what is the unesco and what does it do

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO;[2] French: Organisation des Nations unies pour l'Ã©ducation, la science et la culture) is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN) based in Paris. Its declared purpose is to contribute to peace and security by promoting international collaboration through educational, scientific, and cultural reforms in order to increase universal respect for justice, the rule of law, and human rights along with fundamental freedom proclaimed in the United Nations Charter.[1] It is the successor of the League of Nations' International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation.

UNESCO

UNESCO has 195 member states[3] and ten associate members.[4][5] Most of its field offices are "cluster" offices covering three or more countries; national and regional offices also exist.

UNESCO pursues its objectives through five major programs: education, natural sciences, social/human sciences, culture and communication/information. Projects sponsored by UNESCO include literacy, technical, and teacher-training programs, international science programs, the promotion of independent media and freedom of the press, regional and cultural history projects, the promotion of cultural diversity, translations of world literature, international cooperation agreements to secure the world's cultural and natural heritage (World Heritage Sites) and to preserve human rights, and attempts to bridge the worldwide digital divide. It is also a member of the United Nations Development Group.[6]

UNESCO's aim is "to contribute to the building of peace, the eradication of poverty, sustainable development and intercultural dialogue through education, the sciences, culture, communication and information".[7] Other priorities of the organization include attaining quality Education For All and lifelong learning, addressing emerging social and ethical challenges, fostering cultural diversity, a culture of peace and building inclusive knowledge societies through information and communication.[8]

The broad goals and objectives of the international community – as set out in the internationally agreed development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) – underpin all UNESCO strategies and activities.

UNESCO and its mandate for international cooperation can be traced back to a League of Nations resolution on 21 September 1921, to elect a Commission to study feasibility.[9][10] On 18 December 1925, the International Bureau of Education (IBE) began work as a non-governmental organization in the service of international educational development.[11] However, the onset of World War II largely interrupted the work of these predecessor organizations.

After the signing of the Atlantic Charter and the Declaration of the United Nations, the Conference of Allied Ministers of Education (CAME) began meetings in London which continued between 16 November 1942 to 5 December 1945. On 30 October 1943, the necessity for an international organization was expressed in the Moscow Declaration, agreed upon by China, the United Kingdom, the United States and the USSR. This was followed by the Dumbarton Oaks Conference proposals of 9 October 1944. Upon the proposal of CAME and in accordance with the recommendations of the United Nations Conference on International Organization (UNCIO), held in San Francisco in April–June 1945, a United Nations Conference for the establishment of an educational and cultural organization (ECO/CONF) was convened in London 1–16 November 1945 with 44 governments represented. A prominent[clarification needed] figure in the initiative for UNESCO was Rab Butler, the Minister of Education for the United Kingdom.[12] At the ECO/CONF, the Constitution of UNESCO was introduced and signed by 37 countries, and a Preparatory Commission was established.[13] The Preparatory Commission operated between 16 November 1945, and 4 November 1946—the date when UNESCO's Constitution came into force with the deposit of the twentieth ratification by a member state.[14]

The first General Conference took place between 19 November to 10 December 1946, and elected Dr. Julian Huxley to Director-General.[15] The Constitution was amended in November 1954 when the General Conference resolved that members of the Executive Board would be representatives of the governments of the States of which they are nationals and would not, as before, act in their personal capacity.[16] This change in governance distinguished UNESCO from its predecessor, the CICI, in how member states would work together in the organization's fields of competence. As member states worked together over time to realize UNESCO's mandate, political and historical factors have shaped the organization's operations in particular during the Cold War, the decolonization process, and the dissolution of the USSR.

Among the major achievements of the organization is its work against racism, for example through influential statements on race starting with a declaration of anthropologists (among them was Claude Lévi-Strauss) and other scientists in 1950[17] and concluding with the 1978 Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice.[18] In 1956, the Republic of South Africa withdrew from UNESCO claiming that some of the organization's publications amounted to "interference" in the country's "racial problems."[19] South Africa rejoined the organization in 1994 under the leadership of Nelson Mandela.

UNESCO's early work in the field of education included the pilot project on fundamental education in the Marbial Valley, Haiti, started in 1947.[20] This project was followed by expert missions to other countries, including, for example, a mission to Afghanistan in 1949.[21] In 1948, UNESCO recommended that Member States should make free primary education compulsory and universal.[22] In 1990, the World Conference on Education for All, in Jomtien, Thailand, launched a global movement to provide basic education for all children, youths and adults.[23] Ten years later, the 2000 World Education Forum held in Dakar, Senegal, led member governments to commit to achieving basic education for all by 2015.[24]

UNESCO's early activities in culture included, for example, the Nubia Campaign, launched in 1960.[25] The purpose of the campaign was to move the Great Temple of Abu Simbel to keep it from being swamped by the Nile after construction of the Aswan Dam. During the 20-year campaign, 22 monuments and architectural complexes were relocated. This was the first and largest in a series of campaigns including Mohenjo-daro (Pakistan), Fes (Morocco), Kathmandu (Nepal), Borobudur (Indonesia) and the Acropolis (Greece). The organization's work on heritage led to the adoption, in 1972, of the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.[26] The World Heritage Committee was established in 1976 and the first sites inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1978.[27] Since then important legal instruments on cultural heritage and diversity have been adopted by UNESCO member states in 2003 (Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage[28]) and 2005 (Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions[29]).

An intergovernmental meeting of UNESCO in Paris in December 1951 led to the creation of the European Council for Nuclear Research, which was responsible for establishing the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN)[30] in 1954.

Arid Zone programming, 1948â€“1966, is another example of an early major UNESCO project in the field of natural sciences.[31] In 1968, UNESCO organized the first intergovernmental conference aimed at reconciling the environment and development, a problem which continues to be addressed in the field of sustainable development. The main outcome of the 1968 conference was the creation of UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere Programme.[32]

In the field of communication, the "free flow of ideas by word and image" has been in UNESCO's constitution from its beginnings, following the experience of the Second World War when control of information was a factor in indoctrinating populations for aggression.[33] In the years immediately following World War II, efforts were concentrated on reconstruction and on the identification of needs for means of mass communication around the world. UNESCO started organizing training and education for journalists in the 1950s.[34] In response to calls for a "New World Information and Communication Order" in the late 1970s, UNESCO established the International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems,[35] which produced the 1980 MacBride report (named after the Chair of the Commission, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate Seán MacBride).[36] The same year, UNESCO created the International Programme for the Development of Communication (IPDC), a multilateral forum designed to promote media development in developing countries.[37][38] In 1991, UNESCO's General Conference endorsed the Windhoek Declaration on media independence and pluralism, which led the UN General Assembly to declare the date of its adoption, 3 May, as World Press Freedom Day.[39] Since 1997, UNESCO has awarded the UNESCO / Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize every 3 May. In the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society in 2003 (Geneva) and 2005 (Tunis), UNESCO introduced the Information for All Programme.

