PEDAGOGY OF THE OPPRESSED--DC STYLE
by Floyd H. Agostinelli Despite being born a U.S. citizen, I am an Outsider. This is not by intention, but due to my becoming a resident of Washington, DC, in 1955, where I met my wife, raised seven lovely children, and became a productive and positive member of the community. Here, I was ordained to the Deaconate in the Catholic Church and have paid taxes over these many years, yet I remain an Outside--along with 550,000 other residents of the District of Columbia.
In the beginning of this country, five slaves were counted as three votes. Today, five Washingtonians count as zero votes, although our numbers are larger than those of South Dakota and Vermont. We are segregated from the rest of America by geography.
The District of Columbia is often touted as the Capital of the free world. Yet its citizens have no vote, no voice in Congress, and no real self-government in our own local affairs. The United States is the only nation that denies representation to the residents of its Capital City in the national legislature and its own local government.
Strictly speaking, we are neither a city nor a state, but a federal reservation, like a military base or national park. Only in 1964, as a result of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, were the residents of the District of Columbia able to vote for the president of the United States. In 1973, Washingtonians were given limited local governmental control when Congress passed the Home Rule Act. (We have a non-voting delegate in the House of Representatives, which is equivalent to riding in the Kentucky Derby on a child's stick horse.) Whatever our City Council does must be explicitly approved by Congress. Congress is the real City Council for the District of Columbia, but we don't elect Congress as our City Council.
The governance we have has been aptly called "HOME FOOL" by the great Julius Hobson, Sr. Under it, the 550,000 residents of the District of Columbia are colonial subjects of Congress. A Congress member or Senator from any State of the Union can introduce legislation governing the colony of Washington, DC, and if Congress approves it, that legislation becomes law.
An example: the residents of the District of Columbia voted on a "Medical Marijuana" initiative which would permit doctors to prescribe marijuana to control pain for end-stage patients facing death. Washingtonians cast their ballots and guess what? One Congressman put a rider on our appropriation bill which forbade DC to spend the money to count the "medical marijuana" initiative! For over a year, Washingtonians didn't know whether the initiative passed or not. This congressional action was taken to Federal Court, and the Federal Court ruled that Congress, in this instance, could not deprive the residents of the District of Columbia of their voice. Now we know that this "Medical Marijuana" initiative passed overwhelmingly, but guess what is now happening? A bill is being introduced in the House of Representatives to prevent the District of Columbia from decriminalizing marijuana for medical purposes.
Examples of such intrusion into minute local affairs are by no means rare. This year, because of silly attachments to the District of Columbia's budget intruding on local affairs, President Clinton vetoed the DC budget. (This budget, over $4 billion, is basically self-generated funds, but Congress must approve the spending of our own funds.) A new appropriation bill for the District now needs to be fashioned. At this point, it depends on who blinks first, the President or the Congress, as to when the District of Columbia will have an approved budget and what that approved budget will be able to do. No state has to put up with such interference by Congress.
For years, Washingtonians have protested this state of affairs, especially at tax-paying time. (On a per capita basis, Washingtonians are among the highest Federal tax-paying citizens in the nation, at well over $1 billion per year.) We tried the Constitutional Amendment route for Congressional representation, but that failed ratification by the States. We tried advocating for Statehood, but Congress forbade the District to fund its Statehood/Compact Commission, and a Republican House of Representatives refused to pass on Statehood for the District of Columbia. Thus, 550,000 so-called American citizens remain Outsiders.
Finally, two sets of residents have decided to try getting justice through the Federal Court system. The differences between the two cases is interesting. One group, the grassroots, whom I will refer to as the Outsiders (I am among the 20 plaintiffs in this suit) is Adams vs. Clinton. Our suit, filed first, challenges Congress on its discriminatory use of its "exclusive jurisdiction" clause. The Outsiders' challenge does not claim that "Exclusive Jurisdiction" is unconstitutional, rather that under "Exclusive Jurisdiction," Congress discriminates against the residents of Washington, DC. For instance, all military bases and all national forest lands are under Congress's exclusive jurisdiction. But residents in all of those areas vote for both members of Congress and members of their own State government. Congress gave them that right back in the 1950s.
Adams asks the Court to rule that Congress can no longer administer the District as a colony and can no longer segregate the District from the rest of the United States. If the Adams suit prevails, it would do away forever with the Control Board, would do away forever with Congressional oversight and approval, would enable DC residents to have real self-government, reorganizing it into a state-like government that could tax income at its source. District residents could then petition Congress for statehood or petition Maryland for retrocession, either option resulting in representation in our national legislature. The Adams suit would certainly enhance the District's petition for statehood because we would already be fully self-governing. Under statehood, our two Senators and one Representative could never be taken away. The Adams suit is represented pro bono by a single, civil rights activist lawyer.
The second set of residents filed Alexander vs. Daley four months after Adams. I call their suit the Insiders' suit. The Alexander case asks the Court to order Congress to allow District residents to have a vote in the House and/or the Senate. It does not do away with the Control Board. It assumes the constitutionality of our "Home Fool" form of government, with Congress retaining final and full power over District affairs, including budgets. Indeed, if Congress does grant the District some form of representation under Alexander, that representation can be altered, diminished, or taken away by Congress. The Alexander suit sues Secretary Daley, who heads the Interior Department. It is represented pro bono by Covington & Burling, a very prestigious law firm.
The Alexander case is overwhelmingly supported by the political "status quo" (our Delegate, Mayor, and Councilmembers). Because the Insiders, by reason of their positions, control local political news, few Washingtonians are even aware of the Adams vs. Clinton suit. Few Washingtonians are aware that the relief sought under the Alexander suit will depend upon the caprice of Congress.
Why would the political status quo support the Alexander suit? Why didn't the political status quo support the Adams vs. Clinton suit which was filed four months earlier than the Alexander suit? Is the political "status quo" of Washington, DC, afraid of real liberation?
In my struggle to answer this question, I thought of the work of Paulo Freire, an educator in Brazil who had the task of teaching poor peasants to read and write. At first, his progress was slow, and he realized that his students had internalized the oppression of their lives so that they blamed themselves for their wretched conditions. They had accepted ignorance and poverty as their normal lot. But Father Freire, through patient dialogue, helped them to examine their lives and the causes of their poverty and lack of power, and over time to understand that their true human dignity required liberation. And not only must the oppressed be liberated from their misery, but the oppressors must be liberated from the narrow mindset of their colonial mentality. (Paulo Freire's book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, was translated into English in 1968.)
Why would the political Insiders support the Alexander suit? Washington, DC, remains the last colony in America, and its very political fabric is permeated with this colonial mentality. The Insiders comprise the political power system, such as it is, and perhaps have some fear of upsetting the "big boss." The possibility of sharing power with the people is a new idea, one that requires dialogue, a shift in belief.
The Federal District Court has not yet ruled on these two cases. Regardless of how the Court rules, it will be appealed to the US Supreme Court. This is what we in Adams want. However, we need help to finance the appeal to the Supreme Court, our effort to overcome this last case of geographic segregation in the U.S. Contributions are NOT tax deductible. Your check, payable to "20 Citizens Lawsuit," may be sent to our lawyer, George LaRoche, Esq., P.O. Box 32054, Washington, DC 20007. More information can be found at our website <www.dccitizensfordemocracy.org>.
--Rev. Mr. Floyd H. Agostinelli is a plaintiff in Adams vs. Clinton.