Mount Tamalpais College

Campus & Community

Students Competed in Second Annual Ethics Bowl at San Quentin

by

On February 15, 2019, Prison University Project students participated in the second annual Ethics Bowl competition against a team of undergraduates from UC Santa Cruz. During this non-confrontational alternative to the traditional competitive form of debate, teams discussed restoring voting rights to ex-felons and issues of animal welfare vs. religious freedom in a new Belgian law regarding the slaughter of animals. We are proud to say that the San Quentin team—comprising Randy Atkins, Angel Flores, and Roosevelt “Askari” Johnson—won for the second year in a row. They prepared their arguments and cases over the course of two semesters with the help of coaches Kathy Richards, Kyle Robertson, and Connie Krosney.

Presenting first, Prison University Project students argued that ex-felons should regain the right to vote, but only after they’ve completed their sentence and fully rehabilitated. They argued that disenfranchising ex-felons is to condemn them to a “social death,” and publicly reassert that they don’t matter and aren’t valuable. Though the students acknowledged that clear racial dynamics were in play in preventing people of color from voting, the students turned to social contract theory to argue that breaking a law means forfeiting rights. Thus, one must rehabilitate to regain that right. In their rebuttal, the UC Santa Cruz team agreed that ex-felons should regain the right to vote, but they pushed back on this question of forfeiting and regaining rights asking, “What if reform programs are not available? And what if one can’t rehabilitate?” They also raised the issue that this argument plays into the assumption that incarcerated people “are broken” or have something wrong with them that need to be fixed. Challenged by the judges as well, the Prison University Project students grappled with whether or not voting was an absolute or conditional right.

In the second round, UC Santa Cruz presented first on the question of whether or not a Belgian law banning unstunned slaughter of animals was ethical to enact though it conflicts with religious traditions of Islamic and Jewish communities (halal and kosher practices). They argued that the law was not unethical; there was no outright ban on meat, it was not based on anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim sentiment, and it was actually a more compassionate way to slaughter animals. UC Santa Cruz took a consequentialist perspective thinking of the outcomes of the law—animals are more humanely slaughtered and religious communities are still able to access meat. To them, the state’s intent was to alleviate animal suffering, not curb religious freedom. Prison University Project students argued an opposing stance, questioning if the research proves it is actually more humane to stun before slaughtering. They raised the point that halal and kosher practices were created specifically for humane slaughter, and that the modern Belgian law was clearly motivated by discriminatory sentiment. By painting Jews and Muslims as barbaric “others” for how they slaughter animals, the Belgian government was sowing further discord between religious communities. The judges engaged once again and asked UC Santa Cruz where the line is drawn between the state promoting compassion and limiting personal and religious freedom.

After a tally of votes, the judges concluded that the Prison University Project beat UC Santa Cruz by a slim margin. All participants and attendees agreed that the Ethics Bowl format was a wonderful intellectual exercise of bringing philosophy out of the academy and into everyday life and—in this case—into prison. For more information, see San Quentin News‘ coverage of the event and video footage from the 2018 Ethics Bowl.

Please note that the Prison University Project became Mount Tamalpais College in September 2020.

Symposium on Criminal Justice Reform and Philanthropy—Students Reimagine Reform

by

On January 26, the Prison University Project hosted a Symposium on Criminal Justice Reform and Philanthropy in partnership with the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. This event showcased proposals developed by students of the College Program at San Quentin State Prison through an intensive workshop during the fall semester. Guided by two facilitators and four research assistants, students first learned about theories of power and the foundations of philanthropy before crafting their own solutions to mass incarceration. The symposium allowed those most impacted by the criminal justice system to claim their rightful seat at the table of reform and contribute to the conversations surrounding their lives and futures. Summaries of some of the students’ proposals are featured below.

Randy Akins
Akins proposes the creation of a speakers bureau of formerly incarcerated people and their allies to inform the public about the impacts of mass incarceration and to help instigate conversation about alternatives to the current system that has caused such harm, especially in African-American communities. His proposal highlights the potential of facilitating ways for formerly incarcerated people to contribute to their communities and to the conversation around criminal justice reform. Due to their intimate familiarity with the system, the voices and efforts of formerly incarcerated people in working to improve the system and strengthen their communities are significant.

