that. … Maybe they did us a big favour.”
This last remark indicates where the administration is likely to head as it seizes on the decision to portray the US as the victim of biased WTO decisions as it seeks to overturn the organisation and the international trading rules on which is based.
That course of action was certainly indicated in the twitter remarks of Republican Senator Josh Hawley. He wrote that the ruling was “more evidence that the WTO is outdated, sclerotic, and generally bad for America. USA should withdraw and lead the effort to abolish it.”
That such sentiments are being articulated by leaders of the Republican Party, which in the past was an advocate for free trade, is a remarkable indication of the turn by powerful sections of the US ruling class to a policy of overturning the international trade rules established after World War II and returning to the dog-eat-dog relations that proved so disastrous in the 1930s.
This turn is an expression of the extent of the economic decline of the US and the view in growing sections of the ruling class that China’s economic advancement is a direct threat to American economic dominance. These positions have also become entrenched in the Democratic Party, with one of the themes of the Biden campaign being that Trump has been too “soft” on China.
The call for stronger action against the WTO was also voiced by Michael Stumo, the president of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, an anti-China business lobby group.
He told the Wall Street Journal that the “WTO ruling shows that Geneva bureaucrats do not want the US to protect its national and economic security interests” and that “the relevance and the usefulness of the WTO has been further called into question as it protects China’s state-directed economy from change.”
The reaction from the administration has implications that go far beyond China. The European Union is facing a tariff threat from the US over the demand that it open its markets to a greater volume of US agricultural exports. Action could also be taken under Section 301 if EU member states go ahead with plans to impose a tax on high-tech US digital companies.
Reporting on the WTO decision, Bloomberg said the 27-member EU “may breathe a sigh of relief over Tuesday’s WTO verdict” because it had been threatened with Section 301. This is a complete misreading of the situation.
The reaction to the decision indicates that the administration will double down on its actions as it sends a wrecking ball through the international trading system and its organisations.

Big Ten universities announce football will resume

Andy Thompson

The presidents and chancellors of the universities that make up the Big Ten college football conference announced Wednesday morning that they had unanimously voted to reverse their earlier decision to postpone the football season. The Big Ten’s season is set to begin on October 24 with each team playing eight games, one each week, and a final championship game on December 19.
After the initial decision to postpone, it was speculated that the season would not resume until the spring at the earliest. However, political pressure, including the intervention of President Donald Trump and huge financial interests, pushed the schools to have a rapid resumption of the 2020 football season.
The conference includes the largest public universities across the main centers of US industry, and, not coincidentally, states vital to the outcome of the 2020 elections: New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and Nebraska.
The decision flies in the face of the advice of the Big Ten’s own medical advisers, who up until the last few weeks were in agreement that holding football games would be far too dangerous until at least 2021. Now the Big Ten leaders are claiming that they have achieved a plan that will prevent an outbreak. President of Purdue University Mitch Daniels, the former Republican governor of Indiana, remarked, “Things we all learned, along with some technological advances, have produced a plan that is safer for our players and staff than it would have been originally.”
The Big Ten plan stipulates that players will receive daily testing for COVID-19 and that players who do test positive will have to sit out for 21 days before being able to return to the field. If a team records a positivity rate of over 5 percent then they will halt their games and practices.
In addition, players who are positive for COVID-19 must pass a series of heart tests including a cardiac MRI. The heart screening component was added after news broke that a large percentage of college athletes who tested positive for COVID-19 had developed myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart that can be deadly when untreated.
Even if these measures are implemented properly, of which there is serious doubt, it is not believable that holding football games under the present circumstances can be done safely. Not only will dozens of young athletes be in direct physical contact with one another, but there will be hundreds of additional support staff and TV crews present at the games. Regular fan attendance will not be allowed, but family members of the players will be permitted to watch the games in person.
There have been at the very least 8,500 confirmed cases of COVID-19 at Big Ten schools. Several schools in the Big Ten, including the universities of Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Wisconsin, have become epicenters of the pandemic. At the University of Michigan, graduate students have been on strike since last week to demand online-only classes to stop the spread of the virus. Similarly, students and faculty at the University of Iowa have staged “sickout” protests against face-to-face classes.
After large outbreaks on campuses, several schools, including the University of Wisconsin, have adopted restrictive isolation rules for their students to attempt to lower their number of cases before the football season is set to begin. Students have been ordered to remain in their dorms in what they are describing as prison-like conditions with poor food and without basic necessities.
The resumption of college football is driven by profit. Estimates placed the losses for the Big Ten should the season have been canceled at more than $700 million. A major part of that revenue comes from a billion-dollar TV broadcasting deal that the Big Ten signed with Fox Sports in 2016. The deal sees Fox paying $250 million dollars per year for the exclusive right to broadcast games live. Even when playing to empty stadiums, universities stand to take in hundreds of millions of dollars in TV deals and ad revenue from sponsors like Nike, Under Armor and Coca-Cola.
As has been the case for the general student bodies as they returned to campuses this fall, the administrators, many of whom are former big business executives and politicians paid salaries into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, are well aware that it is not safe to hold football games or to have students on campus. But the health and lives of the students are not their concern. For them the universities are corporations and students, athletes and teachers are only the source of value from which profit must be extracted.
The priorities are made evidently clear by the allocation of resources for COVID tests and medical resources. Students at Big Ten universities and other schools are finding that they have no access to testing while forced to live in conditions where they interact with hundreds if not thousands of others on a daily basis. They are considered expendable while the football team, whose health is necessary for the games to continue, are given access to daily testing and other safety resources. This however, is still no guarantee against further outbreaks among players.

