parent - educator - scholar - activist

Category: racial capitalism (Page 1 of 2)

11.29.18: School Closures and the Black Community: Panel & Eve Ewing Book Talk @ Uncle Bobbie’s

Free & Open to Public!

Thursday, November 29, 2018, starting at 5pm at The People’s Sanctuary (Uncle Bobbie’s Coffee & Books).


In 1978 education specialist Richard L. Andrews was quoted as saying “(O)nce a school is closed, the environmental forces of out-migration, population decline and neighborhood deterioration is set in motion. It is difficult, if not impossible, to reverse these forces.” Thirty years later, we continue to see this trend manifesting to the detriment of communities that fall victim to this policy.

In the past several years, Philadelphia, Chicago and many of the nation’s urban centers, have been impacted by school closings. Many of these neighborhoods are historically majority Black/Brown, have high poverty and violence rates, lower home values, lower college completion rates, and experienced disinvestment for decades before. Ongoing disinvestments in these communities translated into disinvestment in the schools within them. Ultimately, many of these schools became slated for closure, eliminating what traditionally had been the life-blood of communities, and making way for demographic changes that barely represent that of previous residents.

These destructive conditions demand that we be engaged in ongoing conversation, research, teaching and organizing in order to disrupt these processes. The Philadelphia Black History Collaborative, in collaboration with #BarrioEdProject and Swarthmore College, have organized a powerful two part event to be held on Thursday November 29, 2018 at The People’s Sanctuary (Uncle Bobbie’s Coffee & Books)


We begin at 5pm with a panel discussion titled School Closings: Presumptions, Policy and Practice, with Dr. Camika Royal (Loyola University, Maryland), Zakiya Sankara-Jabar (Racial Justice Now! and Dignity in Schools Campaign), Koby Murphy (Philadelphia Student Union), and Akil Parker (educator).

The panel will be moderated by Akanke Washington.

This is a two part event, and is being hosted by Uncle Bobbie’s Coffee & Books!

Panel Discussion Flyer


At 6p sociologist of education Eve L. Ewing will presents her latest book, Ghosts in the Schoolyard: Racism and School Closings on Chicago’s South Side (University of Chicago Press). Dr. Ewing will talk about the story of Chicago’s 2013 mass public school closures– the largest wave of such closures in the nation’s history. The event will include a reading of excerpts from the books, behind-the-scenes context and the deeper story of the research project, and a discussion of the lessons the book presents about history, segregation, racism, and the future of America’s public schools, followed by a question and answer session, and a book signing.

Ewing Book Talk Flyer



Dr. Eve Louise Ewing​​ is a sociologist of education whose research is focused on racism, social inequality, and urban policy, and the impact of these forces on American public schools and the lives of young people. She is an Assistant Professor at the University of Chicago School of Social Service Administration. Her book Ghosts in the Schoolyard: Racism and School Closings on Chicago’s South Side (University of Chicago Press, October 2018) explores the relationship between the closing of public schools and the structural history of race and racism in Chicago’s Bronzeville community. Her work has been published in many venues, including The New Yorker, The New York Times, The Atlantic, and The Washington Post. Please join me in welcoming Dr. Eve L. Ewing.



The People’s Sanctuary – Uncle Bobbie’s Coffee & Books
5445 Germantown Ave
Philadelphia, PA 19144

Map to Uncle Bobbie’s 


Making room for classrooms?: Land grabs and the destruction of school communities

The three sites are truly special opportunities as they present sizable developments within submarkets having limited available land for any substantial development, and are located within neighborhoods exhibiting exceptionally strong residential market fundamentals. They are among the few chances remaining to build large projects in their respective neighborhoods. – RFEI created by CBRE for the NYC Educational Construction Fund

‘As NYCHA announces plans around selling off of pieces of land to condo developers this week, and libraries have begun to sell off their land footprint in order to remain open, the frenzy over real estate has all too quietly continued within the New York City public education system.

In February of this year the Westside Rag broke the story about New York City proposing to demolish three schools and offer the land and air rights to real east developers. These proposed plans have led to east and westside turf wars between real estate developers and local school communities that hardly anyone is talking about.

