Kirwan Institute Blog

Kirwan Institute Blog Has Moved

2011-10-31T09:24:00.002-05:00

Please visit our new blog site at Race-Talk.org

Reverse Robin Hood

2009-11-20T14:52:00.009-05:00

By Christy Rogers, Senior Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

On Wednesday, November 18th, the Kirwan Institute, along with the Poverty & Race Research Action Council, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, the National Fair Housing Alliance, the Center for Responsible Lending, and the National Council of La Raza, co-hosted a policy meeting around fair credit and fair housing in the wake of the subprime lending and foreclosure crisis (with funding from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation). The turnout was so good we had to add a table. The conversation was intense, engaging. Even the food was good. Yet I left incensed. Why?

Because in presentation after presentation, we learned just how badly the American people are getting fleeced. Not by the ‘usual suspects’—we all do love to rail at the IRS—but by the financial institutions that supposedly help us all build wealth and prosperity. I entered the room thinking there were two credit markets—one that offered sustainable, wealth-building asset and credit tools at fair and transparent terms to one group of folks, and one that offered crappier options (high fees, pre-payment penalties, exploding things, tiny print) to another group of folks—poor white people, people in black or Latino neighborhoods, Native Americans, military families, immigrants, rural people…in other words, a good majority of us. That was bad enough, but now I’m convinced that not only are there two credit markets, but one actually functions to extract wealth from the other. The crowbar of extraction, if you will, was the subprime lending and foreclosure fiasco that pulled about a quarter of a trillion dollars of housing wealth out of communities of color, and in some places predominantly from their widowed grandmas, and put it in the pockets of the financial elite. When those elites got into trouble for their poor choices, the government, aided by former Goldman Sachs’ head Henry Paulson’s eye-of-Sauron-like ability to survey the devastated financial landscape, hurriedly borrowed taxpayer dollars to re-line those tailored pockets. Besides kittens in trees and baby prams rolling down courthouse steps, nothing stirs us to action like the thought of a CEO of a flailing company who can’t pay himself a gajillion dollars. It puts all those people who make $6,000 shower curtains and $75,000 toilets out of business. (No offense to the toilet designer, by the way; it’s real pretty.)

But there are other extractive mechanisms as well, including ridiculous debit card overdraft fees (billions of our gram and gramps’ social security dollars goes to those fees every year). La Raza held focus groups with young Latinos and found that their negative experiences with credit cards often resulted in them withdrawing from the credit market altogether. The focus groups also reported that the young adults felt strongly that credit cards should be reserved for emergencies—which they then defined as diapers and utility bills, what many of us would term daily needs. The Appleseed network has been working diligently to bring transparency and fairness to the remittance market after working immigrants were assaulted, and sometimes killed, for the cash they intended to send home to their families. And Chris Peterson and Steven Graves have shown that payday lenders “aggressively target American military personnel, irrespective of most forms of legal regulation.”

Why are the rich stealing from the poor? Because they can; because it’s there; because it’s largely legal; and when it isn’t, the criminal abuses aren’t prosecuted. Let your elected representatives know that the law has to change to prevent deceptive and abusive practices, and that existing laws need to be enforced. Start with the passage of a robust CFPA. And take your banking and loan business to a responsible institution. Tune In, Turn On, and Opt-Out!

The House on Imperial Avenue

2009-11-18T15:54:00.004-05:00

By Wendy Smooth, an assistant professor in the Department of Women’s Studies with a joint appointment at the Kirwan Institute

Over last week, I’ve experienced a flood of emotions vacillating between shock, outrage, anguish, sorrow and mourning as I watched news outlets report day after day the rising toll of bodies pulled from the Anthony Sowell house in Cleveland. The bodies extracted from the Imperial Avenue house had decomposed beyond recognition. Authorities could tell few things about the bodies and in some instances, only skulls remained.

Each time the news reported “bodies found,” I immediately knew, in that way that knowledge accumulates over time through experience, that these were the bodies of black women. I knew it from the report of the first body found. These were the bodies of the forgotten, the surrendered and they represented the bodies of so many black women over time that have gone unacknowledged. I knew these were the bodies of black women, because we look for white women. Their names ran through my mind like a ticker at the bottom of a CNN newscast, the names of all the missing white women that I knew off the top of my head, as if I had a long established relationship with them. We all are on first name basis with missing white women and girls—Laci, Jon Benet, Natalee, Caylee, Elizabeth… We all know them; we’ve been made to know them.

The house on Imperial Avenue reminded me once again that black women go missing everyday from communities across the country and we seldom hear of them on national news. Families are so often faced with the tragic reality that police, community officials, and media outlets have little resources or interest in looking for missing black women. My colleague Rebecca Wanzo’s new book The Suffering Will Not be Televised takes on this issue chronicling the ways black women’s suffering is so often overlooked and how their stories fail to elicit collective sympathies.

As a black woman, these are chilling realizations. Some might say, but the women of Imperial Avenue were lost to the streets, haunted by demons and battling a myriad of addictions. They were not representative of black women, they are not like you. While these women’s life circumstances were different from my own, they were black women and their realities are linked to my own. My heart mourns for the families who lost their mothers, sisters, wives, daughters, lovers and friends at the house on Imperial Avenue. My soul also aches for all of black womanhood as we came face to face with the realities of how deeply black women’s lives are undervalued.

When Walls Come Down

2009-11-17T09:35:00.000-05:00

By Hasan Kwame Jeffries, Assistant professor in the Department History with a joint appointment at the Kirwan Institute

Some twenty years ago, the Berlin Wall, an impenetrable barrier of concrete that divided Germany for nearly half a century, came crashing down, reduced to rubble by the people it separated. The East and West Berliners who tore it down acted not out of impulse but out of a deeply rooted desire to be free not only of the physical structure that forcibly separated them but of the political and economic systems that reinforced that separation.

Today, we celebrate the destruction of the wall and the reunification of Germany by waxing poetically about the forward march of progress. But there was nothing inevitable about what happened in this Cold War hot spot. The cascade of events leading up to that fateful day in November 1989 frightened world leaders on both sides of the Iron Curtain. In his personal journal, U.S. President George H. W. Bush fretted about the rapid pace of progress and wondered how he could slow things down. Even his predecessor was greatly concerned. When President Ronald Reagan implored Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987 to “tear down this wall” he did not mean so soon.

Like so many events that change society for the better, ordinary people were ahead of political leaders. They were the agents of change – the makers of the “inevitable.” Had it been up to the usual suspects, the “inevitable” would have taken considerably longer to materialize and there is no telling what kind of truncated form of freedom would have eventually emerged.

The Berlin Wall no longer stands and Germany is no longer divided. In fact, Germany has emerged from the turmoil of the Cold War and the uncertainty of reunification as a major industrial power. But like all western societies, walls remain and divisions persist. In Germany and elsewhere, modernity has eliminated the need for concrete barriers. (The tragic exceptions are America’s wall along its border with Mexico, and Israel’s wall in the West Bank.) Yet the supposed forward march of progress has failed to get rid of other kinds of walls, the most notable being those based on race, ethnicity, class, gender, and citizenship status. In many ways, these socio-economic barriers are harder to tear down than physical structures like the Berlin Wall because they are invisible to so many people. Indeed, it is often the case that the only people who see them are the people negatively affected by them. And like the Berlin Wall, these barriers will not come down on their own. Ordinary people will have to tear them down, led not by political leaders but by the people who see them everyday. If and when these barriers fall, it not be because of the natural progression of things, but because of the hard work and determination of ordinary people to live free and full lives.

Rush to Judgment

2009-11-10T18:35:00.000-05:00

By Stephen Menendian, Senior Legal Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

In his New York Times op-ed on November 9th, David Brooks criticized the public response and the media coverage of the Fort Hood violence last week, which he called a ‘rush to therapy’, which emphasized the personal breakdown of Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the apparent shooter, over the narrative of Islamic extremism that may or may not have inspired or motivated the violence. Brooks claimed that the ‘rush to therapy’ “absolved Hasan—before the real evidence was in—of his responsibility.”

The so-called 'rush to therapy' did not—and could not—absolve Major Hasan of his responsibility. On the contrary, it prevented a rush to judgment, to fit complex facts into a simplistic narrative. Brooks claims that the ‘rush to therapy’ “denied, before the evidence was in, the possibility of evil.” It did not deny the possibility of evil. It denied the presumption of evil. In this country, guilt or innocence is supposed to be determined in a courtroom, not by an angry mob or the media. Yet all too often this is not the case. Our long history of mob justice—on the frontier or under white sheets—belies our standard of justice, of due process, of ‘innocence until proven guilty.’

Brooks claims that it “wasn’t the reaction of a morally or politically serious nation.” On the contrary, it was the mark of a morally and political serious nation.

The global food crisis requests a new food and agriculture governance model

2009-10-28T16:08:00.001-05:00

By Lidija Knuth, Research Fellow for the Kirwan Institute

The global food crisis is also a crisis of food governance. With an estimated increase of 105 million hungry people in 2009, there are now 1.02 billion malnourished people in the world, meaning that almost one sixth of all humanity is suffering from hunger (FAO 2009). But the problem is not that we don't produce enough food. There is enough food for everybody but decades of globalization with respective deregulation, speculation on the commodity markets, climate change and inadequate food and agricultural policies and respective models of production have led to massive problems in producing food in a sustainable way and distributing food fairly.

Most of the food globally is produced by small-scale farmers, women, and farm workers. And yet they are steadily losing access to, and control over food producing resources such as land, water, seeds and livestock breeds. Anticipated profits from the agro-export business and the increase in agro-fuels investment and rising food prices have triggered a strong demand for land and water to expand monocultures and industrial agriculture as well as widespread land grabbing. This development, together with other factors such as armed conflicts, extractive industries, tourism, industrial and infrastructure projects, climate change, and accelerated urbanization have led to more uncertainty of land and property rights of rural communities.

To meet those challenges we need a new governance framework. The current norms and regimes governing food issues need to be altered; it is necessary to reflect on the models of production and management that should be promoted, the problems around access to natural resources and the major actors that will need to be involved. It is necessary to seriously involve several additional actors in the new food and agriculture governance systems. Small-scale farmers should no longer be viewed as a problem, but as central actors in boosting food production and preserving the environment. Their and other marginal voices need to be taken more seriously. They should be viewed as key change agents, while agriculture should be seen as an - and perhaps “the”– engine of growth and poverty reduction.

Social Contact and Interactions

2009-10-23T10:30:00.001-05:00

By S. P. Udayakumar, International Research Fellow for the Kirwan Institute

The binary thinking that permeates most of our cultures across the world often results in simplistic two-pronged classifications. ‘Good vs. Evil’ is the most favored storyline in most cultures. ‘Us vs. Them’ is the most fecund identitarian and political scheme. ‘Profit vs. Loss’ in economics, ‘Victor vs. Vanquished’ in military, ‘Holiness vs. Sinfulness’ in religion, and the cultural sphere has many more: strong-weak, tall-short, fat-thin, black-white and so on. The list is endless.

We often think of social contact and interactions also in terms of social exclusion and inclusion. In the typical ‘before-after’ binary thinking, inclusion is the tool of intervention. The ‘pre-inclusion’ state is deemed to be social exclusion. Then inclusion happens and the ‘after-exclusion’ state is understood to be inclusion.

A medical analogy could help us understand this better. Say you have a nose and feel pretty bad about it. You undergo a plastic surgery and get the nose straightened. The doctor shows the ‘before’ and ‘after’ photos, you are thrilled about the new nose and live happily ever after. The ‘during’ phase between the ‘before’ and ‘after’ stages is a short and swift surgery.

But is ‘social inclusion’ such a quick and easy move? The ‘during’ part that can be termed as social contact and interaction is long, convoluted, complex, intricate and highly political. Unlike the plastic surgery, a lot happens here. If we locate all that happens here on a continuum, this could range from ignorance and indifference to outright animosity and active confrontation. Between these extreme positions, there are all kinds of inclusionary and exclusionary precepts and practices.

Take, for instance, the inclusion of women in many of our societies. For many men and man-made institutions, inclusion of women is rather a forced or legally mandated effort. We could call it ‘sexclusion’ that means overall exclusion with selective sexual inclusion. Some sections of people in some parts of India abort female fetuses because of their preference for male-children. Girl children are considered to be a liability. But they do need women for their boys to marry. Another example would be the ignominy of untouchability in some parts of India. The members of a ‘lower’ caste are kept away by the ‘upper’ caste groups as untouchables. But the ‘lower’ caste women somehow become touchable when sexploitation is possible. The issue of sexclusion is much broader and more complicated and deserves to be studied separately.

Social exclusion also happens at two levels. Pushing ‘the Other’ away from you is often problematized and is a crime in many of our societies. But there is also an equally effective and treacherous way of exclusion, and that is pulling your(self) away from ‘the Other.’ Examples could be White people in the United States running to the suburbs or the ‘upper’ caste Brahmins in India secluding themselves to maintain their purity and ward off pollution from the Dalits. Thus marginalization is a form of structural violence that keeps sections at the margins as you seclude yourself at the center. Furthermore, it also means your refusal to enter the margins and interact with the marginalized in any meaningful manner. This large grey zone between ‘social exclusion’ and ‘social inclusion’ must be studied more deeply and methodically.

New Populism Not About Race? Think Again

2009-10-23T09:03:00.007-05:00

By Stephen Menendian, Senior Legal Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

The headlines are now familiar. Representative Joe Wilson shouted “You Lie!” during President Obama’s Health Care speech to the Congress. In response to Rep. Wilson’s outburst, former President Jimmy Carter said “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American.” This comment launched a media firestorm framed around a simple question: is resistance to Obama’s health care plan, or any of his proposals, rooted in racism?

Maureen Dowd, writing for the New York Times, reminded us of Joe Wilson’s association with the Sons of the Confederacy, including his participation in the campaign to keep the Confederate flag atop the South Carolina capital building. The implication was that Joe Wilson’s outburst was motivated by racial antiapthy, or at least latent racial attitudes. On the other side, David Brooks, disclaiming the ability to “peer… into the souls of Obama’s critics,” opined that “race is largely beside the point.” In his view, the debate was one of big government versus small government, federal interventionism versus limited federal government and states rights, urban versus rural, Hamilton versus Jefferson. Brooks claims that it is this frame which illuminates the debate and the reaction by the right-wing populists to Obama's policies, whether it is Health Care, the Stimulus, and so on.

The next 24 hours of the news cycle was consumed by this question, from Fox News to Larry King. In the middle of it all, the President said that opposition to his policies wasn’t motivated by racism. In an interview, asked about the issue, President Obama said: "Are there people out there who don't like me because of race? I'm sure there are. That's not the overriding issue here."

The debate over the issue was disturbingly shallow because it was framed by the wrong question. Either resistance to Obama’s policies are motivated by racism or they aren’t. And if they aren’t, then, as Brooks put it, ‘race is… beside the point.’ But this is a false dichotomy. The frame that David Brooks employs is the perfect counterpoint for why this is so.

On the various issues of federal interventionism (gun control, the federal reserve, etc) and federal programs (health care), limited government and states rights, taxation, immigration and birtherism, urban versus rural, nay, Jackson and Jefferson, race is ‘largely besides the point’? Point by point, issue by issue, these are the tropes of race. These issues may not be motivated by racial animus, but they are most certainly ‘about race.’

Southern opposition to federal intervention and protection of states rights and a limited federal role was always premised on the protection of existing racial arrangements. This was the essence of Jeffersonianism. While he spoke of the ‘ideal of the independent farmer,’ that farmer was, by and large, a slaveholder. The states-rights tradition cannot be understood outside of race. Opposition to taxes is not simply opposition on the philosophical level; it is tied to the issue of “federal programs,” which to many white Southerners meant taxpayer supported programs to benefit Black Americans, whether it was opposition to the Freedman’s Bureau during Reconstruction, the Social Security Act during the New Deal, or the Aid to Families with Dependent Children during the Great Society, which the Gingrich Revolution’s Contract With America brought to an end.
Think this is ancient history?

Rush Limbaugh told his audience to “Think reparations. Think forced reparations here if you want to understand what actually is going on.” A few months later, more directly in connection with the health care debate, Glenn Beck blogged that: “[Obama] attended a Black Liberation Theology church for 20 years. Black Liberation Theology teaches it is the white man that has kept you down. It is the white man that you must take money from, you must take power from to make up for the past.” Against this backdrop, Glenn Beck claims that “Barack Obama is setting up universal healthcare, universal college, green jobs as stealth reparations. That way the victim status is maintained. And he also brings back back‑door reparations.”

Race undergirds messages on taxes, immigration, guns, patriotism, family values, and big government spending, making them attractive, particularly in the South. To say that race is ‘largely besides’ the point is to miss the point, and miss the ways in which these issues are framed in such a way as to foment opposition on the foundation of nearly two hundred years of racialized cultural associations. Opposition to these issues may not be the direct result of racial animus, but these issues cannot be divorced from their racial subtext, and that this subtext plays a critical role in fomenting support or opposition.

Although David Brooks may be right in his anecdotal observation that the ‘white tea party protestors’ are not racial bigots in the mold of George Wallace or even Archie Bunker, he hit the nail on the head when he said that these folks, and the ‘populist news media’ decry Van Jones and Acorn to “prove that elites are decadant and un-American.” Indeed, it wasn’t just that federal intervention meant disrupting racial arrangements or that federal programs signaled reparations, there was moral lining to these complaints about who is worthy and who is not. The immoral, decadent, or lazy African-American is a very old idea. The ‘welfare queen’ has is not even the most recent iteration. Recall the Associated Press captions that described a black Katrina victim as “looting,” and the white victim as “finding” food in the wake of the Hurricane. Today, Acorn, an organization advocating around low-income housing and other social issues in predominantly minority areas, has been the latest target, in an attempt to associate the group with prostitution.

Consciously or not, David Brooks drew out the exact associations both to federalism and to morality that have such a deep racial subtext, and yet he claims are not about race. Naïve? Perhaps . But Brooks is not alone. Even as we talk about race, too often the conversation devolves into the narrow and unproductive question of whether someone is a racist or not. These issues have deep racial connotations that operate even in the absence of overt racism. They are successfully utilized by the right to garner opposition to policies and programs by mapping them to their implicit associations. Maureen Dowd pointed out that “For two centuries, the South has feared a takeover by blacks or the feds. In Obama, they have both. “ Although the John Calhoun and George Wallace are, by and large, long gone, it is a critical error to assume that race is beside the point. And unless we call out these associations, with their myriad racial meanings, they will never be defused and their racial implications will continue to work against us, to our frustration and confusion alike.

Creativity for the Count

2009-10-11T14:03:00.002-05:00

By Cheryl Staats, Research Assistant at the Kirwan Institute

As 2009 speeds to a close, the U.S. Census Bureau is gearing up for its constitutionally-mandated decennial count of everyone living in the United States. Although the Census Bureau takes extraordinary care to ensure that all people are counted (even staging dress rehearsals), this remarkably complex task historically results in an undercount of marginalized populations. Contributing to the undercount are undocumented immigrants who often are reticent to participate, erroneously fearing that personal information disclosed on census forms may lead to deportation or other adverse legal ramifications. Awareness of undercounts has often prompted census officials to statistically modify previous counts, thus offering adjusted data.

With Census Bureau Director Robert Groves recently claiming that “there’ll be no adjustment of this census,” the agency’s 2010 outreach includes some novel tactics to raise awareness of the census and allay respondents’ fears. To reach Latinos, the Census Bureau has teamed up with the producers of Más Sabe el Diablo (“The Devil Knows Best”), a telenovela (soap opera) on the Telemundo network, to create a storyline involving a character who applies to work for the U.S. Census Bureau. Factual information meant to the reassure the largely Spanish-speaking audience (such as census information being estrictamente confidencial – “strictly confidential”) is communicated through the character Perla Beltrán, who otherwise is intertwined in the genre’s typical fictional sagas. Aurelio Valcarel, an executive producer at Telemundo, asserted, “we’re trying to fight the fear” by including the census-focused plot.

With census data used to allocate more than $400 billion in federal and state funds each year, to influence what community services are offered, and to apportion congressional seats to states, innovative tactics that educate using creative mediums and make respondents less leery about being counted should be applauded. Ultimately, attaining an accurate count is vital to maintaining equitable congressional representation, a hallmark of our nation’s democracy. In the words of the national campaign: Ya es hora. ¡Hágase Contar! - “It’s Time. Make Yourself Count!”

Things That Make You Go Hmmm…

2009-10-05T09:20:00.003-05:00

By Angela Stanley, Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

I’ve recently been thinking about concepts like priorities, standards, representation, and fairness—not in any in-depth kind of way, rather anecdotally and informally. The whole Roman Polanski situation, and all of his supporters, has really left me scratching my head or donning a furrowed brow or whatever the move is that makes you look like you’re deep in thought.

I find it interesting that there seems to be more public outcry and scorn for Michael Vick over animal cruelty and Michael Jackson (RIP) for the acquittal of child molestation charges than for Polanski who admittedly had sex with a minor and R. Kelly who has a documented history of his “relationships” with underage Black girls. (PS: Is anyone really surprised that Woody Allen is on Team Roman Polanski?)

Serena Williams recently got quite upset about a bad call during a tennis match and it was somehow attributed by many to her Black girl Compton upbringing. Meanwhile, John McEnroe was notorious for his routine temper tantrums during tennis matches and rarely had them boiled down to his race, gender, and/or childhood residence.

My oh-so-favorite comedian Chris Rock, all sarcasm intended, can profit comedically at the expense of Black women and making fun of issues that are pretty personal and yet be praised for capitalizing on those very same issues under the guise of wanting his daughter to feel beautiful just as she is through his upcoming documentary Good Hair. From a business standpoint, I suppose playing both ends is the most profitable way to go, but it’s interesting that there have been several documentaries done on this issue, mostly by Black women, yet Chris Rock is the one who gets the credit and attention…and the Oprah couch time.

Tyler Perry who, although successful, has questionable writing and directing skills and regularly portrays Black women in the most stereotypical of ways, has somehow managed to score the rights to Ntozake Shange’s For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide When the Rainbow is Enuf, and will be bringing it to the big screen in the near future. Really? Tyler Perry is the best person for the job? Really?

