PINK HILL, N.C. — On many mornings, as tobacco plants tower around her, Saray Cambray Alvarez pulls a black plastic garbage bag over her 13-year-old body to protect her skin from leaves dripping with nicotine-tinged dew.
When Saray and other workers — including several more teenagers — get to the fields at 6, they punch holes through the bags for their arms. They are trying to avoid what is known as “green tobacco sickness,” or nicotine poisoning, which can cause vomiting, dizziness and irregular heart rates, among other symptoms.
Saray says that she sometimes has trouble breathing in the middle of all the heat, humidity and leaves, and that she often feels weary during her 12-hour shifts, when she moves through the rows to pluck unwanted flowers or pull off oversize leaves for the harvest.
“You get very thirsty,” said Saray, who sometimes waits an hour in 90-plus heat for a drink until her crew returns to the opposite side of a field, where the water jugs are parked. “It’s too hard for me, and it’s too hot.”
Photo
Cured tobacco hangs in a barn in Deep Run, N.C.CreditTravis Dove for The New York Times
Saray says she is lucky not to have become really sick, whereas others have become visibly ill. “Last week, they made us work when it was raining, and I got water in my mouth and I felt dizziness and nausea,” Ana Flores said of exposure to wet tobacco leaves — the plants’ nicotine often dissolves in rain and dew. At 16, she is spending her third summer in the tobacco fields. “I didn’t throw up, but other people did.”
For years, public health experts and federal labor officials have sought to bar teenagers under 16 from the tobacco fields, citing the grueling hours and the harmful exposure to nicotine and other chemicals, but their efforts have been blocked. Three years ago, Hilda Solis, then the labor secretary, proposed declaring work in tobacco fields and with tractors hazardous — making that type of work illegal for those under 16. Opponents of child labor note that Brazil, India and some other tobacco-producing nations already prohibit anyone under 18 from working on tobacco farms.
The Obama administration withdrew Ms. Solis’s proposed rule after encountering intense opposition from farm groups and Republican lawmakers. Agricultural organizations said the move would hurt family farms and make it harder for young people to learn farming skills.
The administration killed the proposal in April 2012, when the president was running for re-election, saying it would not pursue these regulations for “the duration of the Obama administration.” But some proponents still hope to revive the tobacco part of the proposal once this year’s midterm elections are over.
In the meantime, public health experts say hundreds of children under 16 like Saray continue to work in America’s tobacco fields. Dr. Thomas A. Arcury, an expert on tobacco and migrant workers and a professor at the Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, said tobacco work was particularly harmful to children, pointing to nicotine poisoning, pesticides and dehydration.
“They’re not small adults, they’re children,” he said. “They have more surface area to body mass. They’re still developing neurologically. Their reproductive systems are developing.”
Federal law allows those 12 and older to work on farms for unlimited hours, as long as there is no conflict with school. For nonfarm work, federal law sets 14 as the minimum age and restricts work for children under 16 to eight hours a day.
Tobacco growers say that the practice of using young teenagers is rare, and that many growers decline to employ anyone under 16. But interviews with many teenagers and experts suggest that the practice is still prevalent. Many of the young workers are immigrants or children of migrant workers, whose families often have few employment options and are struggling to make ends meet.
Carl Fillichio, a Labor Department spokesman, declined to discuss the failure of Ms. Solis’s effort, but he said that since then, his agency had stepped up enforcement and urged growers and workers to reduce health risks. “We are concerned about the serious health effects that may be experienced by young people working on tobacco farms,” he said.
Even as smoking has declined in the United States, North Carolina remains the nation’s largest producer of tobacco, with roughly 1,800 tobacco farms employing 30,000 workers picking 400 million pounds of the crop annually.
Photo
Workers harvesting tobacco on a farm in Deep Run. North Carolina remains the nation’s largest producer of tobacco.CreditTravis Dove for The New York Times
Graham Boyd, executive vice president for the Tobacco Growers Association of North Carolina, said most tobacco farmers go beyond what is required in terms of labor compliance. “There is absolutely zero benefit in mistreating farm workers,” he said, noting that abusing workers was a quick way to end up without enough people at harvest time. And he acknowledged the danger of nicotine poisoning and other tough conditions in the fields.
“No one is going to say it’s a day at the beach,” Mr. Boyd said.
But few tobacco growers use workers under 18, he said, adding that his organization would be “open-minded” to a ban on workers under 18.
