Examples of Approved Resolutions

The following resolutions were approved at the August 18, 2023; August 7, 2020; August 10, 2019; and August 11, 2018 Annual Business Meetings.

Resolution 1

Resolution 2

Resolution 3

Resolution 4

Resolution 5

Resolution 6

Resolution 7

Resolution 8

RESOLUTION 1 Approved in 2023: Resolution to Oppose State Interference with Academic Freedom

Submitted by: Shannon Carter, Gender Division; Dana Moss, Conflict, Social Action, and Change Division; Janelle Pham, Sexual Behavior, Politics, and Communities Division; Myron Strong, Educational Problems Division 

WHEREAS, democracy relies on freedom of speech, 

WHEREAS, college and university classrooms are important spaces for the engagement with and discussion of important social issues under the terms of academic freedom without state interference,

WHEREAS, the production and dissemination of academic knowledge contains within it a set of checks and balances, including disciplinary standards for conducting research, the peer review process, and department- and institutional-level review of curriculum and pedagogy that assure empirical rigor and responsible teaching, 

WHEREAS, state interference in the production and/or dissemination of academic knowledge is a threat to democracy and the advancement of society, 

WHEREAS, several state legislatures have drafted and will likely pass bills that limit educators from teaching certain concepts and ideas, including but not limited to theories and research that present inequalities based in social systems such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc. as well as the intersections of these systems as operating through social structures and institutions, 

WHEREAS, these and other bills also prohibit colleges and universities from recruiting faculty from diverse backgrounds as well as those whose work amplifies marginalized perspectives and voices, 

WHEREAS, the operation of power and inequalities through social structures and institutions has been documented in decades of social science research and the coverage of which is central to the sociological study of social problems,

WHEREAS, the production and dissemination of such knowledge prepares college students for job markets in myriad fields,

WHEREAS, the Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP), the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the American Sociological Association (ASA), and other professional organizations already have public statements supporting academic freedom,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP) will produce a statement explaining the social-scientific understanding of structural and institutional inequalities, affirming the importance of academic freedom, defending initiatives to diversify faculty, and denouncing state interference, and publish the statement on their website, and

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP) will collaborate with leaders of other organizations in the discipline, including but not limited to the American Sociological Association, to sign on to the statement or produce, publish, and disseminate a similar one, and collaborate with organizations in other disciplines to do the same, and

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP) will send the statement to multiple news outlets, including but not limited to The New York TimesWashington Post, and Huffington Post.

Return to Top

RESOLUTION 2 Approved in 2023: Resolution to Support Gender-Affirming Healthcare

Submitted by: Shannon Carter, Gender Division; Jennifer Bulanda, Virginia Berndt, and Yuying Shen, Division of Health, Health Policy, and Health Services

Whereas, gender-affirming healthcare is associated with positive mental health and social experiences and decreased rates of depression, suicidal ideation, and attempted and completed suicide for transgender and gender-diverse adolescents and young adults,  

Whereas, several U.S. states are enacting bans on gender-affirming healthcare for transgender and gender-diverse adolescents and young adults,

Whereas, legislative bans politicize healthcare access and perpetuate stigma and social exclusion for transgender and gender-diverse people, 

Whereas, legislative bans disproportionately impact racial/ethnic minoritized groups and people who have limited economic and other resources that would allow them to otherwise obtain gender-affirming healthcare,

THEREFORE Be it Resolved, that the Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP) will join the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine,2 American Public Health Association,3 American Academy of Pediatrics,4 American Academy of Family Physicians,4 American College of Physicians,4 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,4 American Osteopathic Association,4 American Psychiatric Association,4 American Medical Association,5 American Nurses Association,6 American Psychiatric Association,7 in writing a statement affirming support for gender affirming healthcare, and

Be it Resolved, that the Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP) will communicate support for gender affirming healthcare to the leaders of both parties in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, the President of the United States, and the governors and departments of health in states where gender-affirming healthcare is under attack8.  