Anyway, I’m sure this list could go on and on, but I’ve said all of this to say that there’s something going on with people’s standards, what their priorities are, what they value, and how they are being represented (or misrepresented). Through the murkiness of it all, some people just aren’t emerging with a fair shake and it makes me wonder if I’m the only one who’s seeing it and going “hmmm…”

And a child (a teenager) shall lead them

2009-09-28T10:44:00.006-05:00

By Michele Battle-Fisher, Graduate Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

With the hectic schedules experienced in our home, dinner time in our home is time to talk. Often, we talk about the matters of our days. But one recent evening, our teenage son Brandon began talking about a speech on health care as a natural right that he had to present in his AP Government class. He began by mentioning that in speaking he found strength in his words. He did not feel that his written word was as strong or well understood. I thought that I would give his spoken words another platform. Discourse is power (a la Foucault). I wanted to listen.
In the words of Brandon Battle:

I think that health care is a natural right that needs to be provided by the government. Americans spent $2.2 trillion dollars on health care in 2007 which averages out to be about $7400 per individual. This is two times the amount spent in developed countries. Americans will end up spending more on health care than on housing and food. This will mean that families could have to choose between paying health care and buying food for their families. I don’t know all the details of the health care reform but health care hinders the American people and is a necessary investment for the country. (Reference: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health_care/)

Now Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke states the recession is subsiding. But as long as health statuses continue to “recess”, this isn’t close to being resolved.

How Fast Is Your Broadband Connection?

2009-09-23T11:16:00.004-05:00

By Mikyung Baek, Research and Technical Associate at The Kirwan Institute

The Federal Communications Commission has until February 17, 2010 to present a National Broadband Plan to Congress. Five months before the deadline, a debate is going on around the definition of broadband. Cable companies are playing with the ‘provisioned’ versus ‘actual’ speed and argue against using the actual speed for the definition of broadband. AT&T wants broadband to be defined by the minimal set of applications and says it is “not the ability to engage in real-time, two-way gaming, but obtaining meaningful access to the Internet’s resources and to reliable email communications and other basic tools” that is at stake. This translates into this: if you have a broadband connection in your neighborhood, however fast or slow it may be or regardless of what you can or can’t do with that connection, you are counted as wired; you already have ‘meaningful access’ and ‘basic tools’ because the ‘provisioned’ speed of your connection is, by definition, broadband.

A satellite television operator, EchoStar, wants the definition to read ‘at least 768 Kbps downstream and 200 Kbps upstream.’ Why? 768 Kbps is enough for satellite operators to handle satellite ‘broadband’ service and by insisting upon holding down the broadband to 768kbs, they want to be counted as ‘broadband’ service providers. Verizon also wants keep the bar low for the broadband at 768/200 Kbps.

A recent reality check: A Chicago Tribune article last month noted where the country stands in Internet speed, 28th among industrialized nations with an average of 5.1Mbps, compared to 20.4 Mbps of South Korea and 15.8 Mbps of Japan. Not only U.S. consumers are stuck with slower connection speed, it comes with a lot higher cost. According to OECD Broadband Statistics, average broadband monthly price per ‘advertised’ Mbps is $10.02 in the U.S., almost 12 times of what South Koreans pay, $0.85.

We obviously have a long way to go. And as far as consumers are concerned, the faster the better, and the cheaper the better, regardless of whether it falls under someone’s definition of broadband at a certain point of time or not. If it was December 2006, when FCC’s definition of broadband was 200 Kbps (up or downstream), my connection of up to 1.5 Mbps would be the ‘broadestband’ of all! The National Broadband Plan needs to set the goal of universal access to broadband, but the quality of broadband needs to be set high enough to ensure digital opportunities in its truest sense. If we identify 768 Kbps as baseline broadband speed, we will be restricting the digital capabilities for those who live in the areas of lower speed when it is coupled with existing digital inequality. One of the things I would like the FCC to do is to focus on enhancing digital opportunities for consumers across the country by ensuring transparency in broadband availability data in terms of the speed (minimum and maximum, upstream and downstream, provisioned and actual) and price. This will increase market competition between broadband providers and eventually improve the quality of broadband connection as well as penetration rates as was the case in many other countries. We will then have choices between high speed internet connections at affordable prices in every neighborhood in the nation.

Criminalizing Poverty

2009-09-14T14:11:00.017-05:00

By Jen Washco, Graduate Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

This August, a Sacramento attorney opened a property he owns to approximately three dozen homeless people.[1] Due to complaints from a neighboring resident, city police evicted the residents for camping more than 24 hours, which violates a Sacramento ordinance.[2] The residents of the encampment were forced to leave, but the question of where they have left to go remains unanswered.
The Sacramento prohibition on camping is just one instance in a general trend, begun in the 1980s, toward the criminalization of poverty. This makes the activities homeless people do to survive illegal, while not addressing the causes of their homelessness. Criminalizing these activities does not address the problem. At worst, it brings homelessness into a self-reinforcing cycle of arrests, since homeless individuals are rarely able to pay fines associated with their arrests and may miss court dates (perhaps because they lack transportation), or encourages behavioral adjustments which prevent homeless persons from getting back on track—for example, some ordinances ban sleeping in public parks between dusk and dawn, so the homeless must sleep during the day, foreclosing opportunities to seek employment.
At best, criminalizing poverty takes it out of sight and out of mind. The responses to articles on the Sacramento homeless camp indicate that many people wish not to see and not to interact with the homeless, as though this validates the thought that homelessness “is not my problem” and that the homeless simply need to get a job—easier said than done in this economy. Though perhaps reassuring to think that the homeless are entirely responsible for their situation, this is often not the case. Nearly 40% of homeless individuals are under age 18, with 42% of this population under the age of five. Families with children are the fastest growing homeless population, and, in some surveys, a quarter of homeless women had left their previous residence due to domestic violence. Veterans are over-represented among the homeless as well.[3]
Rather than continuing to criminalize poverty and homelessness, we need to deal with the reality of poverty. Criminalization is neither socially nor economically efficient.[4] Instead of pretending that increasing disincentives will cause those in poverty to suddenly pull themselves up by their bootstraps, we need to implement programs and practices that provide help to those that need it—a homeless family needs a reliable place to sleep, not fines to somehow chastise them back onto their feet. In order to do so, we as a society need to develop greater compassion and understanding, realizing that the US is not a land of equal opportunity where anyone who tries can get ahead, but instead is a complicated system where some will always need help getting on their feet.

[1] http://cbs13.com/local/homeless.campground.sacramento.2.1140371.html
[2] http://www.sacbee.com/latest/story/2131457.html
[3] NCH Fact Sheet 3 (2008), National Coalition for the Homeless. http://nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/who.html
[4] Homes Not Handcuffs, pp.19-22.

De-Biasing Implicit Bias: Start with our Schools

2009-09-14T13:50:00.002-05:00

By Marguerite L. Spencer, Senior Researcher at the Kirwan Institute

The concept of implicit bias has gone mainstream. Even Oprah had a piece on it recently featuring individuals who had taken the Implicit Bias Test (IAT). Several whites were surprised to find that they harbored negative racial bias towards blacks, even though they believed themselves to be egalitarian. Researchers suggest that more than 70% of the test takers on the Project Implicit website associated whites with good and blacks with bad. What can we do to debias ourselves?

Following up on a 2001 demonstration by Buju Dasgupta and Tony Greenwald, researchers at Project Explicit tested whether racial bias can be reduced by exposing test takers to admired blacks, such as Jackie Robinson, and disliked whites, such as Jeffrey Dahmer. Unlike the results in the earlier test, they found that there were no differences between participants who were exposed to these imagers and those who were not. They concluded that simple exposure to good blacks is not enough. What is needed is repeated exposure, including negative associations with whites.

Since our implicit biases spring largely from our environments and experiences, many suggest that the best place for repeated positive exposure is in meaningfully integrated school settings (no tracking, discrimination in disciplining etc…). A growing number of studies show that a racially integrated school environment promotes cross-racial friendships and increases comfort levels, often reducing biases and stereotypes. An integrated environment is particularly important during a student’s early years, when their attitudes about race are not yet concretely shaped. We also know that students who have been educated in a diverse environment, including whites, place a high value on integration as preparation for public life in multiracial settings.

This all seems obvious, but achieving integrated schools is highly personalized and politicized on both the familial, local and national level, and fraught with implicit biases of its own. We need to figure out a way to think and talk about integration that can allow us to debias ourselves, dismantle any racialized barriers that prevent us from integrating, and move forward in a strategic way. Acknowledging our biases is one thing, but debiasing is where we need to go next. Integrated schools can become the primary front in which we arm ourselves to make racially just structural changes in our society.

What is the Human Price of a Mobile Phone?

2009-09-09T11:10:00.002-05:00

By Mark Harris, Graduate Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

In the eastern Congo, militias are fighting for control of mines that contain the minerals – tantalum, tungsten, and tin – that go into the casings and circuitry of the mobile phones and electronics (including the computer on which I’m typing this) that are the building blocks of our modern, technology-based lifestyles. When these militias fight, villages are devastated, and women and men are raped and killed to instill terror into the countryside. The militias are then able to take advantage of low-paid or unpaid labor to mine ore (in ways that devastate the environment) and use shady or obscure trade relationships in Rwanda and Uganda that enrich their leaders and cut costs for the manufacturers of electronic components.

The Enough Project and Friends of the Congo are two groups that are raising awareness of this humanitarian crisis. While Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made some important commitments about stemming the epidemic of sexual violence in eastern Congo, the conflict will not come to an end until the economic interests that lay behind it are exposed and changed. Recently, a non-governmental organization called Resolve has committed to mapping the supply chains that link the militias to the global market for these conflict minerals, but government action is needed to compel the consumers of the minerals and their raw ores to expose the point of origin of minerals so that more effective action can be taken. The Congo Conflict Minerals Act, which has bipartisan support, would make this happen, but it has languished in Congress since April.

It’s high time that the U.S. government take effective action to stop our electronics from funding the rape of women and the destruction of villages. For more information on what you can do to help end this crisis, you can visit the Enough Project or Friends of the Congo.

COLORBLIND?

2009-08-31T10:14:00.009-05:00

By Philip Kim, Assistant Editor at the Kirwan Institute

Ben entered quiet and reserved in his usual manner, with a giant smile on his face, twirling his keys around his index finger. I knew he had some fantastic story to tell, and most likely it was from his day at work (he works with children at a childcare facility in downtown Columbus). So, I put down the book I just began reading, The Sound and the Fury, the very beginning part where Benjy and Luster are watching the golfers and Benjy thinks of his sister Caddy, when my roommate, in a very serendipitous moment, began to tell this story:

“You know that golf tournament yesterday? Well yeah, Tiger [Woods] was almost guaranteed to win; he was in the lead going into the final round and he’s never lost a major tournament when he’s done that. So yeah, he’s playing with Y.E. Yang, a Korean guy, a relative unknown. Yang is pretty cool, and seems nice, and can’t speak English (but the crowd still loved him anyway).

But yeah, no one expects Yang to display such incredible golf execution under all that pressure, let alone beat Tiger and win the tournament; it’s a big one too, it’s a major, it’s the PGA Championship, and he’s not from America, and he’s an international player – so yeah, it’s a giant deal.

Anyway, there’s this kid in my classroom, Brady. He just started playing golf and he’s only like six years old. So I ask him, did you see the tournament yesterday? And he looks up with incredible puppy eyes, nearly to the brink of tears, exhaling a long and extended, YESSSSS.

Then Brady, upper-class and privileged, tiny little French-American, blonde hair, blue-eyed chubster in denim overalls, with thick black rimmed spectacles simply states: I’m so sad the white guy won.”

That kind of blew my mind into a million tiny bits of brain confetti and left me speechless. I wondered to myself, what does Brady see when he looks out into the world? What colors does he view all these lonely people? I wonder if it is, for him, simple: black or white. I still can’t understand it completely, but I know that this vision of the world, this either/or dual split, will undoubtedly affect us when the day comes for Brady to begin carrying a briefcase and start using Bluetooth technology – when he controls millions of dollars of American money.

Colored Perspectives

2009-08-31T09:46:00.003-05:00

By Rachel O’Connor, Summer Intern at the Kirwan Institute

I was firmly opposed to affirmative action in the tenth grade. One of my best friends had scored lower than I did on the PSAT, yet received national recognition and a scholarship for it. We grew up in the same suburban neighborhood, were enrolled in the same AP classes, and our fathers were in the same profession. The only difference was that his father was Black.

I couldn’t understand how a policy of awarding money to privileged children based solely on the color of their skin equated to fairness or how it helped anybody. At the time, the only thing I could focus on was that I was being denied opportunities because I was White and others were being rewarded because they were Black.

Through my studies, I have come to understand the many ways that I have been indirectly rewarded for the color of my skin. I have played fearlessly on the streets of my neighborhood, received a high quality education, had access to any healthcare I’ve ever needed, and have always found a job when I was looking for one. I now know that policies like affirmative action are a needed remedy for the decades African-Americans were denied access to higher education. Some who don’t need it, such as my friend, may benefit; but overall it is aimed at helping the truly disadvantaged.

As I describe my internship studying race to friends and family, I see a lot of my tenth-grade self in them. They quickly go on the defensive, explaining why they hold their prejudices and rejecting the research I have done. All they know is the Black kids in the neighboring town received new computers and their children didn’t. Holiday Masses are now long and tedious because they are bilingual to accommodate a large Hispanic church population. Violent Black criminals appear regularly on their nightly news. They know what they have seen and how race impacts their life and that is all that matters. They fail to recognize all the advantages they have from simply being born White and how many are suffering from the inherent racism in our institutions and societal structure.

It is natural to understand abstract concepts, like race, through concrete experiences. In the homogenous community in which I grew up, not many positive concrete interracial experiences for people to draw on exist. However, if we are to truly make progress toward a post-racial society, we need to take the time and effort to see beyond our immediate perspectives. It is the responsibility of every citizen, and every race, to open their minds to facts that are not readily apparent and place themselves in others’ shoes. We need to learn to dissociate individual experiences from the overall state of racial relations so that we can come to an understanding that recognizes everybody’s perspectives.

Food for Thought

2009-08-20T15:56:00.002-05:00

By Rajeev Ravisankar, Research Assistant at the Kirwan Institute

Recently I saw the documentary Food Inc. which depicts the disturbing realities around modern food production. It unmasks the marketing myth used to sell food, the notion that food is produced in an idyllic landscape with “the picket fence and the silo and the 1930s farmhouse and the green grass.”

“The reality is…it’s not a farm, it’s a factory,” according to Michael Pollan, author of In Defense of Food and one of the film’s interviewees. “That meat is being processed by huge multi-national corporations that have very little to do with ranches and farmers.”

The film shows how food is increasingly becoming a flashpoint where labor rights, racism, immigration, ecology, and trade policy intersect. For example, US domestic farm subsidies for corn help make unhealthy corn-based snacks cheaper. Simultaneously, the subsidies negatively impact farmers in developing countries because they cannot compete against artificially cheap US food imports. (See Dumping Without Borders: How US agricultural policies are destroying the livelihoods of Mexican corn farmers)

In addition, Food Inc. humanizes complex sociopolitical issues. It touches upon the exploitation of undocumented migrants who work on farms and in meat processing facilities, and shows footage of an immigration raid against these workers.

Also, the film introduces class dynamics and income levels by following a Latino family who can mostly only afford cheap fast food. This story complicates a simplistic understanding of choice as the father has diabetes and the family knows the food is unhealthy, yet there are real material constraints that shape their consumption.

Perhaps the most critical point, as farmer Joel Salatin points out in the film, is that the way our food is produced says a lot about how we relate to society and the rest of the world. “A culture that just views a pig as a pile of protoplasmic, inanimate structure to be manipulated by whatever creative design the human can foist on that critter will probably view individuals within its community and other cultures within the community of nations with the same type of disdain and disrespect and controlling-type mentality.”

Quick facts:
· “The way we eat has changed more in the last 50 years than in the previous 10,000…”
– Michael Pollan
· The modern supermarket has an average of 47,000 products, the majority of which are produced by only a handful of companies
· 1 in 3 Americans born after 2000 will contract early onset diabetes; among minorities, the rate will be 1 in 2
(Source: Food Inc. Press Notes)

District 9 – An Allegory of Apartheid and Segregation

2009-08-19T09:17:00.011-05:00

By Stephen Menendian, Senior Legal Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

The new Peter Jackson film, “District 9,” opened at the top of the US box office this past weekend. The film is a mock documentary covering the events surrounding the arrival of an alien spacecraft to planet earth. A spaceship mysteriously appears above Johannesburg, South Africa. After several months of intrigue, a group of astronauts break into the space ship and discover a colony of starving insectoid aliens, derogatorily referred to as ‘prawns,’ for their appearance. A rescue effort succeeds and the aliens are eventually moved into public housing, and over time, cordoned off. After many years, the colony grows so large, accompanied by crime and public outrage, that a plan emerges to move the now 1.5 million aliens out of Johannesburg’s “District 9” and into the country, a forced relocation.

The filmmakers went out of their way to ensure that the viewers would have few qualms with this idea. After all, the aliens are presented as grotesque, and intended to evoke revulsion at their appearance. The filmmakers don’t have to work hard to dehumanize the aliens; as presented, they bring out the worst in our prejudices.

And, yet, the story that the film tells, of segregation, of apartheid, of the criminality and degradation that follows forced internment and rampant discrimination is a story that is not unfamiliar to Johannesburg or the United States.

District 9 is an allegory of apartheid.

Signs stationed near bathrooms and elevators marked certain facilities for "Humans Only.”

Such a sight was neither uncommon in the Jim Crow South or Apartheid South Africa.

District 9 and the story of District 9 is the story of District 6, and the forced relocation of 60,000 black Africans to make way for a whites only community.

Race is a process of othering, of de-humanizing. The filmmakers don’t have to go far to de-humanize, as the aliens as presented aren’t even human, and worse, are designed to resemble and remind us of creatures of the lowest order on the planet. What that brings out is prejudice of the most common. The criminality, degradation, and poverty of the aliens is then mistaken as inherent. The trivial, common place insults and epithets become part of the fabric of the society.

As an allegory, the film is imperfect. After all, black, whites, latinos, asians… we are all human. The film as a perfect metaphor only works if it essentializes difference. But as a story, as a way of showing people the world from a different perspective using a science fiction hook, it is supremely effective.

What is GIS?

2009-08-17T09:04:00.001-05:00

By Kwabena Agyeman, Graduate Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

The past three decades have seen quite a revolution in the way people view their neighborhoods, towns and cities: a revolution brought about by the computer technology known as GIS, or Geographic Information Systems. GIS helps us analyze spatially-referenced data and make well-informed decisions based on the association between the data and the geography. It refers to both the software and hardware that make up the system of digital databases and layered maps. But it's more than that. At the Kirwan Institute, GIS plays an important part in mapping the geographic distribution of opportunity to help evaluate where opportunity mismatches exist in a community.

The key to an effective GIS is an accurate and up-to-date base framework with an organizational structure that promotes enterprise-wide use and prevents duplication of effort. GIS offers real promise in being able to assist organizations in achieving their respective objectives. Furthermore, the geographic and spatial nature of GIS has been shown to facilitate a more comprehensive and holistic approach to problem solving.

Although GIS provides a great means for digital mapping, it is not simply a computer system for making maps, GIS is an analytical tool. The major advantage of a GIS is that it allows you to identify the spatial relationships between map features. A GIS does not store a map in any conventional sense; nor does it store a particular image or view of a geographic area. Instead, a GIS is a type of database management system from which you can draw a desired view to suit a particular purpose.

I am very optimistic about the future of GIS. When I think of all the major problems that we face throughout the world today - overpopulation, food shortages, reduced agricultural production, adverse climate change, and poverty - these are all quintessentially geographic problems. These problems are all concerned with the human relationship to the land, and this is where GIS can make its biggest contribution. GIS is the technology of our time and the application is limited only by the imagination of those who use it. That is what makes GIS so exciting.

Off the Map – Power on the Street

2009-08-13T11:16:00.003-05:00

By Stacey Chan, Summer Intern at the Kirwan Institute

“Ching chong!” A truck barrels past me, the driver settling back into his seat through his open window. Huh?! I’m snatched out of hazy thoughts as I continue my walk to work. Déjà vu.

Every day I walk to and from work, and just about every day I face some form of street harassment. Whether it be receiving ogling looks, lewd comments, or being ching-chonged, I’ve come to expect it. It has become an undeniable part of my experience as a woman of color.

In the opportunity mapping group, we use quantitative data to construct an index of neighborhood opportunity and overlay this with race and income compositions. I started to think about walking the streets of the map, and I realized that many times, in neighborhoods of rich or poor opportunity, I don’t feel safe. It’s not something that is caught in the data, nor is it an indicator of economic opportunity as we study it in our maps, but it is a matter of power disenfranchisement that occurs everywhere.

Street harassment is an exchange of power where one person attempts to dominate over another, sometimes non-verbally, verbally, or physically. Victims and harassers can be of any gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, or physical ability/disability. My experience incorporates the facts that I identify and present as a woman, I am young, and I am of Asian descent. My harassers have been of many different races, ethnicities, ages, and class groups.

Street harassment strips a victim of respect and sense of freedom in a public space. First, I got scared. …Then angry. …Then puzzled. What do I do? How do I reclaim my place on the street? How can I feel safe and free in the public space that we share, even in the face of being harassed? What about group campaigns? Who would we choose as an audience? How would we do our work through a critical lens?

Harassment is an issue that incorporates many aspects of social identity, and its solution must reflect its complexity. It’s not in the data, it’s not on the map, but it’s there and violates the opportunity for everyone to enjoy public space equally. I don’t know the solution, but I keep my head up, walk briskly and never slow down. I reply politely to hello’s, and respond “that’s disgusting” when appropriate. In these small ways, I try to take some control of the exchange. While it may not be a systemic solution or the right solution, it’s my way of keeping my place on the street.

Little Mexican Girls

2009-08-11T09:21:00.002-05:00

By Andrew Grant-Thomas, Deputy Director at the Kirwan Institute

I had known that Maria was busy putting the finishing touches on her PhD in Social Policy at a top university in Boston. The degree has been a long time coming but, come September, her graduate school story figures to end on a high note.

What I hadn’t known was that none of her post-graduation plans relates to her doctoral work or even to “social policy.” Why, then, insist on finishing the PhD at considerable cost in time, and perhaps also in money, self-esteem, lost opportunities, relationship and family stresses, and more?

Two big reasons. One, Maria said, was simply that she really enjoyed the study, the learning, the working-things-out. The second reason emerged in a story.

Some years after leaving Harvard as an undergraduate, Maria contacted the registrar’s office about getting a copy of her transcript. What arrived was her entire file, including parts no student is meant to see. These extra bits included notes submitted by the Harvard recruiter who had visited her Arizona high school a decade earlier. The woman had kept meticulous notes, which included the following (paraphrased) observations:

Unlike other top students in her class, Maria has applied only to a few schools, all of them in-state, none highly selective. I asked the guidance counselor, Mr. X, why she hadn’t applied to any Ivy League schools. His answer: “How’s a little Mexican girl going to make it in the Ivy League?”

