By: Travis Wayne, Fiona P

CAMBRIDGE – Grad workers unionized with MIT-GSU (UE 256) rallied with custodial staff of 32BJ SEIU this week to warn the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) that the university faces its last chance to avert a strike wave. The struggle has now openly unified two sections of the workforce, both blue-collar and academic, into conscious alliance against their shared employer.

Recognizing its academic excellence once again, U.S. News named MIT the top university in the United States in September 2026. Apparently, their rubric for institutions does not include treatment of the staff that run the university, since two different unions are fighting for a living wage and a fair contract stonewalled by MIT.

MIT holds a $29.2 billion endowment.

MIT Backtracking at the Bargaining Table

“The General Counsel and University President got double digit raises, while for us, they want to give us raises below inflation,” one fourth-year grad worker reported to Working Mass.

As with all “raises” below inflation, such offers are de facto pay cuts.

The university has also attempted to claw back gains already won band enshrined in MIT-GSU’s contract won in 2023, like healthcare packages: “the most essential things to even function as a community and a union,” in the words of one bargaining committee member. While workers previously had no comprehensive healthcare to speak for, MIT-GSU won healthcare protections when they won their contract in 2023. Since returning to the bargaining table, MIT backtracked — attempting to cut healthcare entirely.

MIT-GSU has made some advances in bargaining. For example, MIT has since agreed to maintain healthcare. But some progress is still far too little. Even though the university may finally not be fighting their workers on the question of whether they deserve healthcare at all, the institution is still arguing for steep premium hikes on insurance plans.

Workers are also fighting for non-citizen protections.

ICE off campus is one cardinal demand for a ban on federal forces invading the campus itself, as well as an international fund to fund necessary expenses faced by non-citizen workers. This fight echoes the same themes in higher ed workplaces exposed to federal intervention across Boston, from Boston University and their students’ crusade for a sanctuary campus to Harvard Graduate Students’ Union (HGSU) fight in Old Cambridge for the same demand as their union siblings in East Cambridge.

About 40% of MIT grad worker ranks are international.

The Open Shop in a Union State

Massachusetts may be one of the only states with a positive unionization growth rate, but that has not stopped it from harboring anti-labor employers: Starbucks, MGB, even MIT. In an interview with Working Mass, one bargaining committee member stressed:

They still have this ridiculous open shop proposal on the table, which is nothing but a disguised attack to gut our union and kill us… it makes sure the union can focus on what matters to our members, to focus on improving this campus, not on signing people up…. we know the history of these laws. They were made to segregate white and Black workers.

MIT has resorted to utilizing a strategy common to right-to-work states: the so-called “open-shop.” A system heavily benefiting the employer and legal since the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, the “open shop” is a workplace design where workers can opt-in instead of opt-out of union dues. That cuts off unions’ access to their own workforces’ sustained funds in ways that can severely hamper unions’ financial capacity while leaving the bosses’ entirely unaffected. Meawhile, bosses can persuade individual rank-and-file workers under this arrangement to not join the union with far more ease. The open shop means “workers reap the rewards of union contracts without paying any of the cost of their upkeep,” aiming to starve the union till it becomes irrelevant to workers as a machine intent on signing workers up just so they pay dues just so the union can continue to exist.

As another rank-and-file worker underscored to Working Mass:

If we don’t get our union shop, then every win we get at the bargaining table is kind of meaningless because we can’t enforce our contract across grad workers.

It’s the sweeping nature of the “open shop” on workers’ lives that make MIT bosses’ demand for it so chilling.

Parallel Struggles and Strategies

“At MIT, an alliance between property service workers and graduate students shows the power of wall-to-wall organizing for living wages and workers’ rights against a shared, well-resourced management,” proclaimed Higher Ed Labor United as the simultaneous strike began to loom. 32BJ SEIU began to organize alongside MIT-GSU in late 2025, when both unions discovered their contracts, while not perfectly aligned, were separated by one month: strike shooting distance.

Custodial staff, which includes electricians and groundskeepers as well as other essential workers, have faced deep thinning of the ranks. Wages are stagnant even as every single department has faced varying levels of dramatic workload increases exacerbated by MIT not filling any new positions. 20 positions are vacant in Custodial Services and 16 unhired in HVAC.