1. Human Rights Campaign. Letter Opposing Anti-Transgender Laws. Oppose Anti-Transgender Laws (apha.org)

2.  Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. 2023. SAHM Statement about the Politicization of Gender-Affirming Care and Threats of Violence Against Clinicians. SAHM Statement about the Politicization of Gender-Affirming Care and Threats of ‎Violence Against Cl – SAHM (adolescenthealth.org)

3. American Public Health Association. 2016. Promoting Transgender and Gender Minority Health through Inclusive Policies and PracticesPromoting Transgender and Gender Minority Health through Inclusive Policies and Practices (apha.org)

4. American Academy of Pediatrics. 2021. Frontline Physicians Oppose Legislation That Interferes In or Penalizes Patient Care. 

5. American Medical Association. 2021. AMA Reinforces Opposition to Restrictions on Transgender Medical Care.

6. American Nurses Association. 2022. American Nurses Association Opposes Restrictions on Transgender Healthcare and Criminalizing Gender-Affirming Care.

7. American Psychiatric Association. 2020. Position Statement on Treatment of Transgender (Trans) and Gender Diverse Youth.

8. The divisions proposing the resolution will prepare a draft of the statement and provide the list of email addresses for dissemination.

Return to Top

RESOLUTION 3 Approved in 2023: Resolution Guaranteeing and Furthering Socio-Economic Rights

Sponsors: Ezra Temko, Corey Stevens, Amanda Jane, Corbin Johannpeter

WHEREAS, the Society for the Study of Social Problem (SSSP)’s purpose includes “to foster higher quality of life [and] social welfare;i and,

WHEREAS, SSSP affirms the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948,ii recognizing that human have inherent dignity that must be afforded to us; and,

WHEREAS, human flourishing requires basic needs are met, such as nourishment (e.g., nutritious food and clean water), shelter (e.g., safe and stable housing), clothing, quality and comprehensive healthcare, safe and healthy working conditions and rights to collective bargaining, educational equity and access, from preschool through postsecondary education, and highspeed internet access; and,

WHEREAS, the United States is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, yet also one of the most unequal;iii and,

WHEREAS,over 1 in 10 U.S.-Americans are below the official poverty rate, and poverty rates and impacts differ across the country by various social locations and their intersections (e.g., race, citizenship, disability status, population density, gender, sexuality);iv and,

WHEREAS,life expectancy in the United States is declining;v and

WHEREAS, President Franklin D. Roosevelt recognized in his 1944 State of the Union that the current Bill of Rights on its own is insufficient, and that U.S.-Americans also require basic economic rights;vi and,

WHEREAS, in 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted in 1966, on behalf of the United States;vii and,

WHEREAS, in 2021, Congresspersons Alma Adams, Jan Schakowsky, and Ilhan Omar introduced legislation to the 117th Congress to amend the U.S. Constitution to guarantee U.S.-Americans’ rights to housing, health care, education, and nutrition;viii 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that SSSP affirms it is the U.S. government’s obligation to guarantee its residents basic socio-economic rights; and,

BE IT RESOLVED,that SSSP urges the U.S. Senate to ratify the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and,

BE IT RESOLVED, that SSSP urges Congress to propose amending the U.S. constitution to guarantee basic economic rights; and,

BE IT RESOLVED, that SSSP urges candidates for public office in the United States, including the 2024 U.S. presidential candidates, to support the above initiatives, to declare that basic socio-economic needs are human rights everyone deserves without exception, and to recognize this in their platforms through a robust policy agenda to end unnecessary suffering and support human flourishing; and,

BE IT RESOLVED, that SSSP will share a copy of this resolution with the President of the United States of America, Speaker of the U.S. House, U.S. House Majority Leader, U.S. House Minority Leader, U.S. Senate President Pro Tempore, U.S. Senate Democratic Leader, and U.S. Senate Republican Leader.ix 

[ix] Contact list provided by authors of resolution.