Maria tears up – 21 years after Mr. X offered that assessment; 20 since becoming the first in her family, headed by her Mexican immigrant dad and “white farmer mom from Idaho” to go to college; 20 since becoming the first from her high school accepted to mighty Harvard; 16 years after graduating magna cum laude; one month shy of completing her PhD.

Every time she had considered quitting, Maria said, she remembered.

Institutions, systems, racialization, implicit bias, colorblindness, racial resentment, frames, opportunity structures, culture, history, targeted universalism, equity– yes, absolutely. These are our crucial tools, the conceptual and practical building blocks of our efforts.

However, Maria’s story reminds me that, ultimately, we work for people – for our families, for our communities, for ourselves, and for a world full of “little Mexican girls.”

Afghanistan: the “Dumb War”

2009-08-10T12:43:00.002-05:00

By Elsadig Elsheikh, Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

In Chicago, Illinois, on October 2nd, 2002, then Senator Barack Obama criticized the war in Iraq, rightly deeming it as a “dumb war.” Today, the Obama administration – in cahoots with most Western countries under the NATO umbrella – is selling the war in Afghanistan as a “good war” based on reason and principle not on politics, a necessary operation at the frontier of the “war on terror” or simply a matter of “national security” matter. Nevertheless, delivering the war in Afghanistan in an “eloquent” package does not make it a “good war.” It is immoral to propagandize that terrorizing and killing of civilians as anything other than what it is: a military occupation and expansionist war against the people of Afghanistan which most likely will bear unsightly fruits, as was the experience of the “freedom fighters.”

Since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, tens of thousands of civilians have been killed by the U.S. and NATO troops. A United Nations report published last month indicated that at least 1,013 civilians were killed from January to end of June of this year, and around 235,000 currently displaced. Furthermore, historian Tariq Ali observed that “the number of Afghan civilians killed has exceeded many tens of times over the 2,746 who died in Manhattan”. Additionally, the invasion and war instituted – as Ali precisely called it – a “colonial operations in the region” due to its illegitimacy and cruelty against a country and population who have been tormented enormously by foreign invasions and interventions in the name of fighting an “evil”. However, other studies have put the number of civilian causalities even higher (please see Afghan Tragedy).

The “war on terror” has led to increased U.S. involvement in the geopolitics of the region: from Georgia to Kyrgyzstan, and from Tajikistan to Pakistan. However, the latter has been treated as the battleground to conduct that war. Since 9/11, the United States has provided Pakistan with $11 billion military aid to support the Pakistani Army, which has obstructed democracy and the rule of law (it’s worth noticing that prior to 9/11, Pakistan had received only $ 9.1 million). Consequently, U.S. involvement in Pakistan increases the radicalization of diverse Islamist groups and the Talibanization of rural Pakistan.

The war in Afghanistan should not have the support of the American people because of what it really is: a malicious military occupation that – besides bringing immense destruction upon the Afghani people – hinders all possibilities for a real democratization, social change, sustainable development, and eliminating narco-traffic. As was the case in Iraq, the solution to Afghanistan’s troubles is political, and can’t be resolved through military occupation.

Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?

2009-07-31T15:08:00.005-05:00

By Tami Newberry, Summer Intern at Kirwan Institute

Recently French President Nicolas Sarkozy gave an address to Parliament in which he proposed a banning of the burqa. This seemed consistent with governmental policies in France. I wasn’t stirred by this, as France is ‘far away’ after all.

Then, the Columbus Dispatch published an article July 23rd Ohio State University professor chimed in, saying what many Americans are quietly thinking: Women wearing burqas or veils, unsettle them. He went so far as to say, “If I wanted to hold up a convenience store, I would wear a burqa.” This really hit home.

When persons of stature lend their voice, it can strengthen a cause. These current ideas feed into xenophobia (fear/hatred of strangers or foreigners). Identities of religious groups are collapsing into racialized categories. In what many claim to be a ‘post-racial’ world, religion IS the new race. And Islam is the new black.

However, to claim to stand for women’s rights is still vogue. Therefore, in the name of supporting “women’s rights”, persons of different religious backgrounds would like to tell women how they can express their religious values. (What happened to the 1st amendment to the Constitution? Or basic human rights?)

I would encourage anyone willing to learn about the socio-, cultural- and religious reasons for Muslim women choosing to cover to read Lila Abu-Lughod’s insightful article. This may help to dismiss the myths that Muslim women need saving. Many Muslim women feel empowered culturally and religiously by choosing to cover themselves.

The next time you see a covered woman hanging her head, don’t create a victim out of her, and empower yourself. Empathize with her or engage her. She may have had a hard day at work, or may be daydreaming about the love poem her husband emailed her, or may have simply forgotten her sunglasses on a sunny day.

Living While Black?

2009-07-22T10:46:00.002-05:00

By Kerra S.Carson, Summer Intern at Kirwan Institute

By now, most of you have heard of Dr. Henry “Skip” Gates being arrested at his Cambridge home. When he arrived home from a trip, he was unable to open the front door. He then proceeded to enter his home through a back entrance. He and his driver attempted to open his door again and managed to do so, but not without damaging the door. He was in his home, on the phone with the management company reporting the damage when police arrived and asked that he step outside. Apparently, a Harvard employee saw Mr. Gates attempting to gain entry and mistook him for a burglar.
Now, this might not sound so alarming if not for a few things:
1) The person who called the police was a Harvard employee. Furthermore, she is employed in their development department. How is it possible she did not recognize one of the most well-known faces in contemporary American scholarship? Dr. Gates has been on hundreds of television programs, including every major news show, media outlet, and two mini-series. He is not your average run-of-the-mill professor. I am hard-pressed to believe she did not know who he is.
2) It appears to be fairly common knowledge where Dr. Gates lives. It is especially notable because he is the only person of color on his street. The Development office the employee is housed in is only a few hundred yards away. Is it reasonable that she would be the only person in her office that did NOT know that was his home?
3) There are two very different stories of what happened once the police arrived. The officer’s report says Dr. Gates was belligerent and refused to show identification. Dr. Gates admits to challenging the officer, but acquiescing to his request to show identification and still got arrested because he wanted the officer’s name and badge number. However, what both agree on is that Dr. Gates was arrested even after showing proper identification verifying his address.
Is there any doubt that this arrest was racially-motivated? If so, what are the implications for those of us who choose to live in areas where we are the overwhelming minority? The rhetoric announcing a post-racial America has been on the rise since we elected our first Black president. If nothing else, this incident shows that we are not quite there.

Jury Duty in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas

2009-07-20T13:05:00.002-05:00

By Leslie Birdwell Shortlidge, Managing Editor at the Kirwan Institute

I served my two weeks as a juror in June of this year in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. It was not exciting. For those in the jury pool, it is about endless waiting in a large room with lots of magazines and jigsaw puzzles.

We began with orientation, a videoed dramatization of a European Dark Ages trial by dunking. Miserable looking people in ragged clothes waited anxiously by the shore of a pond to see if their accused relative would float (guilty) or sink (innocent). It was a bit Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I recalled highlights from the film, such as peasants gathering muck in front of Graham Chapman as King Arthur and the infamous “Bring out your dead!” scene.

But seriously, folks, I never sat on a jury. Lots of people don’t, apparently, but we prospective jurors were assured more than once that we were doing our duty by being available, not trying to duck out, being punctual, etc. Managing the jury pool must be like herding cats, and so I do believe that my presence, as one of many, was indeed helpful.

I did make it through one round of voir dire (literally, “speak the truth”) in the courtroom, and was present for another round for a case that was resolved during the lunch break. Our voir dire took place in one of the courtrooms, which are round, not like the ones on TV that more closely resemble a church or a theatre. And since there is no clearly defined front or center stage, the attorneys pace about the room, working from a wheeled podium that they turn this way and that, depending on whom they address. The attorneys ask permission of the judge before they haul the thing around, and there’s a courteous exchange of please-and-thank-you that seems more reminiscent of powdered wigs and m’lords rather than American-style casual. But make no mistake, even though this is “only” voir dire, the attorneys are making their cases and beginning to wage arguments that will influence the outcome. And the arguments were directed at us, the potential jurors.

We were encouraged to tell the truth, and then were grilled on common sense and experience, one by one, right around the room. I thought of Justice Sotomayor, someone who has been raked over the coals for invoking common sense. In my experience, it was a given in the Franklin County Common Pleas Court that everyone came to the courtroom with their own background as a human being and would have some kind of opinion or experience. How could it be otherwise? We are humans, not blank slates pre-loaded with some kind of generic justice program.

Where the Research Meets the Road

2009-07-13T09:36:00.001-05:00

By Matthew Martin, GIS/Planning Specialist at the Kirwan Institute

Since I began working as a planning and GIS research analyst with the Kirwan Institute back in January, I have been eager to direct my experience and educational background towards issues of social justice. I enjoy the ability to carry out my personal concerns and convictions with utility in my job, and I continually strive to produce work that means something to the world in which we live. But it wasn’t long after I began my current position that I started recognizing the disconnect between my professional aspirations and my personal experiences. My walks and bus rides to and from work each day often contained encounters with homeless folks asking for money, or with young boys seemingly concerned only with emulating the gangster culture they find in much of modern hip-hop. The stories my wife would bring home from the urban hospital in which she works often seemed to confirm the worst stereotypes of the communities whom I spend my days researching. For a while, this created a frustrating paradox in which I longed to make a difference, but ended up feeling as though such effort was futile.

I started going to a local recreation center in my community, because in addition to its convenient location and affordability, I need to get into better shape. But as I became more familiar with the hard-working folks employed there, as well as some of the kids who hang out there regularly, I have been reminded that the face of laziness and solicitation that we often encounter in the public squares does not accurately represent the reality of much of the urban poor. Building relationships with poor folks through my local church has also allowed me to see some of the extreme circumstances experienced by regular people.

What I’m learning then, is that you can’t just be content to read articles or make maps about poverty and race, nor can you be satisfied with giving a dollar and a warm greeting to whoever asks on the sidewalk. I’m finding that although it takes a lot of initiative and costs some comfort, what I really need to do is go to places where I can forge relationships with real people. This provides the helpful benefit of rounding out my personal knowledge of my ‘research subjects’, but the even greater value of learning about people in a much more intangible and intimate way, and learning from people with different cultural and experiential backgrounds than my own. I may not feel cool enough to play basketball with the other boys at the rec center yet, but as with any group of people, over time, trust and friendship can be gained, and that’s where the research meets the road.

Stained-Glass

2009-07-09T14:52:00.003-05:00

By Tami Newberry, Summer Intern at Kirwan Institute

How inspiring a sight. A complex mosaic of art. The rainbow split into individual colors masterfully arranged to create a scene. Each color “stained”, not the colorless glass of ordinary windows. And this is what catches our eye, the colors, and the way that the light shines through them. As these works are revered, they are placed high above us in grand buildings. Long beams of color cascade down, they too, being a sign full of awe. A curious hand may even reach up to the falling beams to let the colors weightlessly rest upon it. Children laugh and run with arms open wide through them.

The mosaic is complex in form and structure. It is beautiful because of the array of colors and how they are woven around and amongst each other. Each color is a vital part of the entire. It would no longer be beautiful if it were all a single color. And yet, we call them stained glass. They each are colored by different minerals to give them their own glow. Yet, does any one deny that any given color is less glass-like than another. Less pure, less worthy, less beautiful.

Stained-glass windows are truly beautiful when all of the pieces are radiating with light from above. Each one is a different unique composition in which we seek to see their individuality and uniqueness.

So, I have lofty ambitions. To be able to create an American perspective as grand as the mosaics of stained-glass. To create a composite which is greater than its individual parts. To appreciate each color for how it colors the world. To let each color radiate among the other colors.

Let’s evolve as a nation which has been color-blind only seeing shades of black and white and grey. Our diversity, like that of the colors in a stained-glass window, is an asset.

Let the light shine in.

Image source: http://s205.photobucket.com/albums/bb294/slumberproject/?action=view&current=Picture031.jpg&evt=user_media_share

A Slice of Suburbia

2009-07-07T10:43:00.001-05:00

By Michelle Alexander, Associate professor of Law at the Moritz College of Law with a joint appointment at the Kirwan Institute

“What are all those colored kids doing in the swimming pool?” I thought to myself as I struggled to juggle my 2-year old toddler in one arm and a giant bag of towels in the other, while my 4 year-old and 6 year-old dashed toward the pool, shedding clothing en route and shrieking in delight. I paused for a moment and surveyed the scene. More than a third of the kids in the pool were African American, playing happily with their white friends and neighbors, as well as a couple of Asian American and Latino kids. Could our neighborhood really be this racially diverse? Apparently, the answer is yes.

I spent most of my childhood in all-white or nearly all-white neighborhoods. When I became old enough to cast judgment on my parents for their child-rearing decisions, I swore I would never inflict a similar fate on my own children. How could they put a black child in an all-white school? What were they thinking? More than once, I ranted at them in self-righteous indignation, insisting I would never do such a thing to my own children.

Once I became a parent, though, I found myself facing the same difficult choices my parents had agonized over decades earlier. I could live in a racially diverse or all-black neighborhood, but I’d have to worry about the quality of the schools. On the other hand, I could live in a white neighborhood and worry about the quality of my children’s social and cultural experiences. Which would I choose? Good schools or racial diversity? As it turns out, I got lucky.

The neighborhood I live in today did not exist a decade ago. As new suburbs have sprouted up around urban centers, and racial and ethnic minorities have begun to venture outside city limits, an interesting phenomenon has begun to unfold. Neighborhoods and schools in formerly white suburbs are beginning to integrate. The Pew Hispanic Center recently reported that the student population of America’s suburban schools has shot up by 3.4 million in the past decade and a half, and virtually all of the increase (99 percent) has been due to the enrollment of black, Latino, and Asian students. In 2006-07, suburban school districts educated a student population that was more than 40 percent non-white, up from 28 percent in 1993-94.

In my neighborhood, it is a joy to look out my kitchen window and see black and white kids playing together, running through each other’s backyards, and going in and out of each other’s houses freely. During the summer, all the neighborhood kids tend to convene around 5:30 p.m. in someone’s backyard and play together until sundown. They seem utterly unaware of how unique and special their racially integrated experience is.

I wish it were that simple. The picture in our backyard obscures a more complicated reality. As the Pew report indicates, although minority enrollment has shot up in suburban school districts, there has been only a modest increase at the level of the individual suburban school. Our immediate neighborhood happens to be well integrated, but my oldest daughter was the only black girl in her kindergarten class last year. The broader community still has a long, long way to go.

Stuff Your Sorries in a Sack, Mister!

2009-06-28T21:33:00.002-05:00

By Charles Patton, Graduate Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

Recently the U.S. Senate voted unanimously for a resolution acknowledging "the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow laws."
In response to the resolution, Rep. Stephen I. Cohen (D-Tenn.) said, "there are going to be African Americans who think that [the apology] is not reparations, and it's not action, and there are going to be Caucasians who say, 'Get over it.' . . . I look at it as something that makes people think."

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), the resolution's sponsor, said "Slavery and Jim Crow, and their continuing consequences, are not the historical baggage of one state, one region or one company. They are an enduring national shame."

So in response to both Cohen and Harkin, I ask why weren’t any thoughts on the continuing consequences of slavery and Jim Crow included in the resolution? Why didn’t they address specific topics relevant to today’s American citizen that would spark conversation? It appears that this apology has failed to spark productive conversations about race and led to nothing more than the following four comments:
“It’s about time.”
“This apology is meaningless.”
“Why can’t we get over this already?”
“They better not even think about giving reparations.”

I don’t think this is what the Senate was hoping for. To avoid these unproductive conversations, the Senate would have been better served to address the mechanisms through which slavery and Jim Crow have led to a society wrought with racial residential segregation, vast racial disparities in wealth, a prison system filled disproportionately with blacks, etc. These problems are not widely recognized or discussed by our “colorblind” nation that at times fears even publicly acknowledging the color of someone’s skin and truly believes everyone who tries hard has an equal opportunity to become successful. The aforementioned problems cannot be addressed if the majority of society doesn’t even know they exist. The Senate missed out on a great opportunity to begin a productive conversation that could have led to some real change in the racial dynamics of this country.

Overdue Overhaul

2009-06-23T13:11:00.003-05:00

By Jillian Olinger, Graduate Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

On June 17, President Obama laid out a plan for financial reform to protect against future financial meltdowns of the kind we have been experiencing for the past two years. The President criticized the lack of oversight and regulation, as well as the “culture of irresponsibility” that took root at both Wall Street and Main Street. In response, the President’s plan balances both demand-focused proposals, in the form of a centralized Consumer Protection Agency, with supply-focused proposals, in the form of systemic regulations. The plan recognizes that today’s global economy calls for a restructured system of oversight that can keep pace with the speed and scope of 21st century financial systems.

For consumers, the plan would not only create a new federal agency specifically to protect consumer interests related to financial products, but also mandates that financial products are transparent and comprehensible to consumers, without hidden costs. This oversight, coupled with the systemic regulations, ideally will align the products offered by the institutions with consumer needs. As Gail Hillebrand of Consumers Union noted, “Strong fair rules will reward competition to serve the customer, instead of ‘gotcha’ banking.” (ref#1)

For systemic regulations, among other things, the plan calls for Federal Reserve oversight of US institutions considered “too big to fail” to protect against future systemic failures. The plan also would create a new council of regulators to monitor risk across the system, including responsibility for increased oversight on the global financial institutions considered “too big to fail”. In addition, the plan requires that institutions retain a greater proportion of assets, thereby forcing institutions to retain some risk. For example, institutions that package mortgage-backed securities would be required to retain at least 5% of mortgages to encourage more responsible lending. (ref #2)

The proposal addresses both the failures of risk management and responsibility exhibited by the financial industry, and the failure of consumer protection. In an interview on News Hour, Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner pointed out that “In the financial sector, the financial markets require well-designed regulation. We did not have well-designed regulation…So our job is to get those better. And it’s not going to require more of them; it’s just going to require better design, more effectively applied, more broadly applied to contain risk, protect consumers.” (ref #3)

That’s what this plan promises: a responsible, comprehensive system of checks and balances that meet the needs of a 21st c. global financial system. Whether this promise is delivered remains to be seen.

[1] Paul Solman. “How Will Regulatory Reforms Affect Consumers?” The Business Desk with Paul Solman. Online Newshour. June 18, 2009. Available at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2009/06/how-will-the-regulatory-reform.html
[2] Carolyn O’Hara. “Five Things to Know About the Financial Regulatory Overhaul.” Online Newshour. June 17, 2009. Available at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/business/june09/reghighlights_06-17.html
[3] Transcript. “Geithner Defends Plan for Regulatory Overhaul.” June 18, 2009. Available at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan-june09/geithner_06-18.html

Teen Culture Takes Cues From Obama

2009-06-08T11:17:00.006-05:00

By Kathy Baird, Director of Communications at Kirwan Institute

“No Drama Obama” may be our new President’s popular moniker, but he is a role model for a different type of drama in the social world of young African Americans and other teens.

It seems “Obamaisms” have crept into the popular youth vernacular. The Albany Times Union reports new usages and phrases in teens’ speech, such as “Barack you” (following a sneeze); and “What’s up my Obama?” (a greeting).

While youth culture is known for forging distinctive traditions, teens have elevated our first African American president to the level of pop culture icon, imbuing him with an aura of “cool” teens rarely attribute to the “over 30” crowd.

If imitation equates to admiration, it’s especially telling when a group of teenage friends selects Election Day to forego a long tradition of “casual cool” youth fashion to begin sporting tailored pants, button-down shirts and dress shoes. When is the last time a political figure generated such popular hype among youth?

Of course, our president was elected with a groundswell of support from young people; and it’s also understandable that young African Americans hold a special kind of pride in his leadership.

If President Obama can breach the cultural divide to win over hard-to-please teenagers, he’s also a good bet to win favor for our nation.

Summer Camp Double Whammy

2009-06-01T12:56:00.003-05:00

By Becky Reno, Senior Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

Wendy Smooth’s blog entry last week on funding cuts to summer camps coincided with some research I was doing on the achievement gap. The data I uncovered suggested that the majority of the achievement gap can be accounted for by examining knowledge attrition over the summer. In short, learning gains during the academic year are quite comparable for low-income, urban populations of color and middle and upper-income, suburban white students. In the summer, however, researchers have discovered the emergence of a different pattern. While middle-class populations improve academically during summer break, low-income students actually lose knowledge, and their achievement levels drop.

When trying to parse out the source(s) of the achievement gap, our focus typically turns to the school. We hold a magnifying glass up to teachers and teacher quality, school resources, class size, tracking, discipline policies, etc. Of course all of these things matter, but as the effects of summer attrition accumulate, from early elementary to high school, these losses account for nearly two-thirds of the total achievement gap.

The funding cuts to summer camps and activities are more likely to harm low-income, urban populations of color, particularly as high poverty neighborhoods not only have fewer community resources, but children are also constrained in their outdoor activities because of safety concerns. In contrast, middle class communities have both an abundance of neighborhood resources, and parents who are more likely to have the funds to subsidize their children’s summer activities. These contrasting summer experiences are not only heartbreaking in and of themselves, but taken in conjunction with the achievement data, they are ultimately a huge source of academic and life-long disparities.

For more on the effects of summer break on the achievement gap see: Achievement Gaps: An Examination of Differences in Student achievement and Growth.

Job Networking Goes Virtual

2009-05-27T13:29:00.002-05:00

By Christy Rogers , Senior Research Associate at Kirwan Institute

Recently, a friend mentioned that he got a new job through LinkedIn, and then built his entire sales team by posting a job notice on Facebook. No sheets of paper were ever exchanged. No print ads. No phone calls. He’s not alone. As a recent CNN article “I Found My Job on Twitter” notes, social networking sites like Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter and MySpace are increasingly used to post and fill job notices. As my friend said happily, “it’s perfect – essentially, everyone is a friend or referred by a friend.”

The old saying used to be, “it’s not what you know, it’s who you know.” Today, it’s not just who you know, but how you know them. If this trend continues, it makes job hunting easier for those of us with computer access, gadgets, and the knowledge and time to use them. But for the millions of people who don’t, the “digital divide” may only get wider. People with disabilities are about half as likely to have internet access as those who do not. Rural access is improving, but still lags behind. Two-parent households are twice as likely to have access as single-family households. Nationally, Blacks and Latinos are roughly half as likely to have internet access as the national average, and about as third as likely to have access as Asian Americans. The US Department of Commerce ran estimates of what internet access rates for Black and Hispanic households would have been if they had incomes and education levels as high as the nation as a whole, and found that these two factors account for only one half of the difference. How do we make up that other half of the difference? Well, my guess is it’s about the cultural and social networks that start on the ground – in our neighborhoods, in school, at work – about being friends, or friends of friends. And those arenas are still largely segregated by race and class. Until we do better at making a wide variety of friends in the “real world,” we’re not going to do any better in the virtual one.