Each unfilled position, each worker missing, means just that much more work for the remaining workers making stagnant wages forcing them to second or third jobs. The deal dealt to custodial staff ends up similar to that dealt to grad workers, one where time with people you love is routinely robbed by an institution who does not believe your dignity is worth a living wage.

The simultaneous strike is the same strategy employed now by the labor movement at Harvard now, as HGSU and HAW and UNITE HERE Local 26 all form one contract-aligned strike force. If unions take strike action when their contracts expire, aligning those actions together, can unions in the United States mimic or surpass the power generated by the sympathy strike — illegal in the United States since Taft-Hartley, the same law that legalized the “open shop” for the employers?

In the words of one fourth-year grad worker:

By dividing us as a workforce, by dividing us as a community, it’s easier to control us.

According to him, 700 undergraduates signed a pledge to student strike (stop attending classes) if either 32BJ SEIU or MIT-GSU strike, even as other unions in the wider movement off-campus have been galvanized to support the alliance of the two unions. Tufts workers and Harvard workers have joined MIT-GSU and 32BJ SEIU on the picket line; the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) Local 25 has also indicated their intent to honor any strike, if the university refuses to reach an agreement that honors their workers’ needs. The union organized across logistics of the supply chain intends to stop all deliveries to campus.

Who will emerge most transformed — MIT, or its workers?

Travis Wayne is the managing editor of Working Mass.

The post Grad Workers Rally With Custodial Staff to Warn MIT Time’s Up: “We Are Prepared to Strike” appeared first on Working Mass.

The following op-ed was written in response to an op-ed published by the San Francisco Chronicle on 10/5/2026, “Endorsement: Prop I is a cocktail of poison pills masquerading as a housing fix.” written by The Chronicle Editorial Board. The Chronicle Editorial Board refused to publish this rebuttal.

Last month, Mayor Daniel Lurie announced a $23 million commitment from his Office of Housing and Community Development for the rehabilitation of Freedom West, a storied housing cooperative in San Francisco’s Western Addition. 

Freedom West is exactly the type of housing that Proposition I is designed to create, scaled up to begin to lower San Francisco rents. Strangely, the Mayor has come out strongly against the measure. Similarly, Michael Moritz (presently bankrolling many of the mayor’s other measures), large property developers, and the firefighters union sent out mailers proclaiming that “communes don’t work”, dismissing the promise of social and cooperative housing with a baseless smear. 

Massive spending by these groups makes Prop I the most hotly contested measure on the San Francisco ballot this year. Prop I aligns with the Mayor’s commitment to resolve what he recently declared our city’s “rent emergency”, so why all this controversy?

It can’t be because the measure is a novel or untested experiment, as opponents claim. There is nothing experimental about housing cooperatives, which already exist in SF, throughout the rest of the country, and around the world. 

Cooperatives are one form of social housing – a model providing permanent affordability and a share in ownership for residents who can’t afford multimillion-dollar market-rate properties. This is the model employed at Freedom West, which Mayor Lurie celebrated even while his allies lambasted the model as unworkable and unserious.

Social housing is clearly defined in the city code. Prop I adds one stipulation to this: “Residents shall have the right to participate directly and meaningfully in decision-making concerning the operation and management of the project.” This should be uncontroversial. This sort of tenant participation is proven to lead to better outcomes, such as greater housing stability and improved mental health for residents.

Studies have shown that having a robust public development pipeline can significantly bring down private rents as well. In Vienna 60% of all rental stock is decommodified social housing, and residents face the lowest rent burden in the EU. The city of Paris has set a goal to bring 40% of all housing stock under public control by 2035, with the intention of protecting Parisians from “real estate speculation” and being priced out. New York City has a long tradition of limited-equity cooperatives that its mayor, Zorhan Mamdan, is seeking to expand upon. Around the world, expensive cities are turning to social housing to address a cost of living crisis. It’s high time that San Francisco – the least affordable housing market among major US cities – did the same.

What do Prop I’s opponents see as the correct use for the substantial amount of money brought in by the transfer tax voters passed in 2020? To believe the inescapable ads featuring city firefighters and union tradespeople, the roughly $120 million a year should be used to fund things unrelated to housing, including record amounts of police overtime. 