Return to Top

RESOLUTION 4 Approved in 2020: Resolution to Support Improved Conditions for Contingent/Adjunct or Non-Tenure Track Faculty

Submitted by Keith Johnson and Gillian Niebrugge-Brantley

Whereas, there has been a shift in higher education over the last half-century so that “tenure system faculty are now a privileged minority” (Report of the ASA Task Force 2019: 6—hereafter Task Force) and over 50% of instructors in public and private institutions of higher education are now “contingent” or “adjunct” faculty (GAO 2017: 15, n32)—a condition so pervasive that one organization representing these instructors is titled “The New Faculty Majority.” This shift has been accompanied and achieved by a policy of deliberately ignoring the crucial role and plight of non-tenure track faculty in higher education today. One example of this is the confusing range of titles for these faculty, that are frequently employed in contradictory ways among institutions.

Whereas, what we do know about the treatment of these faculty is that it is not good: it is detrimental to the state of higher education and the workers who labor as non-tenure track faculty. Non-tenure track faculty workers are typically employed under the following conditions, all of which create a condition of precarity:

  1. low salaries— “Overall, part-time faculty respondents report low compensation rates across all institutional categories. Toutkoushian and Bellas (2003) found that part-time faculty earn approximately 60% less than comparable full-time faculty in institutional salary when expressed on an hourly basis.” (Task Force 2019: 14)
  2. absence of benefits— “Benefits are a particular problem for part-time faculty. The CAW survey (2012) found that only 22% of contingent faculty respondents had access to health insurance coverage through their academic employer. The American Federation of Teachers offered similar findings in a 2010 survey, which found that 28% of part-time faculty had health coverage through their academic employment. “Health insurance benefits appear to be linked with course load,” the latter survey found. “Just 11 percent of those who teach only one course receive employer health benefits, while 26 percent of those who teach two courses and 39 percent who teach three courses or more receive benefits.” (AFT 2010: 14) (Task Force 2019: 14)
  3. job security is minimal, contracts are typically issued only around the start of a term, if at all; renewal is typically not guaranteed; (Task Force 2019: 15)
  4. non-tenure track faculty are typically excluded from participation in governance at the institution and from professional development opportunities; (Task Force 2019: 21)
  5. office space ranges from shared to non-existent; (Task Force 2019: 21)
  6. computers and copying facilities are typically sub-standard and restricted. (Task Force 2019: 21)

Whereas, this combination of conditions is detrimental to the educational experience, leading to:

  1. lack of time to prepare syllabi and all the problems attendant on that first difficulty; (Task Force 2019: 18)
  2. being forced to order texts at the last moment; (Task Force 2019: 19)
  3. working without adequate access to computer, copying, and library facilities; (Task Force 2019: 18)
  4. working without orientation to governing policies for student conduct; (Task Force 2019: 19)
  5. working around a substandard office situation (frequently having to meet students in coffee shops or one’s car); (Task Force 2019: 20-21)
  6. having to teach at more than one institution in order to earn a living wage; (Task Force 2019: 18, 21)
  7. going unrewarded, unaided, and unrecognized for one’s own scholarly achievements. (Task Force 2019: 21-22)

Whereas, because this condition of precarity, maintained by low salaries and lack of job security, gives administrators more flexibility in terms of costs and scheduling, administrators have little interest in improving the situation for non-tenure track faculty, which frequently function as part of the institution’s financial margin.

THEREFORE, be it resolved that SSSP request US News and World Report, in its widely used rankings and assessment of colleges and universities in the United States, to include as a criterion how well institutions provide for non-tenure track faculty. The following criteria should be included as components of the final evaluation:

  1. qualifications of the non-tenure track faculty as compared with tenure-system faculty at the institution;
  2. salaries as compared with tenure-system faculty at the institution;
  3. benefits as compared with tenure-system faculty at the institution;
  4. inclusion in governance as compared with tenure-system faculty at the institution;
  5. office space and access to technology and library resources as compared with tenure-system faculty at the institution
  6. professional development opportunities as compared with tenure-system faculty at the institution;
  7. job security as compared with tenure-system faculty at the institution.