Link to CNN article:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/12/news/economy/social_networking_jobs/index.htm

Link to 2000 Dept. of Commerce Digital Divide report
http://search.ntia.doc.gov/pdf/fttn00.pdf

Summer Just Days Away, What’s A Kid to Do?

2009-05-18T11:34:00.001-05:00

By Wendy Smooth, an assistant professor in the Department of Women’s Studies with a joint appointment at the Kirwan Institute

Last week, on the front page of our local paper, The Columbus Dispatch, we learned that summer camps are being hit hard by the financial crisis. The city and other groups that deliver camp services in the local community did not receive some $2.2 million dollars in federal assistance that sent 2,000 low income children to camp last summer. In the absence of these funds, the city is not sure whether it will be able to deliver these services to low income children of the city. This is coupled with parents in all tax brackets across the city saying that they may not be able to afford camp fees this year in light of the economy. I didn’t realize the costs of sending children to camp! The fees range from a low of $85 per week to hundreds of dollars per week to send one child to camp. Well, to some relief, I learned that it is customary to give families with multiple children, a whopping $10 off camp fees $100 or more a week for each child. Now, to be clear I am talking day camps here, not the delightful fancy sleep away camps of Hollywood feature films. I immediately chalked this story up to just another casualty of the financial crisis, another indicator of the reach of the country’s economic despair. Then, I thought more and became critically concerned about what this will mean to thousands of kids. What would these kids do all summer?

I am no big summer camp enthusiast. In fact, I HATED summer camp as a kid, day camp, sleep away or otherwise. As a southerner, camp meant one thing to me—no air conditioning in 95 degree weather with 100% humidity and no rain! Despite my camp history, I still recognize the importance of occupying kids’ time in the long hot summer months. It’s in summer camp that kids get exposed to new adventurous things and meet new people. Some of my great friends were made at one summer camp or another over the years. (No doubt we were kindred souls converging under a shade tree lamenting the whole experience.)

I am sure that Columbus is typical of many cities that are quickly running through its rainy day funds in the wake of the recession. For Columbus, this summer camp situation comes on the heels of the city closing eleven recreation centers, traditionally summer havens for young people. To add to this brew, the city is in battle with the police force over reducing the number of overtime hours for the city’s police force. What a mix we are brewing. Added to the heat of summer we will have young people with no summer camps, no recreation centers and fewer policing hours.
It seems that for the city of Columbus and others like it, the financial crisis is hitting young people quite hard. I can only imagine what the summer will bring for young people with no place to go and no new challenging supervised adventures to constructively occupy their time.

Ohio’s Not-Exactly-Arbitrary Death Penalty

2009-05-12T13:16:00.004-05:00

By Andrew Grant-Thomas, Deputy Director at the Kirwan Institute

This past Saturday the Kirwan Institute hosted a panel called “Perspectives on Ohio’s Death Penalty” at the Moritz College of Law at OSU.

Here are some takeaways.

Don’t kill a white person, don’t kill a woman, and definitely don’t kill a white woman if you want to escape the death penalty.

Stay away from the South, especially Texas, and stick to the stretch of states extending from Michigan west to North Dakota – no death penalty in those states.

In Ohio, if you’re indicted on a capital charge in Hamilton County, you’re five times more likely to end up on death row than if you’re indicted in Cuyahoga County.

And if you find yourself before a 3-judge panel at the 6th circuit court of appeals, the main review panel for death sentences in Ohio, pray that you draw at least two judges appointed by a Democrat.

Panels controlled by Republican presidential appointees uphold death penalty convictions three-quarters of the time. Panels controlled by Democratic appointees REVERSE the sentence three-quarters of the time. That means that half the time life or death rides, literally, on the luck of the draw.

Moreover, the weight of the evidence says that the death penalty has little deterrence value, if any. And many victims’ families reject the argument we often make on their behalf that the death penalty helps with closure.

So with all that, why, according to a recent Ohio Poll, do only one in four Ohioans want to abolish the death penalty, less than want to legalize marijuana (37%) or same-sex marriage (39%)?

Here are my guesses.

For one, the pollsters asked a bad question. If the choice is simply between having the death penalty or not, Americans want it. But if the choice is between the death penalty and life without parole – which IS an option in Ohio – support for the death penalty goes way down.

Second, even some people who agree that the death penalty should only be used rarely want to preserve it for especially hideous crimes. However, in practice, the link between the ugliness of the crime and the use of capital punishment is weak.

I suspect that the two biggest reasons we generally support the death penalty are related: we don’t know the facts very well and we don’t really care in any case. As one panelist said on Saturday, few of us expect to be in a position to be victimized by the system’s unfairness.

I wonder how many of the 180 inmates on Ohio’s death row right now once felt the same way.

Deep Faith

2009-05-04T09:10:00.002-05:00

By Hasan Kwame Jeffries, Assistant professor in the Department History with a joint appointment at the Kirwan Institute

A recent New York Times/CBS News Poll found that two-thirds of Americans say that race relations are generally good, up significantly from slightly more than half in July 2008. (note 1) Most notably, the percentage of African Americans who say that race relations are good has doubled during the same period, from 29 percent to 59 percent, reaching a historic high. The presence of Barack and Michelle Obama in the White House is clearly the source of this newfound optimism.

According to the Times/CBS poll, Barack Obama’s approval rating among African Americans is a statistically unheard of 96 percent, while the percentage of African Americans who disapprove of his performance is 0. Meanwhile, Michelle Obama’s approval rating is 88 percent, falling 8 percentage points below her husband because 12 percent of the respondents were either undecided or did not have enough information to make a reasonable judgment. But like her husband, the percentage of African Americans who disapprove of her performance is 0. These are the highest favorable ratings accorded any president and first lady by African Americans.

There is a direct correlation between the Obamas’ high rating among African Americans and the rise in the percentage of African Americans who say that race relations are generally good. The Obamas’ favorable ratings not only reflect a lingering euphoria over his election and a genuine satisfaction with his and the First Lady’s first 100 days in the White House, but also the widely held view among African Americans that the spotlight shining brightly on the Obamas will reflect positively on African Americans as a whole, prompting white Americans to abandon long held prejudicial beliefs and behaviors. When asked in the same poll if, in the next four years, Barack Obama’s presidency will bring together or divide different groups of Americans, 94 percent of African Americans said that it would bring people together and only 3 percent said that it would drive people apart. At the same time, however, 55 percent of white Americans said that Obama’s presidency would bring different groups together, while 31 percent said that it would not.

The difference between the two groups is telling, pointing to the very real possibility that African Americans are overestimating the power of the Obamas’ presence and effectiveness in the White House to improve race relations. Only time will tell if they are right or wrong. At the very least, though, these poll numbers for African Americans demonstrate the deep faith that black people have in the Obamas, a faith that transformed a presidential campaign into a social movement and seeks to transform a presidency into the salvation of the nation.

1 For complete poll results see: http://documents.nytimes.com/new-york-times-cbs-news-poll-obama-s-100th-day-in-office/page/1#p=1.

The Afghan perspective on Afghanistan

2009-04-20T09:52:00.001-05:00

By Lidija Knuth, Research Fellow for the International Program

In the seventh year after the fall of the Taliban, two Afghanistans exist. One is characterized by civil and military efforts of the international community in the country, which include billions of money pumped into reconstruction and development as well as military successes against Taliban cells. These stories emphasizing positive news, are largely told from the perspective of foreigners consisting of diplomats, development workers and soldiers, and would surprise the majority of Afghans. The other Afghanistan of 30 million people in whose name the war is being fought is often forgotten. The population feels disappointment, bitterness and pessimism. Indeed the vast intervention to rebuild a country devastated after decades of war has benefited only a small handful. Afghanistan is moving towards a new crisis. The prevailing fear is that the war is in danger not of being lost or won against the Taliban, but in the perceptions of Afghans. There is a sense of alienation among the population towards the foreign troops as well as the international development community. The initial optimism that existed after the fall of the Taliban has decreased slowly and steadily. It is no wonder that, after years of help and support from the international community, the promises to bring peace and development to the country sound increasingly hollow. The Afghan reality is one of: 40 % unemployment, wide spread poverty and undernourishment, increasing insecurity, and an unremarkable outcome despite huge amounts of development aid spent.

Having said this, one thing is certain- the international community will have to find a long-term solution because more foreign troops and more strategic attacks and bombs against the Taliban and splitter groups are increasingly and unavoidably killing innocent civilians, and in the long run won’t bring the desired peace to the region.

When Are You?

2009-04-14T09:33:00.001-05:00

By S. P. Udayakumar, Research Fellow for the Kirwan Institute

Khan Abdul Wali Khan, a Pakistani statesman, was once asked how he saw his identity. He said he had been a Pakistani for the past 50 years, a Muslim for the past 500 years, but a Pathan for the past 5000 years. Evidently, his ethnic identity was the most important for him. It is common knowledge now that a pure ethnicity is an illusion in today’s world. So the question of “who are you?” cannot be answered in a simple and straightforward manner anymore in our complex, complicated interdependent global society.

The moment we think of our ethnic identity, we impulsively turn to our past as it is our history and heritage that define it. In a world where pure ethnicity is problematic, historical rendering of identity and single and linear narratives are also equally tricky. Does that mean we should be content with the broad human identity that answers the question “what are you?”

There are people who argue that we are all born for a purpose and hence the secret of your success and happiness on the Earth depends on your answering the question “why are you (born)?” or “how are you (living)?” and so forth.

In my opinion, none of these questions actually answers our existential predicaments in the world today. Considering the interdependent nature of our societies, inter-relatedness of all the planetary issues such as climate change, population explosion, poverty, etc., and the inter-reliant futures we all face, the right question to ask would be “when are we?” A Pakistani futurist and friend, Sohail Inayatullah, posits it is our common and collective futures that should define our identity and not our past or present. So, when are you?

The Geography of Opportunity: Building Opportunity in Massachusetts

2009-03-30T14:30:00.001-05:00

The Kirwan Institute recently completed a new report for the state of MA assessing the geographic of opportunity for Massachusetts neighborhoods.
To see our new report, please follow the link below:

The Geography of Opportunity: Building Opportunity in Massachusetts
Full Report (large file 29MB) and Summary Report
Jason Reece and Samir Gambhir (January 2009)

Confronting Racism and Apathy

2009-03-20T11:18:00.004-05:00

By Cheryl Staats, Research Assistant at the Kirwan Institute

Despite the intense stigma that the label of ‘racist’ carries, racism continues to pervade our society, including many not-so-subtle manifestations. A recent study published in Science magazine sought to understand why blatant racism persists in spite of the strong condemnation that accompanies overt prejudice by considering how individuals respond when they witness an incident of racism. Using an experimental design with multiple conditions, an inconsistency emerged. While participants anticipated feeling upset and taking action when witnessing a racial slur, in reality they experienced less emotional distress than they had predicted, often reacting with indifference.

While professed egalitarian values led participants to foresee feeling distressed when witnessing a racial slur, the spontaneous responses they exhibited often failed to align with these values. Researchers concluded that, “despite current egalitarian cultural norms and apparent good intentions, one reason why racism and discrimination remain so prevalent in society may be that people do not respond to overt acts of racism in the way that they anticipate: They fail to censure others who transgress these egalitarian norms.”

Two points:

1) Studies such as this focus largely on racism at an individual level. Declaring that the racism that continues to exist in society may be a byproduct of individuals’ actions (or, in this case, inactions) ignores the larger structures, policies, and practices that affect people’s lives. Recognition of interpersonal racial bias within a larger context of institutional forces provides a more comprehensive view of how and why racism subsists.

2) This study provokes questions regarding the causes that underlie this failure to react to a racial slur. Why is it that people who may have the best of intentions are apathetic when the situation arises? The authors speculate that some of this hesitation can be attributed to the expense of mental and emotional energy necessary to address the situation, or that participants may have reconstrued the slur as a joke or harmless comment in an effort to counteract the negative emotions activated by the slur. I would assume that other factors influence the decision for inaction outside of an experimental setting, including feeling unequipped to adequately address race or uncertain about how the other individual may respond. Regardless of the justification, this study reminds us that we need to deliberately act on our egalitarian values in order to bring those principles to fruition.
- - -
Full text of article: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/323/5911/276

Race, Public Policy, and the White House Council on Women and Girls

2009-03-18T12:28:00.001-05:00

By Angela Stanley, Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

On March 11, 2009, President Obama signed an executive order creating the White House Council on Women and Girls. According to the president, “the purpose of this council is to ensure that American women and girls are treated fairly in matters of public policy.” Acknowledging that women and girls have unique experiences and challenges that also need to be addressed helps the process of moving toward more targeted public policy interventions. For those of us interested in studying race, addressing intersections such as race and gender helps us gain a more holistic approach to better understanding and contributing to the field of research and scholarship on race, ethnicity and social justice.

More information about the White Houses Council on Women and Girls can be found at the following locations:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-Announces-White-House-Council-on-Women-and-Girls/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Signing-of-Executive-Order-Creating-the-White-House-Council-on-Women-and-Girls/

Has the “Talented Tenth” already arrived with Obama or is it still a “dream deferred”?

2009-03-04T09:37:00.009-05:00

By Michele Battle-Fisher, Graduate Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

I, along with many citizens, listened with great anticipation to hear President Obama’s speech to the combined Congressional assembly on February 24, 2009. His eloquence was apparent, but I had another issue in mind. How can others in the black community find venues to voice concerns to such a captive audience as he? Perhaps if WEB Dubois were still with us today, he would shout to the rafters “the talented tenth has arisen!” The idea of the “Talented Tenth” espouses that there will be a select number of leaders of color who will serve as the rhetors of the black nation.

They will be articulate.
Obama-check.
They will have the best education offered and the capacity to think and express.
Obama-check.
They will be given the credibility by others to assume such a position.
Historic election- check.

But though I was moved by the President’s words, I was most moved by the young black student who wrote her letter to Congress and was given a hero’s greeting while sitting next to the First Lady. Poised with the nation’s eyes upon her, she simply asked the legislators that she should no longer be deemed invisible. She, like many other young people, seek hope for a better future but sadly realize that grave injustices still exist that can deter that dream. Yes, she simply asks for parity without the worries of substandard social conditions that could get in her way. I wish her the opportunity to assume her role as a “rhetor” for young people of color, a role she never would have imagined when she penned her letter. This is if she accepts that challenge.

“Gone With the Wind,” And What It Says Today about How Americans Think About Race

2009-03-03T12:24:00.000-05:00

By Stephen Menendian, Senior Legal Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

Despite being an avid film buff, I watched “Gone With the Wind” for the first time recently. I was caught off guard by not only the degree of racism in the film (and not just the obvious stuff), but in particular by how closely the film resembles D.W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation,” and yet how differently the two films are regarded, even today.

The depiction/glorification of the antebellum south and reconstruction in GWTW is almost identical to BOAN, and not simply in substance and storytelling, but in tone and genre creation. Both films are adaptations of sweeping, romantic, 20th Century Southern apologist narratives: GWTW was an adaptation of the Margaret Mitchell novel by the same name, and BOAN of Thomas Dixon’s “The Clansman.” Evidently, all of the KKK scenes were left out of the film adaptation of GWTW, the main difference between the two films.

GWTW is widely regarded not only as a technical masterpiece, but as a great American film. It is hailed as a film that moves and inspires generations of American movie-watchers for Scarlett’s fortitude and perseverance. The American Film Institute lists it variously as the 4th or 7th greatest film of all time, and as one of the greatest romantic films of all time. In contrast, BOAN is taught in introductory film classes for its technical achievements, its ground breaking cinematic techniques and masterful direction. Although BOAN was originally listed as the 44th greatest American film in the 1998 list, it was – revealingly -- removed from the 2007 list and replaced by D.W. Griffith’s apologetic thematic sequel, “Intolerance.” Given that GWTW was made three decades later, I didn't quite expect it to be as blatantly racist as BOAN, and yet the two films are so similar in style and substance.

The difference in how the two films are regarded is revealing to me in what it says about how Americans today think about race and racism. When I returned the film to the movie store, the clerk was surprised when I said that I was taken aback by the film’s racism. The racism in GWTW seems to be so easily elided or explained by GWTW apologists as an unfortunate incident to the film’s setting rather than an integral part of its meaning. Does it really take a man in a white robe before an American sees racism? Is it really that hard to see that the ideology of the film, the nostalgia and romanticism of the antebellum south that underpins the film was itself a virulently racist worldview?

White Supremacy and the Chimp: A Renewed Anthropology

2009-02-23T15:54:00.001-05:00

By Marguerite Spencer, Senior Researcher at the Kirwan Institute

By the time this blog is posted, much will have already been written about the N.Y. Post editorial cartoon, which many thought depicted President Obama as a chimpanzee, slain by two white officers. I would like to approach this cartoon from a useful theological posture, interrogating not white racism but white supremacy. Central to the anthropology of the Judeo-Christian tradition is the belief that God created humankind in God’s image. This God, at least in Western culture, is consistently portrayed as white. Two implications flow from this – that God is not a God of color and that the creatures that are created in God’s image are white. In the context of the editorial cartoon, the two white cops are made in the image of God; like God they are powerful and effect “justice.” Obama, however, is not made in the image God; he is a lesser creature like the lower animals in the Judeo-Christian creation story – dark, dirty, dust stuff, without God’s spirit or life force blown into him. It is easy to shoot a chimp (yes, it is black blood that flows from him), but not if the chimp is made in the image of God. Protestant black theologian James Cone argues that white Christians can never overcome their sense of superiority unless they see God as black, as the wholly Other, embracing all who are oppressed. Some see Cone’s black God as a true metaphor; it juxtaposes two realties that are thought to be unrelated: divinity and black experience, or if read in a more expansive way, Americanism and the experience of all who are marginalized. Is America white? Are all non-whites less than American? At this moment in our nation’s history, this savage editorial cartoon urgently offers us the opportunity to challenge the social location of whites and to reshape our understanding of what it means to be both an American and a human being.

Dialogue Isn’t Enough

2009-02-23T10:52:00.001-05:00

By Andrew Grant-Thomas, Deputy Director at the Kirwan Institute

The media coverage of Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent race speech invariably led with his suggestion that “in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.”

And so we have a major hullabaloo about the wisdom and accuracy of that reference, and almost nothing on the rest of the 2400-word speech.

Mr. Holder gets a lot right. Our race talk tends to be neither frank nor constructive. We have yet to seriously engage with our racial past or with its implications for present and future dynamics. The sequestration of an often thinly-articulated “black history” in the shortest month of the year is troubling in principle and practice. Most importantly, as Mr. Holder says, “We still speak too often of ‘them’ and not ‘us,’” thereby ignoring the ways in which we ultimately rise or fall together.

Those aren’t slim pickin’s, and there’s even more there that warrants our attention.

The major problem with Mr. Holder’s remarks, in my view, was his inattention to the programmatic changes we’ll need to achieve the kind of racial vision to which he aspires. His characterization of America as “voluntarily” segregated makes my point.

To be sure, biases and aversions, both blatant and hidden, loom large in our racial culture and there’s a real element of choice to how we compose our social networks. But even a casual analysis of racial interaction that doesn’t note how things like exclusionary zoning, racial steering in housing, school funding inequities, and school tracking practices constrain our choices misses the boat.

Those who read the whole piece could be forgiven for concluding that we’re just one great, sustained national conversation away from racial nirvana. We’re not. What’s most needed are hardcore changes in practice and policy that lead to and emerge from institutional transformation: changing where federally subsidized housing is sited; making school funding equitable, rather than aiming for a grossly inadequate “equality”; meaningful criminal justice reform; attention to the racialized distributions of burdens and benefits that typically attach to “universal” measures like the current stimulus package.

A constructive national dialogue may be a necessary precursor or complement to these kinds of changes, but it cannot stand alone. The attorney general is right: institutionally speaking, the America of today isn’t the America of the 1950’s and 1960’s. However, nor is it the America it must yet become.

Intergroup Contact, Prejudice, and Integration

2009-02-16T17:54:00.000-05:00

By Yusuf Sarfati, Graduate Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

Last Monday I attended a public lecture delivered by Miles Hewstone, who is a professor of social psychology at the Oxford University. The lecture discussed many aspects of intergroup relations based on data on Protestant and Catholic communities in Northern Ireland.

One of the interesting aspects of the talk was Hewstone’s engagement with Robert Putnam’s “diversity-distrust” hypothesis evaluated in his book Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. According to Putnam’s hypothesis, increasing contact between diverse racial or ethnic groups diminishes the trust between the group members.

Hewstone argues – based on his empirical analysis of his cross-sectional and longitudinal data of Northern Ireland neighborhoods – that Putnam’s argument needs to be refined. He distinguishes between different types of contact. One type of contact that he refers to as “positive contact” involves meaningful interaction between the members of different groups, for example working toward common goals. According to Hewstone, this type of contact is different than superficial contact that group members have in a supermarket or bus station. His empirical data show that “positive contact” leads to reduced prejudice. This means that the more people engage in deeper relations with members of the out-group, the more likely they will form positive opinions about the other group.

I think Hewstone’s argument is important for those who work on racial relations in the U.S. Whether we work on the integration of immigrant communities into the larger U.S. society, do school integration work, or think about ways to racially integrate neighborhoods, we need to keep in mind that contact between groups does not directly translate to diminishing prejudice. However, meaningful contact does. Therefore it is important to take into consideration the context in which the contact occurs and the quality of contact between group members. In order to enhance the quality of contact between groups it is necessary to work on policies and institutions that will create an environment in which members of different racial, ethnic, or cultural groups can forge meaningful ties, learn about each other, and work for common goals. Only through this approach we can talk about healthy integration.

The New eUpdate: News From the Kirwan Institute

2009-01-30T14:33:00.008-05:00

Welcome to the first edition of Kirwan eUpdate, an electronic newsletter published by the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at The Ohio State University. eUpdate will be published three times annually, alternating with the print newsletter, UPdate. The Kirwan Institute provides leadership in how to think about, talk about, and act on race in ways that create and expand opportunity for all.

http://www.kirwaninstitute.org/publicationspresentations/eupdate/january-2009/index.html

A Reflection on Rice and Race

2009-01-26T10:30:00.002-05:00

By Philip J. Kim, Assistant Editor at the Kirwan Institute

Here are two facts about me:

(1.) I am Korean-American.
(2.) I am allergic to rice.

Oftentimes, when the second fact comes up in a conversation, reactions are not too surprising: shock, confusion, disbelief, denial, all accompanied by an uncertain laughter. Surely, it is quite a funny prospect, even seems quite contradictory. How can I, an Asian, be allergic to rice? Even I have started to doubt the fact recently; Am I really allergic to rice? I ask myself, even immediately after jovially stating it in conversation.