No charges in Missouri police murder of 25-year-old Hannah Fizer

Jacob Crosse

On Monday, three months after 25-year-old Hannah Fizer of Sedalia, Missouri was murdered by a sheriff’s deputy while on her way to work, the special prosecutor appointed in the case, Stephen Sokoloff, released a letter announcing that no charges would be brought against the killer cop.
Fizer, who was unarmed, was pulled over by a still publicly unidentified Pettis County Sheriff’s deputy on the night of June 13 for speeding and “imprudent driving.” In less than 10 minutes, the young woman was dead, having been shot five times by the officer.
In his letter addressed to Judge Jeff Mittlehauser, who is overseeing the case, Sokoloff wrote that “the shooting, albeit possibly avoidable, was justifiable under current Missouri criminal law.”
James Johnson and Hannah Fizer
Protesters and family members met outside the Sedalia courthouse on Tuesday night to express their anger and disgust at the state cover-up. Among them was Jessica Fizer, Hannah Fizer’s cousin, who spoke to local media. “I was heartbroken, and I hate to say this, but I was not surprised,” she said. “I don’t think it was justifiable, I do agree it was avoidable.”
She continued: “This world needs change, and if we don’t stand up, if we the people don’t stand up, then we are not going to get that change.”
This latest example of class “justice” has received little media coverage. That is largely because it cuts across the Democratic Party narrative, which interprets police violence, along with all other social issues, entirely from a racial standpoint, covering up the more fundamental class issues. Fizer was white, as is the deputy who is believed to have killed her, Jordan Schutte.
Pettis County Sheriff Kevin Bond has refused to publicly identify the deputy who shot Fizer. He released a letter in response to the special prosecutor’s report that hailed the investigation and decision as an example of “transparency and thoroughness.” Bond wrote: “We at the Sheriff's Office have allowed Rule of Law to properly take its course, and we await delivery of the report to complete our internal investigation into the matter.”
In his letter, Sokoloff acknowledged that “an alternative approach might have avoided the confrontation that led to the officer having to discharge his weapon.” He was quick to add, however, that this was not relevant to any criminal liability in the case.
Sokoloff did not provide any new information in his letter that had not already been made public. The letter included the same “self-defense” justification the Sheriff’s office released the night of the murder. Fizer is alleged to have threatened to shoot the deputy—with a gun she did not possess—and then “reached down into the floorboard of the car and raised up towards him.”
In making his determination, Sokoloff relied on surveillance video from a nearby business, which had no audio. This forced him to piece together the short dispatch call from the deputy with the video to “provide a more complete information package.” The surveillance tape, according to Sokoloff, shows Fizer “moving vigorously” in the vehicle before the deputy “assumed a defensive posture” and shot her five times.
Fizer did have a cell phone and repeatedly told the deputy she was recording him. This video, if it exists, has yet to be made public. The state has yet to release any audio of Fizer threatening to shoot the cop.
The long-time prosecutor admitted that his determination to not bring charges was “made somewhat more difficult by the absence of a body-worn camera, with audio, as the video from the adjacent security system, although of good quality for such a system, especially at night, is not totally clear.”
In his letter to the judge, Sokoloff blamed Fizer for her own murder, claiming her actions caused a “reasonable belief that he (the officer) is in imminent danger of serious physical injury or death, as a result of the actions of the suspect.” This type of argument, amounting to a virtual license to kill, has been used by agents of the state for decades to justify their crimes.