Return to Top

RESOLUTION 5 Approved in 2019: Resolution Affirming the Principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Submitted by Louis E. Esparza

Whereas human rights affirm the universal dignity of each person;

Whereas knowledge of and support for universal human rights is essential for the maintenance of peace and the progress of social justice;

Whereas the Universal Declaration of Human Rights grants all human beings the right to adequate food, water, shelter, health care, education, life, liberty, nationality, marriage, social security, religion, assembly, work, property, leisure, unionization, expression, among other civil, political, and economic rights and without discrimination of any kind¹;

Whereas the Universal Declaration of human rights was written after the violent death of well over 50,000,000² people in World War II with the intention of averting the worst of human violence, brokered by Eleanor Roosevelt, and passed unopposed in the General Assembly of the United Nations;

Whereas governments, corporations, and individuals continue to violate universal human rights in the United States and abroad;

Whereas the violation of universal human rights leads to the degradation of the human condition;

Whereas the Purpose of the Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP) includes fostering “higher quality of life, social welfare, and positive social relations in society and the global community and to undertake any activity related thereto or necessary or desirable for the accomplishment of the foregoing purposes;

Whereas the Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP) is a member of the Human Rights Coalition of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which defends the right of all individuals to benefit from the advancements of science;

THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP) affirms the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948; and

Be it resolved, that the Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP) will communicate support for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the leaders of both parties in the House of Representatives and the Senate and the President of the United States; and

Be it further resolved, that the SSSP will stand with the nations and other public and private entities that remain steadfast to upholding the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, posting this resolution on its website.

Attachment B: Text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights


Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge³,

NOW, THEREFORE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.


¹ https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html

² Roberts, JM. 1999. Twentieth Century.

³ https://www.aaas.org/programs/science-and-human-rights-coalition/coalition-members

Return to Top

RESOLUTION 6 Approved in 2019: Resolution in Support of the Green New Deal

Submitted by Todd E. Vachon

Whereas, climate change is an urgent crisis confronting people all over the world: extreme weather, rising sea levels, and pollution are wreaking havoc on human health, natural ecosystems, and all life on the planet¹; and

Whereas, the climate crisis exacerbates already-existing systemic injustices along racial, regional, social, and economic lines²; and

Whereas, the climate crisis highlights growing income inequality and a decline in labor standards in the United States³; and

Whereas, the climate crisis has had a disproportionate impact on “frontline communities” (including Indigenous communities, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth⁴); and

Whereas, the Society for the Study of Social Problems has previously resolved to support a “just transition to renewable energy with justice for workers and frontline communities⁵;” and

Whereas, the Green New Deal Resolution, sponsored by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey, was introduced, February 6, 2019 in the U.S. Congress; and

Whereas, the Green New Deal Resolution is an extremely ambitious framework for a series of projects and policies to achieve the following goals, among others, by the year 2030: net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for frontline communities and workers; millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all; investments in U.S. infrastructure, industry, and society to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century; clean air and water, climate resiliency, sustainable livelihoods, and access to nature for all for generations to come; and justice and equity for frontline communities by repairing current and historic harms; and

Whereas, the Green New Deal resolution calls for “transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses⁶;”

THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Society for the Study of Social Problems wholeheartedly endorses the Green New Deal resolution and urges its swift adoption by the U.S. Congress; and

Be it further resolved that the Society for the Study of Social Problems reaffirms its commitment to a 100% clean and renewable energy economy, including: A massive investment in energy efficient infrastructure to ensure clean drinking water, affordable and efficient public transportation, energy efficient buildings and schools; Good jobs and union-friendly policies in the green energy economy; and Investment in good jobs in communities historically dependent on the fossil fuel industry so that no workers and no communities are left behind.

FINALLY, be it resolved that the Society for the Study of Social Problems will communicate support for the Green New Deal Resolution to leaders of both parties in the House of Representatives and the Senate, all members of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the House Committee of Natural Resources, the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency, the President of the United States of America, and all candidates for the office of President of the United States of America⁷.


¹ U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2017. Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Fourth National Climate Assessment. Retrieved January 12, 2018 (www.globalchange.gov).