Wayne Boatwright and Clark Gerhartsreiter
Gerhartsreiter and Boatwright propose the creation of a startup research institute – The Institute for Decarceration Studies – that finds, structures, and scales solutions for criminal justice reform with the particular goal of reversing mass-incarceration. The Institute aims to do this through the discipline of academic inquiry, combined with strategic synthesis and analysis of the best research and data. Operating from within a state prison and staffed by incarcerated persons, the Institute would publish a quarterly academic research journal. It will also conduct off-site parallel operations through a scholar-in-residence program in collaboration with a major research university.

Steven Brooks
Brooks proposes that CDCR implement an incentivized, rehabilitative program intended to reduce or eliminate the possession, use and sale of addictive substances within its institutions. Brooks believes that this would also help facilitate incarcerated people’s focus on rehabilitation. Today, California’s prison system is full of drugs, drug users and drug dealers, and often incarcerated people are forced through default to “hustle” for survival. Even those who are serious about their rehabilitation process often lose their willpower to abstain from illegal trading after too many nights of going to bed hungry. To encourage prisoners who have little or no family support to choose participation in rehabilitation programs, CDCR could offer incentives for participation in substance use disorder treatment and drug counseling programs. They would not only benefit the participants by helping them recover from addictions, but make CDCR institutions less punitive and more rehabilitative in nature.

Conrad Cherry
Cherry proposes the funding of re-entry “advocates” who will use technology to help incarcerated people get housing and employment. Currently, people preparing for release, and especially those preparing for parole hearings, have a hard time connecting to available programs and services because of technological and logistical barriers. It is difficult for many people, especially those without family support, to prove to the parole board that they will be able to support themselves in the community because they cannot communicate with potential employers or transitional housing providers easily. Funding advocates to assist people in locating, communicating with, and applying for employment and housing would greatly improve people’s chances for success when they re-enter the community and improve their ability to demonstrate their ability to function successfully in the community to the parole board.

Roberto DeTrinidad
For the average U.S. citizen, our current judicial system is a vast web of protocols, technicalities and jargon. There is, effectively, a language barrier preventing clear understanding. DeTrinidad proposes a pilot project that seeks to alleviate the gaps in understanding that exist within today’s court rooms. DeTrinidad proposes creating a panel of psychologists, linguists, educators, justice system stakeholders (i.e., District Attorneys, Public Defenders, etc.) and average U.S. citizens of varying reading levels to review and simplify the language used in court and court documents. In addition, beginning with a single courtroom, this pilot project would test a system where judges and other courtroom actors would have to confirm a defendant’s understanding of each discussed item before proceeding, as well as create a space for open dialogue in the courtroom.

Ronell Draper
Community reform and prison reform should go hand in hand; there needs to be a conversation between the two. Instead of only focusing on self-help programs inside prisons, people working on prison reform should also work on community building in order to address past traumas and prevent future traumas. Draper’s proposal addresses the need for criminal justice reform to co-exist with community reform efforts – to humanize returning citizens while the community can have real interaction with the incarcerated by attending self-help groups alongside one another, becoming allies and champions for one another.

Teddy Fields
Fields seeks funding to support a ballot initiative to reform California’s Three Strikes Law. The People’s Fair Sentencing and Public Safety Act, originally proposed for the 2018 ballot, would change the language of the Three Strikes Law to ensure that individuals whose triggering offense is nonviolent no longer be exposed to a lengthy life sentence. It would also change the way that the law classifies certain crimes that are currently considered “serious” crimes or violent felonies despite not involving any actual violence. It would ensure that these individuals are able to secure release into society without racking up extra time for repeated non-violent convictions, and it would save the taxpayers millions of dollars. This Act seeks to rectify this illogical practice by amending the Penal Code to make a distinction between violence and nonviolence. Under Federal guidelines, this very distinction exists; 18 USC 3559 (3)(H)(i), (ii). The amendments will serve to protect nonviolent offenders from suffering miscarriages of justice.

Chung Kao
Kao proposes broad funding for the expansion of higher education programs across prisons in the United States, which would allow those who are incarcerated to obtain post secondary degrees. Based on the overwhelming success of the Prison University Project, Kao would like to see this model funded and replicated across the United States. If funded, Kao believes that this initiative will lead to a significant decrease in the overall rates of recidivism. It would also provide a space for incarcerated folks to gain the knowledge and skills they need to gain employment upon release. Finally, similar programs have been proven to have positive effects on self-identity, mental health, relationships as well as race relations.