Fizer, like a large majority of the over 1,000 people killed by police in the US each year, was on the lower rungs of the income ladder. She had recently been promoted to assistant manager at the convenience store where she worked.
Her long-time boyfriend James Johnson is a production worker for the multi-billion-dollar chicken giant Tyson Foods, which has remained open throughout the pandemic. As of last month, over 10,000 cases of COVID-19 have been reported at Tyson Food’s US-based facilities according to the Food & Environment Reporting Network.
The US justice system is designed to shield police from prosecution, as illustrated by the case of Hannah Fizer and hundreds more. While black workers and youth and other minorities are disproportionately the victims of police violence and murder, and racism is certainly widespread among the police, along with other forms of right-wing and backward thinking, police violence is not rooted in “white racism.” Indeed, more whites are killed by police than blacks or other minorities.
Rather, the police are an arm of the capitalist state, the “special bodies of armed men” tasked with protecting the property, wealth and power of the ruling class against the working class. The ongoing multi-racial protests against police killings demonstrate the deeply felt hostility in the working class to racial oppression and support for democratic rights.
The refusal to bring charges in the murder of Fizer coincides with the announcement of a $12 million settlement of a wrongful death lawsuit in the killing of 26-year-old Louisville, Kentucky nurse Breonna Taylor. The settlement, which Mayor Greg Fischer pointed out does not admit any fault on the part of the city, includes a number of toothless “police accountability reforms,” which Fischer, a Democrat, said illustrated “a renewed commitment to addressing structural and systemic racism in our city and our country.”
No announcement has been made as to whether the police who murdered Taylor in her own home will be charged.
Meanwhile, while the cops who killed Taylor and Fizer are breathing free air, at least seven protesters in Lancaster Pennsylvania remain behind bars after Magisterial District Judge Bruce Roth set their bail at $1 million, a gross violation of the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution, which states that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
The demonstrators were arrested Monday morning while protesting against the police killing on Sunday of 27-year-old Ricardo Munoz. Munoz suffered from bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. He was shot by an unnamed cop after lunging towards him, while appearing to be holding a knife. The police left Munoz’s uncovered corpse lying on the sidewalk for several hours after killing him.
Lancaster Bureau of Police Chief Jarrad Berkihiser urged the judge to set a punitively high bail amount. He said that while “we did not request a specific bail amount... we did request high bail for each individual we arrested due to the serious nature of the riot...”
Jamal Shariff Newman, Barry Jones, Yoshua Dwayne Montague, Matthew Modderman, Talia Gessner, Kathryn Patterson and Taylor Enterline were each charged with several felony and misdemeanor counts and had their bail set at $1 million. Six others were also arrested, however their bail information has yet to be released as of this writing.
According to a GoFundMe for Enterline, set up by her friend Hailee Paige, Taylor Enterline was working as a medic the night of the protests and has been participating in protests against police violence since 2018.
Reffie Shuford, executive director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, issued a statement on Tuesday calling the bail amount “an egregious and unacceptable abuse of the bail system.” The statement continued, “Cash bail should never be used to deter demonstrators and chill speech.”