With no government regulations in the offing, 54 groups, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Consumers League and the A.F.L.-C.I.O., appealed to the major tobacco companies in June, urging them to prohibit their growers from employing anyone under 18.
Big tobacco corporations say they strongly oppose the illegal use of child labor. Philip Morris International bans its growers from using workers under 18, a measure that goes well beyond American law. Some labor contractors, however, evidently flout this requirement without the growers’ knowledge.
“Our standards are generally stricter than U.S. law both in terms of the age limits for children to do work on the farm and for the types of activities that children can do on the farms,” said Miguel Coleta, the company’s director of external labor policies. “We would welcome a strengthening of the U.S. regulatory framework to align with our standards.”
Mr. Coleta said the company had stopped doing business with 20 American growers over the last year because they were using workers under age 18.
Neither Reynolds nor Altria has rules as tough as Philip Morris.
Jeffrey Caldwell, an Altria spokesman, said his company did not “condone the unlawful employment of farm workers, especially under 18.” In a statement, Reynolds said its supplier code of conduct “states that domestic tobacco growers may not assign anyone under 18 to work” that is defined as hazardous. Because federal law and regulations do not define tobacco field work as hazardous, it remains permissible for workers under age 18.
Pat Raines, president of the Burley Tobacco Growers Cooperative Association, based in Lexington, Ky., said he believed that the use of young teenagers in tobacco fields was minimal. And he said he agreed that minors should be barred from hazardous tobacco work, like climbing 20-foot ladders in tobacco barns, but added that most field work was not hazardous.
Photo
Esmeralda Juarez, 15, right, earns $8.50 an hour. Her sister Neftali, 19, has been working in the tobacco fields since she was 12.CreditTravis Dove for The New York Times
To proponents of higher age limits, however, dangers lurk in many corners. The tobacco fields pose “a whole environment of risk,” said Margaret Wurth, an expert on children’s health at Human Rights Watch. “It’s the nicotine, the pesticides, the heat, the long hours, the pressure they get from employers.”
Last year, Human Rights Watch interviewed 141 tobacco workers, ages 7 to 17, for a lengthy study, finding that three-quarters had suffered nausea, dizziness and rashes.
Esmeralda Juarez, 15, related other problems. With long, dark hair and a shy smile, she told of a labor contractor who had pulled at her clothes, snapped pictures of her from behind and called her “princess” and “baby.” Most tobacco farms, she said, had no portable bathrooms, and while some women go to the woods, “I wait until I get home. I just hold it in.”
“There’s nothing good about this job, except that you get paid,” said Esmeralda, who earns $8.50 an hour. Her sister, Neftali, 19, has been working in the fields since she was 12.
Edinson Bueso Ramirez, 15, recalled summers when he worked with many 12- and 13-year-olds, even a 10-year-old. But this year, he is the youngest on his crew.
“They take advantage of the younger workers,” he said. “They rip you off on pay.” Edinson, whose family fled Honduras because of gang violence, plans to join the Marines after high school.
“My mom, she worries I might get hurt at work,” he said. “I tell her, ‘We need it to pay the bills.’ ”
Many of the teenagers said they worked to help their families.
Jessica Rodriguez, a cashier at Hardees, said she worried about her sons, Fernando, 13, and Brandon, 16, working in tobacco, although she said they could protect themselves from the chemicals.
“If my boys are going to be responsible, I don’t see why they can’t do it,” Ms. Rodriguez said. They work, she explained, because “I was behind on bills. We were close to being evicted last year. That’s why they started.”
Ana Flores, whose mother also works in the fields, shares similar concerns about making ends meet, with younger siblings and little money to go around. “They once sprayed right next to us,” Ana, who runs cross-country for her high school, said of pesticides. “My head was hurting. At night, I could hardly sleep.”
Ana has a brother, 9, and a sister, 11, who will be old enough to work tobacco next summer.
“I wouldn’t want them to be working in this,” Ana said. “But my mom, she’s single and has a lot of kids, and I have to help her.”
"PINK HILL, N.C. — On many mornings, as tobacco plants tower around her, Saray Cambray Alvarez pulls a black plastic garbage bag over her 13-year-old body to protect her skin from leaves dripping with nicotine-tinged dew."
"NEWPORT, Wales — President Obama escalated the American response to the marauding Islamic State in Iraq and Syria on Friday, recruiting at least nine allies to help crush the organization and offering the outlines of a coordinated military strategy that echoes the war on terror developed by his predecessor, George W. Bush, more than a decade ago."