James King
King proposes investment in a new media company that will provide an online platform for people who are directly impacted by the criminal justice system. In particular, this media platform would provide a system for educating and sharing information with people who are currently incarcerated and an outlet for incarcerated people to directly share their stories, thoughts, and observations about life on the inside. If funded, King would expand the Re:Vision blog (a current project of Re:store Justice) to provide an avenue for incarcerated people to learn about, shape, and independently lead the criminal justice reform conversation.

Chan Lam
Lam proposes the creation of a job-seeking platform designed specifically to help recently paroled people find employment. This platform seeks to explicitly outline the federal financial incentives for hiring people with felony convictions and features a streamlined filing application so employers can receive their refunds. There are no upfront costs for companies or people on parole to use the site and it features a rating system similar to GlassDoor. Lam’s mission is to connect more parolees with meaningful, long-term employment and financial independence. Funding for this platform would help him achieve this fundamental purpose and improve employment opportunities for people coming home from prison.

Isaiah Love
Love argues that prisons should be transformed into academies for higher education and for building new, pro-social habits. This culture would help incarcerated people change their lives and adopt new habits during their time in prison, which, in turn, would allow them to succeed in the community upon release. Orienting correctional institutions around cultural and behavioral transformation would mean providing opportunities for all incarcerated people to access high quality higher education, to develop and maintain new habits, and to create new identities.

Michael Mackey
Mackey’s proposal involves reforming how the justice system interacts with and treats people with mental illness. He believes that the current system does not address the needs of people with mental illness sufficiently. Access to assessment, treatment, and (when necessary) referral for mental illness (including substance use disorder) should be a part of the general health services available to all incarcerated people. People with mental illness in prison, he says, should have access to the same types of psychotropic medication and psychosocial support as people in the community outside of prison.

William Merlen
Merlen proposes a program to help address and heal feelings of social inadequacy that are common among incarcerated people and that cause real harm to their ability to heal, develop supportive social networks, and re-enter the community successfully.

Lonnie Morris
Far too often, the criminal justice reform agenda is created without sufficiently utilizing the specialized knowledge and lived experiences of currently incarcerated men and women. In order to remedy this problem, Morris proposes to conduct a series of workshops on criminal justice reform strategies and priorities (entitled “Resetting the Criminal Justice Reform Table”) for philanthropists, businesses, community based organizations (CBOs), judges, lawmakers, district and defense attorneys, law enforcement and other drivers and influencers in the criminal justice reform movement. These workshops would bring the perspective of currently incarcerated people “back to the table” and allow them to help shape more inclusive, meaningful, and sustainable criminal justice reform policies, strategies, and priorities.

Rahsaan Thomas
Thomas seeks to fund a new project of Prison Renaissance, which is an organization that Thomas co-founded that uses art to support the healing of incarcerated people and to connect them to the wider community. This project, called We Rehabilitate Us Program (WRUP), would create opportunities for incarcerated artists to collaborate with outside artists. Although rehabilitative programs like art therapy are proven to reduce recidivism, CDCR inconsistently maintains art programs. Unlike CDCR programs, which rely on state funding, outside funding and collaboration with volunteers would enable WRUP to pursue its goals free from bureaucratic constraints. Through WRUP, Thomas envisions a future of reduced disciplinary infractions in prison environments. He hopes WRUP will serve as the catalyst to create mentorships and collaborative relationships between incarcerated people and communities outside, financially empower artists by producing three journals a year that pay artists for their work, and reduce recidivism rates to zero for program participants.

Jesse Vasquez
Vasquez writes, “Relatively few people adversely impacted by public policy are involved in the decision-making process. The vast majority of inner city Americans, especially black and brown people, are at a disadvantage in the public arena because they lack knowledge of the governmental framework that regulates how bills and ballot measures become law. Few of them know whom to address their concerns to and the rest of them assume that no one will care enough to listen.” He proposes the funding of a “Civic Empowerment Program” designed to strengthen socio-political bonds by providing everyone with a platform of political expression. Through a program serving middle school, high school and college students, as well as others eager to learn, Vasquez envisions an education infrastructure bolstering the US democracy and engagement within it. This infrastructure will increase civic engagement and, therefore, hold the capacity to transform the current criminal justice system.