[40][41] Laws passed in the United States in 1990 and 1994 mean that it cannot contribute financially to any UN organisation that accepts Palestine as a full member.[42] As a result, it withdrew its funding which accounted for about 22% of UNESCO's budget.[43] Israel also reacted to Palestine's admittance to UNESCO by freezing Israel payments to the UNESCO and imposing sanctions to the Palestinian Authority,[44] claiming that Palestine's admittance would be detrimental "to potential peace talks".[45] Two years after they stopped paying their dues to UNESCO, US and Israel lost UNESCO voting rights in 2013 without losing the right to be elected; thus, the US was elected as a member of the Executive Board for the period 2016â€“19.[46]

UNESCO implements its activities through the five programme areas: education, natural sciences, social and human sciences, culture, and communication and information.

UNESCO does not accredit institutions of higher learning.[47]

The UNESCO transparency portal has been designed to enable public access to information regarding Organization's activities, such as its aggregate budget for a biennium, as well as links to relevant programmatic and financial documents. These two distinct sets of information are published on the IATI registry, respectively based on the IATI Activity Standard and the IATI Organization Standard.

UNESCO and its specialized institutions issue a number of magazines.

The UNESCO Courier magazine states its mission to "promote UNESCO’s ideals, maintain a platform for the dialogue between cultures and provide a forum for international debate." Since March 2006 it is available online, with limited printed issues. Its articles express the opinions of the authors which are not necessarily the opinions of UNESCO. As of 2016, the latest issue posted was October–December 2011.[64]

In 1950, UNESCO initiated the quarterly review Impact of Science on Society (also known as Impact) to discuss the influence of science on society.[65] UNESCO also publish museum international quarterly from the year 1948.

UNESCO has official relations with 322 international non-governmental organizations (NGOs).[66] Most of these are what UNESCO calls "operational"; a select few are "formal".[67] The highest form of affiliation to UNESCO is "formal associate", and the 22 NGOs[68] with formal associate (ASC) relations occupying offices at UNESCO are:

The institutes are specialized departments of the organization that support UNESCO's programme, providing specialized support for cluster and national offices.

UNESCO awards 22 prizes[80] in education, science, culture and peace:

UNESCO counts 195 member states and 10 associate members.[83] Some members are not independent states and some members have additional National Organizing Committees from some of their dependent territories.[84] UNESCO state parties are the United Nations member states (except Liechtenstein), Cook Islands, Niue, and the State of Palestine.[85][86] The USA and Israel plan to leave UNESCO on 31 December 2018 over anti-Israel bias.[87][88]

There has been no elected UNESCO Director-General from Southeast Asia, South Asia, Central and North Asia, Middle East, North Africa, East Africa, Central Africa, South Africa, Australia-Oceania, and South America since inception.

The Director-Generals of UNESCO came from West Europe (5), Central America (1), North America (2), West Africa (1), East Asia (1), and East Europe (1). Out of the 11 Director-Generals since inception, women have held the position only twice since inception.

The list of the Directors-General of UNESCO since its establishment in 1946 is as follows:[89]

This is the list of the sessions of UNESCO General Conference held since 1946:[90]

France
 Greece
 Italy
 Spain
 United Kingdom

Lithuania
 Russia
 Serbia
 Slovenia

Brazil
 Haiti
 Mexico
 Nicaragua
 Paraguay

India
 Iran
 Malaysia
 Pakistan
 South Korea
 Sri Lanka
 Vietnam

Cameroon
 Ivory Coast
 Ghana
 Kenya
 Nigeria
 Senegal
 South Africa

Lebanon
 Oman
 Qatar
 Sudan

Germany
 Netherlands
 Sweden

Albania
 Estonia
 Ukraine

Argentina
 Belize
 Dominican Republic
 El Salvador
 Saint Kitts and Nevis
 Trinidad and Tobago

Bangladesh
 China
 India
 Japan
   Nepal
 Turkmenistan

Chad
 Guinea
 Mauritius
 Mozambique
 Togo
 Uganda

Algeria
 Egypt
 Kuwait
 Morocco

Austria
 France
 Italy
 India
 Spain
 United Kingdom
 United States

Czech Republic
 Montenegro
 Russia
 Macedonia

Brazil
 Cuba
 Ecuador
 Mexico

Afghanistan
 Indonesia
 Pakistan
 Papua New Guinea
 South Korea
 Thailand

Angola
 Ethiopia
 Gabon
 Gambia
 Malawi
 Mali
 Namibia
 Nigeria

Tunisia
 United Arab Emirates

UNESCO headquarters are located at Place de Fontenoy in Paris, France.

UNESCO's field offices across the globe are categorized into four primary office types based upon their function and geographic coverage: cluster offices, national offices, regional bureaus and liaison offices.

The following list of all UNESCO Field Offices is organized geographically by UNESCO Region and identifies the members states and associate members of UNESCO which are served by each office.[96]

UNESCO has been the centre of controversy in the past, particularly in its relationships with the United States, the United Kingdom, Singapore and the former Soviet Union. During the 1970s and 1980s, UNESCO's support for a "New World Information and Communication Order" and its MacBride report calling for democratization of the media and more egalitarian access to information was condemned in these countries as attempts to curb freedom of the press. UNESCO was perceived as a platform for communists and Third World dictators to attack the West, in contrast to accusations made by the USSR in the late 1940s and early 1950s.[100] In 1984, the United States withheld its contributions and withdrew from the organization in protest, followed by the United Kingdom in 1985.[citation needed] Singapore withdrew also at the end of 1985, citing rising membership fees.[101] Following a change of government in 1997, the UK rejoined. The United States rejoined in 2003, followed by Singapore on 8 October 2007.[citation needed]

Israel was admitted to UNESCO in 1949, one year after its creation. Israel has maintained its membership since 1949. In 2010, Israel designated the Cave of the Patriarchs, Hebron and Rachel's Tomb, Bethlehem as National Heritage Sites and announced restoration work, prompting criticism from the United States and protests from Palestinians.[102] In October 2010, UNESCO's Executive Board voted to declare the sites as "al-Haram al-Ibrahimi/Tomb of the Patriarchs" and "Bilal bin Rabah Mosque/Rachel's Tomb" and stated that they were "an integral part of the occupied Palestinian Territories" and any unilateral Israeli action was a violation of international law.[103] UNESCO described the sites as significant to "people of the Muslim, Christian and Jewish traditions", and accused Israel of highlighting only the Jewish character of the sites.[104] Israel in turn accused UNESCO of "detach[ing] the Nation of Israel from its heritage", and accused it of being politically motivated.[105] The Rabbi of the Western Wall claimed that Rachel's tomb had not previously been declared a holy Muslim site.[106] Israel partially suspended ties with UNESCO. Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon declared that the resolution was a "part of Palestinian escalation". Zevulun Orlev, chairman of the Knesset Education and Culture Committee, referred to the resolutions as an attempt to undermine the mission of UNESCO as a scientific and cultural organization that promotes cooperation throughout the world.[107][108]