² Worland, Justin. 2019. “Climate Change Has Already Increased Global Inequality. It Will Only Get Worse.” Time, April 22: http://time.com/5575523/climate-change-inequality/

³ Irwin, Neil. 2019. “Climate Change’s Giant Impact on the Economy: 4 Key Issues.” New York Times, January 17: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/upshot/how-to-think-about-the-costs-of-climate-change.html

 Tucker, Josephine, et al. 2015. “Social Vulnerability in Three High-poverty Climate Change Hot Spots: What does the Climate Change Literature Tell Us?” Regional

 SSSP. 2018. RESOLUTION 1: Just Transition to Renewable Energy with Justice for Workers and Frontline Communities. https://www.sssp1.org/file/2018AM/2018_Approved_Resolutions.pdf

 116th Congress. 2019. H.R. 109: Recognizing the Duty of the Federal Government to Create a Green New Deal https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text

 All contact information for these offices provided in attached document.

Return to Top

RESOLUTION 7 Approved in 2018Just Transition to Renewable Energy with Justice for Workers and Frontline Communities

Submitted by Todd Vachon on behalf of the Labor Studies Division

Whereas, the SSSP has previously acknowledged the overwhelming scientific consensus that global climate change is due to human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation that have caused a dramatic increase in the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere; and

Whereas, the SSSP has resolved to stand in solidarity with the policies, targets, and practices established by the Paris Climate Accord; and

Whereas, national and global income and wealth inequality continues to rise to levels never before seen;

Whereas, moving rapidly toward a renewable energy economy can—with the right policies in place—be the source of large numbers of new, well-paying jobs that will reinvigorate local economies; and

Whereas, climate justice and economic justice can only be achieved when working people and frontline communities are at the center of the transition to renewable energy; and

Whereas, a variety of policy tools are available to move rapidly toward renewable energy while providing well-paying stable jobs, income protection, and retraining for workers and communities adversely affected; including, but not limited to: 1) a progressive tax on carbon pollution with the revenue used to support the income, retraining, and provision of new jobs for workers and communities hurt by the transition and those that have historically borne the brunt of pollution from these facilities; and 2) policies referenced in the Clean Energy Worker Just Transition Act, and the “100 By 50” Actthat seeks to move towards 100% renewable energy by 2050 while providing protection for workers and communities affected by the transition, and also lowering barriers that make it difficult to organize workers into unions in the new renewable energy jobs;

THEREFORE, Be it resolved that the SSSP reaffirms its support for the Paris Agreement as a contribution to driving a rapid and managed just transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy; and

Be it resolved, that the SSSP will support measures that provide strong protection for workers and communities that are adversely affected by the transition away from fossil fuels, such as those detailed in the Clean Energy Worker Just Transition Actand the “100 By 50” Act; and

Be it resolved, that the SSSP supports the demands of frontline communities for environmental justice, including access to newly created jobs in the renewable energy sector; and

Be it resolved, that the SSSP will utilize its communication resources and work to inform and mobilize members through actions and mechanisms, including, but not limited to, petition gathering, letters of support, organizational rallies, contacting elected officials, in support of a just transition to a renewable energy economy.

Be it further resolved, that the SSSP will communicate support for Clean Energy Worker Just Transition Actand the “100 By 50” Act, to leaders of both parties in the House of Representatives and the Senate, all members of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the House Committee of Natural Resources, the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the President of the United States of America.

Return to Top

RESOLUTION 8 Approved in 2018: Resolution on Disarming Campus Police

Submitted by Amara Miller and B.B. Buchanan

Whereas, the history of policing in the United States is a history of racial terror; one which grows directly out of runaway slave patrols¹, the black codes², and anti-immigrant border patrols³,

Whereasthe history of policing is also a history of class oppression and violence against union organizing⁴, including roots in capitalist systems that frame disabled populations as “demographic threats”⁵,

Whereas, police have also historically targeted gender and sexual minorities in support of a heteropatriarchal legal system⁶,

Whereas, campus police greatly increased their presence and power on university and college campuses in the 1960s and 70s to quell student protest⁷, especially those led by marginalized populations⁸,