Charles Williams
Williams proposes funding for a holistic rehabilitation program for people ages 35 and older who have been incarcerated for 15 years or more. The main components of this program would include: mental health professionals guiding participants through confrontational therapy and coping skills, developing a mechanism of community responsibility that clusters participants into accountability groups, and an investment in each participant to support their successful transition into society. Williams further proposes that the Mental Health Department play an integral role in both developing the curriculum and providing adequate psychological evaluation of incarcerated persons prior to their release. If funded, Williams believes that this initiative will serve as a holistic approach for incarcerated people who are preparing for their release to successfully reintegrate into society with minimal barriers.

Van Wilson
Wilson proposes an alteration to CDCR policy in order to allow incarcerated people to own and use cell phones. He believes that providing access to cell phones would promote the independence, self-reliance, self-esteem, and community ties of incarcerated people. Opponents of this idea claim that incarcerated people would use cellphones behind walls to invite criminal activity. Wilson envisions a cellphones-behind-walls policy that works for everyone and improves public safety; calls would be monitored via authorized ID codes and the provider would be equipped with technology that prevents incarcerated people from accessing sensitive information. A working policy has the potential to eliminate unauthorized cell phone contraband and protect public safety, while improving self-esteem, self-actualization, and family and social ties for incarcerated people. The value of providing an outlet for self-expression and connection would be seen in the increased safety of CDCR institutions and smoother re-entry when people leave prison.

Phoeun You
You proposes the creation of a 13-week seminar on the causes and impacts of, coping mechanisms for, and strategies for healing from trauma led by incarcerated facilitators for prison staff and volunteers. This “Trauma Academy” would aim to build empathy, cultivate a deeper understanding of personal traumas, guide healing and uncover coping skills. Funding for the seminar would help pay for facilitation fees as well as marketing materials, a website and workshop training. You believes that once the pilot program achieves success at San Quentin, it can expand to prisons across the nation and include workshops for society at large. Processing, understanding, and healing from trauma is an important way to make communities safer. This seminar aims to both transform individuals’ lives and make prisons safer and healthier for staff and incarcerated people alike.

Please note that the Prison University Project became Mount Tamalpais College in September 2020.

Oral History at San Quentin Prison

by

Last fall, Voice of Witness, an organization that advances human rights by amplifying the voices of people impacted by injustice, held three classes that introduced Prison University Project students to the oral history process. Read more about the series of workshops by clicking below, and check out students Steve Brooks and Joe Garcia’s stories published on the Voice of Witness Blog.

The Voice of Witness education team is always looking for opportunities to create deeper engagement and partnership with the communities represented in our book series, so we can ensure our educational resources are reaching the students who need them the most. That’s why with the launch of our newest book, Six By Ten: Stories from Solitary, we’ve been working with the Prison University Project (PUP) at San Quentin State Prison to share VOW’s ethics-driven oral history process with their students.

The PUP college program offers San Quentin inmates free courses in the humanities, social sciences, math, and science, as well as intensive college preparatory courses in math and English. Working with PUP Academic Program Director, Amy Jamgochian, I developed three classes that would introduce students to the oral history process and give them an opportunity to practice their interview skills, both as an interviewer and narrator, as well as their editing skills.

Following weeks of planning, logistics and pursuing security clearances, I kicked off the first class by pairing students up to a share a story with each other related to their first names. It was a great way to warm everyone up to storytelling – after sharing their stories with the group, many of them realized their stories had something in common!

We then read Hani Khan’s story from Patriot Acts, which helped students begin to think about the relationship between interviewer and narrator in the oral history process – in particular the types of questions (and listening) that inspire thoughtful, detailed stories.

I was inspired by how adept the students were at contextualizing oral history, posing powerful questions about the nature of history—namely who makes it and who writes it. They quickly made connections between oral history and traditions like West African Griots, and modern day emcees.

In order to prepare ourselves for interviews during our second class, our first meeting finished with an exploration of the question, “If you had a meaningful story to share with someone, what would you need to feel safe, to feel brave?” There were many lively responses, and the class felt very connected to issues related to respect, representation, and the importance of agency over one’s own story.