At the same time, developers say this tax should be cut entirely and returned to private landholders to encourage further development. The Mayor and Supervisor Bilal Mahmood proposed such a cut just months ago, but were stymied by political headwinds. Supervisor Mahmood has expressed an interest in bringing the tax cut back, and the Mayor hasn’t said whether he still supports it. Prop I would make it nearly impossible to deliver this tax break to corporate landlords and commercial developers. Indeed, many of the opposition’s largest donors are the very commercial property owners fighting transfer taxes all over California.  Obviously, we can’t cut the tax and spend it too.  

Transfer taxes have become a boogeyman preventing real estate development. Much of this argument relies on a RAND Corp study of Los Angeles’s Measure ULA, but researchers at Occidental College found that this study is rife with methodological errors undermining its conclusions. A measure like Prop I, which exempts new multifamily development from the transfer tax, would disincentivize gut-and-flip transactions while promoting new construction. Though opponents claim the 5 year exemption is not long enough, it follows the model proposed by UCLA researchers and implemented by Culver City. Developers often sell a building after it is fully leased, which usually takes much less than 5 years. 

We, the proponents of Prop I, have brought this measure to voters because City Hall has refused to spend the tax on luxury real estate transactions the way voters intended. The Mayor and Board of Supervisors can and should be using these revenues to build and protect affordable housing for all San Franciscans. Our measure would force their hand. Housing and homelessness are the issues San Francisco voters say matter most. The City’s investments should reflect that priority. 

This money was used well during the first two years after the tax was raised, and can go even further towards addressing our current “rent emergency” when combined with other sources of money, like the Housing Trust Fund, which would be increased by the passage of Proposition C.

Prop I revenues can also provide debt service for standard financing options. Community Land Trusts and other forms of social housing regularly receive loans from traditional financial institutions. San Francisco can use revenue bonds, certificates of participation, or the public bank proposed by Prop B to multiply Prop I money and greatly expand the amount of affordable housing we produce. We have fallen gravely behind our affordable housing goals and the results are readily apparent.

Opponents’ claims about Prop I are contradictory, inaccurate, and misleading. And they are everywhere, thanks to a $2.6 million opposition campaign. Nuanced conversations about tax policy and affordable housing are crucial, but so too are solutions to the housing crisis that continues to diminish San Franciscans quality of life. The Mayor has declared an emergency but stopped short of offering any solutions that could realistically bring housing within reach for San Francisco’s working class. Proposition I does just that, no matter how much money is spent to convince you otherwise. 

Aditya Bhumbla and Matthew Pancia are organizers with the San Francisco Chapter of Democratic Socialists of America.

Austin (Texas) goes all-out to put second member on city council; Bluegrass (Ky.) DSA pursues county-wide county council seat in first electoral campaign.

The post Election Live Blog: DSA Chapters Weigh in on Their Campaigns appeared first on Democratic Left.

No Queens “Cop City,” fighting Amazon’s sub-contracting scam, Atlanta City Council votes to boycott Starbucks, and more in this edition of “Chapter and Verse,” Democratic Left’s round-up of chapter news.

The post As Elections Loom, DSA Chapters Push on Campaigns On and Off the Ballot appeared first on Democratic Left.

Monthly Newsletter of the Rochester Chapter of Democratic Socialists of America

Welcome to the November issue of Rochester Red Star, ROC DSA’s monthly newsletter. This month, find essays on navigating the American health insurance system, NYS farm legislation, developing chapter members, and more. You’ll also find upcoming events and coverage of chapter activities.

Interested in contributing? Send submissions to bit.ly/SubmitRedStar, or get involved with our Communications Committee. Reach out to steering@rocdsa.org and join DSA today!

The post Rochester Red Star | November 2026 | (Issue 31) first appeared on Rochester Red Star.

Impressions is where ROC DSA members can share what they’re reading, listening to, viewing, or otherwise experiencing. If you have two hundred words about the culture at large you’d like to share with your comrades, submit to Rich J on Slack or to the Red Star at steering@rocdsa.org.

Trans, Punk, and Somehow Legal?