House report on Boeing 737 Max crashes: Corporate criminality, FAA complicity, but no accountability

Barry Grey

On Wednesday, the Democratic majority on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee released the results of its 18-month investigation into the two crashes of Boeing 737 Max airplanes that killed a combined total of 346 passengers and crew.
The 238-page report provides damning evidence that Boeing knowingly risked the lives of countless thousands of people by rushing into service an aircraft it knew to have potentially fatal design flaws. It systematically concealed the dangers from government regulators, airline customers, pilots and the general public.
A Boeing 737 MAX 8 jetliner at the Renton, Washington assembly plant [Credit: AP Photo/Elaine Thompson, File]
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), even when it became of aware of the safety risks of the new plane, certified the 737 Max and failed to alert either airline workers or passengers of the dangers.
The result was the horrific crash of Lion Air flight 610 some 13 minutes after takeoff from Jakarta on October 29, 2018, killing all 189 people on board. Even after this disaster, in which a malfunction repeatedly forced down the nose of the plane until it crashed into the Java Sea, Boeing and the FAA kept the 737 Max in the air and failed to address the automated flight control defect that caused the crash.
This led less than five months later to the crash of Ethiopian Airlines flight 302, on March 10, 2019. That disaster followed the same pattern and ended with the plane plowing into the ground and killing all 157 men, women and children on board.
It was only after this second crash that Boeing and the FAA agreed to ground the 737 Max, and that was only after every other major government in the world had rejected its claims that the plane was safe and banned it from their airspace.
The report by the House Democrats cites the testimony of Ed Pierson, a senior plant supervisor at the Renton, Washington 737 Max production facility and retired Navy squadron commander, before the committee last December. Pierson related how in 2018 he told 737 General Manager Scott Campbell of multiple safety problems and defects at the Renton plant.
“For the first time in my life, I’m sorry to say that I’m hesitant about putting my family on a Boeing airplane,” he told Campbell, and added that the military would suspend production to address the safety issues. Campbell replied, “The military is not a profit-making organization.”
The report, which the Republican committee members refused to endorse, makes clear that 346 lives were destroyed and countless more threatened because the aircraft maker and defense contracting giant made calculated decisions to sacrifice safety in order to maximize market share and corporate profits.
But despite the incriminating evidence in its own report, the Democratic majority proposes no actions to hold either Boeing or FAA officials accountable. There are no calls for criminal prosecution, nor are any financial penalties proposed.
This is under conditions where the bipartisan CARES Act passed last March effectively earmarked $17 billion in taxpayer money to prop up the company, and the Federal Reserve has backed up a $25 billion bond sale by the firm as part of the government's multi-trillion-dollar pandemic-triggered bailout of the US corporate elite.
Dennis Muilenburg, the Boeing CEO throughout the period of 737 Max development, resigned under fire last December, and received a severance package worth $80.7 million.
Even as the House releases its damning report, moreover, the FAA is signaling that it will soon allow the 737 Max to resume commercial flights.
The report cites five different areas of negligence and cover-up. Under “Production Pressures,” it notes, “There was tremendous financial pressure on Boeing and the 737 Max program to compete with Airbus' new A320neo aircraft.”
In other words, Boeing, which accounted for a huge portion of the rise on Wall Street following the election of Donald Trump, was under the gun from major shareholders and banks to speed up production of its new plane and cut costs in order to win the race with its European-based rival for market share, particularly in expanding markets such as China.
That market share, profit and stock price eclipsed safety for Boeing was clear from the very origins of the 737 Max. Rather than design a new generation of medium-range carriers, Boeing decided to save time and money by revamping its five-decade-old 737 model. The main innovation was a larger engine that had to be placed higher up on the wing. However, the company soon discovered that the new configuration resulted in a tendency for the plane to stall.
In order to compensate for this design flaw, Boeing installed a new automated flight control system called Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, or MCAS. The House report lists “Faulty Design and Performance Assumptions” in connection with MCAS as the second major factor in the crashes.
Boeing concealed the existence of MCAS from its airline customers and their pilots in order to avoid having to retrain pilots on flight simulators for the new aircraft, a costly and time-consuming process.