Whereas, many campuses have a long history of activist suppression⁹, including but not limited to the use of pepper spray¹º; and,

Whereas, university and college campuses continue to exhibit incidents of racialized violence by police forces¹¹, and in which their access to weapons increases their threat to the students and university and college workers¹²,

Whereas, police violence on university and college campuses continues to disproportionately affect and endanger those who are not only people of color, but also those who are disabled¹³, LGBTQ+¹⁴, and/or lower-income student and worker populations¹⁵,

Whereas, police forces have increasing access to military-grade weaponry and vehicles¹⁶. Although a temporary ban was placed on this by then President Obama, our president has promised to reinstate the transfer of military grade weapons to police departments¹⁷.

Whereas, despite not needing deadly weapons in the course of their job¹⁸, campus police continue to utilize a culture of fear around school shootings to justify their increasing armory of military grade hardware,

Whereas, there is evidence that campus police rarely intervene in school shootings until after the events are resolved¹⁹, when they mostly serve to provide secondary support. Despite not demonstrating need²º, we still see a move towards increased militarization and armament,

Whereas, the majority of SSSP members have as their workplace university or college campuses, which have long served as central places for education, organizing, and activism, making the police a health and safety issue and marking these campuses as important spaces of influence and change,

THEREFORE Be it resolved, that the Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP) will post a public statement calling for higher education systems to disarm their campus police of all lethal and military-grade hardware.

Be it resolved, in this statement the SSSP will also endorse harm reduction strategies such as additional trainings for campus police (e.g., anti-racism training, de-escalation, and crisis management), ending military and police collaborations (e.g., 1033 program, Urban Shield), and additional transparency and community accountability measures for police accused of excessive force.

Be it resolved, that SSSP calls on universities to provide guidelines for non-police, community-based responses to issues such as mental health crises, policing of smoking in non-smoking areas, or people calling police as a response to the presence of Black and Brown bodies. These alternatives will make it so that even the possibility of unnecessary stop and frisk, search, threat of violence or other escalation is removed from everyday life on campus for all members of the community.

Be it resolved, the Executive Officer of the SSSP will pen a letter to the editor of The New York Times,with duplicates sent to the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Huffington Post, the National Public Radio (NPR), the Chronicle of Higher Education, the Washington Post,universities considering founding or expanding armed police forces, and the University of California Office of the President (UCOP) on the dangers presented by an increasingly militarized and armed campus police force, and which outlines the dangers police have posed to the student body in the past, based in rigorous and empirical data drawn from historical and social research.

Be it further resolved, the SSSP will reassert in the public statement our commitment to fairness, equity, and equality by standing in solidarity with marginalized and hyper-policed students and communities, and calling for the development of skilled alternative student services that are not dependent on police intervention. 


¹ Turner, K. B., Giacopassi, D., and Vandiver, M. 2006. “Ignoring the Past: Coverage of Slavery and Slave Patrols in Criminal Justice Texts.” Journal of Criminal Justice Education17(1): 181–195; Texas Penal Code, § IV, “Homicide of a Slave When Justifiable,” 1857, Article 564; Ida B. Wells. 1892. Southern Horrors Lynch Laws in All Its Phases. New York Age. 

² Williams, Kristian. 2007. Our Enemies in Blue: Police and Power in America. South End Press.

³ Donato, R., & J.S. Hanson.  2012. "Legally White, socially ‘Mexican’: The politics of de jure and de facto school segregation in the American Southwest.” Harvard Educational Review82(2): 202–225; Harring, Sidney L. and Lorraine M. McMullin. 1975. “THE BUFFALO POLICE 1872-1900: Labor Unrest, Political Power and the Creation of the Police Institution.” Crime and Social Justice 4: 5-14.http://www.jstor.org/stable/29765953; Johnson, Kevin R. 2005. "The Forgotten Repatriation of Persons of Mexican Ancestry and Lessons for the War on Terror." Pace Law Review26(1): 1-26; Romero, Mary and Marwah Serag. 2005. “Violation of Latino Civil Rights Resulting from INS and Local Police's Use of Race, Culture and Class Profiling: The Case of the Chandler Roundup in Arizona.” 52 CLEV. ST. L. Rev. 75. 