Abigail J watched: The People’s Joker

I recently stumbled upon what is easily one of my new top 5 movies, The People’s Joker by Vera Drew (2022). This movie is an insane transgender coming of age story set in an unofficial DC Comics universe and presented in a psychedelic mixed media format (complete with live action, stop motion, and 2-D animation). The production and editing were completely crowd-sourced, and I’m genuinely not sure how this legally got made.

As a (very recently out) trans woman, this movie hit me in a way that almost no other movie or show has before. During production, this movie morphed from simply being a compilation of Batman satires to a semi-autobiographical narrative of Vera Drew’s life and transition up to that point (the creator and main star). While my story has definitely been different than both Vera’s and the ritual People’s Joker’s, I finally saw aspects of my life represented on film that I had never seen before, and connected to on a visceral level. How would my life be different if I’d seen this five, ten, fifteen years ago? I’ll never know, but I hope some not-yet-aware trans teens get as much (or more) out of this movie than I did.

For those interested, the film is available for free at: www.thepeoplesjoker.com

Real Americans

Isabella D watched: The Americans

Elizabeth and Philip Jennings are the quintessential family in Reagan’s America — two kids, a nice house in the suburbs, respectable careers. Their neighbors, and certainly not the affable FBI agent across the street, would never suspect that the two are KGB spies, committing gruesome acts of espionage to tip the scales of the Cold War in the Soviet Union’s favor. Over the course of six seasons, audiences suffer Breaking Bad-esque tension over if and when the Jennings will be found out in The Americans. 

I mostly enjoyed the series, but with a disclaimer: while the show is a well-crafted drama with four Emmys under its belt, the acute viewer may discern the tint of anti-Communist, pro-western ideals. This gripe is not just paranoia; the creator and showrunner Joe Weisberg is a Reagan-admiring former CIA agent. The Jennings are depicted as destroying themselves for a vague cause, their Marxist convictions never fully elucidated, and dogmatically resisting the prosperous American way of life for an oppressive, decadent Soviet Union. The cinematographic dichotomy alone relays this bias — the US is colorful, vibrant, abundant, and the USSR bleak, dismal, and bureaucratically stifling.  

To give credit where credit is due, the narrative imparts a great deal of empathy and relatability to Elizabeth and Philip as Soviet illegals before a predominantly western audience. The couple’s dynamic is deeply compelling, tempering my ideological frustration with the show, but the narrative is dragged down by clunky plotlines and a clear predilection for the American way. 

Rooting for the Underdog.

Greg LH watched: Coyote vs. ACME

In Coyote vs. ACME, our ever-floundering Wile E. Coyote, and his billboard lawyer Kevin Avery (Will Forte), become the face of underdogs confronting the corporate behemoth ACME over the thousands of malfunctioning products sold to the Coyote. Coyote vs. ACME has a convoluted production history – In 2023 Warner Bros. shelved the fully-made film to obtain a $30 million tax write-off. The film was only released in 2026 following backlash and its subsequent purchase by another production company. 

On opening day at The Little Theater, Dan Sendker, author of Dance of the Comedians – 75 Years of the Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote gave this context prior to the showing, echoing the content of the film and highlighting the perverted incentives of capitalism.

The film delivers the laughs and delights of the original cartoon, with the fun element of live-action overlap. A tale of the little guy going after the corporate behemoth, the Coyote manages to poke his snout at corporate malfeasance. But his revenge is individualistic – there is no moment of organized unity with the other injured members of his class (of cartoon characters). I was hoping for a class action lawsuit, at least. A montage of FBI arrests also places the ideology of the movie within the Mueller-led resistance of Trump One. Don’t think about it too deeply though, just go have a good time.

The post Impressions (October 2026) first appeared on Rochester Red Star.

DSA is on the rise, Trump’s polls are sinking fast, voters brace for Election Day, and more in this edition of “Red All Over,” Democratic Left’s occasional news roundup.

The post Trump Polls Tank, DC’s DSA Mayor, Voters’ Scary Halloween appeared first on Democratic Left.

This speech was delivered by Jenny HB on October 3rd at CDSA’s Field Day event. The text has been edited for clarity.

Comrades, we stand today in a moment unlike anything our movement has seen. Capitalism has developed itself into such a state of chronic dysfunction that even those most deeply committed to the status quo find themselves completely unable to articulate a path forward.

As the political mainstream continues to lose the consent of the people, our party grows stronger with each passing day and with the deepening crises we face.