When I arrived for our second class, I discovered that we were going to be in a different classroom, and one right next store to a room where there was an open-mic performance going on. Not exactly ideal when you’ll be conducting oral history interviews! However, this seemed to bother me more than it did the students, and they came in ready to conduct their interviews. After a while, we were able to turn the performance next door into part of our interview experience, as we acknowledged the applause next door as an appreciation of our interview skills!

The interviews were not without their challenges, however. Due to prison requirements the students were not able to use recording devices for their interviews, and instead took copious notes while interviewing their partners. It was certainly an exercise in maintaining focus—both when listening to your narrator’s story, and in the ability to capture the meaningful moments of the story on paper in real time.

After the interviews were completed, partners shared their notes with each other and had a bit of time to incorporate this material into their existing story drafts. Watching this process unfold, it became clear to me that this approach to oral history – and the challenges incarcerated people face documenting their stories – should be incorporated into our curriculum for Six By Ten. Before the end of class, I reminded students that our third and final meeting was going to be devoted to editing their personal narratives.

Looking ahead, we will be using the VOW blog to provide an online platform for these students to publish their stories. In our last class, our first task was to make sure everyone was clear about the process of getting their oral histories onto the VOW website. After some editing work, the stories would be typed up, proofed by the students, and then sent to the Public Information Officer for publishing clearance.

As we began our editing session, it was interesting for students to compare the editing work they had done in their formal writing, and the choices made while editing their personal narratives. Many concepts and techniques carried over, such as clarity and quality of detail, but students were also able to use different editing techniques to highlight moments in their stories that included sensory detail, a clear storytelling arc, and an overall intuitive sense of what makes for a compelling story. At the end of our editing session, I asked if a few students would be willing to read their narratives to the class. Everyone volunteered and we finished our work together in a very supportive story sharing environment.

Before parting, I took a moment to reflect on how much we were able to touch on in just three classes: oral history techniques, editing, the concept of “people’s history,” several excerpts from the VOW book series (including Six By Ten), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, quotes from Chimamanda Adichie and James Baldwin, and guiding principles for ethical storytelling. I was also glad to be able to leave some VOW books for the PUP library, so other students in the program will have access to the stories and can make connections with the lives and experiences of our narrators.

I certainly hope this is only the beginning of our work with the students of the Prison University Project. We can’t wait to share these students’ stories with you in the coming months!

Please note that the Prison University Project became Mount Tamalpais College in September 2020.

I Ran a Marathon in Prison

by

Prison University Project student Steve Brooks reflects on running a marathon in prison. His story is one in a series of oral histories that Voice of Witness has collected through collaborative storytelling workshops with Prison University Project students.

It was November 17, 2017. A day without glitz and glamour. No roaring crowds. No motorcycle cops. No streets and no scenic route. But that day there was a film crew filming a documentary about the San Quentin 1000 Mile Running Club— the only marathon running club for prisoners in the nation.

The club has been around for about a decade but I joined when I arrived at San Quentin in 2016. I was attracted to the idea of running a marathon. I wondered if I could do it. Then I decided to prove to myself that I could. I started training almost immediately. I trained for a whole year. Something I’ve never done before for any reason.

When Friday November 17 finally came I felt like I was ready. I ran with 24 other club members. We ran in a not so perfect circle, in the middle of the four acre square lower yard— on a track roughly 400 meters. My goal was to go round and round without stopping for 105 laps— the equivalent of 26.2 miles.

It was a perfect day to run a marathon. It was sunny, but cool— 65 degrees. And I felt good even though I was running on dirt, gravel, asphalt, and small patches of grass. I ran between 2 green spray painted lines about 5 feet apart. They were cordoned off by orange cones meant to keep pedestrians out of the lane.

The running course had a slight hill members called “the gauntlet” because it got worse every lap. This led to an unevenly sloped bend curving left towards a health clinic, guard shack, inmate urinals and some water fountains. The track then curved left again back down a slight hill.

I ran past huge walls, gun rails and barbed wire fencing, before entering back onto the straightway where the race began.

The scenery was drab. I ran past a makeshift laundry room where inmates were exchanging their laundry. I passed a baseball field but there was no game. I ran past inmates playing horseshoes and basketball. And I saw inmates doing pull-ups, dips, and push-ups. There were many inmates also walking along the track, veering in and out of our lane, as we ran. Some of them were dressed in blue with the words “CDCR Prisoner” painted bright yellow across their backs. There were flocks of pigeons, seagulls and geese taking off and landing like planes all around me. I mostly stared at the ground however, in deep concentration. Every now and then I would look up and see the clear blue sky. I was going nowhere fast and the pain was settling in.