PS 191 (W. 61st St) and PS 199 (W. 71st St.) on the Upper West Side and CO-OP Tech (CTE) (E. 96th St) on the Upper East Side/East Harlem (depending on who you are talking to) are the targeted schools. In exchange for rights to develop on each school’s footprint and providing city funded support, developers would be required to integrate the schools into the bottom floors of the new condo high rises.

I began following this story in February but little was being said after that initial volley in educational news streams. I was recently re-engaged in the issue when a former teacher education students of mine who is now a teacher at PS 191 asked me to sign a petition in support of saving her school.

This story begins with parents from the schools discovering a glossy 82 page “request for expression of interest” (RFEI) that was prepared by CBRE on behalf of the NYC Education Construction Fund, offering these three sites as some of the last ‘sizable’ pieces land left for speculation in these regions of Manhattan.

The Executive Summary says it best:

On behalf of the New York City Educational Construction Fund (“ECF”), CBRE is pleased to offer for your consideration three prime development sites, two of which are located on the Upper West Side, and one on the Upper East Side. The three sites are truly special opportunities as they present sizable developments within submarkets having limited available land for any substantial development, and are located within neighborhoods exhibiting exceptionally strong residential market fundamentals. They are among the few chances remaining to build large projects in their respective neighborhoods. Prospective respondents are invited to bid on one, two, or all three sites. Prospective respondents should be aware that the number of sites transacted will be largely determined by the quality of the bids and the decision of the ECF.

“On the surface the proposal is being depicted as something wonderful to embrace,” said Madeline Bender, mother of a PS 191 pre-K student and the incoming PTA president, “but there does not seem like there is anything [about this] that is conducive to learning.” In speaking with Ms. Bender and Stacie Lorraine, a teacher at PS 191 one of the co-leaders of the MMS/PS 191 redevelopment committee, there has been no meaningful engagement of the various school communities being affected by this proposal, the plans for providing a temporary educational space for the displaced students has been poorly communicated and potentially inadequate for the students, and undermines the tremendous progress the school has made in recent years.

In this blog posts that follow I want to document what’s been happening (starting with PS 191) in order to encourage others to, first, stand with these school communities and, second, to suggest how this struggle is yet another lesson on the ideas and practices of free-market driven, colorblind, education policy that dominates our time.

For now I want to direct your attention to No Demolition Website, the petition, and today’s march and rally.

Repost: Nipping Dissent: The Hollow Centrality of Neoliberal Democracy and Multiculturalism

By Edwin Mayorga and Julie Gorlewski (with support from reclaimAERA)

“I am weary of the abuse of social media by writers hurling anonymous, venomous insults—a practice that encourages the general retreat to intellectual neighborhoods. Our work and our interactions with one another should model productive conversation about the nature of education, schooling, and reform. The conference gives us an opportunity to demonstrate very publicly how thoughtful disagreements can take place. I hope that in the invited addresses, the presidential sessions, the myriad papers, roundtables, and posters, and in my own presidential address, we will challenge our own assumptions rather than simply reconfirm what we think we know.” – Bill Tierney, President of AERA

Recently, AERA President Bill Tierney sent a mass email to us, the members of AERA, calling on us to engage and thoughtfully disagree. To readers working with reclaimAERA, an emerging group of AERA members and non-members (by choice) working to transform AERA and interrupt the privatization of this body, the call to “challenge our own assumptions” rings hollow, since the text, itself, makes no indication of a willingness to model this approach. His piece links disciplinary expertise with non-productive conflict, implying a false dichotomy between full engagement and abuse.  Furthermore, and perhaps most disturbingly, Tierney asserts a neat, clean, bleached image of “productive discussion,” an image that does consider critical questions: Who decides what kinds of discussion are productive? Productive for whom?  In a “productive” discussion, who speaks and who is silent? Whose languages are privileged and whose are ignored?

The whole notion that meaningful dialogue is “civil” reflects a troubling perspective. Jones (2007) states that discussions around education are too often oriented in a “problem-solution” frame, one that fails to appreciate the value of struggle, of relationships forged in and sustained through struggle.

It is in the irresolvable tension between such contradictory positions and arguments about our relationship where thought and practice get interesting, as well as difficult, and where new thinking and practice arise in education. (emphases in original, p. 14)

While a call for dialogue is commendable, this most recent message seeks to shape and control the nature of that dialogue. By describing unnamed participants in the dialogue as “writers hurling insults anonymously,” Tierney insults and dismisses their words and experiences. Furthermore, the vagueness of his message has left many colleagues wondering who, exactly, Tierney’s words targeted. The question raised by his statement echoes in our corridors and on social media sites: “Is he talking about us?”