We are able to offer a credible alternative to the status quo because, unlike the unprincipled liberal and reformist progressives, we have the ability to understand and engage with the world through a Marxist framework. This gives us not just moral clarity but a coherent structural critique.

We are able to identify the exploitation that capitalism inherently creates via the theft of the value created by our labor. We are able to identify the instability created by capitalism’s concentration of power in a tiny fraction of the population, and we see how this concentration leads to wars of imperialism as this class of oligarchs searches for excess profits and new markets.

While liberals have been blindsided by the rise of American techno-fascism and its atrocities at home and abroad, we know that this is the inevitable result of our economic system. As collapse approaches, our model of the world holds strong as liberalism falls to pieces.

DSA has found unprecedented success by addressing these realities head-on, and our growth is cause for celebration. But it isn’t simply because of our worldview and structural critiques. Change and success come from understanding the material circumstances in which we organize, recognizing our strengths and advantages, and planning a strategy accordingly. By acting in the interests of the whole of the working class, we create the potential for a coalition that encompasses the vast majority of people. That scale and broad appeal is our key structural advantage. Our task is to realize this potential and plan how to harness it to fundamentally change the systems that govern us.

Our political system is unequivocally a tool of class oppression, yet it is also terrain on which we can struggle. It can be a tool to harness our mass politics toward building working-class power and a working-class party. The power we gain through political struggle, through electoral victories, is more than just a trophy or a show of strength. It is real, material power. It allows us to change the rules and make the terrain more advantageous for our organizing.

We know that elections alone cannot win socialism. We do not and should not limit ourselves to electoral work. Instead, we use political power to strengthen our other efforts. We use it to support, expand, and radicalize labor unions. We use it to organize tenants. We use it to bring our message to the public and raise awareness among the working class of their natural antagonism towards the owning class and inherent solidarity with each other. We use it to make our political system more democratic and more representative.

Above all, we use it to build a working-class party that can be an agent for revolutionary change. Make no mistake, though we seek to build power for our party, we stand in service to the working class. That means we also have the responsibility to use the power we gain to visibly and materially improve the lives of the working class. The public has spent decades watching idealistic progressives who promise change and largely fail to deliver. We build and legitimize our party when we harness power for the public good.

When socialists make the buses run faster, or hold landlords to account, or freeze the rents, we achieve more than just clout — we earn the chance to change minds and raise class consciousness. When government delivers, people listen.

From every position we find ourselves in on the path to liberation, we must take stock of all the avenues of struggle available to us, use the power we have gained along the way to advantage our party in those struggles, and redouble our efforts.

Along the way we must also solidify what we have built, building durable institutions that can outlive any individuals. Just as capital creates a self-reproducing superstructure, we must build organizations as clearly defined structures of relations, not ad-hoc efforts of overburdened organizers.

Our party is strong precisely because of its potential to sustain and grow itself outside of cults of personality and rigid dogmas. We instead place our faith in the only force that merits it: in the radical participatory democracy of the working class.

It is of paramount importance that we guard and protect our internal democracy and culture of openness.

Radical democracy also means hearing the voices of those most disadvantaged under capitalism, centering them and their struggles. There is no socialism without Black liberation and an end to racism in every form, and there can be no mass politics without a truly multiracial party.

Comrades, we have our work cut out for us. I cannot promise socialism in our lifetimes or that we will win. But I truly believe if real change comes, it will be led by DSA. Being a part of this organization is the honor of a lifetime.

Thank you. Solidarity forever!

The post One Step, Then Another appeared first on Midwest Socialist.

Hundreds of races with DSA endorsees are on the ballot Nov. 3. Here are some Democratic Left will be following on election night.

The post DSA Races to Watch on Election Night appeared first on Democratic Left.

Eugene V. Debs

Eugene V. Debs (1855 – 1926) was a union leader and socialist politician. As presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America, Debs received 6% of the popular vote in 1912.

In June of 1918, Debs was arrested for a speech that urged resistance to the military draft in violation of the Espionage Act. He delivered the following statement to the court at his sentencing to ten years imprisonment.

Debs ran for president from prison in 1920, receiving 3.4% of the vote. President Warren G. Harding commuted his sentence on December 23, 1921.

Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.

I listened to all that was said in this court in support and justification of this prosecution, but my mind remains unchanged. I look upon the Espionage Law as a despotic enactment in flagrant conflict with democratic principles and with the spirit of free institutions. . . .

Your Honor, I have stated in this court that I am opposed to the social system in which we live; that I believe in a fundamental change – but if possible by peaceable and orderly means. . . .

Standing here this morning, I recall my boyhood. At fourteen I went to work in a railroad shop; at sixteen I was firing a freight engine on a railroad. I remember all the hardships and privations of that earlier day, and from that time until now my heart has been with the working class. I could have been in Congress long ago. I have preferred to go to prison. . . .

I am thinking this morning of the men in the mills and the factories; of the men in the mines and on the railroads. I am thinking of the women who for a paltry wage are compelled to work out their barren lives; of the little children who in this system are robbed of their childhood and in their tender years are seized in the remorseless grasp of Mammon and forced into the industrial dungeons, there to feed the monster machines while they themselves are being starved and stunted, body and soul. I see them dwarfed and diseased and their little lives broken and blasted because in this high noon of Christian civilization money is still so much more important than the flesh and blood of childhood. In very truth gold is god today and rules with pitiless sway in the affairs of men.

In this country – the most favored beneath the bending skies – we have vast areas of the richest and most fertile soil, material resources in inexhaustible abundance, the most marvelous productive machinery on earth, and millions of eager workers ready to apply their labor to that machinery to produce in abundance for every man, woman, and child – and if there are still vast numbers of our people who are the victims of poverty and whose lives are an unceasing struggle all the way from youth to old age, until at last death comes to their rescue and lulls these hapless victims to dreamless sleep, it is not the fault of the Almighty: it cannot be charged to nature, but it is due entirely to the outgrown social system in which we live that ought to be abolished not only in the interest of the toiling masses but in the higher interest of all humanity. . . .

I believe, Your Honor, in common with all Socialists, that this nation ought to own and control its own industries. I believe, as all Socialists do, that all things that are jointly needed and used ought to be jointly owned – that industry, the basis of our social life, instead of being the private property of a few and operated for their enrichment, ought to be the common property of all, democratically administered in the interest of all. . . .

I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence.

This order of things cannot always endure. I have registered my protest against it. I recognize the feebleness of my effort, but, fortunately, I am not alone. There are multiplied thousands of others who, like myself, have come to realize that before we may truly enjoy the blessings of civilized life, we must reorganize society upon a mutual and cooperative basis; and to this end we have organized a great economic and political movement that spreads over the face of all the earth.

There are today upwards of sixty millions of Socialists, loyal, devoted adherents to this cause, regardless of nationality, race, creed, color, or sex. They are all making common cause. They spread, with tireless energy, the propaganda of the new social order. They are waiting, watching, and working hopefully through all the hours of the day and the night. They are still in a minority. But they have learned how to be patient and to bide their time. They feel – they know, indeed – that the time is coming, in spite of all opposition, all persecution, when this emancipating gospel will spread among all the peoples, and when this minority will become the triumphant majority and, sweeping into power, inaugurate the greatest social and economic change in history.
In that day we shall have the universal commonwealth – the harmonious cooperation of every nation with every other nation on earth. . . .

Your Honor, I ask no mercy and I plead for no immunity. I realize that finally the right must prevail. I never so clearly comprehended as now the great struggle between the powers of greed and exploitation on the one hand and upon the other the rising hosts of industrial freedom and social justice.

I can see the dawn of the better day for humanity. The people are awakening. In due time they will and must come to their own.

When the mariner, sailing over tropic seas, looks for relief from his weary watch, he turns his eyes toward the southern cross, burning luridly above the tempest-vexed ocean. As the midnight approaches, the southern cross begins to bend, the whirling worlds change their places, and with starry finger-points the Almighty marks the passage of time upon the dial of the universe, and though no bell may beat the glad tidings, the lookout knows that the midnight is passing and that relief and rest are close at hand. Let the people everywhere take heart of hope, for the cross is bending, the midnight is passing, and joy cometh with the morning.

The post Statement to the Court Upon Being Convicted of Violating the Sedition Act (Sept. 18, 1918) first appeared on Rochester Red Star.