But this doubt makes me question why I am even concerned with being allergic to rice in the first place. Why don’t my other allergies, to dog dander or ragweed, prompt the same doubt in the story of who I am? Deep down, I know the real reason why I doubt the fact. It’s not because the allergy has little physical effect on me, or that I conjured up the memory from some other experience; rather, it is the fact I believe that rice is an inherent part of the Asian culture, and my being allergic to rice suggests that I am somehow not Asian.

Simply, this thought reflects how race and culture not only have to do with how individuals conceive of other cultures, identities, and races, but also how each person views themselves in relation to their own culture, identity and race. For me, my allergic deviance to the norm left me with a mix of thoughts and emotions. It made me question not just the definition of what being Asian meant, but more importantly, how I defined and constructed the term, and my own relation to it. All in all, I think it was a worthwhile activity – I saw my own self with the same lens I viewed others.

Indexing Race in the US at the Dawn of the “Age of Obama”

2009-01-16T11:34:00.009-05:00

By Andrew Grant-Thomas, Deputy Director at the Kirwan Institute

Date on which Ireland’s largest bookmaker started paying off bets on Barack Obama as the next president of the United States: October 16, 2008.(1)

Percentage of South Koreans who told Gallup in 2008 that who won the US presidential election would matter to their country: 79%. (2)
Percentage of Mexicans who said this: 35%.

Estimated amount of wealth that people of color could lose as a result of being disproportionately targeted for subprime housing loans: $200 billion.

Number of years it will take for the black-white homeownership gap to close if recent trends continue: 1,664. (3)

Child poverty rates of non-Hispanic whites, African Americans, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asian Americans and Latinos, respectively, in 2007: 11, 35, 33, 12 and 27 percent. (4)

Year in which the Supreme Court declared bans on “interracial” marriage unconstitutional: 1967.

Percentage growth in the number of interracial marriages between 1960 and 2000: +832%. (5)

Percent of whites, according to a recent ABC News Poll, who think of themselves
first as Americans, rather than as members of a racial group: 87%. (6)

Percent of African Americans who do: 51%.

Rise in the percent of African Americans who think of themselves first as Americans in the last four months: +5%

Percent of Democrats who think Obama will help race relations in the United States: 75%. (7)

Percent of Republicans who think so: 43%.

Proportion of the US population that is non-Hispanic and white: 65 in 100.

Proportion of the last 100 million additions to the US population who are non-Hispanic and white: 34 in 100. (8)
Number of US Senators who are non-Hispanic white men: 78 in 100.

Number of US presidents: 44.

Number of US presidents who have not been white men: 1.

References:
(1) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27236818/
(2) http://www.gallup.com/poll/111253/World-Citizens-Prefer-Obama-McCain-More-Than-3to1.aspx
(3) http://www.nathanielturner.com/stateofthedream.htm
(4) http://4909e99d35cada63e7f757471b7243be73e53e14.gripelements.com/publications/Final_Draft_Kirwan_Racial_
(5) http://social.jrank.org/pages/889/Family-Interracial-Marriages-Are-Becoming-More-Common.html
(6) http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1084a1ObamaRace.pdf
(7) http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1084a1ObamaRace.pdf
(8) http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/25.pdf

Africom: the militarization of a continent

2009-01-12T16:59:00.005-05:00

By Elsadig Elsheikh, Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

On February 6, 2007, President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced the creation of U.S. Africa Command or AFRICOM, with the objective to “better enable the Department of Defense and other elements of the U.S. government to work in concert and with partners to achieve a more stable environment in which political and economic growth can take place [in Africa].” Nonetheless, most African governments refused to host Africom – with exception of Liberia – and many civil society leaders uttered strong opposition to Africom. In fact, it has been called the new “scramble for Africa”.

The U.S. government insists that AFRICOM “will in no way infringe on the sovereignty of any African nation,” and had nothing to do with militarization of the continent. But looking at the records of the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) and other Military Programs that the U.S. engages in with more than 45 African countries – in which 9 of them involve in warfare – tells a different reality. The U.S. FMS revenue almost tripled in the last six years (from $ 12 billion in 2002 to $ 32 billion in 2008) where weapons have been sold to 174 states and territories during the 2006/2007 fiscal years. According to Williams Hartung and Frida Berrigan of the New America Foundation, “U.S. arms and military training played a role in 20 of the world’s 27 major wars in 2006/07” by militarizing aid and development, creating military bases, and increasing weapons sales to African countries. The United States is not serving the continent; rather, it destabilizes it. Undeniably, the experience of the last five decades illustrates that the militaristic approach to development neither contributed to sustainable growth nor supported rule of law. Thus, to presume that Africom’s focus is “on war prevention rather than war-fighting” is disingenuous.

Africa does not need to be a testing playground for new “toys” from the Pentagon nor a charity to feed itself. Instead, the continent needs the following: complete cancelation of the unjustifiable foreign debts, removal of unfair trade exchange barriers enforced by the World Trade Organization that is worsening the food crisis, and support of the peoples’ struggle for democratization, human rights, and social justice. The new administration needs to know that Africom and militarization of aid discounts its admirable goal of ending foreign wars. Such militarization will increase warfare and lead to disastrous outcomes not only in Africa but for the rest of the world.

Where is this post-racialism?

2009-01-07T10:08:00.004-05:00

By Rajeev Ravisankar, Research Assistant at the Kirwan Institute

A recent study released by Northeastern University shows a disturbing rise in the number of young African-Americans involved in fatal violence. From 2002 to 2007, “the number of homicides involving black male juveniles as victims rose by 31% and as perpetrators by 43%.” (footnote #1) A cursory glance at the responses by news readers and bloggers indicates that some believe this trend is a result of the inability of families and community institutions to address the situation. The study’s authors James Alan Fox and Marc Swatt identify contributing factors such as availability of firearms, attraction to gangs, and lack of funding by the Bush administration for crime prevention and policing. Fortunately, they also consider the dire socioeconomic realities faced by communities and call for reinvestment and an “at-risk youth bailout.”

Another development receiving media attention is the fate of prominent Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). These institutions played a critical role in providing higher education opportunities for African-Americans when they were denied access due to Jim Crow era segregation. For example, the 127 year old Morris Brown College had its water supply cut off by the city of Atlanta, and needed a community fundraiser to pay the bill. Administrators at the college are in negotiations to prevent one of its buildings from being auctioned. Facing financial difficulties, a Republican state senator in Georgia introduced a controversial proposal suggesting that historically black Albany State University and Savannah State University merge with predominately white universities. (footnote #2)

These two seemingly unrelated stories are connected in some way when considered in the context of the school to prison pipeline. Many factors reinforce the pipeline such as poverty, discipline oriented education, lack of access to mental healthcare, early entry into the criminal justice system, the oppressive nature of policing, and the conditioning of youths in a patriarchal society that fetishizes violence. Education is essential in disrupting the pipeline, but without independently functioning higher education institutions that serve minorities the adverse impact is both real and symbolic.

In a sociopolitical environment that is widely (and incorrectly) viewed as post-racial, attacking such intractable problems comes with a new set of challenges. While the celebration around Barack Obama’s victory is understandable, the real work has to happen now at the grassroots level. The amount of sacrifice and effort required during the Presidential election must be sustained with the same intensity in order to alleviate the issues that continue to persist in communities across the country.

Footnotes:
#1. Fox, James Alan and Marc Swatt. “The Recent Surge in Homicides involving Young Black Males and Guns: Time to Reinvest in Prevention and Crime Control”
http://nuweb.neu.edu/jfox/Documents/Fox%20Swatt%20Homicide%20Report%20Dec%2029%202008.pdf
Ludden, Jennifer. “Bucking Trend, Homicides Among Black Youths Rise”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98794212&ft=1&f=2
#2. Green, Sadiq. “Will Black Colleges Survive Era of Obama?” http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/263628

A Message to Black Hollywood

2008-12-30T10:37:00.001-05:00

By Charles Patton, Graduate Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

After the election of Barack Obama, Will Smith responded on The Oprah Winfrey Show by stating that “The history of African-Americans is such that you want to be a part of America, but we've been rejected so much it's hard to take the ownership and take responsibility for ourselves and this country. It was like, at that second, at that moment, all of our excuses were gone.” Cartoonist Kevin Moore depicted this moment of The Oprah Winfrey Show. Moore then shows Smith telling a baby born into poverty, a wrongfully convicted victim of police violence, victims of job, wage, and lending discrimination, as well as students at failing schools and residents of neglected neighborhoods that they have “NO EXCUSES!” According to Moore, Smith’s suggestion for success is to think positively. The comic strip can be viewed using the following link (http://incontemptcomics.com/2008/11/11/no-excuses/).

Smith is not the only entertainer to share these sentiments. Other entertainers have helped shape the collective consciousness and racial attitude of this country by sharing their belief that we have achieved racial equity and minorities simply need to put forth the right amount of effort and act responsibly to be successful. However, by not sufficiently acknowledging the role of structural barriers to racial equity, these entertainers are ignoring a significant portion of the problem and consequently are stifling efforts for possible solutions. Their suggestions to do away with excuses and try harder are inadequate and would not significantly decrease racial disparities even if they were realized. I am not denying the importance of making an effort for success and acting responsibly. However, structural barriers are an equally, if not more, important source of the problem in minority communities. Research has shown that when young people are removed from impoverished communities with poorly performing schools and relocated to safe neighborhoods with strong schools, their chance of success increases tremendously.

Very few, if any, of these entertainers are authorities on race relations in America. However, their opinions are very influential on the American public. So, I have a suggestion for them. Black Hollywood please listen carefully. It is very easy to anticipate what questions you will be asked on January 20th, 2009: What role do you play in your upcoming movie? Did you make any New Years Resolutions? If so, what were they? And what does the election of Barack Obama mean for black America? In anticipation of the latter question I have one assignment for you. Between now and the inauguration, read a couple of articles on racial disparities in educational spending, residential segregation, discrimination in the labor market, etc. I know you’re busy so I won’t even require you to read the whole article. Maybe just read the abstract and the conclusion. After this assignment I guarantee you will have something more insightful and interesting to say than “all our excuses are gone”. And this may encourage our country to actually strive to reach the point where racial disparities, residential segregation and discrimination, or as Will Smith likes to call them “our excuses”, are indeed simply memories of a time before Obama.

Foreclosure Crisis to Expand?

2008-12-22T10:31:00.003-05:00

By Jason Reece, Senior Researcher at the Kirwan Institute

The news on the foreclosure crisis continues to get worse. Now an estimated 11 million homeowners are “top heavy” and owe more on their homes than they are worth, and an estimated 1 in 10 residential home mortgages are in delinquency or default.

Unfortunately, this concentration of subprime mortgage foreclosures may just be the beginning.

As the volume of subprime loans resetting in the market starts to decline in 2009, a new wave of non-traditional mortgages will begin to reset.

Option adjustable rate loans (or Option ARMS) and Alt A loans (loans with borrowers who were not subprime but did not qualify as prime borrowers) will begin to reset in massive numbers from 2009 to 2011. Given the decline in home values across the nation and the anticipated job losses resulting from the recession, these nontraditional mortgages will be resetting at a very precarious time.

The potential for another wave of foreclosures across the US may sit just beyond our horizon, providing another powerful incentive to create a comprehensive response to the current credit and housing crisis, which will help us avoid the next wave of mortgage defaults. This crisis is particularly concerning because like the first wave, African Americans and people of color are more likely to experience foreclosures and decreasing property values.

For more information on the foreclosure and credit crisis visit the webpage of our recent conference. See particularly our primer on subprime loans, foreclosure and the credit crisis: http://www.kirwaninstitute.org/events/archive/subprime-convening/index.php

And for more information on the recent wave: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/12/60minutes/main4666112.shtml

The Sacramentality of our Democracy

2008-12-15T10:31:00.000-05:00

By Marguerite Spencer, Senior Researcher at the Kirwan Institute.

I have been working on the idea of applying the theological concept of “sacramentality” to our democracy.

In the Christian tradition, because the world is created by God and is very good, it has the capacity to make God’s invisible goodness visible. Nature, therefore, is sacramental. The Christian story also recounts how humankind is created in God’s image, a being uniquely aware of itself. As a result, Christians are charged in a special way to embody God’s love. Sacramentality is a responsibility, not a privilege. This is complicated by the fact that humankind lives in the history of sin and often fails to reflect God’s love, taking away from the goodness of creation instead.

Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh describes a similar sacramental phenomenon partly contained in Tiep Hien, which can be described as “realizing” or making our convictions real in the world. We do not dwell or remain bound to the place of doctrines and ideas, instead we embody them, bringing them into lived experience.

Our democracy is similarly charged with being “sacramental.” It was founded upon certain truths, among them the principles of freedom, equality and opportunity. These principles, however, lack meaning unless they are embodied or made present in the real world. The founding fathers, knowing that the members of our democracy would struggle with realizing its ideals, fashioned structures and prompts that would curb our propensity toward tyranny. Slavery, for example, not only failed to make present our nation’s enlightened principles, it brought about their opposite: oppression. Only when we set out to secure freedom, equality and opportunity for blacks through amendment and legislation, was our nation once again acting sacramentally, making visible our nation’s goodness, however imperfectly.

Unfortunately, we regularly fail to live up to our self-proclaimed democratic responsibility. Our most recent sins include elevating fear and unchecked force to a hallowed status, and disregarding the rights of the “other.”

It would be folly to assume that the administration-elect will magically resuscitate our ability to make present our nation’s ideals. Yet, the world is looking to us in a new and guardedly optimistic way to once again embody, however haltingly, our founding principles of freedom, equality and opportunity. Many Americans are hoping for the same eruption of goodness. At this critical juncture on our history, the extent to which our hope leads to concerted and transformative action, is the extent to which we advance our nation’s sacramentality.

The Visitor, Detentions and U.S. National Identity

2008-12-08T17:18:00.002-05:00

Yusuf Sarfati, Graduate Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

The debate on immigration, specifically on the conditions and the future of the undocumented immigrants, is a heated topic in the U.S. “The Visitor”, which I watched on DVD last week, focuses on different aspects of this debate. The movie mainly revolves around a friendship between Tarek (Haaz Sleiman), a Syrian drummer, and Walter (Richard Jenkins), an economics professor, in New York City. Towards the end, the movie takes a dramatic turn, when Tarek was put in a detention center because of his lack of immigration documentation after he was held by cops over a trivial issue in a subway station.

From then on the movie explores the problems with the U.S. detention system, such as the isolated nature of the facility that transforms Tarek from a cheerful drummer to an anxious individual, the movement of the detainees from one center to the other without any information provided to the families or friends, the targeted criminalization of the immigrants (Tarek in the movie, like many others in the real world is locked up for an innocent incident in the subway), the lack of training of the officials in the centers to provide basic human needs for the detainees, and the difficulties of finding representation for the detainees in the centers. Tarek in the movie was “fortunate” that his new acquired friend Walter provided him an immigration lawyer.

In addition to the issue of detention, there was a larger discussion in the movie on the role of the immigrants in the formation and transformation of the U.S. national identity. Unlike the conservative intellectuals (e.g. Pat Buchanan, Samuel Huntington) who see immigrants as a threat to a core American culture (however defined), the movie presents Tarek as a transformative figure for Walter’s life. Walter feels really alive when he starts to learn how to play the drum with Tarek. This could be seen as symbolic of how different groups transform each others’ culture in the context of an immigrant receiving host country, specifically immigrants’ contribution to and co-construction of the host culture. The positive role the immigrants play in the definition of the national identity of the U.S. is usually lost in the immigration debate, where the legal and economic aspects are overly-emphasized. It is important to conceptualize the U.S. national identity and a common U.S. (American) culture as “a page in the process of being written.”(1) The page is rewritten and transformed by the entrance and contribution of different immigrant groups. It is much more healthy and democratic to analyze the U.S. identity in this manner, rather than see it as an already written page to which immigrant groups need to assimilate. What do you think?

Footnote (1) Maalouf, Amin. 2000. In the Name of Identity: Violence and the Need to Belong

What’s So Funny?

2008-12-01T10:17:00.002-05:00

Christy Rogers, Senior Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

I’ve been laughing a lot more lately. We all have our ways of coping with a world-wide economic meltdown, and if mine is TIVO’ing 30 Rock so that I can rewind Steve Martin pouring a glass of scotch down his shirt and wailing, “I’m having a severe case of the Mondays,” then no harm, no foul. I find it interesting that 30 Rock, a comedy, is one of the few prime-time shows that takes on race. It’s like when we’re serious about race, we trip ourselves up, but comedy eases us in.

I’ve also been laughing a lot in my dance class. I take Hip-Hop. Maybe I should mention I’m white, 5’ 8”, 40 years old, and losing a battle with the infamous (holiday exacerbated) muffin top. I’m not a bad dancer—I took Hip-Hop for several years in Chicago with a back-up dancer for R. Kelly. I took my first class with Viola and was hooked, and when I came back for my second class, she talked about how much she loved teaching kids. “What I love the best,” she confided, “is that on the second class, they all come back dressed like me.” I think I actually blushed and tried not to look at my new pants. Viola was 90 pounds soaking wet, had a fantastic sense of humor, and was one of the best dancers I’ve ever seen. She even got on reality TV! Trying to match my gangly moves to hers, I nicknamed my dance style “The Unbearable Whiteness of Being.”

Five years after having a baby, I figured it was time to get back to some top rocks, so I signed up for Hip-Hop, Level 2, at Ballet Met. I got a card back saying I’d be in Level 1, thank you. And good thing—my instructor makes us spin on the floor. Viola never made me spin on the floor. She knew it was best for everyone. Now this person, he makes us try to do things with terrifying names, like The Typewriter. I missed one class and a lady leaned over and said, “you’re lucky…you missed something called The Coffee Grinder.” This past Tuesday I was tired—I tried to slide in and stand in the back. However, it turned out I was the only student that night. So I had an hour-long, 1-on-1, hip-hop tutorial with a professional dancer. And the funny thing was, laugh as I did, he never laughed. At the end, we talked about the difference between Hip-Hop instructors and styles. “Viola went on the 1s and 3s,” I said. He looked truly shocked. “But street dance is about hitting the 2s and 4s…when you’re challenged, you move in like this…” We worked a little on meeting street dance challengers. And I thought, maybe if an Asian guy 20 years younger than me who learned an African American art as a street fight is earnestly walking me through how to win, it’s not funny—it’s even better. It’s serious.

Poor Third Country Nationals - A Third Category of EU’s Immigration Policy?

2008-11-25T10:12:00.000-05:00

By Lidija Knuth, a research fellow at the Kirwan Institute

Where is European Union (EU) migration policy heading? Currently, the EU’s migration policy is focusing on making it more difficult for immigrants to enter Europe through a Pact on Immigration and Asylum which the European Council adopted in October 2008. The fundamental principles set out in the Pact are reflected in a series of measures which will have to be implemented immediately at both EU and national level. Moreover, these principles will also inform the future work programme of the EU, which will be proposed by the Commission in May 2009. One of the Pact’s objectives is to take joint measures against irregular migration. The proposal for the Pact includes speeding up the expulsion of foreigners who are irregularly on the territory of any member state and promoting new agreements with third countries that ensure they will take back their own citizens and also those persons who crossed their territory on the way to an EU state and were found undocumented in a member state. Furthermore, it contains compulsory integration contracts for immigrants aimed at determining whether they have adopted national and European values in addition to the possibility to undertake language tests. It also foresees the collection, retention and use of increasing amounts of biometric data on foreigners to determine where foreigners are at specific times of control.

It must be noted that there is one main exception to this ever stricter approach to third country nationals which is the category of highly skilled and qualified migrants. For this category, the more severe rules are less likely to apply due to the fact that the EU suffers from demographic ageing and will need larger migration flows in the future to minimize this trend.

This latest actions at EU level are necessary but the overall development is troubling. NGOs and civil society organizations working on immigration issues are already concerned about the fragmentation of EU communities along the lines of nationality. On the one hand, it is necessary that they focus their work on the issues raised by the newly proposed Pact and on the clearly exclusionary approach the EU is demonstrating toward third country nationals living in the EU or seeking to come to the EU.

On the other hand, in the debate about migration the EU, consistent with European values of respect for human dignity, equality and respect for human rights, should include the contribution made to Europe’s economy, society and culture by migrants. The denial of rights to many migrants, including asylum seekers, undocumented migrants, and others, not only has a negative effect on the individuals concerned, but also denies European society the added value of their participation in all spheres of society, including civic, political and cultural life.

Musings of a Proud Black Man

2008-11-17T13:07:00.000-05:00

By Hasan Kwame Jeffries, Assistant professor in the Department History with a joint appointment at the Kirwan Institute

The day after Barack Obama won the race for the presidency, the New York Times published an article entitled “Near-Flawless Run is Credited in Victory.” In it, the authors attribute Obama’s win to a brilliantly designed and almost perfectly executed campaign strategy. A key tenet of this strategy was to “avoid discussions focused on race.”

Before embarking on his improbable journey, Obama and his closest advisors, including David Axelrod, the campaign’s chief political strategist, and David Plouffe, the campaign manager, determined that Obama’s success depended on White voters not seeing him as being too closely connected to the African American community. “It would be difficult for an African American to be elected president in this country,” said Cornell Belcher, a pollster for the campaign. “However, it is not difficult for an extraordinary individual who happens to be African American to be elected.”

The problem, of course, was white racial prejudice. It was highly unlikely that Whites would vote for a Black candidate who they believed shared the cultural values and political views of the Black community because many Whites see these as antithetical to American cultural and political norms. In truth, however, they are not. There is nothing un-American about Black politics and Black culture. In fact, Black politics has historically pushed America to live up to its democratic claims and Black culture has always been foundational to American culture.

It is impossible not to be excited about the potential for progress in American race relations in the wake of Obama’s victory. My enthusiasm is tempered, however, by the fact that his victory was predicated on white voters not associating him too closely with the African American community. And therein lies my dilemma – I just don’t happen to be Black – I am proud to be Black. I am proud of Black history, Black people, Black political traditions, and Black culture.

Although I look forward to the day that Obama takes office, I also look forward to the day when White voters are not afraid to elect an African American who is unashamedly and unapologetically Black.

Our New Racial Ambassadors: Sasha and Malia Obama

2008-11-10T12:09:00.006-05:00

By Wendy Smooth, an assistant professor in the Department of Women’s Studies with a joint appointment at the Kirwan Institute

With the historic election of Barack Obama I find myself overly excited by the thought of two little black girls calling the White House home for the next few years. This is better than any episode of The Cosby Show ever written or imagined. I am convinced that little Sasha and Malia will be our best racial ambassadors. Americans having a bird’s eye view into the life of a real black family will do more for racial understanding and advancement than all the progressive social justice based public policies that we expect from the Obama presidency.