Moreover, it designed MCAS to be triggered by only one of the plane's two external angle-of-attack (A-O-A) sensors, rather than by both, as is the accepted practice for functions that are critical to the safety of an aircraft. Moreover, it failed to inform airlines and pilots, as well as the FAA, that a warning alert listed as a feature of the plane, which told the cockpit that the two sensors disagreed and therefore one was malfunctioning, was inoperable on 80 percent of its active 737 Maxes.
As a result, when MCAS was set off on the two doomed flights as a result of incorrect information from a faulty A-O-A sensor, the pilots were unable to determine the cause of the repeated downward plunges and incapable of stabilizing the planes.
That Boeing was acutely aware of the problems with MCAS is shown by the fact that MCAS was referenced in half a million emails and other internal documents.
Under the heading “Culture of Concealment”, the report provides a multitude of examples of Boeing withholding critical information from the FAA, its customers and Max pilots. This includes internal test data from 2016 revealing that it took a Boeing test pilot more than 10 seconds to diagnose and respond to un-commanded MCAS activation in a flight simulation. The pilot described the situation as “catastrophic.” Federal guidelines assume that pilots will respond to this condition within four seconds.
The fourth area cited in the report is titled “Conflicted Representation.” This is a euphemism for the FAA's total subordination to Boeing and the lack of any serious regulatory oversight. The report cites, in particular, the policy implemented under Democratic as well as Republican administrations of delegating FAA oversight to Boeing employees. These so-called “authorized representatives” routinely withheld from top FAA officials safety issues that arose in the design, production and certification of the 737 Max. In other cases, the FAA higher-ups sided with Boeing and dismissed reported safety concerns.
In the end, the FAA allowed Boeing to put the 737 Max into service without pilots having to undergo training on flight simulators. Instead, it authorized a total of two hours of “training” on an iPad.
In December 2018, some weeks after the crash of Lion Air flight 610, the FAA conducted a risk assessment and estimated that, without a fix to MCAS during the life of the 737 Max fleet, there could be 15 additional fatal crashes resulting in over 2,900 deaths. Nevertheless, the FAA allowed the 737 Max to continue flying while Boeing worked on a software patch for MCAS, setting the stage for the crash of Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 just weeks thereafter.
Finally, under the title “Boeing's Influence Over the FAA's Oversight Structure,” the report gives multiple examples of the FAA siding with Boeing and dismissing warnings from its own experts.
The chairman of the House committee, Peter DeFazio (Democrat from Oregon), said upon the release of the findings: “Our report lays out disturbing revelations about how Boeing—under pressure to compete with Airbus and deliver profits for Wall Street—escaped scrutiny from the FAA, withheld critical information from pilots, and ultimately put planes into service that killed 346 innocent people. What’s particularly infuriating is how Boeing and FAA both gambled with public safety in the critical time period between the two crashes.”
What he did not mention, however, is that he and his fellow Democrats supported passage of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, which expanded the self-regulation of Boeing and other corporations in the airline industry. In fact, the deregulation of the airline industry was begun in 1978 under the Democratic administration of President Jimmy Carter, leading to the dismantling of the Civil Aeronautics Board and its replacement by the far weaker and more pliant FAA.
What neither the Democrats nor the media speak about is the root cause of the mass deaths caused by Boeing and its government accomplices—the capitalist profit system.
As the World Socialist Web Site wrote in a statement titled “Boeing executives must be tried for murder:”
The elevation of profit above human life is the social essence of capitalism. The Max 8 disasters are not merely symptoms of corporate greed, but the end result of the capitalist system itself, which subordinates all social needs to private profit. There is a basic contradiction between the interests of society, including safe, efficient and inexpensive air travel, and the private ownership of essential industries, as well as the division of the world economy among rival nation-states. The same basic contradictions of capitalism are fueling the geopolitical and economic conflicts that threaten nuclear war and ecological disasters.
The only way to prevent further disasters is to take the profit motive out of commercial flight, end the dominance of Wall Street and replace the nightmare of the capitalist market with a rationally planned and internationally organized system of air transport. This requires the nationalization of the airline and aerospace companies and their transformation into publicly owned and democratically controlled utilities.