⁴ Bass, Sandra. 2001. “Policing Space, Policing Race: Social Control Imperatives and Police Discretionary Decisions.” Social Justice 28(1): 156-176.http://www.jstor.org/stable/29768062; Donner, Frank. 1990. Protectors of Privilege: Red Squads and Police Repression in Urban America. University of California Press; Ogborn, Miles. 1993. “Ordering the City: Surveillance, Public Space and the Reform of Urban Policing in England 1835-1856.” Political Geography 12(6): 505-521.https://doi.org/10.1016/0962-6298(93)90002-O

⁵ Bacon, Selden Daskam. 1939. The Early Development of American Municipal Police: A Study of the Evolution of Formal Controls in a Changing Society.University Microfilms.

⁶ Mogul, Joey L., Andrea J. Ritchie and Kay Whitlock. 2011. Queer (In)Justice: The Criminalization of LGBT People in the United States. Boston, Beacon Press; Rosenthal, Keith. 2016. “Pioneers in the fight for disability rights: The League of the Physically Handicapped.” International Socialist Review 90.https://isreview.org/issue/90/pioneers-fight-disability-rights; Stanley, Eric A. & Nat Smith (Eds.). 2015.Captive Genders: Trans Embodiment and the Prison Industrial Complex. AK Press; Spade, Dean. 2011. Normal Life: Administrative Violence, Critical Trans Politics, and the Limits of Law.South End Press; Wolff, K.B. and C.L. Cokely. 2007. “‘To Protect and to Serve?’: An Exploration of Police Conduct in Relation to the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Community.” Sexuality and Culture11(2): 1–23.

⁷ Sloan, John J. 1992. “The Modern Campus Police: An Analysis of Their Evolution, Structure, and Function,” American Journal of Police85; Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2015. “Campus Law Enforcement, 2011–12.”https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cle1112.pdf; Rodríguez, D. 2012. “Beyond ‘Police Brutality’: Racist State Violence and the University of California.” American Quarterly64(2): 301-313; Brucato, Ben and Luis A. Fernandez. 2013. “Socio-Technical Developments in Campus Securitization: Building and Resisting the Policing Apparatus.” Counterpoints410: 79-104.

⁸ Earl, Jennifer, Sarah A. Soule and John D. McCarthy. 2003. “Protest Under Fire? Explaining the Policing of Protest.” American Sociological Review 68(4): 581-606.

⁹ Strong, Wesley. 2013. “Repression of Student Activism on College Campuses.” Counterpoints410: 15-27; Student Protest. 1969. AAUP Bulletin55(3): 309-326.http://www.jstor.org/stable/40223829

¹º Augusto, Sarah and Julie Setele. 2013. “Militant Privatization: The UC-Davis Pepper-Spray Incident.” Counterpoints410: 151-169; Maira, Sunaina and Julie Sze. 2012. “Dispatches from Pepper Spray University: Privatization, Repression, and Revolts.” American Quarterly 64(2): 315-330; Miller, Abraham H. 1972. "People's Park: Dimensions of a Campus Confrontation." Politics & Society2(4): 433-457; Bass, Jack and Jack Nelson. 1996. The Orangeburg Massacre. Mercer University Press; Means, Howard. 2016. 67 Shots: Kent State and the End of American Innocence. De Capo Press.

