Four student speakers urged the San Jose State Associated Students board of directors to endorse the Philippines’ Human Rights Act in response to the Philippines’ Anti-Terror Law during Wednesday’s meeting via Zoom.
The Anti-Terror Law, which was passed in July by Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, expands the definition of a terrorist and could endanger activists, according to a July 21 NPR article.
People who propose, incite, conspire and participate in the planning, training and facilitation of an offense under the act, could face life imprisonment without parole, according to a July 3 Amnesty International article.
The same would go for those who provide support to “terrorists” as defined under the act, or recruit members of a “terrorist organization,” according to the Amnesty International article.
The Human Rights Act calls for “[Suspension of] United States security assistance to the Philippines until such time as human rights violations by Philippine security forces cease and the responsible state forces are held accountable,” according to the Human Rights Act website.
Julian Jaravata, an SJSU graduate student in the SJSU master of library and information science program and Malaya Movement member, implored the board of directors to not be complicit and to stand in solidarity with the Filipino people, who are under the rule of Duterte.
“Under the Duterte administration we continue to see the human rights situations in the Philippines worsen,” Jaravata said. “Activists in the Philippines who are being accused of being terrorists are facing serious danger even leading to their extrajudicial killing of those accused.”
The board ended up unanimously voting to approve a resolution in support of the Human Rights Act.
“Basically what this resolution is going to do is express the Associated Students standing with the people from the PHRA . . . stating that we’re not okay with the actions taken by the Duterte regime,” Kadence Walker, A.S. director of legislative affairs, said.
Transfer of power
Class schedule conflicts and heavy work loads caused a number of board members to step down from their positions and look for replacements in order to relieve some of the pressure from too many responsibilities.
Raj Shah, former director of business affairs, who lives in India, resigned from his position because of an excessive amount of work this semester.
“For the past two weeks I am not able to keep well due to late-night online classes and A.S. meetings,” Shah said in a letter read by A.S. Vice President Brendan Quock. “It has become very difficult for me since I am not able to keep up with my two jobs here in India, studies and student government.”
Shah’s request was met with unanimous approval. However, a replacement was not nominated during that time.
Another student, Jocelyn Jones-Trammell, A.S. director of sustainability, requested to be relieved of her duties from the A.S. Campus Life Affairs Committee because of a class conflict.
Jones-Trammell described the committee as one with the purpose of addressing the concerns of student life and finding creative ways to enhance awareness of available resources.
Jones-Trammell nominated Anoop Kaur, director of academic affairs, to be her replacement, and Kaur was voted in by the majority of the board of directors.
A.S. President Zobeida Delgadillo also nominated Quock to take over her position on the Budget Advisory Board after expressing a similar situation to other board members, adding that it was because of a schedule conflict with classes she needs to take.
SJSU employee health care
A step was taken to resolve health care issues for full-time SJSU employees.
The California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) health contract for full-time employees was voted to be terminated and is to be replaced by PRISM California State University Risk Management Authority, a group health plan.
A.S. Executive Director Carole Dowell explained that PRISM is a cheaper alternative to CalPERS for the employers providing the health benefits.
“What we’ve noticed with CalPERS, is every year there’s an increase that could go up to 12%,” Dowell said.“The employees don’t feel the increase, we feel the increase, the employer who pays for everybody’s plan.”