Sadly, we fear that the attempt to frame dialogue and dissent as uncivil or misguided is emblematic of “control and divide” practices where communities, unions, and professional relationships are being dismantled and destroyed under the guise of civility, superficial democracy and controlled inclusivity. It is only on the terms of those in power and those that fund power that the structures of communication, research, teaching, and relationship building are being defined, and this is unacceptable!

In what is meant to be an authored, specific response, we challenge the AERA president’s claim to define what counts as “productive discussion” and what “thoughtful disagreements” might look like. We deny definitions of meaningful discussion that ignore existing power relations and act as if we all speak at the same volume, with respect to status. Without mockery, we share what we are “weary” of:

  • being bullied and silenced by corporatizers and privatizers who have a full-time staff doing what we are doing before and after work
  • caving the increasingly standardized demands of accreditors and professional organizations owned and run by the corporatizers and privatizers
  • having assessment, an essential aspect of teaching and learning, be wrenched from our expert, loving hands
  • accepting, as unquestioned, the reality that children of the wealthy deserve a vastly different education from children of the less wealthy, and that the corporatizers and privatizers can coerce public educators into providing poor education
  • accepting that unions are evil and public education is broken
  • having definitions of what counts as research and data be narrowed into numbers
  • being coerced and bribed into implementing policies that are never voted on or discussed in public (or professional) spaces.

We believe in the power and promise of engaging in ongoing struggles over issues that define human relationships. If we eliminate tension, we eliminate potential for real dialogue – not dialogue aimed at a tidy solution, but dialogue intended to deepen understandings, reveal assumptions, and name experiences. Jones (2007) explains

In ka whawhai tonu mātou [1] we are engaged in a relationship. This has to be seen positively, given it is engagement; it is not dis-engagement. To struggle with another is to give active and proper attention to the other, to relate to the other. Even as an enemy you are hoariri or hoa whawhai – an angry ‘friend’: one with whom it is worth engaging, someone with whom you have a relationship of struggle. Ake ake ake makes the engagement or relationship permanent; this must be like a marriage of some sort! (and not a divorce). (p. 12)

To attempt to corral a plurality of views and articulations of dissent is a form of affective and distributive injustice where democratic communication is squelched, power remains centralized, and accountability to the constituency is negated.

If AERA is committed to justice, it is committed to love[2]. Love in public is a process of democratization and as Baker et al (2006) remind us:

democratisation involves substituting dialogue for dominance, cooperation and collegiality for hierarchy, and active learning and problem solving for passivity” (p. 16)

Love is messy, loud, and difficult – but our approach to love defines us. We must engage, or risk divorce.

reclaimAERA invites all of you who read this to write, respond, and act through all venues in social media (email, facebook, blogs, etc) and, most importantly, in our personal and professional relationships.

Works Cited
Jones, A.  Ka whawhai tonu mātou: The interminable problem of knowing others Inaugural Professorial Lecture, University of Auckland, 24 October, 2007.

Baker, J., Lynch, K., Cantillon, S. and Walsh, J.  (2006) “Equality: Putting the Theory into Action.” Res Publica, 12: 411-433.

[1] The interminable problem of knowing others

[2] “Justice is what love looks like in public.”- Cornel West

April 3: Forum on Racial Justice and CUNY – 6:00-8:30pm @ PSC-CUNY HQ

CUNY remains one of the most diverse college systems in the country. Yet black and Latino students are now far less likely than they were before 2009 to be enrolled in a CUNY senior college, particularly those in the top tier, where student outcomes in terms of retention and graduation are far higher than they are at the community

– Treschan, Lazar, and Apurva Mehrotra. Unintended Impacts: Fewer Black and Latino Freshmen at CUNY Senior Colleges After the Recession. Community Service Society of New York, May 2012.

Recent reports have brought to the fore, again, the racio-economic inequities that exist within, and reproduced by, higher education institutions. These reports are specifically  about the City University of New York (CUNY).

On Wednesday April 3rd the Professional Staff Congress/CUNY and The Public Science Project are jointly sponsoring a Forum on Racial Justice and CUNY. The event promises to be an exciting dialogue on student and faculty diversity at CUNY.