"On Thursday, the European Central Bank announced a series of new steps it was taking in an effort to boost Europe’s economy. There was a whiff of desperation about the announcement, which was reassuring. Europe, which is doing worse than it did in the 1930s, is clearly in the grip of a deflationary vortex, and it’s good to know that the central bank understands that. But its epiphany may have come too late. It’s far from clear that the measures now on the table will be strong enough to reverse the downward spiral."
So a bit more of Palestine has slidden down the plughole. A thousand more acres of Palestinian land stolen by the Israeli government – for “appropriation” is theft, is it not? – and the world has made the usual excuses. The Americans found it “counter-productive” to peace, which is probably a bit less forceful than its reaction would be if Mexico were to bite off a 1,000-acre chunk of Texas and decided to build homes there for its illegal immigrants in the US. But this is “Palestine” (inverted commas more necessary than ever) and Israel has been getting away with theft, albeit not on quite this scale – it is the biggest land heist in 30 years – ever since it signed up to the Oslo agreement in 1993.
The Rabin-Arafat handshake, the promises and handovers of territory and military withdrawals, and the determination to leave everything important (Jerusalem, refugees, the right of return) to the end, until everyone trusted each other so much that the whole thing would be a doddle – no wonder the world bestowed its financial generosity upon the pair. But this latest land-grab not only reduces “Palestine” but continues the circle of concrete around Jerusalem to cut Palestinians off from both the capital they are supposed to share with Israelis and from Bethlehem.
It was instructive to learn the Israeli-Jewish Etzion council regarded this larceny as punishment for the murder of three Israeli teenagers in June. “The goal of the murders of those three youths was to sow fear among us, to disrupt our daily lives and to call into doubt our right [sic] to the land,” the Etzion council announced. “Our response is to strengthen settlement.” This must be the first time that land in “Palestine” has been acquired not through excuses about security or land deeds – or on God’s personal authority – but out of revenge.
And it raises an interesting precedent. If an innocent Israeli life – cruelly taken – is worth around 330 acres of land, then an innocent Palestinian life – equally cruelly taken – must surely equal the same. And if even half the 2,200 Palestinian dead of Gaza last month – and this is a conservative figure – were innocent, then the Palestinians presumably now have the right to take over 330,000 acres of Israeli land, in reality much more. But however “counter-productive” this might be, I’m sure America would not stand for it. Israel takes land, Palestinians lose land; that’s the way it works. And thus it has been since 1948, and that is how it will continue.
There will never be a “Palestine” and the latest territorial robbery is merely another small punctuation mark in the book of sorrow which the Palestinians must read as their dreams of statehood wither. Nabil Abu Rudeineh, the spokesman for the Palestinian “President”, Mahmoud Abbas, said his boss and the “moderate forces” in Palestine had been “stabbed in the back” by the Israeli decision, which is putting it mildly. Abbas has a back covered in knife wounds. What else did he expect when he wrote a book about Palestinian-Israeli relations without once using the word “occupation”?
So we’re back to the same old game. Abbas cannot negotiate with anyone unless he speaks for Hamas as well as the Palestinian Authority. As Israel knows. As America knows. As the EU knows. But each time Abbas tries to put together a unity government, we all screech that Hamas is a “terrorist” organisation. And Israel says it cannot talk to a “terrorist” organisation which demands the destruction of Israel – even though Israel used to say the same of Arafat and, in those days, helped Hamas to build more mosques in Gaza and the West Bank as a counterweight to Fatah and all the other “terrorists” up in Beirut.
Of course, if Abbas speaks only for himself, Israel will tell him what it has told him before: that without his control of Gaza, Israel has no one to negotiate with. But does it matter any more? There should be a special strap headline above all reports of this kind: “Goodbye, Palestine”.
"Last week, France’s executive duo — President François Hollande and Prime Minister Manuel Valls shuffled the French cabinet, getting rid of the economy minister, Arnaud Montebourg, after he publicly criticized the government’s fealty to German-imposed austerity measures. Emmanuel Macron, a business-friendly former Rothschild banker and 36-year-old political prodigy, has been anointed his replacement."
"The trend away from classes based on reading and listening passively to lectures, and toward a more active role for students, has its most profound effects on black students and those whose parents did not go to college, a new study of college students shows."
This story is included with an NYT Opinion subscription. Learn more »
WASHINGTON — WITH the news dominated by stories of Americans dying at home and abroad, it might seem trivial to debate how history is taught in our schools. But if we want students to understand what is happening in Missouri or the Middle East, they need an unvarnished picture of our past and the skills to understand and interpret that picture. People don’t kill one another just for recreation. They have reasons. Those reasons are usually historical.