On 28 June 2011, UNESCO's World Heritage Committee, at Jordan's insistence, censured[clarification needed] Israel's decision to demolish and rebuild the Mughrabi Gate Bridge in Jerusalem for safety reasons. Israel stated that Jordan had signed an agreement with Israel stipulating that the existing bridge must be dismantled for safety reasons; Jordan disputed the agreement, saying that it was only signed under U.S. pressure. Israel was also unable to address the UNESCO committee over objections from Egypt.[109]

In January 2014, days before it was scheduled to open, UNESCO Director-General, Irina Bokova, "indefinitely postponed" and effectively cancelled an exhibit created by the Simon Wiesenthal Center entitled "The People, The Book, The Land: The 3,500-year relationship between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel." The event was scheduled to run from 21 January through 30 January in Paris. Bokova cancelled the event after representatives of Arab states at UNESCO argued that its display would "harm the peace process".[110] The author of the exhibition, Professor Robert Wistrich of the Hebrew University's Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism, called the cancellation an "appalling act," and characterized Bokova's decision as "an arbitrary act of total cynicism and, really, contempt for the Jewish people and its history." UNESCO amended the decision to cancel the exhibit within the year, and it quickly achieved popularity and was viewed as a great success.[111]

On 13 October 2016, UNESCO passed a resolution on East Jerusalem that condemned Israel for "aggressions" by Israeli police and soldiers and "illegal measures" against the freedom of worship and Muslims' access to their holy sites, while also recognizing Israel as the occupying power. Palestinian leaders welcomed the decision.[112] While the text acknowledged the "importance of the Old City of Jerusalem and its walls for the three monotheistic religions", it referred to the sacred hilltop compound in Jerusalem's Old City only by its Muslim name "Al-Haram al-Sharif", Arabic for Noble Sanctuary. In response, Israel denounced the UNESCO resolution for its omission of the words "Temple Mount" or "Har HaBayit," stating that it denies Jewish ties to the key holy site.[112][113] After receiving criticism from numerous Israeli politicians and diplomats, including Benjamin Netanyahu and Ayelet Shaked, Israel froze all ties with the organization.[114][115] The resolution was condemned by Ban ki-Moon and the Director-General of UNESCO, Irina Bokova, who said that Judaism, Islam and Christianity have clear historical connections to Jerusalem and "to deny, conceal or erase any of the Jewish, Christian or Muslim traditions undermines the integrity of the site.[116][117] Al-Aqsa Mosque is also Temple Mount, whose Western Wall is the holiest place in Judaism."[118] It was also rejected by the Czech Parliament which said the resolution reflects a "hateful anti-Israel sentiment",[119] and hundreds of Italian Jews demonstrated in Rome over Italy's abstention.[119] On 26 October, UNESCO approved a reviewed version of the resolution, which also criticized Israel for its continuous "refusal to let the body's experts access Jerusalem's holy sites to determine their conservation status."[120] Despite containing some softening of language following Israeli protests over a previous version, Israel continued to denounce the text.[121] The resolution refers to the site Jews and Christians refer to as the Temple Mount, or Har HaBayit in Hebrew, only by its Arab name â€” a significant semantic decision also adopted by UNESCO's executive board, triggering condemnation from Israel and its allies. U.S. Ambassador Crystal Nix Hines stated: "This item should have been defeated. These politicized and one-sided resolutions are damaging the credibility of UNESCO."[122]

In October 2017, the United States and Israel announced they would withdraw from the organization, citing in-part anti-Israel bias.[123]

In February 2011, an article was published in a Palestinian youth magazine in which a teenage girl described one of her four role-models as Adolf Hitler. In December 2011, UNESCO, which partly funded the magazine, condemned the material and subsequently withdrew support.[124]

In 2012, UNESCO decided to establish a chair at the Islamic University of Gaza in the field of astronomy, astrophysics, and space sciences,[125] fueling controversy and criticism. Israel bombed the school in 2008 claiming they develop and store weapons there, a claim Israel restated in criticizing UNESCO's move.[126][127]

The head, Kamalain Shaath, defended UNESCO, stating that "the Islamic University is a purely academic university that is interested only in education and its development".[128][129][130] Israeli ambassador to UNESCO Nimrod Barkan planned to submit a letter of protest with information about the university's ties to Hamas, especially angry that this was the first Palestinian university that UNESCO chose to cooperate with.[131] The Jewish organization B'nai B'rith criticized the move as well.[132]

On 16 and 17 February 2012, UNESCO held a conference entitled "The Media World after WikiLeaks and News of the World."[133] Despite all six panels being focused on WikiLeaks, no member of WikiLeaks staff was invited to speak. After receiving a complaint from WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson, UNESCO invited him to attend, but did not offer a place on any panels.[134] The offer also came only a week before the conference, which was held in Paris, France. Many of the speakers featured, including David Leigh and Heather Brooke, had spoken out openly against WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange in the past.[135][136] WikiLeaks released a press statement on 15 February 2012 denouncing UNESCO which stated, "UNESCO has made itself an international human rights joke. To use 'freedom of expression' to censor WikiLeaks from a conference about WikiLeaks is an Orwellian absurdity beyond words."[137]

In 2013, UNESCO announced that the collection "The Life and Works of Ernesto Che Guevara" became part of the Memory of the World Register. US Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen condemned this decision, saying that the organization acts against its own ideals:[138]

This decision is more than an insult to the families of those Cubans who were lined up and summarily executed by Che and his merciless cronies but it also serves as a direct contradiction to the UNESCO ideals of encouraging peace and universal respect for human rights.

UN Watch also condemned this selection by UNESCO.[139]

In 2015, Japan threatened to halt funding for UNESCO over the organization's decision to include documents relating to the 1937 Nanjing massacre in the latest listing for its "Memory of the World" program.[140] In October 2016, Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida confirmed that Japan's 2016 annual funding of Â¥4.4 billion had been suspended although denied any direct link with the Nanjing document controversy.[141]

After withdrawing from UNESCO in 1984, the United States rejoined in 2002.[142] Former U.S. Congressman Jim Leach stated before a Congressional subcommittee:[143]

The reasons for the withdrawal of the United States from UNESCO in 1984 are well-known; my view is that we overreacted to the calls of some who wanted to radicalize UNESCO, and the calls of others who wanted the United States to lead in emasculating the UN system. The fact is UNESCO is one of the least dangerous international institutions ever created. While some member countries within UNESCO attempted to push journalistic views antithetical to the values of the west, and engage in Israel bashing, UNESCO itself never adopted such radical postures. The U.S. opted for empty-chair diplomacy, after winning, not losing, the battles we engaged inâ€¦ It was nuts to get out, and would be nuttier not to rejoin.

He concluded that the record showed Israel bashing, a call for a new world information order, money management, and arms control policy to be the impetus behind the withdrawal; he asserted that before the UNESCO withdrawal, a withdrawal from the IAEA[144] had been pushed on him. The United States rejoined UNESCO shortly thereafter.