As US death toll hits 200,000, Trump calls for herd immunity

Andre Damon

On Tuesday, the day that the United States reached the threshold of 200,000 deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic, President Donald Trump openly defended the US government’s de facto policy of “herd immunity,” that is, allowing the virus to spread without restraint.
“You’ll develop herd,” Trump told a televised town hall event, before apparently catching himself and substituting the term “herd mentality” for “herd immunity.” He continued, “Like a herd mentality. It’s going to be—it’s going to be herd-developed, and that’s going to happen.” As a result, he said, the pandemic will “disappear.”
In openly defending “herd immunity,” Trump has let the cat out of the bag. In fact, herd immunity has been the guiding principle of his government’s response to the pandemic, underlying his efforts to downplay the virus, handicap testing, and get workers back on the job as quickly as possible.
As a strategy for responding to COVID-19, the advocates of herd immunity argue that the disease should be allowed to spread freely throughout the population, based on the claim that, at some point, enough people will become infected that the spread of the disease will slow down.
Dr. Scott Atlas, whom Trump recently appointed as a COVID-19 advisor, argued for this approach in July, declaring, “Low-risk groups getting the infection is not a problem. In fact, it’s a positive.”
Despite the strategy’s pseudoscientific trappings, it means nothing more nor less than allowing large numbers of the population, primarily the elderly and the sick, to die in a sort of mass eugenics program potentially costing millions of lives.
Trump has spearheaded this policy and, as revealed in the tapes released by Bob Woodward, deliberately downplayed the threat and lied to the population. However, it has been supported and implemented by both the Democrats and Republicans. In late March, it was New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman who praised the herd immunity policy being pursued by the Swedish government, criticized lockdowns to stop the spread of the virus, and declared that “the cure can’t be worse than the disease.” His column was followed by a Washington Post editorial praising Sweden for what it called an “appealing model.”
Officially, every government in the world denies that it is carrying out a policy of herd immunity. White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said Wednesday, “Herd immunity has never been a strategy here at the White House.” She said that Scott Atlas “never proposed herd immunity as a strategy, nor has the president.” These are lies.
Such denials have been issued by all the leading government advocates of this policy, including Sweden and the UK.
Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser to the Johnson government in the UK, told the media in March, “It’s not possible to stop everyone getting it, and it’s also not desirable because you want some immunity in the population.” Subsequently, the government, baldly lying, declared “herd immunity has never been our policy or goal.”
Sweden, which left schools open while other European countries closed them, has likewise denied it is pursuing a herd immunity policy. But last month, leaked emails revealed that chief epidemiologist Anders Tegnell advocated leaving the country’s schools open precisely because it would lead to a wider spread of the virus.
“One point might speak for keeping schools open in order to reach herd immunity more quickly,” wrote Tegnell secretly on March 14 to his Finnish counterpart.
The fact is that herd immunity is the policy of governments throughout the world. They are all lying about it because their actions, allowing large sections of the population to become infected, are criminal, inhuman and indefensible.
As they accelerate their back-to-work campaign, governments are dropping even the most threadbare efforts to claim they are actively combating the disease. “To overcome the health crisis, we must learn to live with the virus,” French President Emmanuel Macron tweeted last month.
Former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, for his part, said not enough politicians were “thinking like health economists trained to pose uncomfortable questions about the level of deaths we might have to live with.” He said the response to the disease should be more akin to “electing to make elderly relatives as comfortable as possible while nature takes its course.”
On Wednesday, the regional premier of Madrid, Spain likewise embraced herd immunity, declaring, “It is likely that practically all children, one way or another, will be infected with coronavirus.”
For years, the rising life expectancy of the working class in developed countries has been presented as a “problem” by US and European think tanks.
A 2013 paper by Anthony H. Cordesman of the Washington think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) presented the increasing longevity of ordinary Americans as a crisis for US imperialism. “The US does not face any foreign threat as serious as its failure to come to grips with … the rise in the cost of federal entitlement spending,” Cordesman wrote, saying the debt crisis was driven “almost exclusively by the rise in federal spending on major health care programs, Social Security, and the cost of net interest on the debt.”
In other words, after workers are too old to serve as sources of surplus value and profit, their pensions and health care benefits become drains on money that could be better used to pay corporate bonuses and fund the military.
From the standpoint of the ruling class, the pandemic has had very real benefits. It has created a pretext for the transfer of more than $4 trillion in bailouts to corporate balance sheets, sending stock values soaring. By creating mass unemployment, it has broken up a tight labor market, lowering wages. And most of all, with the median age of those who die being 78 years old, it means that money earmarked for pension funds, social security and health care for the elderly can now be handed over to the financial oligarchy.
The United States is now in the midst of reopening schools and universities, creating a surge of new outbreaks all over the country. In light of the emails by Sweden’s state epidemiologist saying that leaving schools open will create more infections, it is clear that the White House is working with an estimate of the number of people who will become infected and die as a result, and is proceeding regardless.
Two hundred thousand people have now lost their lives because of the criminal policies of the US ruling class. If the present policies continue, according to the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, another 215,000 will lose their lives over the next three months.
If this catastrophe is to be averted, the response to the pandemic must be taken out of the hands of the criminals responsible for the present disaster. No election, whether in the United States or anywhere else, will end the pandemic. As made clear by the complicity of the US media and the Democratic Party in covering up the pandemic in January and February, all factions of the political establishment are united in prioritizing the wealth of the financial oligarchy over human life.
The prerequisite for containing and eradicating the pandemic all over the world is the mobilization of the working class on a politically independent basis in the struggle for socialism.