By mile 13 I was completely exhausted. My legs were heavy. My breath was shallow and I was drenched in sweat. I knew then that the last 13 miles was gonna be like a death march— a crucifixion. Many times I wanted to quit. People were dropping out all around me. But I kept going.

I was 200 pounds. I was wearing heavy white shorts and an oversized grey T-shirt. I was punishing myself, restructuring my anatomy. My shins were sore. My knees were starting to feel dislocated and my pelvic bone felt shattered.

I got angry at my lap counter because I thought he was missing my laps. I was frustrated because people kept handing me water when I needed electrolytes. Electrolytes when I needed water. Then the cup kept missing my mouth. I ate so much Sugary Goo (energy booster) I got nauseous.

Then, there were two emergency alarms where I had to completely stop running and sit on the ground, until the alarms cleared. Luckily they only lasted five minutes but long enough for my joints to stiffen. When I finally got up to run again bones were grinding against bone.

Eventually I began to wonder, why? Why would I take the pain of being in prison with a life sentence and couple it with the pain of running a marathon? The closer I got to the finish line the further it got away. My only energy eventually came from cheers, applause, pats on my back. But I was broken, limping, and in pain.

I wanted to challenge myself. I wanted to do something few people did in my life. I wanted to discover how much pain I could actually take, I guess. I experienced a lot of pain but also freedom, comfort, and peace. I found a parallel universe— a spiritual realm. But I also think I found what I craved most in life— redemption. I finished the marathon in 4 hours and 12 seconds.

Attribution: This article originally appeared in the Voice of Witness blog on January 15, 2019.

Please note that the Prison University Project became Mount Tamalpais College in September 2020.

Introducing Our New College Preparatory English Program Coordinator: Deirdre Judge

by

We are thrilled to welcome Deirdre Judge as the new College Preparatory English Program Coordinator. Deirdre’s job duties will include: placement and management of English College Prep volunteers, student assessments, development of new student orientation and other student resources, and syllabus and curriculum development. The College Prep Program serves over 225 students annually, and on average, students spend two years in the program before advancing to the credit level courses.

Deirdre has dedicated their career to facilitation and curriculum design according to critical pedagogy. They believe in education as a strategy for freedom. Prior to coming to the Prison University Project, their experiences included teaching a feminist reading group in a women’s state prison, training educators, and tutoring high school and college writing. They hold an MA in Educational Studies from Tufts University. Deirdre loves speculative fiction and is almost always in the mood for homemade chocolate chip cookies.

Please note that the Prison University Project became Mount Tamalpais College in September 2020.

Remembering Jane E. Kahn

by

We are sad to announce the passing of Jane E. Kahn, a dear friend and supporter of the Prison University Project. Jane dedicated decades of her life to fiercely protecting the wellbeing and dignity of people incarcerated in California and beyond, and set an example for the world of a life filled with compassion, generosity, and meaning. We will miss her terribly and her spirit will be an integral part of our organization forever. An obituary written by Toby Rubin and published in The Jewish News of Northern California is included below:

The Bay Area Jewish community lost one of its brightest lights with the death of Jane Kahn on Dec. 26, 2018. She was 64. Jane was a model of tikkun olam in all aspects of her life, bringing her belief in the divine within all humans to her family life, her friendships, her work representing and advocating for the rights and dignity of incarcerated individuals, her volunteer leadership in Jewish and secular nonprofits and her philanthropy.

Jane was a fighter. She worked tirelessly on behalf of California’s prisoners, advocating for the civil rights of incarcerated persons with mental illness and other disabilities for decades. She believed that being incarcerated or without a home did not make a person less than human; she recognized the humanity of all around her. She fought against the indignity of homelessness with Religious Witness for Homeless and Hamilton House, against capital punishment with Death Penalty Focus, and for a brighter future for prisoners through Prison University Project.

Jane was also a lover. Her Jewish soul, bright smile, intelligence and tremendous compassion captured the hearts of people wherever she went. It was standing room only at Sinai Memorial Chapel in San Francisco on Dec. 28.