On 12 October 2017, the United States notified UNESCO that it will again withdraw from the organization on 31 December 2018 and will seek to establish a permanent observer mission beginning in 2019. The Department of State cited "mounting arrears at UNESCO, the need for fundamental reform in the organization, and continuing anti-Israel bias at UNESCO."[145]

The United States has not paid its $80 million annual UNESCO dues since Palestine became a full member in 2011. Israel and the US were among only 14 votes against the membership, of 194 member countries.[146]

UNESCO develops, maintains and disseminates, free of charge, two interrelated software packages for database management (CDS/ISIS [not to be confused with UK police software package ISIS]) and data mining/statistical analysis (IDAMS).[148]


following the passage of the chinese exclusion act chinese became eligible to immigrate again in

The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law signed by President Chester A. Arthur on May 6, 1882, prohibiting all immigration of Chinese laborers. The act followed the Angell Treaty of 1880, a set of revisions to the U.S.â€“China Burlingame Treaty of 1868 that allowed the U.S. to suspend Chinese immigration. The act was initially intended to last for 10 years, but was renewed in 1892 with the Geary Act and made permanent in 1902. The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first law implemented to prevent a specific ethnic group from immigrating to the United States. It was repealed by the Magnuson Act on December 17, 1943.

Chinese Exclusion Act

The first significant Chinese immigration to North America began with the California Gold Rush of 1848â€“1855 and it continued with subsequent large labor projects, such as the building of the First Transcontinental Railroad. During the early stages of the gold rush, when surface gold was plentiful, the Chinese were tolerated, if not well received.[1] As gold became harder to find and competition increased, animosity toward the Chinese and other foreigners increased however. After being forcibly driven from mining by a mixture of state legislators and other miners (the Foreign Miner's Tax), the immigrant Chinese began to settle in enclaves in cities, mainly San Francisco, and took up low-wage labor, such as restaurant and laundry work.[2] With the post-Civil War economy in decline by the 1870s, anti-Chinese animosity became politicized by labor leader Denis Kearney and his Workingman's Party[3] as well as by California Governor John Bigler, both of whom blamed Chinese "coolies" for depressed wage levels. Public opinion and law in California began to demonize Chinese workers and immigrants in any role, with the later half of the 1800s seeing a series of ever more restrictive laws being placed on Chinese labor, behavior and even living conditions. While many of these legislative efforts were quickly overturned by the State Supreme Court,[4] many more anti-Chinese laws continued to be passed in both California and nationally.

In the early 1850s there was resistance to the idea of excluding Chinese migrant workers from immigration because they provided essential tax revenue which helped fill the fiscal gap of California.[5] But toward the end of the decade, the financial situation improved and subsequently, attempts to legislate Chinese exclusion became successful on the state level.[5] In 1858, the California Legislature passed a law that made it illegal for any person "of the Chinese or Mongolian races" to enter the state; however, this law was struck down by an unpublished opinion of the State Supreme Court in 1862.[6]

The Chinese immigrant workers provided cheap labor and did not use any of the government infrastructure (schools, hospitals, etc.) because the Chinese migrant population was predominantly made up of healthy male adults.[5] As time passed and more and more Chinese migrants arrived in California, violence would often break out in cities such as Los Angeles. At one point, Chinese men represented nearly a quarter of all wage-earning workers in California,[7] and by 1878 Congress felt compelled to try to ban immigration from China in legislation that was later vetoed by President Rutherford B. Hayes. In 1879 however, California adopted a new Constitution, which explicitly authorized the state government to determine which individuals were allowed to reside in the state, and banned the Chinese from employment by corporations and state, county or municipal governments.[8] Though there is great debate over whether the anti-Chinese animus in California drove the federal government (the California Thesis), or whether Chinese racism was simply inherent in the country at that point, by 1882 the federal government was finally convinced to pass the Chinese Exclusion Act, banning all immigration from China for a period of 10 years.

After the act was passed, most Chinese families were faced with a dilemma: stay in the United States alone or go back to China to reunite with their families.[9] Although widespread dislike for the Chinese persisted well after the law itself was passed, of note is that some capitalists and entrepreneurs resisted their exclusion because they accepted lower wages.[10]

For the first time, federal law proscribed entry of an ethnic working group on the premise that it endangered the good order of certain localities. (The earlier Page Act of 1875 had prohibited immigration of Asian forced laborers and sex workers, and the Naturalization Act of 1790 prohibited naturalization of non-white subjects.) The Act excluded Chinese laborers, meaning "skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining," from entering the country for ten years under penalty of imprisonment and deportation.[11][12]

The Chinese Exclusion Act required the few non laborers who sought entry to obtain certification from the Chinese government that they were qualified to emigrate. However, this group found it increasingly difficult to prove that they were not laborers[12] because the 1882 act defined excludables as “skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining.” Thus very few Chinese could enter the country under the 1882 law. Diplomatic officials and other officers on business, along with their house servants, for the Chinese government were also allowed entry as long as they had the proper certification verifying their credentials.[13]

The Act also affected the Chinese who had already settled in the United States. Any Chinese who left the United States had to obtain certifications for reentry, and the Act made Chinese immigrants permanent aliens by excluding them from U.S. citizenship.[11][12] After the Act's passage, Chinese men in the U.S. had little chance of ever reuniting with their wives, or of starting families in their new abodes.[11]

Amendments made in 1884 tightened the provisions that allowed previous immigrants to leave and return, and clarified that the law applied to ethnic Chinese regardless of their country of origin. The Scott Act (1888) expanded upon the Chinese Exclusion Act, prohibiting reentry after leaving the U.S. Constitutionality of the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Scott Act was upheld by the Supreme Court in Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889); the Supreme Court declared that "the power of exclusion of foreigners [is] an incident of sovereignty belonging to the government of the United States as a part of those sovereign powers delegated by the constitution." The Act was renewed for ten years by the 1892 Geary Act, and again with no terminal date in 1902.[12] When the act was extended in 1902, it required "each Chinese resident to register and obtain a certificate of residence. Without a certificate, he or she faced deportation."[12]

Between 1882 and 1905, about 10,000 Chinese appealed against negative immigration decisions to federal court, usually via a petition for habeas corpus.[14] In most of these cases, the courts ruled in favor of the petitioner.[14] Except in cases of bias or negligence, these petitions were barred by an act that passed Congress in 1894 and was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. vs Lem Moon Sing (1895). In U.S. vs Ju Toy (1905), the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that the port inspectors and the Secretary of Commerce had final authority on who could be admitted. Ju Toy's petition was thus barred despite the fact that the district court found that he was an American citizen. The Supreme Court determined that refusing entry at a port does not require due process and is legally equivalent to refusing entry at a land crossing. All these developments, along with the extension of the act in 1902, triggered a boycott of U.S. goods in China between 1904 and 1906.[15] There was one 1885 case in San Francisco, however, in which Treasury Department officials in Washington overturned a decision to deny entry to two Chinese students.[16]