The event will be held at:

61 Broadway on the 16th floor, 6:00 – 8:30 PM (Meeting Hall of the PSC).

Speakers include:
Frank Deale, Professor, CUNY School of Law;
David Jones, President of the Community Service Society;
Ann Cook, Co-founder, Urban Academy Laboratory;
Angelo Falcon, President/Founder of the National Institute of Latino Policy; and
Barbara Bowen, President of the PSC and Associate Professor, Queens College.

Michelle Fine, Distinguished Professor at the CUNY Graduate Center in Social Psychology and Urban Education; and
Edwin Mayorga, a student in the Ph.D. Program in Urban Education at the GC.

Forum facilitator:
Paul Washington, HEO Associate at Medgar Evers College and Chair of the PSC Committee on CUNY and Race.

Relevant Reports

CUNY Ad Hoc Committee on Strengthening Faculty Diversity. Building on a Strong Foundation: A Strategy for Enhancing CUNY’s Leadership in the Areas of Faculty Diversity and Inclusion. City University of New York, 2012.
Falcon, Angelo. The Vanishing Puerto Rican Student at the City University of New York. National Institute for Latino Policy, August 14, 2012.
Treschan, Lazar, and Apurva Mehrotra. Unintended Impacts: Fewer Black and Latino Freshmen at CUNY Senior Colleges After the Recession. Community Service Society of New York, May 2012.

racialjustice_higher ed_header

[gview file=””]

El Pueblo Unido! A great week for Educational Justice in NYC

Certainly the struggle for educational and social justice never ends, but the fight against closures by the people of Philadelphia last week, and the troubling news about ethnic studies in Tucson, should inspire us to go forward in spite of the devastating attack that continues to be waged on all of us.

This coming week in NYC has a number of events that are, to me at least, a sign that there is still a lot of conversation and fight still left in this city. Check it out just some of what’s happening:

Monday, March 10th: Rally with the Movement of Rank and File Educators (MORE) at NYC Panel on Ed Policy Meeting
5:00pm Brooklyn Tech

Monday, March 10th: PARCEO’s Community Screening of “180 Days Well Spent” followed by panel discussion with Dani Gonzalez, Marilyn Barnwell, Ann Cook and Flor Donoso, moderated by Edwin Mayorga
Cafe Amrita (301 W. 110th)
Read Edwin’s thoughts on 180 Days Well Spent here

Tuesday, March 11th: Live Stream Conversation on Organizing Education for Equality (w/Barbara Miner & Karen Lewis)
The JustPublics@365/CUNY Graduate Center’s participatory open online course on Social Inequalities will be live steaming from 6:30-730pm. The focus will be on Organizing Education for Equality. Guest speakers will be Barbara Miner, author of “Lessons from the Heartland” and Karen Lewis, President of the Chicago Teachers Union (via Skype). Get the link for live streaming and relevant readings at:

Wednesday, March 13th: “Fault Lines of Oppression, Front Lines of Resistance” – Barbara Miner, author Lessons from the Heartland Book Talk and Party
Rethinking Schools editor Stan Karp will introduce Barbara at this event.
7:00-8:30 PM
CUNY Graduate Center RM. 6304

Friday, March 15th: Unions and Communities Working Together for Our Schools
Karen Lewis, president of the Chicago Teachers Union; UFT president Michael Mulgrew; Larry Moskowitz, coordinator of the Left Labor Project; Anthony Harmon, director for community and parent outreach at the UFT, and Lorrain Chavez, co-founder of the Chicago Teachers Solidarity Campaign, will be speaking at this panel discussion.
UFT HQ 52 Broadway

Saturday, March 16th: New York Collective of Radical Educators (NYCoRE) Conference with Karen Lewis as keynote!
9:00 – 5:15 pm
Register ASAP

Hope you can check out as many events as you can.

Slow Violence, Turbo Capitalism & Counter Storytelling: Reflecting on Whose Barrio? + Panel

On Tuesday, March 19th the Participatory Open, Online Course (POOC), Reassessing Inequality and Reimagining the 21st-Century: East Harlem Focus (#InQ13), held a public screening of Whose Barrio? at the Silberman School of Social Work at Hunter College. Whose Barrio? is, as I mentioned on a post on the POOC blog, a:

2008 film, co-created by Ed Morales and Laura Rivera, that provides a nuanced and multi-voiced look at the changes that the neighborhood of East Harlem has navigated in the midst of the most current wave of urban renewal and gentrification.