Now I am not placing a burden on little Sasha and Malia to act, behave, or play as “representatives of the race.” I am not expecting them to play Chi-Town style double- dutch on the east lawn—though I would relish hearing the press’ coverage of the long honored tradition of black girlhood. Nor am I angling to see if they are captured carrying Groovy Girl Dolls instead of Barbie. My dream is that they will simply be themselves. In doing so, they will raise the value Americans place on the well-being of little black children everywhere. They will show that little black kids have the same dreams, desires, fears, and needs that all children have. They desire to be safe, secure, and loved. Even more so, my hope is that in Sasha and Malia’s comings and goings, they will help people understand that black children are worth the investment. Americans will see that when you provide children—all children a first rate world class education, they grow and flourish beyond our imagination. Americans will see that all children thrive when they have the best health care, safe playgrounds, and a great place to call home.

The morning after the election I greeted my wide- eyed, gummy grinning little baby boy and between our morning stanzas of “Good Morning to You” I looked into his big beautiful brown eyes and told him that because of what happened last night, he will know a world different from that of his parents. His world would be better. It would certainly be more open, more inclusive, more accepting of difference. I know that my son will have two little black girls to thank for opening the eyes of Americans to the beauty of the black child.

Our little racial ambassadors through their everyday actions of being little girls will prompt Americans to raise the value placed on the lives of all black children. By the end of their eight years of residency at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, I am hopeful that people will develop a new understanding for why black children like all children across this country are worthy of good schools, quality health care, safe neighborhoods, and reliable housing. Sasha and Malia Obama will ignite our political will to act on behalf of all children ensuring the future of this nation.

Unresolved Issues

2008-11-03T10:36:00.001-05:00

By Andrew Grant-Thomas, Deputy Director at the Kirwan Institute

Election Day 2008 is tomorrow and, frankly, it’ll be a relief to get this long campaign over with. However, the end of the Campaign 2008 will do little, if anything, to resolve several troubling issues raised along the way. At least three come to mind.

The Vote: In states from Colorado to Ohio, Wisconsin to Florida, the signs of voter suppression are everywhere. Tomorrow, in all likelihood, many thousands of people will be denied their rightful vote because of voter roll purges, registration challenges, over-use of provisional ballots, dysfunctional voting machines, machines that don’t record the intended vote, and more. Sadly, unless we see a repeat of the Florida controversy of 2000, when a very close vote in a key state made the difference in a very close election, these problems will likely be ignored.

Race: Whatever happens tomorrow, Obama’s success confirms that, as a country, we have come very far on race. However, in itself, an Obama victory won't give urban schools full of black and Latino kids the money, books, and excellent teachers they need and affluent white kids' schools have. It won't change the fact that many employers would prefer to hire white men with prison records over black men without records. With lots of people insisting that the Obama phenomenon proves that we have become a colorblind society (it doesn’t; we’re not), I worry that issues of racial justice will lose more of their already-limited purchase on Americans’ attention.

Hate? Where will the racism, misogyny, Islamophobia, xenophobia, and vitriol so manifest over the last year go after the new president is sworn in? By October 2007, the Facebook group, “Hillary Clinton: Stop Running for President and Make Me a Sandwich,” boasted some 30,000 members. The “charge” that Obama is Muslim reverberated for months before one pundit publicly asked the critical question: so what if he were Muslim? A Congresswoman from Minnesota recently urged the media to scrutinize her colleagues’ words and records for possible “Anti-American” sentiment. And in Bexley, Ohio, just outside Columbus, students peacefully protesting a partisan rally were vilified and physically threatened by rally participants.

Campaign 2008 didn’t create these issues and its end won’t put them to rest. President Obama or McCain will have an important role to play in “healing” our country, and both men have promised to embrace that role. But, mostly, it’s on us.

Living White Privilege

2008-10-31T10:35:00.003-05:00

By Eavon Lee Mobley, Managing Editor at the Kirwan Institute

Wow. I hadn’t expected the response from my sister when I emailed Tim Wise’s article “This is Your Nation on White Privilege” to her. I thought the article gave easy-to-understand examples of the concept of white privilege as Tim Wise stated in his opening statement. My sister responded: “This e-mail is bad do I send you Nation on Black privilege.” I haven’t received her answer to my question: “What is Black privilege?”

But the point I want to make is that my sister’s response to being presented with the facts of “White Privilege” is all about blame. When someone feels they are blamed for something it is human nature to try to shift the blame to someone or something else. Come on … we have all at least one time in our life sought to avoid taking the blame for something. Maybe early on a parent or other adult figure taught us the value of taking responsibility for our acts. Or maybe we learned on our own as we wrestled with our conscience. Or maybe we are still learning. Or maybe we aren’t even aware.

The reality is that every day white people are living white privilege. And that privilege spans the whole range of socio-economic status in our society. Yeah that’s right…it’s a privilege whether you are white and rich or white and poor.

Let’s get back to blame. So what are whites blamed for…the inequitable treatment of nonwhites…and what do whites counter with…Black privilege (?)…

It’s a dead end street. What white people need to do is acknowledge the existence of white privilege and stop the blame game. We need to discuss white privilege in a transformative way and get beyond the finger pointing and on to working towards an equitable society for all Americans. Let’s bring the discussion out in the open. Yes… if you are a white American you benefit from privileges and status that are not available to nonwhite Americans… “it’s as plain as the nose on your face.”

U.S. Empire Complex Revisited

2008-10-21T11:27:00.002-05:00

By Hiram José Irizarry Osorio, Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

“Since modern globalization and capitalism are inseparable, the globalization that one regards as ‘desirable’ (unipolar, hierarchically multipolar, non-hierarchical multipolar) will depend on whether one’s preferred model of society is liberal capitalism, a more ‘social’ form of capitalism, or one or another form of socialism…I would place a radically anti-imperialistic approach that recognizes the need to correct the huge North-South inequality in the conditions of production created by five centuries of capitalist expansion. Such a correction evidently implies a socialist perspective (one that goes beyond the basic logic of capital accumulation), but it also requires a conception of global socialism not necessarily shared either by earlier historical socialisms (communist and social-democratic) or by all the currents of new social, and even socialist, thinking.” (Samir Amin’s Beyond US Hegemony?: Assessing the Prospects for a Multipolar World, 5)

We are immersed in the U.S. Presidential campaign mode. Quite a bit of discussion (or at least mention) of a plethora of topics has taken place, from the mortgage-housing crisis to race…war. All of these topics and issues affect the livelihood of every U.S. citizen and beyond. This last statement is what I want to briefly delve into, the beyond aspect. In other words, it is necessary to take a look at the world beyond the manufactured confines of the U.S. as a nation-state. This is not done to undermine U.S. domestic issues, but to connect them with “the other” (the racializing aspect of the modern nation-state building).

I write this to be critical of the myopic view and coverage of the current U.S. Presidential election, bringing to the fore perspectives coming from that international “other”. Nonetheless, I am also critical of the “othering” process that tends to take place when the subaltern responds. I do not underscore both “limitations” to promote stasis, advocate for perfection, or truncate conversation. My intention is to promote lively contestation that might get us closer to a more porous, flexible, situated and transparent dual “us vs. them” (or better “us/them”).

This is why I started with a quote from Samir Amin, which I think pushes the envelope of the current Presidential Election coverage and discussion. Again, not making it irrelevant, but underscoring its incompleteness. Having stated this, the challenge remains on what’s to be done. How do U.S. domestic concerns best connect to the outside? How are the processes of marginalization best addressed from within the U.S. Empire and beyond? How do we (as Amin challenges us to do) better coalesce those fragmented marginalized realities, without losing their particularities?

In other words, how do we move along a humane, progressive politics that might take us to a different and better world? Whatever the answers to these and other relevant questions that concern our organizing of our societies, I underscore that they should not emerge from a small fraction of the world’s population. Let the contestation continue, with the hope of it translating into tangible positive changes for common folk.

What do you think?

A Comedy of Errors: Race, Gender, and Chris Rock

2008-10-07T09:57:00.010-05:00

By Angela Stanley, Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

In a summer issue of Vibe Magazine, one of the items in the“20 Questions” feature questioned whether or not Chris Rock had a problem with Black women based on his latest standup routine. Anyone who knows Chris Rock and his brand of humor understands that much of his material is racial, political, and social commentary. To hear that he has some things to say about Black women really comes as no surprise, but the buzz around his new material suggested that something different was afoot.

Because of the controversy, I was interested in seeing the routine for myself and when it finally aired on HBO September 27, I saw what many folks have been discussing. His take on the possibility of having a Black first lady set the tone for his entire routine. Specifically, a Black man with a Black wife can never be president “because a Black woman cannot play the background of a relationship.” His solution? “Get a White girl…because a White girl will play her position.” From there he went on to describe all the ways Black women are domineering, unsupportive, manipulative, materialistic, and every other stereotype imaginable.

So what is the problem many are having with all of this? If you believe, like I do, that there is often truth in jest, then it’s easy to make the assumption that perhaps Chris Rock does have some issues with women, Black women in particular, that seem to have manifested on stage. Regardless of Chris Rock’s comments, the larger issue is that this is yet again an unwarranted attack on Black women. From Slavery to Hip Hop we’re over-sexualized objects; from the household to the workplace we are “angry Black women”; and from the silver screen to the TV screen we are the loud, sassy, neck-rolling, unfeminine sidekicks. If we are successful then we are uppity. If we defend ourselves then we are argumentative. If we have opinions then we are emasculating. Our contributions to history, to social movements, to the workplace, and to society are often quickly forgotten. Our continued, and often belabored, support of our communities, our children, our leaders, and our men often goes unappreciated. Our leadership in the home and in the workforce is often trivialized. Our overall success, educational or otherwise, is often resented. This occurs from the classroom to the boardroom—tainting public perception, lowering self-esteem, devaluing an entire group of individuals, and suppressing opportunity. Not surprisingly, such treatment also extends to the realm of politics.

Unfortunately Michelle Obama, a woman who has the grace, intelligence and ability to be a phenomenal first lady, is suffering the same pigeonholed fate. I for one, hope that if Barack Obama wins the presidency, that Michelle will be allowed to take on her new role with a clean slate and that her presence in the White House will have a positive effect not only on the self-esteem of girls and women of color but also on the perception of Black women as a whole.

As for Chris Rock, his opinions are ultimately irrelevant. However, as someone who claims to be a Barack Obama supporter, it seems that his focus should be on helping Barack become president instead of projecting his own issues onto Michelle and all the women she represents. As one blogger named Tami writes, “Do a fan a favor, Chris, stick to the political and social stuff, and save the rest for a therapist.”

The Not So Simplistic Digital Divide

2008-09-29T07:48:00.000-05:00

By Becky Reno, Senior Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

At the Kirwan Institute we are embarking on a project regarding the digital divide and I’m afraid the topic is not proving to be as simple or straightforward as I’d hoped it would be. My initial interpretation of the digital divide rested literally on the number of computers available in school, at home, or in the community. The cause of the divide was material, and consequently the solution was simple: to provide more computers. Apparently, I’m not alone in this overly-simplistic analysis, since this was also the initial policy approach to remedy the situation.

Shortly thereafter, investors and educators realized this wasn’t having the intended effect. Computers sat gathering dust in the back of classrooms, while teachers resorted to their more familiar methods of teaching. Even with the computers in the classroom, students weren’t gaining the programmatic knowledge or skills necessary to make academic gains. Lesson learned - it’s not enough to have the equipment, we also need teachers who are trained to use them and can effectively impart this knowledge to students.

In response, technology-centric professional development courses became available and teacher education programs instituted mandatory technology training. Now theoretically all schools have computers, and all teachers are trained to use them. So NOW technology should be fully integrated into the curriculum. But what about students that don’t have computers or internet access at home? How is a teacher supposed to fully integrate technology when he/she can’t assign digital homework? What about the students that grew up having a computer in the house versus those who have never used one prior to coming to school?

The problem became increasingly complex, and as I continued mulling these solutions over in my head a picture started to emerge of students sitting in rows, behind computers, heads down, working in solitude. I had a slightly unsettled feeling about this that I couldn’t quite put my finger on, and then it came to me. That scenario is in direct opposition to the one I’ve spent the last five years imagining and working toward- an integrated classroom where children are interacting with others who are different from them, learning from and sharing experiences with each other, and fully reaping the myriad of benefits that come from being educated in a diverse environment. So how do I mesh these two goals? Does closing the digital divide have to mean abandoning the dream of true integration? Certainly not, and certainly technology does not stand in direct opposition to an integrated classroom. It is a powerful reminder however to be mindful of the consequences, intended or otherwise, of our policy recommendations. We have yet to fully identify the best policy solutions to address the digital divide, but I shall continue to work with the reminder that technology should be used as a tool to bring us together, not further isolate or separate us.

Debating and Clarifying Racism

2008-09-23T08:26:00.004-05:00

By Stephen Menendian, Legal Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

During a conversation about the role of race in the Presidential election an acquaintance of mine asserted that although race may keep some Democrats from voting for Barack Obama in the fall, race was critical to his success in the primaries. He pointed to the levels of Black support Obama received after the Iowa caucuses. In his view, voting for Obama because of his race was just as racist as not voting for Barack because of his race.

That simply couldn’t be true. A Black person ultimately deciding to vote for Obama over Hillary Clinton because of Obama’s race is not the same thing as someone voting against Obama because of his race. Race prejudice, refusing to vote for a candidate because of his race, is morally anathema. Race pride, especially when you are a member of a race whose ancestors were brought to this country in chains and were told they were less than human, is a laudable reason to push a button for Obama, all other things equal. There have been 43 presidents, all white men. Obama’s accomplishment may instill a sense of pride when one considers that in less than 150 years Black Americans have shaken off the yoke of slavery to rise to the cusp of the Presidency. This in a nation founded on racial slavery and the racial suppositions that justified that institution. The first person to hold the office that Obama now seeks, George Washington, owned 316 black Americans when he died.

My acquaintance was quick to retort that whether voting for or against someone on account of race, it’s still racism because it is treating someone differently on account of their race.

The notion that differential treatment on the basis of race by itself is racist, is clearly wrong. According to that definition of racism, it's racist to apply a higher-SPF sunscreen to a white child than to a black child. You would be literally treating them differently based entirely on the color of their skin. But calling this action 'racist' is preposterous. And yet, it is a definition that is becoming increasingly common.

I tried to reason with my acquaintance by showing that applying his definition to sexism, holding a door for a woman is treating a woman differently on the basis of a sex, but it’s not sexist. Rather than revise his definition of racism, he fought the analogy.

My acquaintance was drawing from a well-worn script. It’s a script informed by the public debates over affirmative action. It’s a narrative of colorblindness that suggests that seeing race is the problem. But it’s a dangerous script because it hampers our ability to do anything about racism. Correcting racism becomes part of the problem, since, after all, it’s racist, right?

Commodity vs. Right: Global health and the “pathologies of power”

2008-09-16T12:17:00.004-05:00

By Elsadig Elsheikh, Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

Thirty years ago in Alma Ata - the capital city of the republic of Kazakhstan- the Declaration of Alma Ata (DAA) urged governments, international funding agencies and organizations, and all health and development workers to protect and promote health for all. The DAA strongly reaffirmed that health “is a fundamental human right and that the attainment of the highest possible level of health is a most important world-wide social goal.” Nonetheless, today the health of two-thirds of the planet’s population has deteriorated since then. One might ask, why? The answer lies within the political structure of our global system. The system- guided by the ideology of disempowering the vulnerable and the marginalized- gives way to top-heavy economic growth and looks after the interests of transnational corporations that institute the will of the few global financial institutions.

Thirty years after its publication, the DAA’s principles still possess convincing arguments for the importance of ‘health for all’ through community-based primary health care systems. Its visionary qualities present the potential genesis of ‘health for all’ to fulfill the human rights doctrine, since it incorporates and underscores the relevance of socio-economic and political factors and unequal development. The DAA’s principals also acknowledge the cyclical crisis of health care systems world-wide, particularly in Third World countries. Yet despite the polemical dimension of the DAA, its principles have been ignored by the market-based global economy.

The DAA asserted that the right to health is a fundamental constituent of the human rights’ agenda; therefore, its achievement required a comprehensive approach to societal infirmity. The political practices that put economic growth before human needs to achieve ‘evenhanded’ development were a complete breakdown not only for Third World societies, but for marginalized groups in the economically advanced world as well. As the DAA averred in 1978, the health attainment for all is required to achieve “sustained economic and social development.” The DAA had foreseen that attaining “health for all” not only would sustain development, but would also “contribute to a better quality of life and to world peace.” Nevertheless, today we know that over 83% of the 6.8 billion humans lack basic access to primary health care due to the nature of the global economic system. It’s beyond tragedy to witness the current imposed global system launching wars to uphold “human rights” and defending “democratic values,” while denying the right to health for the majority of our fellow humans. In order for us - as a global human society - to reach humanistic solidarity, the right to health should be treated as a fundamental human rights’ pillar, and not considered as a tradable commodity.

For further discussion on this topic please see my full-length piece on the Kirwan Institute website. (Link)

Globalism and Racism

2008-09-15T14:07:00.001-05:00

By S. P. Udayakumar, Research Fellow for the Kirwan Institute

The elusive interplay of globalism and racism manifests in many inscrutable ways. On the one hand, as William Greider points out, “the process of globalization is visibly dismantling enduring stereotypes of race and culture, ancient assumptions of supremacy.” Mastering modern technology, and dispelling the notion that high-caliber work can be done only by well-educated white people in a few chosen countries, people of color who exist in surroundings of comparative scarcity are making complex things of world quality for the global market. Thus one of the major racial constructs of the modern world is being steadily eroded by globalization. On the other hand, emulating the Western science and technology and producing copycat products also creates the impression that the non-Western cultures have little else to offer other than trying to excel in Western technologies.

Focusing on the lopsided global power and opportunity structure that is a system of domination, discrimination and oppression, one can see how the people of color are the ones who are left out. Even when whites are a minority in some national societies, they control much of the national resources. For instance, in Zimbabwe, a predominantly black country, some 4,500 white farmers control the most arable land. Similarly, in South Africa, Afrikaners, who are hardly 7 percent of the national population, dominate the economy.

Despite the fact that Britain invested more total money in the U.S., and although Canada controlled 26 percent of all foreign owned real estate (as opposed to Japan’s 15 percent) in the early 1990s, Japan was often singled out for scare-mongering. There had been a longstanding accusation that the “Japanese investors are buying America wholesale.” Globalization of racism plays out in many more discrete ways such as global environmental racism; consolidation of racial and ethnic hatred through internet; exclusionary measures such as the Proposition 187 of California and so forth. In defining biotechnology research agenda, for example, cosmetic drugs and slow-ripening tomatoes come higher on the list than a vaccine against malaria or drought-resistant crops for marginal land. Even as communications, transportation and technology are driving global economic expansion, headway on poverty is not keeping pace.

Thus the globalized world plays a sort of socioeconomic-political ‘hide-and-seek’ with the racial and ethnic minorities. Their identities are reified for profit but their voices are erased for any political claims. Some of the globalized world’s precepts and practices appear to be rectifying some of the defects of the established order only to turn the same into additional disadvantages. While the white center has emerged as the solid guiding spirit for the globalized world, the periphery stands dispersed, disorganized and disturbed. While racism pervades globalization overtly and covertly, any acknowledgement or problematization is carefully avoided.

Talking About Crime, Thinking About Race

2008-09-09T09:37:00.001-05:00

By Michelle Alexander, Associate professor of Law at the Moritz College of Law with a joint appointment at the Kirwan Institute

Lately I’ve been talking to people from a wide variety of backgrounds about how the criminal justice system actually works. I tell them that it is not, in reality, designed to prevent or control crime, but instead operates primarily to create a permanent, second-class for poor people of color. It’s a new Jim Crow. I am often met with a blank stare, particularly if the person I’m speaking to is white or has never been locked up. So I continue. I tell them that, in cities like Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, Maryland, more than two-thirds of the young African American men are either under criminal justice control or already labeled criminals. The blank stare remains. I then tell them that, contrary to popular belief, the grim statistics are due to the War on Drugs – not violent crime – and that people of color are no more likely than whites to sell or use illegal drugs. In fact, white youth are more likely to engage in illegal drug activity than black youth. The blank stare then morphs to deep skepticism. I tell them about the many studies that have been done, but often the data is resisted. For many, it’s hard to believe that black people really aren’t more guilty of drug crime than whites. So I move on. I say, to really understand how the criminal justice system works, think about what happens upon release. As people walk out the prison gates, a virtual label is fixed on one’s chest, just above the heart. The label is impossible to remove. A typical label reads: “This is a bad man. You may legally deny him a job, an education, a loan, a place to live, and a welfare check. You may deny him the right to vote. You may even take his children. You may also take his dignity. He is entitled to no respect, no additional chances. He is a pariah, one who may be shunned without consequence. He may be discriminated against, legally, for the rest of his natural life.”

That’s when the light goes on. I’m usually interrupted before I can go any further. There is something about identifying the permanent, shameful, pariah status of criminals that causes a shift. Often people stop me and say, “Okay, I get it, so tell me about the data again.” It seems to me that the racial frame – linking the status of African Americans to prior systems of control – is useful in helping people rethink their prevailing assumptions. But getting to that open place is not easy, and often requires one-on-one dialogue. Like an optical illusion – an image that lurks invisibly until its basic outline is identified – mass incarceration is the invisible caste system of our times.

Europeans and how they talk about Obama, race, and the presidential election

2008-08-27T09:00:00.003-05:00

By Konstantin Vössing, Summer Intern at the Kirwan Institute

If Europeans were able to participate in the American presidential election, Barack Obama would be supported by 84 % of the French, 61 out of a 100 Germans, and by five times as many Britons as his opponent. (footnote #1) His European ‘voters’, however, are not necessarily predisposed to support a ‘minority’ candidate in a ‘real’ election at home, when the question about candidate preference is not just hypothetical. Moreover, it is only too evident that Mahgrebin and African immigrants in France, Turks in Germany, as well as Pakistani and Indians in Britain, are grossly underrepresented and excluded from the political arena.

The relative indifference of European media and observers to the issue of race in the debate about the presidential election is indicative of a discourse about systematic disadvantage of ‘minorities’ in Europe that tends to revolve around dividing lines defined by religion or immigrant status. This can be a blessing, because voters in Europe, contrary to voters in the United States, don’t seem to perceive Obama’s skin color as an obstacle to support him. In a broader context, this translates into a colorblindness that can be healthy, both in everyday situations and in political discourse. But the ‘European approach’ can also be a curse. How would those European Obama enthusiasts react, if racially or otherwise excluded groups in their own country pushed more forcefully for greater recognition? Would they even be willing to acknowledge that there is such a thing as race-based exclusion?