One of the critics of the Chinese Exclusion Act was the anti-slavery/anti-imperialist Republican Senator George Frisbie Hoar of Massachusetts who described the Act as "nothing less than the legalization of racial discrimination."[17] It was primarily meant to retain white superiority especially with regards to working privileges.[18]

The laws were driven largely by racial concerns; immigration of persons of other races was unlimited during this period.[19] Another reason why this Act was enacted was due to the fact that American citizens faced higher unemployment as compared to workers of Chinese descent mostly in the West Coast.[20]

On the other hand, most people and Unions strongly supported the Chinese Exclusion Act, including the American Federation of Labor and Knights of Labor, a labor union, who supported it because it believed that industrialists were using Chinese workers as a wedge to keep wages low.[21] Among labor and leftist organizations, the Industrial Workers of the World were the sole exception to this pattern. The IWW openly opposed the Chinese Exclusion Act from its inception in 1905.[22]

For all practical purposes, the Exclusion Act, along with the restrictions that followed it, froze the Chinese community in place in 1882. Limited immigration from China continued until the repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1943. From 1910 to 1940, the Angel Island Immigration Station on what is now Angel Island State Park in San Francisco Bay served as the processing center for most of the 56,113 Chinese immigrants who are recorded as immigrating or returning from China; upwards of 30% more who showed up were returned to China. Angel Island State Park was where the Chinese immigrants were accepted to stay in the United States or made to leave.[23] Furthermore, after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, which destroyed City Hall and the Hall of Records, many immigrants (known as "paper sons") claimed that they had familial ties to resident Chinese-American citizens. Whether these were true or not cannot be proven.

The Chinese Exclusion Act gave rise to the first great wave of commercial human smuggling, an activity that later spread to include other national and ethnic groups.[24]

The Chinese Exclusion Act also led to an expansion of the power of U.S. immigration law through its influence on Canada's policies on Chinese exclusion during this time because of the need for greater vigilance at the U.S.-Canada border. Shortly after the U.S. Chinese Exclusion Act, Canada established the Chinese Immigration Act of 1885 which imposed a head tax on Chinese migrants entering Canada. After increasing pressure from the U.S. government, Canada finally established the Chinese Immigration Act, 1923 which banned most forms of immigration by the Chinese to Canada. There was also a need for this kind of border control along the U.S-Mexico border, however, efforts to control the border went along a different path because Mexico was fearful of expanding imperial power of the U.S. and did not want U.S. interference in Mexico. Not only this, but Chinese immigration to Mexico was welcomed because the Chinese immigrants filled Mexico's labor needs. The Chinese Exclusion Act actually led to heightened Chinese immigration to Mexico because of exclusion by the U.S. Therefore, the U.S. resorted to heavily policing the border along Mexico.

Later, the Immigration Act of 1924 restricted immigration even further, excluding all classes of Chinese immigrants and extending restrictions to other Asian immigrant groups.[11] Until these restrictions were relaxed in the middle of the twentieth century, Chinese immigrants were forced to live a life separated from their families, and to build ethnic enclaves in which they could survive on their own (Chinatown).[11] The Chinese Exclusion Act did not address the problems that whites were facing; in fact, the Chinese were quickly and eagerly replaced by the Japanese, who assumed the role of the Chinese in society. Unlike the Chinese, some Japanese were even able to climb the rungs of society by setting up businesses or becoming truck farmers.[25] However, the Japanese were later targeted in the National Origins Act of 1924, which banned immigration from east Asia entirely.

In 1891 the Government of China refused to accept the U.S. Senator Mr. Henry W. Blair as U.S. Minister to China due to his abusive remarks regarding China during negotiation of the Chinese Exclusion Act.[26]

The American Christian Rev. Dr. George F. Pentecost spoke out against western imperialism in China, saying: I personally feel convinced that it would be a good thing for America if the embargo on Chinese immigration were removed. I think that the annual admission of 100,000 into this country would be a good thing for the country. And if the same thing were done in the Philippines those islands would be a veritable Garden of Eden in twenty-five years. The presence of Chinese workmen in this country would, in my opinion, do a very great deal toward solving our labor problems. There is no comparison between the Chinaman, even of the lowest coolie class, and the man who comes here from Southeastern Europe, from Russia, or from Southern Italy. The Chinese are thoroughly good workers. That is why the laborers here hate them. I think, too, that the emigration to America would help the Chinese. At least he would come into contact with some real Christian people in America. The Chinaman lives in squalor because he is poor. If he had some prosperity his squalor would cease.[27]

Following the passed legislation of the Chinese Exclusion Act, a period known as the "Driving Out" era was born. In this period, many anti-Chinese Americans sought out to physically force the Chinese communities to flee to other areas. Many of these outbreaks occurred in the Western states. The Rock Springs Chinese Massacre and the Snake River Massacre of 1887 are two notable events in history.[28]

The Rock Springs massacre occurred in 1885. In 1885, many enraged white miners in Sweetwater County, Wyoming felt threatened by the Chinese and blamed them for their unemployment. As a result of the job competition, white miners expressed their frustration in physical violence where they robbed, shot, and stabbed at Chinese in Chinatown. The Chinese quickly tried to flee but in doing so, many ended up burned alive in their homes, starved to death in hidden refuge, or exposed to animal predators of the mountains. Some were successfully rescued by the passing train, but by the end of the event at least twenty-eight lives had been lost.[28]

In an attempt to appease the situation, the government intervened by sending federal troops to protect the Chinese. However, following the event, only compensations for destroyed property were paid. No-one was arrested nor held accountable for the atrocities committed during the riot.[28]

The massacre itself gained its name due to its location along the Snake River in Hells Canyon by Deep creek. The area inhabits many rocky cliffs and soaring white rapids that all pose as dangerous threats to humans who ventured into the area. Thirty-four Chinese miners who were employed by Sam Yong company, one of the six largest Chinese companies at the time, worked in this area since October 1886. An accurate account of the event is still unclear to this day secondary to unreliable law enforcement at the time, biased news reporting, and lack of serious official investigations. However, it is speculated that the dead Chinese miners were not victims of natural causes but rather victims of gun shot wounds and robbery from seven armed horse thieves. An amount of gold worth $4,000â€“$5,000 was estimated to be stolen from the miners. The whereabouts of the gold were never recovered nor further investigated. Recently, attempts to formulate an accurate picture of the event were drawn from hidden copies of trial documents that contained grand jury indictment, depositions given by the accused, notes from the trial, and historical accounts of Wallowa County by J. Harland Horner and H. Ross Findley.[29]