On her second day of college at Brandeis University, Jane met Michael Bien. From that day on, “Jane and Mike” or “Mike and Jane” seemed to be the only way to truly understand either of them. They both were raised in Jewish homes and raised their three sons, Ben, Max and Joey, in communities built through the JCCSF preschool, a family havurah, Brandeis Hillel Day School, Camp Tawonga, New Israel Fund, and Congregations Beth Sholom and Emanu-El. Jane was an active parent and volunteer at all institutions, including her leadership on the Camp Tawonga board.

Jane held Israel —its people and place — deep within her heart. Israel as a political entity became a painful challenge. In her remarks as co-recipient with Mike of the New Israel Fund Guardian of Democracy Award, Jane the lover and Jane the fighter came together. While others whispered to each other about the difficulty of talking about Israel with their young adult children, Jane shared the tensions within her own family. She believed that pushing out of our “tent” young adults who question and challenge the policies and practices of Israel regarding the Palestinian people is not the way to strengthen Israel or the Jewish people.

She always leapt to defend those she represented and those she loved.

Until the end, she took care of her enormous circle of loved ones. She faced her disease just as she embraced life. She showed us how to live each day as fully as possible, love fiercely, persevere whatever the obstacles. She dove into study, pursuing questions of living, dying, and the life of the soul. She wanted to be sure that not only she, but everyone she loved, would be ready for the moment that she’d be gone. She was remarkably brave and strong for over two years, right up until her last day. Jane prepared us for her death. Let us all be blessed by the lessons of her life.

Attribution: This obituary originally appeared in The Jewish News of Northern California on January 8, 2019.

Please note that the Prison University Project became Mount Tamalpais College in September 2020.

Celebrating Student Expression at Open Mic Night

by

On December 28, 2018, the Prison University Project hosted its fifth annual Open Mic night in the San Quentin chapel and invited students to share creative work that they developed in class or on their own, such as poetry, dance, short stories, and music. It was a wonderful evening that showcased our students’ diverse talents and interests. Photos of the event and a copy of the program are included below.

Please note that the Prison University Project became Mount Tamalpais College in September 2020.

Reimagining Justice, Together

by

The Prison University Project is excited to partner with the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI) in its efforts to address systemic issues around criminal justice reform in the United States. As the funding landscape shows increased interest in tackling mass incarceration, Aly Tamboura, former Prison University Project student, current board member, and Manager of Technology and Program Delivery at CZI, has served as an important liaison between funders, programs, and communities most impacted by the criminal justice system. Watch him, and others, discuss CZI’s important work below.

To learn more about CZI’s approach to philanthropy and system change, read David Plouffe’s piece on the Justice & Opportunity initiative.

Please note that the Prison University Project became Mount Tamalpais College in September 2020.

For Each Cage from Which I Break Free

by

Published in the November 2018 newsletter, which you can read in its entirety here.

My experience with the Prison University Project’s academic conference has been challenging, nerve-wracking, and exciting all rolled into one. Being that this was my first academic conference, it was a learning experience that I welcomed.

On this educational journey, I have discovered that I am more than a prisoner. I am bigger than the cages of racism, poverty, illiteracy, criminality, and prison that have held me captive, in one form or another, since the day I was born. I found that that for each cage from which I break free, my head is held a little higher, my back straightens a little more, my shoulders roll back a little further, and I become a little more dignified.

Now in the shadow of the Prison University Project’s academic conference, I am poised to break free of yet another cage. The I don’t feel like I quite measure up cage. This one I built for myself. I’ve been in it for most of my life. Now I am standing on the precipice of being free. But, at the thought of the academic achievements of those who surrounded me, I shuddered. My stomach churned. My heart raced. Again I was confronted by the am I good enough? cage. Will I fall on my face? I don’t want to do this. It is in this moment of doubt that I’m confronted with the reason I must push forward: the young African American man. His pants are hanging low. He greets me, “What’s up, my n***a, you got the time OG?” I cringe at the “N” word. I say to him, “It’s 9:30 youngsta.” I turn to walk away. Taking a look back to ensure he continues walking, heeding the old prison policy of “staying ten toes down at all times” (prison lingo and mentality for watching my back). As I catch a glimpse of him walking away with his head in the clouds oblivious to what the future holds for him, the moment becomes too real. I see myself in him.