Last month, the College Board released a revised “curriculum framework” to help high school teachers prepare students for the Advanced Placement test in United States history. Like the college courses the test is supposed to mirror, the A.P. course calls for a dialogue with the past — learning how to ask historical questions, interpret documents and reflect both appreciatively and critically on history.
Navigating the tension between patriotic inspiration and historical thinking, between respectful veneration and critical engagement, is an especially difficult task, made even more complicated by a marked shift in the very composition of “we the people.” This fall, whites will constitute a minority of public-school students in the United States. “Our” past is now more diverse than we once thought, whether we like it or not.
It turns out that some Americans don’t like it. A member of the Texas State Board of Education has accused the College Board of “promoting among our students a disdain for American principles and a lack of knowledge of major American achievements,” like those of the founding fathers and of the generals who fought in the Civil War and World War II. The Republican National Committee says the framework offers “a radically revisionist view” that “emphasizes negative aspects of our nation’s history.” Stanley Kurtz, in National Review, called it “an attempt to hijack the teaching of U.S. history on behalf of a leftist political and ideological perspective.”
Disagreement is not a bad thing. But learning history means engaging with aspects of the past that are troubling, as well as those that are heroic.
There was a time, for example, when historians didn’t worry much about the slave trade and the emergence of an economy based on forced labor. Historians likened the plantation to a “school,” and emancipated people as children let out of class too soon. Only slightly more than a half-century ago, historians began to “revise” that narrative, examining sources previously ignored or unseen, informed by new ideas about race and human agency. More recently, scholars have revised 19th-century images of the “vanishing Indian,” a wildly inaccurate narrative that lives on in public monuments and popular lore, and has implications for public policy.
This essential process of reconsideration and re-evaluation takes place in all disciplines; imagine a diagnosis from a physician who does not read “revisionist” medical research.
Revisionism is necessary — and it generates controversy, especially when new scholarship finds its way into classrooms. But debate over what is taught in our schools is hardly new. Part of the logic underlying the creation of Catholic schools in 19th-century America had to do with a public-school curriculum that took a distinctly Protestant view of religious conflicts and cultural values. Since the early 20th century, battles have been waged over the relative place of “history” and “civics” in public education, a dichotomy that many professional historians don’t even accept.
In 1994, Lynne Cheney, a former chairwoman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, pronounced the results of a congressionally mandated set of national standards in American history “grim and gloomy,” distorted by “political correctness,” and deficient for paying too much attention to the Ku Klux Klan and McCarthyism and too little to Robert E. Lee and the Wright brothers.
The latest accusations arise from belief born of assumption rather than careful reading. The document is not a curriculum; in the words of David Coleman, president of the College Board, “it is just a framework, requiring teachers to populate it with content required by their local standards and priorities.” Those who assume that America’s founders are neglected seem not to have actually read the material. The Declaration of Independence stands front and center alongside the Constitution in the section devoted to “experiments with democratic ideas and republican forms of government,” including those of France, Haiti and Latin America. The framework makes clear that these “new ideas” included evangelical religion.
The framework even makes a bow to American exceptionalism — noting “the emergence of distinctly American cultural expressions” in the new republic and declaring that “the United States developed the world’s first modern mass democracy.” For good measure, one can find Washington’s farewell address — not to mention the Articles of Confederation, state constitutions, the Emancipation Proclamationand the Four Freedoms — in both the curriculum framework and thesample exam released by the College Board.
The critics are unhappy, perhaps, that a once comforting story has become, in the hands of scholars, more complex, unsettling, provocative and compelling.
And there’s the rub. Fewer and fewer college professors are teaching the United States history our grandparents learned — memorizing a litany of names, dates and facts — and this upsets some people. “College-level work” now requires attention to context, and change over time; includes greater use of primary sources; and reassesses traditional narratives. This is work that requires and builds empathy, an essential aspect of historical thinking.
The educators and historians who worked on the new history framework were right to emphasize historical thinking as an essential aspect of civic culture. Their efforts deserve a spirited debate, one that is always open to revision, rather than ill-informed assumptions or political partisanship.
"MEXICO CITY — All over Mexico, children have begun making their way to school for the start of a new year — many stepping into run-down buildings without running water, new textbooks or trained teachers."
"A few days after Russian forces invaded Crimea, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey was asked at a confidential meeting of Republican activists how he would have handled the situation differently from President Obama."