Horner and Findley were both schoolboys at the time of the massacre but their accounts had glaring discrepancies. Findley believed the massacre was a planned event with more than just a motive to steal gold from the Chinese miners. He believed the arrested culprits wanted to eliminate the Chinese miners from the area as well, which they successfully accomplished. In contrast to most accounts, Findley only recalled 31 confirmed victims and there was no mention of a trial. On the other hand, Horner believed that the event was a spur of the moment event and affected 34 confirmed victims. The school boys initially only had intentions to steal horses but experienced difficulty crossing the river with the stolen horses. When the Chinese miners refused to loan their boats, the boys decided to take the boats by force.[29]

Other disagreements on the motives could also be attributed to the fact that the bodies of the Chinese miners were only found downstream after two weeks. It is unclear if the mangled bodies found were due to human manslaughter or the aftermath of being thrown into turbulent waters. The rapids and brute force of the current could have mangled the bodies against the rocks. However, it is confirmed that the Chinese men were shot secondary to the gunshot wounds found on the bodies. Only ten bodies were identified on February 16, 1888: Chea-po, Chea-Sun, Chea-Yow, Chea-Shun, Chea Cheong, Chea Ling, Chea Chow, Chea Lin Chung, Kong Mun Kow, and Kong Ngan. Little is known about these identified men.[29]

Shortly following the incident, Sam Yup company of San Francisco hired Lee Loi who later hired Joseph K. Vincent, then U.S. Commissioner, to lead an investigation. Vincent submitted his investigation report to the Chinese consulate who unsuccessfully obtained justice for the Chinese miners. At around the same time, other compensation reports were also unsuccessfully filed for earlier crimes inflicted on the Chinese. In the end, on October 19, 1888, Congress agreed to greatly under-compensate for the massacre and ignore the claims for the earlier crimes. Even though the amount was greatly underpaid, it was still a small victory to the Chinese who had low expectations for relief or acknowledgement.[29]

The US Board on Geographic Names officially named the Deep Creek massacre site to the Chinese Massacre Cove. This served as the first ever official recognition of the crime. Additionally in June 2012, a memorial was established with private funds and donations for the Chinese miners that were murdered.[29]

The Chinese Exclusion Act brought rigidity not only to the Chinese alone but to Caucasians and other races as well which lasted for about thirty years.[30] The American economy suffered a great loss as a result of this Act.[31] The Act was a sign of injustice and unfair treatment to the Chinese workers because the jobs they engaged in were mostly menial jobs.[32]

In 1900â€“1904 San Francisco suffered from the Bubonic plague. It first struck San Francisco's Chinatown, causing people to fall ill and experience fevers, swollen lymph nodes, muscle aches and fatigue. Left untreated this infection can cause chronic complications such as Gangrene,[33] meningitis and even death.[34] The Bubonic Plague outbreak in San Francisco Chinatown strengthened Anti-Chinese sentiment in all of California despite science research at the time showing it was caused by Yersinia pestis which was spread by fleas,[35] found in small rodents. When the first round of people died from this plague, the companies and the state denied the fact that there was a plague, in order to keep San Francisco's reputation and businesses in order. The plague did not derive from Chinatown, It was due to the unsanitary conditions and population density that outbreaks such as this one were spread quickly, and therefore affected a large number of people in this community. [1]

Its first deaths in San Francisco were in 1898, a ship from a French bark had some passengers who had died of the plague. After its arrival in San Francisco, 18 more Chinatown residents died of the same symptoms. The mayor decided not to release a public Warning of the outbreak, thinking it would affect San Francisco's commercial business. Chinatown was quarantined, and sanitary services were suspended for some time until presence of bacteriological source was found. A sanitary campaign was launched, however many residents chose to avoid anything and everything that had to do with the plague due to fear and humiliation. As more and more deaths occurred, the city began being more aggressive, and they started checking nearly everyone in Chinatown for any signs of disease. Therefore, the Chinese community began to distrust the government even more.[36] Racism toward Chinese immigrants was socially accepted and social rights were oftentimes denied to this community. This fact made it harder for the community if Chinatown to seek medical attention for their illnesses during the plague.[37]

The Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed by the 1943 Magnuson Act, during a time when China had become an ally of the U.S. against Japan in World War II as that the US needed to embody an image of fairness and justice. The Magnuson Act permitted Chinese nationals already residing in the country to become naturalized citizens and stop hiding from the threat of deportation. While the Magnuson Act overturned the discriminatory Chinese Exclusion Act, it only allowed a national quota of 105 Chinese immigrants per year, and did not repeal the restrictions on immigration from the other Asian countries. Large scale Chinese immigration did not occur until the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The crackdown on Chinese immigrants reached a new level in its last decade, from 1956â€“1965, with the Chinese Confession Program launched by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, that encouraged Chinese who had committed immigration fraud to confess, so as to be eligible for some leniency in treatment.

Despite the fact that the exclusion act was repealed in 1943, the law in California prohibiting non-whites from marrying whites was not struck down until 1948, in which the California Supreme Court ruled the ban of interracial marriage within the state unconstitutional in Perez v. Sharp.[38][39] Other states had such laws until 1967, when the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws across the nation are unconstitutional.

Even today, although all its constituent sections have long been repealed, Chapter 7 of Title 8 of the United States Code is headed "Exclusion of Chinese."[40] It is the only chapter of the 15 chapters in Title 8 (Aliens and Nationality) that is completely focused on a specific nationality or ethnic group. Like the following Chapter 8, "The Cooly Trade", it consists entirely of statutes that are noted as "Repealed" or "Omitted."

On June 18, 2012, the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution which had been introduced by Congresswoman Judy Chu, that formally expresses the regret of the House of Representatives for the Chinese Exclusion Act, an act which imposed almost total restrictions on Chinese immigration and naturalization and denied Chinese-Americans basic freedoms because of their ethnicity.[41] The resolution had been approved by the U.S. Senate in October 2011.[42]

In 2014, the California Legislature took formal action to pass measures that formally recognize the many proud accomplishments of Chinese-Americans in California and to call upon Congress to formally apologize for the 1882 adoption of the Chinese Exclusion Act. Senate Republican Leader Bob Huff (R-Diamond Bar) and incoming Senate President pro-Tem Kevin de LeÃ³n (D-Los Angeles) served as Joint Authors for Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 23 and Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 122.[43]

SJR 23 acknowledges and celebrates the history and contributions of Chinese Americans in California. The resolution also formally calls on Congress to apologize for laws which resulted in the persecution of Chinese Americans, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act.[44]

Perhaps most importantly is the sociological implications for understanding ethnic/race relations in the context of American history: there is a tendency for minorities to be punished in times of economic, political and/or geopolitical crises. Times of social and systemic stability, however, tend to mute whatever underlying tensions exist between different groups. In times of societal crisis—whether perceived or real—patterns or retractability of American identities have erupted to the forefront of America's political landscape, often generating institutional and civil society backlash against workers from other nations, a pattern documented by Fong's research into how crises drastically alter social relationships.[45]


when did the monorail open at disney world

The Walt Disney World Monorail spans 14.7 miles (23.7Â km), with around 50 million Disney guests traveling on the monorail each year.[10] The system opened with the rest of the Walt Disney World Resort on October 1, 1971. It initially featured four stations: the Transportation and Ticket Center, Disney's Polynesian Resort, the Magic Kingdom and Disney's Contemporary Resort. The Epcot line and station were added during that park's construction, opening on October 1, 1982. The most recent addition was the Grand Floridian station, which was opened in 1988 along with the resort hotel.[3][4]