This is how Léonora Miano put it, an author, originally from Cameroon, and now native to France, in a recent interview with the New York Times:

“There’s total hypocrisy here. For me it was really strange when I arrived 17 years ago to find people here never used the word race. French universalism, the whole French republican ideal, proposes that if you embrace French values, the French language, French culture, then race doesn’t exist and it won’t matter if you’re black. But of course it does. So we need to have a conversation, and slowly it is coming: not a conversation about guilt or history, but about now.”

Colorblindness is deeply engrained and institutionalized in the French constitutional tradition, and to some extent unique to France. A certain lack of attention to the presence of racial discrimination, however, is a more universal feature of political discourses all across Europe. Like in so many other areas, a transatlantic learning process is necessary. This should be a conversation, however, that works interactively in both directions, and that takes into account both the blessing and the curse inherent in the way in which Europeans approach the issue of race.

(footnote #1) The figure for France comes from a survey conducted by the Pew Center, the German figure is from a survey by the weekly magazine Der Stern, and the value for Britain is noted by the daily newspaper The Guardian.

Multiracial Americans and the Future of Race

2008-08-25T09:13:00.001-05:00

By Cheryl Staats, Research Assistant at the Kirwan Institute

Recent population estimates released by the U.S. Census Bureau depicted the changes that statisticians and demographers predict our population will undergo by the year 2050. Most of the trends and projections were relatively unsurprising, such as the expected growth in the Hispanic population or the notion that the aging population of Baby Boomers will put a squeeze on Social Security.

One estimate that stood out to me was the prediction that the number of people who identify as being two or more races is anticipated to triple, thus raising the number from 5.2 million to 16.2 million in 2050. One of the significant hallmarks of the 2000 U.S. Census was the option for people to report more than one race. While approximately only 2% of the U.S. population selected multiple racial categories in 2000, this value is clearly anticipated to rise dramatically.

This projection makes me wonder about the future of race in U.S. society, specifically how our ideas regarding racial categorization may evolve as racial diversity increases. More specifically, will Americans eventually recognize or even embrace the notion of race being a continuum because of the increased number of people identifying as multiracial? Moreover, given the fluidity of how whiteness is conceptualized, what effect will the instability of the “white” category have in the future? (Recall that the Irish were historically not considered ‘white’ but have since received that designation.)

These questions may be best answered with time. As we try to overcome our binary perspective on race (black/white), it will be interesting to see how those that identify as multiracial will influence this transition. Some scholars, such as George Yancey in Who Is White?, assert that a dichotomous perspective on race will prevail, although perhaps in a different form (such as black/non-black) due to the permeability of racial categories. While it is impossible to predict the future, the increase in multiracial Americans will influence the dialogue regarding the evolution of how we conceptualize and categorize race.
----
Related links:
Press Release by the U.S. Census Bureau. 14 Aug. 2008. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/012496.html
America in 2050: Even Older and More Diverse. MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26186087/
Multiracial in America. MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24765917

Not That Unlike

2008-08-22T08:45:00.001-05:00

By Jillian Olinger, Graduate Research Associate at Kirwan Institute

I recently returned from a trip to Ireland, during which several things struck me…I spent a day and a half in Belfast, Northern Ireland. The city is rebuilding itself, everywhere one looked there were cranes and construction zones, new modern buildings springing up alongside centuries’ old ones—it was an incredible sight to see. As a tourist, it would be easy to miss the troubled history of the place. Indeed, one had only to walk a few blocks to the west of city centre to be confronted with the present day form of the civil tensions, represented by a housing development called The Markets, a testament to the high degree of residential segregation that still exists today.

Prior to my trip I had attended a lecture on being Catholic in Northern Ireland, and the lady, born here in Upper Arlington but living in Northern Ireland for the past 15 years, spoke of the violence, discrimination and segregation—past and present—that were part of the Catholic struggle. Sound familiar? Although these tensions are sectarian in nature, there are clear similarities to our own racial tensions. Even today, though Northern Ireland’s prime minister is a Sinn Fein member, the situation is still a turbulent one, although improved. I was with an English friend of mine who commented that as recent as a few years ago, he would not have felt comfortable doing one of the bus tours of Belfast, as he was sure to be unwelcome in many parts of the city; still today, he would not walk past the Markets at night, as he was sure to encounter trouble. Even with political gains for the nationalists and Sinn Fein, troubles persist. My friend’s comment about the bus tours reminded me of one provided for planners through Carbrini Green as it was beginning the process of demolition—a tour that not so many years ago would have been completely unfeasible. Both tours seem to be trying to say ‘See, it’s all better now.’ But we know it is not.

In the north side of Dublin, we stumbled upon the remains of their own failed housing project, Ballymun, which is now undergoing major renovations as condominiums, hotels, golf courses and shopping areas replace the old projects.

This all called to mind our own troubled history around race here in the US. Indeed, the civil rights movement provided inspiration for the Catholics and nationalists in combating their own segregation and discrimination from the Protestants and unionists. I was struck that despite our very different histories, we have ended up in modern day situations in which similarities can be noted. We even have our own political ‘signal’ of progress in Obama. Yet these gains, just as in Belfast or Dublin, each with their own flavor and history to deal with, cannot signal the end of the troubles, or that race is no longer an issue. Disparities and discrimination are still readily prevalent in all places, even as the noise of new construction, globalism, and economic vitality try to hide these disturbing and disappointing facts.

Reflective Politics in an Election of Firsts

2008-08-20T10:21:00.000-05:00

By Micah Dillard, Summer Intern at the Kirwan Institute

We as Americans are natural consumers. We strive to find the best deals or hottest new gadgets that will be outdated in two months, but we are also political consumers. Despite the fact that we have a primarily two party system, we generally tend to have several possible choices for the presidency. This “choice” has not been more evident than in this presidential election where we had more than just conservatives and liberals but also an African American, a woman, a Mormon, and a Latino. It is shallow to pick the next president of United States based on his or her race, gender, or religious affiliation but we must respect the urge that we want someone that reflects an aspect of ourselves to be president or even vice president.

This urge to want a politician to reflect not only your values, but also certain aspects of yourself is not new. This dynamic has been a part of the American political landscape since the inception of the American political landscape. The most recent examples of this are the elections of former President William J. Clinton and current President George W. Bush in 2000. Both were perceived to have the so-called “everyman” quality that reminds a segment of the American population of either themselves or friends that makes them want to vote for them. A common phase during the 2000 election was that current President Bush seemed like a modern-day cowboy who would reform Washington after the Lewinsky scandal. It seems to make us comfortable making a choice that could decide the course of the nation.

In this election of firsts, we have the first person of color seriously vying for the presidency of the United States. This concept of reflective politics comes into play again because Sen. Obama has the support of more than 90% of the African American community, 66% of Latino voters, and has an abundance of support in the female community (data provided by The Politico). He seems to be a candidate that is using the “true everyman” strategy to appeal to a diverse group of people because of his diverse origins. However, his strength is also his greatest weakness because by being this “everyman” he automatically turns off a segment of the population who do not connect with him politically and personally. It is not currently on the scale of Sen. John Kerry in 2004 and the claims of elitism against him. In summation, we as Americans must understand that we seek politicians that not only represent us politically, but also reflect an aspect of ourselves.

AIDS in the U.S.: A World Standard?

2008-08-13T10:55:00.004-05:00

By Melissa Sherry, Summer Intern at the Kirwan Institute

A recent report from Black AIDS Institute proclaims that the AIDS epidemic among African Americans in parts of the U.S. is as severe as the epidemic in parts of Africa. Wait, what? AIDS in the U.S. being compared to Africa? Surely there must be a mistake….

America is a country which idealizes itself as a world standard. We point to our policies, our achievements, our research, and some even cite our healthcare as being superior. Yet when you consider the fact that the U.S. healthcare system ranks 37th out of 191 countries in the WHO rankings, reports like the Black AIDS Institute’s report on AIDS in black America should come as no surprise. In fact, the U.S. spends a greater portion of its GDP on healthcare than any other country yet it ranks the worst in the developed world in preventable deaths due to treatable conditions, second worse in infant mortality, and 42nd in life expectancy. How can we account for these shortcomings in our “superior” society? Consider the plight of African Americans.

The average lifespan of an African American living in the U.S. is 73 years of age, 5 years less than white Americans. In terms of health, African Americans are at a greater risk than their white counterparts of dying from cancer, heart disease, injuries, and countless other ailments that are often survivable with proper treatment. Nearly 20% of African Americans have no health insurance, compared to 11% of white Americans.

While some point to the lower average education and income levels of African Americans as the sole causes of disparities, there is more to the story. Recent studies have linked living in racist societies to higher blood pressure, stress, infant mortality and lower birth-weight babies. In fact, while educational attainment is highly correlated with health outcomes, studies have shown that highly educated African American women still have lower birth-weight babies and higher infant mortality rates than white women who don’t even have a high school diploma.

Women in the U.S. who have immigrated from Africa, and who have not grown up with the racism that’s ingrained in the U.S. society also have better birth outcomes than African American women; that is, until they have lived in the U.S. long enough to be affected by racism. The structural racialization of our society is undermining our progress in healthcare, and its manifestation in public health demonstrates that the U.S. is not as progressive as some may think.

If we do not want to continue to have huge disparities dragging the health of all Americans down to levels where the decency and humanity of its members is usurped, we need to openly address this racialization to increase the probability of eradicating it.

Moving Back to the City?

2008-08-11T08:55:00.005-05:00

By Chauncey Robbs, Graduate Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

Over the past year, skyrocketing energy prices have curbed the spending habits of American families more than ever in suburban communities. Many suburban homeowners that escaped the high taxes, crime, poverty and decay associated with cities for suburban McMansions are beginning to question their suburban lifestyles. Living outside the periphery of an urban center does have its advantages, such as open space, scenic views and a feeling of enhanced security. However, a growing number of families are on the verge of a financial meltdown striving to maintain these large subdivisions and paying higher commuting costs to reach their place of employment. According to the article “Fuel Prices Shift Math for Life in Far Suburbs” by Peter Goodman, in 2003 the average suburban household spent $1,422 dollars a year on gasoline. By April of this year, when gas prices were about $3.60 a gallon, households were spending $3,196 dollars a year, a 124 percent increase in average fuel costs in five years. As prices increase, reducing household consumption appears to be the most rational choice, since on average households spend 20-30% of their monthly budgets on these needs.

Economists and urban planners alike are speculating a return of suburbanites to dense urban communities based upon simple economics of dollars and cents. If this speculation holds true, a large influx of Americans will potentially return to cities to live and work. The surge in urban populations is sure to create staggering obstacles for middle to low income residents in search of quality affordable housing as private developers and land speculators are purchasing underutilized property for future redevelopment, driving up local housing prices. Long overdue improvements to public infrastructure particularly to out-of-date water and sewer systems, will be essential to accommodate the increasing demand for these services. More importantly, our nation’s deteriorating public transportation systems are in dire need of vital improvements prior to any shift in population. According to the American Society of Engineers, to accommodate a potential surge in urban population would require $1.6 trillion dollars and 5 years to bring transportation resources to a fully operating level.

It is hard to say if urban environments will regain the luster of their pastime as residents, businesses and shopping relocate back cities little by little. Yet, failure to properly plan for the needed infrastructure upgrades and affordable housing will surely make city life an unpleasant environment characterized by jammed traffic, expensive housing and social ills.

The Divide between Black Americans and Black Africans?

2008-08-07T08:14:00.001-05:00

By Kwabena Agyeman, Graduate Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

Over the past decade, the African immigrant population in the United States has grown rapidly. Most African immigrants end up on America’s coasts -- the tri-state region and California being among the top choices, places which are also home to large numbers of African Americans. A common assumption many people make is that the two groups share a natural inclination toward one other. As an immigrant from Africa, I discovered that often that is not the case. My interactions with a number of African immigrants mostly from Kenya, Ghana and Nigeria on the east coast for the past six years put a spotlight on the subtle divide between Black Americans and Black Africans.

First, some Black Americans argue that instead of attempting to fully integrate into the larger black community, many Black Africans have instead distinguished themselves by choosing to identify primarily in terms of ethnicity and nationality instead of race, and by maintaining the cultural norms of their homelands. I advocate for Black Africans embracing Black American culture to fully appreciate the African American experience, however some Black Africans perceive the call for integration as an African American pressure to erase their own cultural and historical distinctiveness. According to them, unlike immigrants from other parts of the world who can integrate into existing communities that share the same cultural perspective and typically speak the same language, Africans speak scores of different languages and have distinct tribal affiliations. In addition, among some African immigrants, stratification along ethnic and kinship lines are more important than race in determining access or lack to access to opportunity.

Second, there are those few African Americans who resent the foreign-born for hindering their opportunities for economic advancement. Speaking on a program produced for KALW a local public radio station based in San Francisco, Dr. Barbara Page, a professor of African American Studies at California State East Bay, stated that programs like affirmative action should be reserved only for Black Americans, whose ancestors were slaves, because it was based on historical patterns of discrimination unique to Black Americans. Black Africans argue that they are far from free-loaders who benefit in America at the expense of African Americans. To them, some Black Americans are not taking advantage of the opportunities in the country. These minority views and attitudes in both communities fuel the tension.

Personally I believe that there are a lot of negative media stereotypes that have influenced the way some Black Americans view Africans. However this dynamic goes both ways, for example, I have African American friends who have lived in South Africa and according to them, most South Africans view African Americans through similar stereotypes. We have come to this divide primarily based on misconceptions and stereotypes, but there is the possibility that we can overcome them through dialogue and breaking down barriers that exist between our communities. That is the power of Barack Obama’s message, that regardless of our actions that keep us divided, we can grow beyond the walls that have defined our experiences to attain the true meaning of unity.

Consumer Print

2008-08-06T10:30:00.000-05:00

By Anamita Gall, Summer Intern at the Kirwan Institute

Last weekend I was faced with an interesting choice. As a part time employee at a flourishing retail company I could sign up 15 friends for a discount at any of the 4 stores of my company and 5% of their purchase would go to a charity sponsored by my company. I had about 6 choices, among which included providing medication for AIDS victims in Africa. With the 5 minutes I had to complete this, I instantly chose the RED campaign, recognizable due to its heavy media promotions. However that short process stayed in my mind through the week.

Media has helped establish a growing trend of “charitable consumerism”- product promotions which declare that a portion of the sales goes to charitable causes. Very few people will tell you they don’t want to make the world a better place, so this type promotion thrives with those of us in the privileged ranks of society. While these campaigns often do support their claims, it generally oversimplifies the problem, while negating other dilemmas that arise through the manufacturing of the product.

In under 5 mins I had decided that helping AIDS victims in Africa was more important, than the other nameless/faceless causes- because I didn’t recognize them. I also inadvertently decided that it didn’t matter what other human right violations may have occurred in production. I had taken a few courses on marketing and graphics, and used to believe I was above the influence of marketing tactics, yet I found it amazing, how much the choice I made was influenced by marketing campaigns. The irony is that these campaigns are generally part of a company’s social responsibility plans to assuage the negative publicity they receive from the global misdeeds they commit elsewhere.

Thus charitable causes are becoming evermore “consumerable” through media especially for our younger generations. Our consumption has now conveniently been tied to our causes, thus linked to our identity, to leave what I’d like to call a consumer print- a sad reality of our consumption practices. Today we can proclaim our liberal/ conservative identities and claim ties to causes without even having to do more than swipe a credit card. It would seem we are grooming a generation which likes the idea of change, progress, and equality, but really has little clue how to go about it, especially when simpler options are presented in impressively packaged products.

My consumer print-- AIDS victimsupporter/ environmentlover/global warming enabler/childhater, what’s yours?

Reparations Re-Visited

2008-08-04T09:58:00.001-05:00

By William Sturkey, Summer Intern at the Kirwan Institute

On July 30th, the United States House of Representatives paved the way for a future discussion of reparations when it passed a resolution apologizing for the enslavement of African Americans and the creation of the Jim Crow system. The resolution included this key statement: “The vestiges of Jim Crow continue to this day.”

Discussions over reparations have always been controversial. The debate is severely limited however, because it focuses solely on the institution of slavery prior to Emancipation. Opponents of reparations are quick to point out that slavery was legal, not all African Americans were slaves, and not all blacks in America today had enslaved ancestors. They also are quick to point out that the expense to the government would be immense and there would not be enough resources to benefit all African Americans. In addition, they ask where the line should be drawn. Should Native Americans receive reparations? What about women whose unpaid labor also helped build this country? These are all legitimate concerns and make general reparations to African Americans based on legal slavery impossible.

Nevertheless, the new resolution passed by the House paves the way for thinking about reparations in a different light. In his new book, Wall Street Journal Atlanta Bureau Chief, Douglas Blackmon, explores Post-Emancipation slavery. Much of this illegal and forced labor took place on tenant farms and in prison labor camps. This form of slavery lasted well into the 20th Century. Unpaid African American labor built much of the South’s infrastructure during the Great Depression and beyond. Some of these prisoners were even “rented” to large companies such as U.S. Steel.

If historians can find labor contracts and imprisonment records that detail unpaid labor, why can we not force states to provide back pay for wrongfully enslaved individuals? If the government is serious about recognizing the atrocities of the Jim Crow system, then it should investigate illegal human trafficking after the Civil War. Many of these individuals are still alive, and have fallen victim to an income gap that was created because of their unpaid labor. Should historians be able to find and prove individual cases of illegal slavery, those individuals who are still alive should receive back pay, adjusted for inflation, and with interest. Their ability to achieve the American dream was, and still is, limited by the illegal systems of human enslavement the government permitted throughout the 20th Century.

What Have You Done Today?

2008-07-28T08:30:00.002-05:00

By Caitlin Watt, Summer Intern at the Kirwan Institute

Viewing the world from a systems perspective can be a daunting task indeed. Systems thinking demands that one see the world holistically. (footnote #1) Cause and effect, in a linear sense, are abandoned in favor of events as a product of indirect and delayed effects as well as the nature and structures of systems. In this sense, creating solutions to problems like racial injustice or economic inequality is to confront a staggering task of not only looking for the multiple, cumulative, and possibly hidden factors on which injustice and inequality depend, but also confronting and imagining the possible consequences any one solution will have. For obvious reasons, the systems approach can leave a person paralyzed by the sheer vastness of social complexity or running for the fabled “simpler times.”

But complexity does not mean intractability. Interconnectedness, while certainly fostering complexity, also inheres simple beauty. Because we are all connected – whether by place, status, or simply by the way one action far from us can affect all of us – because we are all part of the system, our simple actions can have far reaching consequences. Small changes can produce large results. A drop in the pond becomes a ripple that pushes water down a hill and into a stream that, with time, can become a river that creates a canyon. The foreclosed home a few blocks away reduces the property value in our home, which affects property taxes, school funds, and ultimately, the educational futures of neighborhood children. We are not islands; we are all connected. As the system changes and adapts, so do we change and adapt.

As we live and make choices, we need to be aware of this interconnectedness. We cannot afford to pretend that we are solely responsible for our position in life, and others are responsible for theirs. Our positions, made possible by the positions of others before us and contemporary to us, are given importance and meaning because of others. Law professor Robert A. Williams, Jr. tells a story from his youth, when Lumbee elders asked him, "what have you done for your people today?" (footnote #2) He explains that this question is meant to convey that all he does, achieves, and learns should be for the purpose of helping the community. He is essentially asked to use his interconnectedness to create a societal evolution, where his gain is the gain of his people and the gain of his people is the gain of all people. As interconnected beings in this large and complex system we call a city, a country, or a world, we too need to ask what we have done for all people today.

Footnotes:
#1. For information on systems thinking, the following references are suggested: Robert Jervis, Complexity and the Analysis of Political and Social Life, Political Science Quarterly, Volume 112, No 4, 1997-1998; Joanna Macy, Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory: The Dharma of Natural System, 1991; Rebecca Blank, Tracing the Economic Impact of Cumulative Discrimination, American Economic Association, December 2004.
#2. Robert A. Williams, Vampires Anonymous and Critical Race Practice, 95 Mich. L. Rev. 741 (1997).

One year after Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District, No. 1

2008-07-23T11:43:00.001-05:00

By Treisa Martin, Summer Intern at the Kirwan Institute

June 28, 2008 marked the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that thwarted many school districts’ efforts toward integration, particularly the school districts in Seattle and Jefferson County. In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District, No. 1, the plurality opinion declared that race as a direct factor in student assignment plans is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the controlling opinion came from Justice Kennedy, who said that avoiding racial isolation is a compelling interest and that school districts may indirectly consider race to achieve integration. Thus, the opinion left school districts with the perplexing task of achieving a pedagogically beneficial mix of students using their own creativity.
The two districts in the case reacted quite disparately. Jefferson County has adopted a new plan that emphasizes integration by geographic areas. Under the plan, the school district is divided into six clusters, each of which was drawn to be economically and racially diverse. The district designates geographic areas as either “Geographic Area A,” in which the residents are below average median income and educational attainment, but above average minority population, or “Geographic Area B,” in which the residents are poor or middle-class white and middle-class minority. All children are assigned based on their neighborhood demographics, rather than individual characteristics.
On the other hand, in Seattle, district leaders have abandoned their efforts toward integration and accepted the resegregation that has occurred. Nearly one-third of Seattle’s schools are racially imbalanced, and twenty schools are comprised of student populations that are over 90% non-white. However, the district would rather focus on high-quality schools rather than desegregation. Although the district considered set-aside seats for children from outside neighborhoods, it is not likely this proposal would achieve significant integration.
Pat Todd, the district’s executive director for school assignment, said that Seattle is reflective of the national attitude toward integration. This trend reinforces the need for public awareness as to the benefits of integration. Additionally, the public awareness may explain the different outcomes in these two districts. Over the past year, Jefferson County’s strategy involved soliciting community feedback in the development of their new student assignment plan. A recent University of Kentucky survey indicates that nearly nine out of ten parents support continued efforts to maintain racially diverse learning environments. Perhaps the community involvement prompted the requisite foundation for the plan’s success. Increasing effective communication may yield community support and encourage school districts to maintain their efforts toward inclusion.

College Access: A Case for K-12 Encouragement

2008-07-22T08:53:00.002-05:00

By Uchechi C. Amadi, Summer Intern at the Kirwan Institute

The look on her face as she flurried around the house was exceptional. She was used to throwing parties, but this one was different; this one was special. As she busied herself in the kitchen, she took a moment to rest her hand on the table marking our accomplishments. There sat two graduation caps, two Kente cloths marking our heritage, and two college diplomas—one adorned with the Wright State University emblem and the other dressed in Scarlet and Gray. In the same month, the football star and the bookworm, two of her babies, had become college graduates. She couldn’t be prouder.