16 Sept 2020

Canadian Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Scholarships (QES) 2021

Application Deadline: 26th October 2020

About the Award: Thanks to the generous financial support from the International Development Research Centre, up to $3 million CAD will be allocated via the expansion of the QES Advanced Scholars program, which will support doctoral researchers, post-doctoral fellows and early career researchers from eligible West African countries and Canada.
This call will support projects contributing to advance the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with preference given to proposals that focus on or clearly integrate SDG 5 (gender equality) as a crosscutting or mainstream goal. QES-AS West Africa projects will focus on one or more of the following areas: climate resilience and sustainable food systems; education and innovation systems; ethics in development research; health equity; inclusive governance; and sustainable inclusive growth.
The program will require all scholars to participate in leadership development and community engagement activities and in the network of Queen Elizabeth Scholars.

Type: Research, Doctoral, Postdoc

Eligible Countries: West African countries & Canada

Eligibility:
Eligible Proposals
  • Canadian universities which have recognized provincial degree granting powers, or their affiliates, may submit a proposal to QES-AS West Africa. Universities may partner with one or more other Canadian university(ies) for a joint proposal however, each university may only be the lead applicant in one submission to the program.
  • Projects will support specialized training and/or research activities for doctoral researchers, post-doctoral researchers and early career researchers from Canada and West Africa and each award must include a non-academic research placement with industry/civil society.
  • Each scholar must be undertaking research in one or more of the following areas of focus:
  1. Climate resilience and sustainable food systems
  2. Education and innovation systems
  3. Ethics in development research
  4. Health equity
  5. Inclusive governance
  6. Sustainable inclusive growth
  • Eligible projects will demonstrate a partnership between a Canadian university and an institution in at least one of the eligible countries and if available at the time of application, will include information on the non-academic research placement partner(s). Non-academic research placements must be confirmed before the funded researchers travel to/from Canada.
  • The program will require all scholars to participate in leadership development and community engagement activities and to participate in the network of Queen Elizabeth Scholars.
QES-AS West Africa will prioritize the following:
  1. Women researchers – overall, 60% of the researchers should be women.
  2. Francophone researchers – applications focusing on Francophone countries will be prioritised.
  3. Institutional strengthening – proposals which make a convincing case that scholar exchanges, beyond advancing individual scholars` own careers, will deliberately be used by Canadian and West African universities to strengthen their own institutional capacity (research areas, curriculums, partnerships etc.) will be prioritised.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Each project will involve incoming West African scholars, outgoing Canadian scholars, or a mix of both.
The program is targeting an overall participation rate1 of:
• 50% West African incoming scholars
• 50% Canadian outgoing scholars