Walt Disney World Monorail System

The Walt Disney World Monorail System is a public transit monorail system in operation at the Walt Disney World Resort in Bay Lake, Florida, near Orlando. The Walt Disney World Resort currently operates twelve Mark VI monorail trains on three lines of service.[3][4][5] The monorail system opened in 1971 with two routes (Magic Kingdom: Resort and Express) and with Mark IV monorail trains. It was expanded to three lines (Magic Kingdom: Resort and Express, plus Epcot) in 1982, and the rolling stock was updated to Mark VI trains in 1989.[3]

As of  2016[update], the system is one of the most heavily used monorail systems in the world, with over 150,000 daily riders.[1][6] It is surpassed by the Tokyo Monorail in Tokyo, Japan, which has over 300,000 daily riders;[7] and by the monorail system run by Chongqing Rail Transit in Chongqing, China, which has over 900,000 daily riders on Line 2 and Line 3 combined.[8]

The three services on two distinct routes on the Walt Disney World Monorail are:
[11]

The Express and Resort services on the dual-beam Magic Kingdom route:

The single beam Epcot route:

A spur track at Magic Kingdom station connects the Express and Resort lines to the maintenance shop. Another spur connects the Epcot and Express lines and is located northeast of the Transportation and Ticket Center.

The monorail beams, which are made of concrete with a special polystyrene core to lighten their weight, came by train from the state of Washington.[11]

The trains in use since 1989 are each 203 ft 6 in (62.03 m) long (consisting of six cars) and can carry 360 passengers. The trains are driven by eight 113 hp (84 kW) motors which are powered by a 600-volt electrical system running through a busbar mounted on each side of the concrete beam.[12]  Each train also has seven inverters on board that convert the 600 V DC to 230 V AC for use by the air conditioners and air compressor, and additionally has a battery-backed 37 V DC low-voltage supply that provides power for the train's electronics.  The trains are also equipped with a towing knuckle at each end to allow it to be pushed or pulled by a special diesel-powered tractor if need be.

Maximum speed during normal operations is 40 mph (64 km/h), with several speed zones throughout the system with limits ranging from 15 to 40 mph (24 to 64 km/h). These speed limits are strictly enforced by the train's computer and cannot be overridden without the operator engaging a special lockout. Attempting to drive the train too quickly in a given speed zone will result in an "overspeed stop."

Train spacing is maintained by the Moving Blocklight System (MBS), also known as the MAPO system (for "Mary Poppins," U.S. Patent 3,973,746), which establishes a number of "holdpoints" throughout the system. At any given time, there must be at least two holdpoints between a given train and the train ahead of it.  When the train detects that there are fewer than two holdpoints between itself and the preceding train, the emergency brakes are immediately applied and cannot be released until sufficient spacing becomes available or the operator overrides the system.  Failure to maintain adequate spacing is known as an "overrun," and is treated as an extremely serious offense.

Starting June 22, 2014, the monorail began operating on a different timetable in order to accommodate work to automate the system. Disney stated that the system would provide a more efficient service with enhanced safety, as well as more frequent dispatch of the trains, faster switching times, and monorail arrival information.[13] Pilots are still seated in the front cab, but only supervise the monorail in case of an emergency. Platform attendants operate a control panel to dispatch and operate the monorail system.

Each train is identified by a colored stripe, and given a name according to that color.[11] The complete list of colors used is below. To help visually identify Green from Lime, Pink from Coral and Blue from Teal, the Lime, Teal, and Coral stripes have a white delta painted on each car. Originally, Monorail Lime's deltas (and those of the older Mark IV Lime) were painted a dark blue in homage to the original Walt Disney World monorail cast's costume colors (lime and blue), but the colors were changed when the entire monorail fleet was repainted in the early 2000s.

In November 2009, Disney put Monorail Teal into service. Monorail Teal was built using the undamaged portions of the two trains involved in the July 5, 2009 crash.[4][14] The colors of the two trains involved, Pink and Purple, were retired from service.[4] The twelfth train, Peach, was placed into service in September 2011 to restore the resort's fleet back to twelve trains.[15] It was assembled using the undamaged center cars from the Purple train, but with new end cabs replacing the damaged sections from the Pink and Purple trains.

On March 19, 2010, Disney debuted Monorail TRON on the Epcot line as part of a marketing plan for Tron: Legacy.[16] A repainted Monorail Coral, it was removed from rotation in July 2011 and has returned to its normal route and colors. As of October 7, 2011, the newest monorail in Peach color entered service.[17]

Since the Tron paint scheme in 2010, there have been several other monorail wraps. On March 31, 2012, Monorail Red was converted into a special scheme commemorating the release of The Avengers, similar to the previous promotion for Tron: Legacy. The monorail runs on the Magic Kingdom line and sometimes on the Resort line as the Epcot line loops through the park itself, since Disney is not able to feature specified Marvel characters inside its Florida parks due to Marvel Entertainment's license agreement with Universal Parks & Resorts that was in place prior to the purchase of Marvel in 2009. In March 2013, Monorail Black was given a similar conversion to promote the release of Iron Man 3.  In April 2013, Monorail Teal was converted into a special scheme commemorating the release of Monsters University. In December 2015, Monorail Black was decorated in Star Wars designs commemorating the release of Star Wars Episode VII - The Force Awakens. In 2016, Monorail Orange was decorated in Zootopia designs and was named the Zootopia Monorail System to reflect the Zootopia Transit Authority, commemorating the release of Zootopia.   In 2018 Monorail Orange was decorated in Incredibles designs to promote the release of Incredibles 2.

The current train identification colors include:

^Δ Identifiable by white deltas.

Retired identification colors include:

These colors were retired after the July 2009 incident.

There is seating for up to four guests in the front cab of the train with the pilot who manually drives each train. These were offered on a first-come, first-served basis, and a pilot gave out "co-pilot licenses" at the end of the journey. Front cab riding was suspended permanently after the July 5, 2009 crash.