At it’s heart the film gives the viewer a lens from which to see how market-driven gentrification couples with pre-existing and ongoing forms of social inequality to further divide communities and displace people in order to expand a troubling vision of community and neighborhood in the twenty-first century.

The film was also coupled with a panel discussion that included Ed Morales, the co-creator of the film, Felipe Luciano, a founder of the Young Lords, poet, and radio personality (among many things) and Dr. Marta Moreno Vega, artist, scholar, activist, and founder and director of the Caribbean Cultural Center African Diaspora Institute (CCCADI) (among many things). The film (for a short time) and the panel discussion can be viewed here:

There were a number of thought provoking ideas that were raised by both the film and the discussion, so I wanted to focus on a few ideas here before inviting others to comment on the event.

The theme of the night was “seeing” inequality, and we were thinking about inequality through the past, present and future of East Harlem. Trying to show the film and having a productive conversation was a lot to pack in, and it was clearly not enough time to engage all of these ideas. The event, as a whole, might best be understood as an invitation to engagements in thought and action (praxis) rather than an end. What is inequality? How do we see inequalities articulated within and across bodies, scale, space, and time? How are these formations of inequality interrupted, countered, or resisted? I invite others to use this post as a way to share some of their thoughts on the event and to meditate on directions for scholarship and activism.

Two points I wanted to raise here: the spatial-temporal destructiveness of inequality and searching  for streams of resistance through counter-storytelling.

The Slow Violence and Rapid Fire of Inequality

WB MuralMiradaThe film and the panelists situated East Harlem today in the inequalities of the past, noting racialized housing opportunities, the entrance of heroin (50s) and crack (80s) into the neighborhood, the disaffection of Black and Puerto Rican/Latino youth, and disinvestment in infrastructure, as just some of the various forces and consequences at play. The stories that were told echo the disheartening, dominant story of East Harlem—a story of despair. Arguably, the dominance of this story both in the panel and  in broader discourses around East Harlem, is a limitation of the panel (and broader discussion) as it felt like conversations ended up dwelling on this story so much that we painted ourselves into a corner with very little time to find any opportunities for change; opportunities to find glimpses of hope. Still I want to give this discussion a generous read because as both scholar and activist I’m not interested in working around this dominant story, but rather thinking and working through it.

We were just beginning to get at the complexities of the ways in which inequality takes shape within racio-economic structures when the time for the conversation ended, but the notion of disinvestment is what most resonated with me. Disinvestment was mentioned fleetingly, but disinvestment, violence and drugs, were all introduced, Dr. Vega argued, by outsiders to the neighborhood—by design. It reminded me of what Rob Nixon (2011) described as “slow violence.” While Rob Nixon is speaking to the ways that environmental devastation is affecting our world (and we have only scratched the surface on environmental inequalities in East Harlem), a connection to disinvestment can be made. Nixon is giving attention to “calamities that are slow and long lasting, calamities that patiently dispense their devastation while remaining outside our flickering attention span…” (p. 6). Being forced to pay attention only to the outcomes (the spectacular) by media, government and private philanthropy, disinvestment clearly becomes a form of slow violence. We hear about a murder or the heavy drug trade, accepting racially and economically saturated depictions of entire groups of people and neighborhoods, but we are rarely asked to consider the structural causes aiding and abetting the continuation of these spectacles. Thoughtful scholars and journalists like Arlene Davila and Ed Morales remind us that East Harlem has never had a well-resourced and well-organized infrastructure to provide the necessary services and institutions to meet the varied needs of the community.

The resistance to slow violence has thus been piecemeal at best, leaving neighborhoods vulnerable to the rapid fire of what Nixon describes as “turbo capitalism.” We live in a time where reform and change is driven by collaborative efforts between the private and public sectors, and solutions thus become swift spectacles. Promises of luxury condos and rapid investment from private industry, or the closing of failing schools and struggling hospitals, become those spectacles that keep us from asking questions or examining situations more closely. Inequalities based both on racio-economics and time are thus rendered invisible. Disinvestment becomes spectacular, or visible, only when it has already left you in its wake.