It is 1992, I’m in Jamestown State Prison (Sierra Conservation Center). It is my first prison term. My head is in the clouds. I’m oblivious, unaware of the lives I would wreck and the 24 years that would pass in the blink of an eye as I walked yard after yard in prison after prison. I shake off the nostalgia and regret, with the intimate understanding it is for him and the future victims I hope are never created, that I wrote my conference proposal about social etiquette training as one of the tools needed to help young prisoners. I remember very vividly that the masks I wore were there to conceal my feelings of inadequacy and intimidation, while in the presence of those I had come to believe were somehow more than me. More what, I could not tell you, just more. But once I discovered those little niceties which fostered positive relationships, my confidence grew and so did my belief that I more than measure up to anyone and any challenge.

With this knowledge, I’ve come to understand and appreciate two sayings: to know better is to do better and with knowledge comes responsibility. Now that I know better, I am doing better. My intimate knowledge of the many problems within the judicial system makes me responsible for presenting a solution. Today I am part of the solution, and not the problem.

In the final analysis, when all is said and done, it matters not if any actions are taken as a result of my contribution to the conference. All that matters is that some real rehabilitative actions, or at least plans for future actions, come out of it. Whatever those actions are, however they look, it is my responsibility to contribute my time, effort, and resources to advance them! This—the real possibility for long-lasting systemic change—is what excites me most about the Prison University Project’s academic conference.

Please note that the Prison University Project became Mount Tamalpais College in September 2020.

Where the Movement Starts

by

Published in the November 2018 newsletter, which you can read in its entirety here.

On October 5, the Prison University Project hosted an academic conference inside San Quentin, entitled Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reform: 21st Century Solutions for 20th Century Problems. Panelists included college students at San Quentin and outside academics, and Patrick Elliot Alexander, author of From Slave Ship to Supermax: Mass Incarceration, Prisoner Abuse, and the New Neo-Slave Novel, delivered the keynote address.

This was only possible because all came off as planned. There could have been a lockdown or a quarantine, either of which would have kept students from attending or guests from coming into the prison. There might have been delays, so students missed half of the event. There could have been an alarm on the yard, leaving students stuck on the spot until it cleared. Student speakers and facilitators may have found themselves in risky situations, called upon to critique their captors or disagree with others in the face of potentially serious social or political repercussions. The list goes on and on, and even after several years working inside the prison, I know I don’t know the half of it. But all such contingencies are examples of the reason it is critical for incarcerated people to have a voice in academic conversations about prison: only they know in depth the realities of incarcerated life. Only they have some of the true keys for analyzing what reform should look like, or if “reform” is in fact the answer.

The goal of including incarcerated voices in academic conversations about incarceration was what led us to start planning this conference. Students and alumni inside the prison applied to be on the conference committee, and together a small group of us collaborated on a call for papers, which hubristically announced this as the first academic conference to be held inside a prison—this is not the case, as it turns out, but we were excited to start receiving dozens of submissions, both from our students inside and from outside scholars from across the U.S. In the end we received almost 100, so many that we realized, to some of the committee members’ dismay, that we would have to send out some rejections.

We were also eager to help our student participants prepare for this professional opportunity, in which they were on panels with academics far more experienced in writing and presenting: volunteers Chris Alfonso and Debbie Mayer stepped up to help student presenters with research and writing; Prison University Project Board member and volunteer instructor James Dyett assisted student speakers with public speaking skills and student panel moderators with facilitation strategies. Our students did magnificently.

These and other concerns filled our sometimes twice-weekly meetings. We disagreed, argued, and spent hours upon hours talking through complexities of panel configurations. I’m filled with admiration for the dedication, hard work, and brilliance of my co-planners—Chris Alfonso, Wayne Boatwright, Noble Butler, Clark Gerhartsreiter, James King, Timothy Thompson, Jesse Rothman, and Jesse Vasquez, many of whom had never attended a conference, but all of whom approached the planning with passion, seriousness, and a spirit of collaboration. The theme of the National Conference on Higher Education in Prison in Indianapolis this November is “Building a Movement,” but we demonstrated with our own sister conference that the movement truly starts inside.

Amy Jamgochian is Prison University Project’s Academic Program Director.

Please note that the Prison University Project became Mount Tamalpais College in September 2020.