The monorail system uses a set of pre-recorded announcements to instruct and entertain passengers. Prior to departure when the pilot closes the doors, an announcement asks guests to "Please stand clear of the doors. Por favor mantÃ©nganse alejado de las puertas." One of the most well-known phrases within the resort, it was recorded by Jack Wagner, who was known as "the Voice of Disneyland." In 1988 following the construction of the Grand Floridian Resort stop, Kevin Miles replaced Jack Wagner as the voiceover. Wagner can still be heard today as the "Please stand clear of the doors..." phrase remains with his voice, partly because it is installed on a separate system. Miles worked in Epcot as part of the 'Voices of Liberty' in the American Adventure pavilion at World Showcase. Sometime before 1998, Disney employee Matt Hanson replaced Kevin Miles, and in 2004 Hanson was replaced by Joe Hursh.[18] Hanson is still with the Walt Disney Company.[19] During the system's early years, the trains featured Wagner's narration of the sights and scenery along the way, as well as information on special events, the resort, and the monorail system itself.[19]  On April 13, 2012 at around 5:00 EST, Disney activated a newer version of the spiel on the monorails that features Tom Kane as its new narrator.[20]

Monorail Shop ("Shop" for short) is Disney's monorail maintenance facility located a short distance northeast of the Magic Kingdom, and provides space for up to ten of the twelve Mark VI trains on its upper level (the bottom level houses the four steam locomotives and trains of the Walt Disney World Railroad in the Magic Kingdom on its west side, and a road vehicle maintenance facility on the east side). On any given night, two monorail trains are parked at various stations on the system. On nights where the temperature drops below freezing, the trains will be parked inside the Contemporary Resort; but in practice, trains can be left in any station (even on the express side of a resort station). No train will ever be left outside two nights in a row because routine maintenance is performed nightly.

The Monorail Shop also has a painting room located on Beam 10 that is elevated 25 feet (7.6Â m) off the ground and has a lift mounted on the wall for the painters. It takes three weeks to paint a monorail train. To access the wheels and underside of the monorail, a portion of Beam 1 inside Shop is removable, primarily used to change load tires.

The diesel-powered "work tractors" are the tow trucks of the system, and can tow a train to Monorail Shop, located around the bend from Space Mountain. Monorail Operations at the Walt Disney World resort has three separate tractors (Red, tagged '1', Blue, tagged '2', and Green, tagged '3') that allow for the simultaneous towing of three different monorails. In the event of a power failure on one of the monorail lines, the tractors are still operational, as they are powered by on-board diesel engines.

Safe train spacing is maintained via a moving blocklight system, referred to as MAPO, installed in the cab of each train.[11] MAPO appears in the top center of the pilot's console and looks similar to a horizontal stop light. There are three lights—green, amber, and red—and a push-button labeled "Override". The term "MAPO" itself comes directly from Walt Disney, who formed a new company to deal with Disneyland's transportation system directly from the profits made by Mary Poppins.[21]

Each monorail beam is divided into blocks based upon pylon numbering. The currently illuminated MAPO color indicates how far ahead the leading train is currently located. A green MAPO shows that the leading train is 3 or more blocks ahead, amber means 2 blocks ahead, and red indicates that the next train is in the very next block. A block is roughly between 500 and 1000 feet (about 150 and 300 m) long, although this varies. The start of each block is called a "hold point", as pilots may need to hold their trains at that location until the train ahead moves away. Guests riding in the front cab of a monorail can identify hold points by the yellow reflective tape around a pylon's number and by two yellow reflectors attached to the top outside edges of the monorail beam at that pylon.

For safety, trains must be kept at least two blocks apart during normal operation. A red MAPO indicates that train spacing has become unsafe. When a red MAPO occurs, the train's on-board computer locks out the pilot's propulsion control and applies emergency brakes. The pilot cannot resume control of the train until either the MAPO clears or the pilot presses and holds the MAPO override button.[11]

It is the pilot's responsibility to avoid a red MAPO during normal operation. When the MAPO switches from green to amber, this indicates that the monorail is approaching the train ahead. The pilot must stop the train before crossing into the next block of beam way and hence before the MAPO switches to red. Should a pilot cross the hold point and receive a red MAPO, this counts as a safety demerit against the pilot.  If a pilot accumulates three demerits on his/her record within a two-year period, then he/she will be transferred out of the monorails department and into a different role at Walt Disney World.[22]

Safety tests are performed daily to ensure that the MAPO system is working properly on each train. At the direction of the monorail station conducting the test, each train will intentionally overrun a hold point to verify that a red MAPO occurs and that the emergency brakes activate. Pilots perform tests in forward and reverse when bringing a train onto the system for the first time that day. The indications are called into Monorail Central with the emergency brake pressures.

A red MAPO will also occur when the pilot approaches a section of un-powered beam, a spur line, or a switch beam thrown in the direction of a spur line. Pilots must engage the MAPO override when moving trains through a switch to the spur line. Red MAPOs occurring due to safety tests, switching, or beam power loss do not count as demerits against the pilot.[citation needed]

Emergencies requiring train evacuation will be handled differently depending upon the location of the train and the nature of the emergency.

If a train is stopped at a station platform or at the work platform along the Epcot beam, guests can exit the train onto the platform. Exiting a train is possible even when the doors of the train cars are closed. The large rectangular window in the middle of each car is an emergency exit and can be removed from the interior of the car. A cast member outside the car can also manually open the rightmost door panel of the car by releasing the air pressure holding that panel closed. The air pressure release is a handle beneath the rectangular center window that is similar in appearance to a car door handle.

If a train is stopped on an open beam, then guests evacuate through emergency exits located in the roof of the train. Guests open roof hatches by first removing decorative plastic from the ceiling above a bulkhead footstool and then by lifting open a hinged hatch that will flip across the bulkhead dividing two train cars. Guests evacuate to the roof by climbing through the open hatch onto the top of the train. The bulkheads separating cars are designed as firewalls that will contain a fire within a car to just that car. The open hatch allows guests in the affected car to transfer to an adjacent car where they can safely wait for evacuation by fire response crews.

If the emergency affects the entire train, then guests are evacuated to the surface of the beam. Guests again open the emergency roof hatches, but do not simply move to the adjacent car. Instead, they use a small handrail present along the top of each train car to move all the way to the front of the train. The train's pilot can attach a knotted rope to both the top and the base of the windscreen, and guests use the rope to shimmy down the windscreen to the surface of the beam. They finally start walking along the beam away from the train.

Reedy Creek Emergency Services provides fire response and rescue for the Walt Disney World Monorail System and maintains an all-wheel-drive fire truck specially designed for monorail rescue.[23]

The Express station at the Transportation and Ticket Center, and both stations at the Magic Kingdom have remotely opened or automated gates that bar riders from approaching the guideway (and, thus, any approaching or departing train) until the operators have determined that it is safe to allow people to board the train.[24] The cast member at the station gives the riders instructions on how to board. The other stations have manually operated gates to serve this function.

All platforms are ADA-accessible. Because the train level is higher than the platform level, a portable ramp must be used to load and unload disabled guests at all stations. For many years, the Contemporary Resort station did not have ADA access, but an elevator has since been added to the platform.

Several accidents and injuries have occurred on the monorails since Walt Disney World opened, with one death. On July 5, 2009, a driver was pronounced dead in transit from the site after two monorails (Pink and Purple), collided near the Ticket and Transportation Center, on the EPCOT line.  It was the first, and only, fatal accident in the monorail's history.[25]