¹¹ Delgado, Daniel Justino. 2018. “‘My Deputies Arrest Anyone Who Breaks the Law’: Understanding How Colorblind Discourse and Reasonable Suspicion Facilitate Racist Policing.” Sociology of Race and Ethnicity: 1-18; Greenwald, David. September 21, 2015. “Studying While Black Former Student Shaken By Police Encounter on UCD Campus.” The Davis Vanguard.https://bit.ly/2NwQ5ni; Christensen, Dusty. September 17, 2018. “'It’s Just Draining': 14-Year Employee of University Gets Cops Called on Him for Looking 'Agitated'” Daily Hampshire Gazette.https://bit.ly/2NWckm3; Daily Californian. February 8, 2018. “UCPD Shouldn’t Get Away with Its Violent Arrest of David Cole.” The Daily Californian.https://bit.ly/2DkKV9g

¹² Benjamin, Jr., Arlin J., Kepes ,Sven, & Brad J. Bushman. September 17, 2017. “Effects of Weapons on Aggressive Thoughts, Angry Feelings, Hostile Appraisals, and Aggressive Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Weapons Effect Literature.” Personality and Social Psychology Review; Delehanty, Casey, Jack Mewhirter, Ryan Welch, and Jason Wilks. 2017. “Militarization and police violence: The case of the 1033 Program.” Research and Politics(April-June): 1-7.

¹³ Saleh, Amam Z, Paul S. Appelbaum, and Xiaoyu Liu. 2018. “Deaths of people with mental illness during interactions with law enforcement.” International Journal of Law and Psychiatry58 (May–June): 110-116; Lamb, H. Richard, Linda E. Weinberger and Walter DeCuir Jr. 2002. “The Police and Mental Health.” Psychiatric Services 53(10): 1266–1271;Lewis, Talila. March 21, 2014. “Police Brutality and Deaf People.” American Civil Liberties Union.https://bit.ly/2O3hoEY; Perry, David M. September 22, 2017. “4 Disabled People Dead in Another Week of Police Brutality.” The Nation.https://bit.ly/2fGPEDY

¹⁴ Brammer, John Paul. September 19, 2017. “Death of Scout Schultz Highlights LGBTQ Mental Health Needs On Campus.” NBC News.https://nbcnews.to/2xgv1sf;Balsam, K. F., Y. Molina, B. Beadnell, J. Simoni, and K. Walters. 2011. “Measuring multiple minority stress: The LGBT People of Color Microaggressions Scale.” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 17(2): 163-174.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023244

¹⁵ Sara Goldrick-Rab et al. 2018. “Still Hungry and Homeless in College.” Wisconsin Hope Lab.https://bit.ly/2H72k3f; Ivanich, Jerreed D. and Tara D. Warner. 2018. “Seen or Unseen? The Role of Race in Police Contact among Homeless Youth.” Justice Quarterly; Amster, Randall. 2003. ”Patterns of Exclusion: Sanitizing Space, Criminalizing Homelessness.” Social Justice30(1): 195-221.

¹⁶ Bauman, Dan. September 21, 2014. “Campus Police Acquire Military Weapons.” The Chronicle of Higher Education https://nyti.ms/2LlzFbh; Peake, B. J. 2015. “Militarization of school police: One route on the school-to-prison pipeline.” Arkansas Law Review 68(1): 195-230.

¹⁷ Jackman, Tom. August 27, 2017. “Trump to restore program sending surplus military weapons, equipment to police.” The Washington Post.https://wapo.st/2pue3Bb

¹⁸ Kaste, Martin. July 30, 2015. “Many College Have Armed Police Squads, But Are They Worth The Risk?” National Public Radio.https://n.pr/2NZk5ri; Warnick, Bryan, Benjamin A. Johnson and Sam Rocha. February 15, 2018. “Can Security Measures Really Stop School Shootings?” Scientific American.https://bit.ly/2PUaI9G; Valentine, Matt. October 5, 2015. “The Myth of the Good Guy With The Gun.” Politico Magazine.https://politi.co/1VCMSL3

¹⁹ Blair, Pete J. & Martaindale, M. Hunter. 2013. “United States Active Shooter Events from 2000 to 2010: Training and Equipment Implications.“https://bit.ly/2OFdz63; Brown, Ruth. February 23, 2018. “Four sheriffs’ deputies hid during Florida school shooting.” New York Post.https://nyp.st/2ouKP4d

²⁰ Mummolo, Jonathan. September 2018. “Militarization fails to enhance police safety or reduce crime but may harm police reputation.”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115(37): 9181-9186.

Return to Top