Counter Storytelling to Render Violence (Inequality) Visible

To leave the discussion here would, however, reproduce the dominant narrative of despair without seeking some ways to confront the contradictions of slow violence and turbo capitalism. To come back to Nixon (2011) again, he notes that:

To confront slow violence requires, then, that we plot and give figurative shape to formless threats whose fatal repercussions are dispersed across space and time. The representational challenges are acute, requiring creative ways of drawing public attention to catastrophic acts that are low in instant spectacle but high in long-term effects. To intervene representationally entails devising iconic symbols that embody amorphous calamities as well as narrative forms that infuse those symbols with dramatic urgency” (p. 10)

I take Nixon’s words to mean that a key tool for combatting disinvestment in housing and education, for example, is what Xican@ and critical race scholars have described as counter-narratives (Acevedo, 2001; Solórzano & Yosso, 2009). From this vantage point the disheartening stories are not ignored/avoided, rather light is shed on them with historical nuance and they are then braided with stories of individual and collective struggles against oppression.

Dr. Vega, astutely points out that she does not look at her work from the perspective of inequality, but rather from one of equity, because from this perspective “you understand your value.” More discussion was needed here, but what I gathered here was the need to flip the script, or to reframe (Kumashiro, 2008), how the very notions of oppression, inequality, and resistance are understood and mobilized. To tell a story from the perspective of equity is a counter story of inequality.

As Marina Ortiz, of East Harlem Preservation, noted from the audience last Tuesday, “we are not dead, we are very much alive, and we are still fighting…but institutions are being taken away from us.” The stories of the fights and what is being fought against are the stories that must continue to be told, to bring attention to the issues but to also begin to map and organize around alternative visions. Whose Barrio? serves as a powerful example of this kind of counter-storytelling.

Still, we did not sufficiently get into what stories are being told right now on the ground during the panel, as the discussion focused primarily on what might be described as the Puerto Rican legacy of East Harlem. Still, I have high hopes that this course will allow participants and the community to engage in the sharing of these new stories. How for example are Mexicanos, Dominicanos, Whites (non-Latino) or African American populations; or upper, middle and working class, populations (across racial-cultural borders), navigating the racial and economic changes of the community? What might youth or individuals with dis/abilities teach us? What about women, men, and LGBTQ, and gender non-conforming individuals? How might the stories and the interests of these varied groups converge into voices of struggle and voices of hope?

Finally, I wanted to end in thinking about outside scholar-activist, like me, who are interested in thinking through what it means to engage in community-based work in service to a community we are not from. There are many questions that have been raised by course participants regarding the need to do scholarship that is respectful and accountable to the community, and avoids us becoming, as Dr. Vega notes, “voyeurs” in a community. These tensions are very real for us, and I want to situate it within the notion of counter-storytelling. Nixon talks about the importance of writer-activists, who can “help us apprehend threats imaginatively that remain imperceptible to the senses” (p. 15). Nixon also arrives at the notion of being a witness, as a way of giving the “unapparent a materiality upon which we can act” (p. 16). In both the work of helping to apprehend imperceptible forms of, or being witness to, violence, our processes must be dialogic as a means to developing knowledge, maintaining humility, and envisioning the future. As outsiders we potentially provide outsider’s eyes to the intricacies that many people must confront. Our perspective can provide nuance to those counter-stories, but it is not a replacement. This work requires humility on the part of the scholar-activist as well as a humanization of the collaborator. It is the partner that is front and center, and it is in our emerging relationships with them that slow violences and new futures can then be rendered visible. It is also in these dialogues that we can, collectively, begin to develop iconic symbols that shed light on slow violence, highlight resistance, and make urgent already emerging demands for change


 Acevedo, Luz del Alba. Telling to Live: Latina Feminist Testimonios. Durham: Duke University Press, 2001.

Nixon, Rob. Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2011.
Solórzano, Daniel G, and Tara J Yosso. “Critical Race Methodology: Counter-Storytelling as an Analytical Framework for Education Research.” In Foundations of Critical Race Theory in Education, edited by Ed Taylor, David. Gillborn, and Gloria Ladson-Billings. New York: Routledge, 2009.
« Older posts

© 2023 edwin mayorga

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑

 OpenCUNY » login | join | terms | activity 

 Supported by the CUNY Doctoral Students Council.