Value of Award: Applicants may seek up to $300,000 CAD in funding. Funding is available to support doctoral researchers, post-doctoral researchers, and early career researchers only. There is no limit to the number of incoming or outgoing scholars that can be included in a project. An activity fund of up to $2,000 per scholar, can be included in the project budget to support project administration, partner relationships,
community engagement, leadership development and networking activities.

Cost Sharing:
  • To be considered for funding, applicants must demonstrate that Canadian universities, West African institutions, and/or non-academic research placement partners will contribute to project costs. This program aims for an overall 50% contribution from universities, West African institutions, and/or non-academic research placement partners.
  • Contributions may include in-kind contributions such as administrative costs , cash contributions such as salary paid while the researcher is undertaking their QES award, tuition waivers or discounts, other discounts or waivers to academic, living or travel costs, and financial contributions from other sources including foundations, placement partners and other funding agencies.
  • A higher proportional contribution will be viewed more favorably by the selection committee.
How to Apply: Please consult the following documents:
It is important to go through the application guidelines and FAQ before applying for this Award

Visit Program Webpage for Details

Johnson & Johnson WiSTEM2D Scholars Program 2021

Application Deadline: 15th October 2020 9AM HST (Honolulu Standard Time) 

Eligible Countries: All

About the Award: As a part of Johnson & Johnson‘s commitment to building a diverse WiSTEM2D Community, we are pleased to launch the Johnson & Johnson WiSTEM2DScholars Program, an award to support women pursuing research in STEM2D.
The J&J WiSTEM2D Scholars Award Program will help develop female leaders and support innovation in the STEM2D disciplines (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math, Manufacturing, Design)  by funding six women at critical points in their research careers through a Scholar’s Award.
The six inaugural awards will be available in 2018 and aim to fund one woman per area of STEM2D concentration in the early career stage where they have concluded their advanced degree training but are not at the level of tenure in their accredited university or design school institution. The early-career support is aimed to be a catalyst for women to become leaders in their organizations and fields. The program will help build a larger pool of highly-trained researchers to meet the growing needs of academia and industry.
The J&J WiSTEM2D Scholars Award Program will play an influential role in achievements made in the areas of STEM2D and the future.

Fields of Study: The eligible STEM²D disciplines are: Science, Technology, Engineering, Math, Manufacturing and Design.

Type: Award

Eligibility: 
  • You must be a woman working in the field(s) of Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, Manufacturing and Design (STEM2D).
  • You must be an assistant female professor or global equivalent faculty position at the time of application at an accredited academic university, institution or design school.
  • The female scholar should have a minimum degree for the appropriate field:
    • Science; MD, PhD
    • Technology; PhD
    • Engineering; PhD
    • Math; MS, PhD
    • Manufacturing; PhD
    • Design; MA, MS, MDes, MArch, MFA, MLA, PhD
Number of Awards: 6

Value and Duration of Award: The Scholars Award is a 3-year award in the gross amount of $150,000, which will be paid to the University (the “Recipient”) for the benefit of the J&J Scholar and her research, with the understanding that the Recipient will administer the funds. The Scholars Award will be paid in three (3) installments of US $50,000 per year over the 3-year award period, subject to compliance with the terms and conditions of the program’s Agreement.

How to Apply: Apply here

Visit the Program Webpage for Details