She retained the glow of a mother seeing her kids graduate, but a glint in her eye suggested a greater satisfaction. Perhaps she realized that the odds had been against us. The statistics say nearly one-half of all college-qualified, low- and moderate-income high school graduates prepared to attend a four-year college are unable to do so. This is largely due to the rising cost of higher education and community messages that question the necessity of obtaining degrees. The statistics could have applied to us, but thankfully, we had developed a system over the years wherein we learned to cling to each other for support.

It is not a big secret that many from disadvantaged backgrounds lack the resources, support systems and encouragement necessary to pursue higher education. No single solution exists, but by planting the seed in grades K-6 and intensifying encouragement to attend in grades 7-12, progress can be made. Arguably, there is no greater inequality than the loss of opportunity. University and non-profit led programs that target those from disadvantaged backgrounds and allow them to see that college graduation is achievable should be promoted, for they help students stay connected to their dreams even in the midst of failing schools, jaded guidance counselors and over-worked teachers. OSU’s Economic Access Initiative is already doing its part. In late May, the Columbus Dispatch wrote about Blueprint: College, a program that provides higher education information to Columbus Public School kids and their families years before they have to apply. At the back end, the Kirwan Institute is also helping. The Democratic Merit Initiative and Middle College Multicultural Educational Exchange Program encourage integration in schools and help ensure that there is some place for students to attend after high school graduation.

These both are effective organizational initiatives, but individuals can help as well. Discuss college with a neighbor, mention it to a younger relative, perhaps even serve as mentor; once you plant the seed, the idea will have years to grow.

Links:
Economic Access Initiative: http://osu.edu/access/
College Access Statistic: www.luminafoundation.org/publications/Focus03.pdf
Columbus Dispatch Article: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/05/19/college.ART_ART_05-19-08_B1_4HA85RA.html?sid=101

Is Green the New White?

2008-07-16T08:57:00.001-05:00

By Sarah Kozel Silverman, Summer Intern at the Kirwan Institute

Last week, environment and climate change were second only to the world economy on the G8 Summit agenda. As I considered the implications of this focal attention to the environment, I wondered how the United States' shift from the not-so-distant rejection of the Kyoto Protocol to environmental fanaticism came about. Maybe it was Al Gore. Maybe the will of the people finally influenced democratic leaders. But this wholesale embrace of environmentalism merits some thoughtful reflection. Environmentalism sure seems like an innocuous sort of cause--the kind that makes everyone feel good and induces the otherwise oblivious to contribute $5 toward saving baby polar bears. But it has also taken on an implicit agenda often either overlooked or ignored. The truth is, many people of color are left out of the dialogue on environmentalism. The work of saving the environment is left to those who can afford bamboo floors and hybrid cars--not to mention organic foods and high efficiency heaters. As a result, low-income families in particular are silenced.

It is certainly no secret that issues of environment, race and social class are deeply intertwined. Environmental reports have consistently demonstrated that air and water quality are lower in neighborhoods where residents are predominately poor or people of color than in comparable middle or upper-class, white neighborhoods. But the new movement toward sustainable living and alternative energy sources (known as 'the green movement') widens the gap between social groups in new ways. Consider the implications of high-priced, eco-friendly materials over 'eco-unfriendly' goods. As the prices of fossil fuels continue to rise, those who cannot afford more efficient vehicles, homes and appliances will be forced to find ways to make up the cost differences. The increasing availability of certified organic goods does not decrease the cost of producing and certifying such goods, so healthy foods may be more difficult to access. Even a well-intentioned movement is faced with the challenge of overcoming bias. But there is some promise in environmentalism.

Attention to global warming has grown at an astounding rate over the past few years. It seems people suddenly realized their habits were bringing about an uninhabitable future world of flooding and pollution. Yet I am troubled this sort of energy is not devoted to the equally concerning inequitable existence among social groups. The incredible force of the green movement is one that can provide some insight into how we might go about gathering momentum for a different type of change in habits, processes and structures. Clearly there continue to exist inequalities--even within the green movement itself. But consider the possibilities of pursuing social justice with our tenacity for environmentalism.

Racial Justice as a Moral Value: Rallying the Religious Left and Right

2008-07-14T11:32:00.001-05:00

By Marguerite L. Spencer, Senior Researcher at the Kirwan Institute

Exit polling from the 2004 presidential election found that “moral values” stood out as the most important consideration for voters. In this election cycle, campaign strategists are focusing more than ever on how to appeal to an array of voters on a myriad of moral issues.

In his July 6th editorial in the New York Times, Stephen Carter (Yale Law School) argues that from the early years of our nation’s founding through the mid-70s, racial injustice was the fundamental moral concern of American politics. Emancipation, voting rights, school desegregation, and affirmative action made great strides toward increasing life opportunities for nonwhites. But by the late 80s, the nation’s attention had slipped to other “more pressing” moral questions, which today include abortion and same-sex marriage.

There may be some hope, however, of rekindling the nation’s concern for racial justice as a moral issue that moves beyond a celebration of a viable African American presidential candidate. Indeed, there is danger in leaving our discourse there, as if we are now a post-racial nation in which any lingering inequalities represent a lack of personal responsibility.

Rather, we can talk about two movements, one from the religious left and one from the religious right, that are of great significance to those who seek to address common moral concerns. Stephen Mansfield, the pro-life conservative and author of The Faith of George W. Bush, and the forthcoming The Faith of Barack Obama (to be released August 5th), argues that the religious right has been an effective force since Ronald Reagan, but the religious left is in the process of finding its voice, with Obama as one of its heralds.

Of course, there has always been a religious left; we need only look to Martin Luther King Jr. In opposition to many of his critics, King called the faith community to challenge government and transform the unjust laws and moral codes of society, as did the Hebrew prophets of old. Shaun Casey, Obama’s religious advisor, argues that since the religious right praises King as a model of religious involvement in public affairs, it must allow Obama to play a similar, albeit modest, role.

Concurrently, there is a movement from the religious right that shares many of the moral and social justice concerns of the left. Some conservative Christians, under a new generation of leadership, involve themselves with issues of climate change, genocide, AIDS, and global poverty. Last week, pastors from largely White, conservative, evangelical Christian churches were among the 20 signatories to a letter urging Arizona’s top officials to consider immigration laws that preserve human dignity, a position most often shepherded by Latino and left-leaning pastors.

Obama plans to attract these conservatives and bring together voters motivated by their faith to engage in politics. Perhaps he can fashion a unified front against durable racial and economic arrangements that limit life opportunities. This can only benefit our nation’s conscience, as well as our struggle toward becoming a more just, multi-racial democracy.

Our Inter-Connected World: Ethanol, Corn, Sprawl and Urban Inequality

2008-07-08T14:04:00.001-05:00

By Jason Reece, Senior Researcher at the Kirwan Institute

One of the side effects of the recent oil price increase is a surge in ethanol production in the US. As a biomass based fuel, ethanol is developed with agricultural products, primarily corn, in the US.
So, why would I be talking about ethanol production on the Kirwan Institute blog? What does ethanol have to do with racial and ethnic groups or marginalized populations?
The answers to those questions are powerful illustrations of the complexity of interconnection and systems, and the story begins with corn. Corn is grown on agricultural land and is one of the primary crops produced in the Midwest. The renewed interest in ethanol has elevated the price of corn, thus encouraging more farmers to plant more corn (leading to shortages of other non-staple crops like Barley) and has increased the productive value of farmland.
Cheap agricultural land and cheap gasoline are the two principal elements needed to fuel urban sprawl in areas with little population growth like the Midwest. New subdivisions rely on easy and cheap auto transportation and inexpensive farmland to be profitable and sustainable. The increase in the potential productive value of farmland (for corn to be used in ethanol) paired with an increase in fuel costs has weakened two of the principal pillars supporting our nation’s seemingly inexhaustible thirst for new sprawling development.
As ample research has shown, urban sprawl is one of the primary factors contributing to disinvestment and marginalization in urban communities of color. Racial and economic segregation in schools and neighborhoods, declining infrastructure, concentrated poverty, the spatial mismatch between workers of color and jobs are all attributable to the role urban sprawl plays in draining resources and people out of urban communities.
Thus in this scenario, as the production of ethanol increases in the US, a decline in suburban and exurban development could follow, restricting the flow of resources and people out of urban communities of color and reducing the racial and opportunity isolation inflicted on these communities.
It is hard to predict if this trend will continue (or if all the factors listed above will remain static). But, it is a powerful example of the way all things are interconnected in our world and the complexity of social justice challenges.

Digital Inequality as a Social Issue: Race and Digital Divide

2008-06-30T09:08:00.003-05:00

By Mikyung Baek, Research and Technical Associate at Kirwan Institute

The benefits of information and communication technology (ICT) are unquestionable; all it takes is a brief reflection on what you do with ICT on any given day. E-mail is a very common way of communication for both personal and business purposes, for example, and the length of time we spend online involved in various activities is a barometer of how dependent we have become on technology. Now, let’s pause a moment and think about those who do not have such luxury as “access to ICT.” The divide or difference which lies in-between is the so-called “digital divide.”

Where do the dividing lines lie? Where you live could be one factor, as statistics show more (and better) broadband services are available in urban areas than in rural areas. Whether you can afford to own a computer or subscribe to a broadband connection is another question, which is related to your income level and wealth. Another question would be whether you have the technology skill level to effectively use ICT. All these questions bear racial implications on the unequal distribution of access to ICT in our society along housing, wealth and education lines.

Access to ICT means a lot more than issues of access as it opens up social, economic, political, and cultural opportunities. ICT’s potential of opening up various opportunities paints a very different picture for those who do not have access to it. The lack of access to ICT and its deleterious effects feeds into the vicious cycle of limited opportunity for marginalized populations. The connection between housing values and educational budget results in lower levels of technology resources in low-income schools, which leads to a lack of the computing skills and knowledge necessary in this connected age. The cycle continues to cause lower academic achievement, underrepresentation in higher education, and decreased access to employment opportunities later in life.

At the neighborhood level, people living in low income opportunity areas experience increased individual cost for access to ICT due to unequal distribution broadband availability and the high cost of home computers. Low income populations also experience a financial and social cost for accessing ICT in public libraries or community computing centers. As such, digital inequality results in an additional burden for marginalized population in the digital age by limiting the access necessary to develop computer skills as well as forclosing on the opportunities to gather information on employment opportunities, health care, housing, transportation, public safety, or civic participation.

As great as the benefits of technology have become in our lives, the issue of digital inequality calls for more focused investigation as to why it happens and how to work towards lessening it. The internet is today’s infrastructure and the existence of social, political, economical and cultural barriers for those who do not have access to this infrastructure and thus cannot enjoy its benefits imposes social responsibilities on all of us.

Immigration, public discourse and xenophobic frames

2008-06-23T13:01:00.004-05:00

By Yusuf Sarfati, Research Assistant at the Kirwan Institute

“You’ve got a wholesale invasion, the greatest invasion in human history, coming across your southern border, changing the composition and character of your country” are the words Pat Buchanan—the author of State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America—uttered on Fox News’ Hannity and Colmes last year. As exemplified in Buchanan’s speech and book, the nativists (see note below) use frames such as “illegal aliens,” “invasion of our country,” or “foreign hoards” to analyze the issue of immigration and view the immigrants in the United States.

These frames—analytical constructs—dehumanize and criminalize the (undocumented) immigrants, and portray them as enemies threatening the national unity of the United States. As shown by numerous tragic examples in the history of human kind, the first step in any hate-crime is to dehumanize a group of people and turn them into scapegoats for the social, economic, and other ills of your country. Once this is achieved, once people start to perceive a particular group as something less than human, and once these kinds of frames are injected into the public discourse, it is much easier to convince lay people to commit hate-crimes against this group.

In fact, recently Barack Obama addressed this issue and claimed that the rhetoric of the anti-Latino talk hosts is directly related to the fact that hate-crimes committed against Hispanics increased last year. Similarly, the Southern Poverty Law Center pointed to the fact that racially motivated crimes committed against Latinos, irrespective of their immigration status, increased by thirty five percent from 2003 to 2006.

The nativists are unfortunately not marginalized and find prolific venues in the mainstream cable media to perpetuate these frames and inject xenophobia to the public discourse. A recent special report by the Media Matters Action Network exposes not only the vitriolic discourse surrounding the immigration debate but also the fear and loathing—creating myths about undocumented immigrants in the mainstream cable media. By analyzing the shows of three cable commentators, namely Lou Dobbs, Bill O’Reilly, and Glenn Beck, the report finds that certain urban legends, such as the construction of a NAFTA Superhighway, the “reconquista” of the Southwest or the outspread of leprosy by undocumented immigrants, are frequently discussed in these shows. In addition, the commentators perpetuate the xenophobic frames by inviting the nativists into their programs.

Certainly, the U.S. needs to have a debate around the immigration policy and this should entail different and opposing views, as in every policy debate. Yet it is unacceptable that the vocabulary of this public debate would be hijacked by the xenophobic frames of the nativists. Words to define issues are not innocent simple tools. Words have ideological consequences and shape people’s perception of other people and the reality around us. Institutions, such as the news media, create webs of meaning by transmitting certain frames to the public. It is not the utterance of one word or a single sentence, but the dissemination of dehumanizing frames through a web of institutions that creates racial hierarchies among groups and the committing of hate-crimes against fellow human beings.

Note: Nativism can be broadly defined as an ideology that combines belief in the superiority of one’s country with a fear of outsiders and “foreign” ideas (xenophobia). Nativists believe that immigrants cannot or will not develop a primary allegiance to the United States, making newcomers a threat to national unity. For the definition see “Nativist Bedfellows The Christian Right Embraces Anti-Immigrant Politics” The Public Eye Summer 2008 V. 22, No.2 p.20

Families and Foreclosure

2008-06-16T09:33:00.002-05:00

By Christy Rogers, Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

Recently I bought a parenting book called Everyday Blessings: The Inner Work of Mindful Parenting by Myla and Jon Kabat-Zinn. It’s a parenting book informed by Buddhist practice. Having little exposure to Buddhism, I expected a lot of advice to meditate on the gifts of the universe in hippie-flowery language (something I was partly up for, given my hippie-flowery background, and partly skeptical of, given same). I was stunned to discover practical advice in plain language. One of my favorite paragraphs is this one:

People who choose to become parents take on this hardest of jobs for no salary, often unexpectedly, at a relatively young and inexperienced age, and often under conditions of economic strain and insecurity. Typically, the journey of parenting is embarked upon without a clear strategy or overarching view of the terrain...We learn on the job, as we go. There is, in fact, no other way (page 15).

This is true for parents in all circumstances. But imagine the harrowing beginning for this expectant parent, noted in an extraordinary series on foreclosures in The Columbus Dispatch:

The woman, eight months pregnant, cowered in the back of the house and sent a friend out to talk with the deputy sheriff. This family wasn’t responsible for the mortgage [they were renters] but was about to lose its home to foreclosure. “The toughest part of this job as far as I’m concerned is the renters,” [Deputy] Capehart said. “They have no idea I’m coming. I always hear: ‘I just paid my rent.’”…The pregnant woman wouldn’t talk to the deputy or a reporter…

Would you talk to the deputy or the reporter?

In October, the Kirwan Institute will be convening an initiative to hammer out long-term, sustainable solutions to the foreclosure crisis. Yes, some folks bought over their heads. But most didn’t. The Dispatch series noted that about 70% of people being evicted in Franklin County were renters. More than half of the high-rate mortgages in Ohio signed from 2004 to 2006 went to homeowners refinancing their loans. And the bulk of central Ohio’s subprime loans were funneled to working-class communities of color, meaning that these communities, long struggling for basic homeownership rights, are taking the hardest hit from the fallout. A foreclosure epidemic that causes the meltdown of a major financial institution and causes stock-market shivers around the world isn’t the result of a handful of folks trying to keep up with the Jones’. We’ll be discussing in detail what it is the result of, and how to intervene successfully into it, on October 2-3, and we hope you’ll join us. Bear Stearns got some help. Now how about those pregnant women?

For more on how the mortgage crisis is affecting children please see
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2008/04_mortgage_crisis_isaacs.aspx

Applying the Human Rights Perspective to the US?

2008-06-10T15:45:00.000-05:00

By Lidija Knuth, a research fellow at the Kirwan Institute

It is not news that the majority of US citizens still consider international human rights to be something redundant. The arguments are well known: one is that 'the United Nations treaties are furthering the U.N.'s leftist agenda' and another states that 'it is up to the American people and their government to determine the best course of action to address the various issues based on America's unique history and traditions'.

The reality is that the US, a country that claims to be a role model for most other countries in the world in terms of democracy and civil rights, has failed to ratify many important international human rights treaties. For example, while to date 90 countries have already ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), and 193 States of the world are parties to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Washington still has not ratified these treasties. The US also has not joined any of the major International Labor Organization (ILO) conventions guaranteeing core labor rights to organize and engage in collective bargaining. This exceptionalism is also manifested in the reservations the US attached to those treaties it has joined. The US ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) rejected that treaty's inclusion of effect as well as intent in determining whether laws and practices are discriminatory.

The latest example of the US government's approach towards international human rights mechanisms is its reaction towards the concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD). CERD is an international 18 member Expert Committee that issued its latest observations in February of this year concerning US laws, policies and programs, and their progress in the elimination of racial discrimination. The Committee drew its conclusions after having heard from the US government and representatives of the US Human Rights Network, and after having reviewed the US state report and so called shadow reports submitted by NGOs. Although the US delegation approached its task diplomatically, it pointedly disagreed with the CERD Committee on key issues, suggesting at various points that the disparities observed by the Committee were merely the result of poverty, or related to personal behaviours, and that disparities in criminal justice outcomes are based on differential rates of commission of crimes.

Instead of taking the CERD observations seriously, (such as urging the US government “to intensify its efforts aimed at reducing the phenomenon of residential segregation based on racial, ethnic and national origin, as well as its negative consequences for the affected individuals and groups”), think tanks—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies—still argue that these observations “address issues and allegations regarding race in the United States very little”.
Unfortunately the majority of the US public takes such arguments (articulated through the mainstream media and proclaimed by various think tanks) seriously instead of holding its government accountable and claiming that it adhere to its human rights obligations which correlatively constitute their human rights.

Barack Obama and Exceptional Black People

2008-06-02T10:35:00.001-05:00

Hasan Kwame Jeffries, Assistant professor in the Department History with a joint appointment at the Kirwan Institute

With Barack Obama on the cusp of securing the Democratic nomination for President of these here United States, it appears that white Americans (at least those who don’t live in Appalachia or think that Ann Coulter is the second coming of Mother Theresa) are in fact ready for a black President. But does this mean that white Americans are ready for black people? Dramatic pause…Jeopardy music….buzzer…..time for the answer….Nope. I hate to burst the bubble of those who believe that “We Americans” (and by “We Americans” I don’t mean everyone, just white Americans, kind of like the framers of the US Constitution when they wrote “We the people”) are on the cusp of a post-racial society, because we aren’t. We aren’t even close. But how can this be if “We Americans” are ready for a black President?

The truth of the matter is that ordinary white Americans over the last few decades have shown a remarkable ability to embrace African American super celebrities. When it comes to Oprah or Tiger or Magic or Michael (Jordan that is, not Jackson, even white people realize that Michael Jackson has lost his mind) race no longer matters. They are considered extraordinary individuals who have mastered their craft. They are admired and idolized for their professional accomplishments. Until now, the colorblindness that African American peak performers have enjoyed has been limited to those in the arts, entertainment, and sports. What we’re seeing in this presidential election is the application of this phenomenon to electoral politics. Barack Obama has become a super celebrity, and if you don’t believe me, ask any of the 75,000 people who came out to hear him speak in Portland recently.

As a super celebrity, Obama benefits from the personal exposure that ordinary African Americans don’t receive. This enables white Americans to get to know him – his character, his views, his values. Even if this exposure is only superficial – sound bites on CNN or youtube – it’s enough to humanize him, and in the process, ordinary white Americans see that the dominant stereotypes about African Americans simply don’t apply, to him at least.

And here is the rub. Most white Americans see African American super celebrities as different from African Americans as a whole. These African Americans are not just exceptional individuals; they are exceptions to the group. They are articulate, well-mannered, hardworking, family oriented, and most importantly, uninterested in speaking about white supremacy. This is why Rev. Jeremiah Wright troubled so many white people, even staunch Obama supporters. Rev. Wright, in their eyes, represented the real black America – he was angry, unpatriotic, unchristian, and secretly hated white people. Those on the far Right pointed to Obama’s pastor and said, “See, we told you Obama was black. And you know what that means – he’s angry, unpatriotic, unchristian, and secretly hates white people. So don’t even think about voting for him. Better yet, you better hide the women and the children!” And many months earlier, Rush Limbaugh warned white Americans not to be fooled by the Jedi mind tricks of this “magic Negro” who has snookered so many people into believing that he is something other than a black man. On the Left, when the Rev. Wright “controversy” surfaced, quite a few asked, “Could this be true? Is Obama really like the rest of them? We thought he was different.” Consequently, they called for Obama to renounce, denounce, reject, forsake, or forswear his pastor. And when he finally did after Rev. Wright’s performance at the National Press Club, they said, “Whew, that was close. For a second, we really thought Obama was like the rest of them. Welcome back to colorblind stardom.”

So, when will we know that America is ready not just for a black president, but for black people? When white Americans realize that the personal characteristics that they admire most about Barack Obama are not his alone, but are shared widely by African Americans. Obama is an exceptional African American, but he is not an African American exception.

An Acceptable Stance for a Black Man

2008-05-26T10:00:00.004-05:00

By Wendy Smooth, an assistant professor in the Department of Women’s Studies with a joint appointment at the Kirwan Institute

History is breaking on the National Mall in Washington, DC. Well, almost breaking I should say, if an agreement can be reached between an artist and the commission in charge of art for the National Mall. Some years ago, the US Congress passed legislation to erect a monument of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on the National Mall. King will become the first non US president to have a memorial erected in his honor at the foot of the Tidal Basin. This has not come about without its share of controversy. The latest is the depiction of King at the memorial site. The US Commission of Fine Arts who is responsible for overseeing projects for the National Mall has demanded that the artist Lei Yixin alter his depiction of Dr. King because the Commission finds the artist’s interpretation of King “too confrontational.” How did we get to a moment in which Dr. King, one who critiqued America’s system of racial apartheid and called on the nation to hold to the values she expressed in the constitution, could be read as anything other than confrontational? King is the iconic figure of a movement that was rooted in speaking truth to power and standing up to the powers that be in the face of great danger and ultimately death. However, today in our memories of Dr. King we conceptualize him as anything but confrontational. Talk about a recasting of history! In an op-ed appearing on theroot.com, Ibram Rogers captures it best writing, “King was never happy with America, so why are the Feds forcing him to smile now?”

Many bloggers and columnists are commenting on how this takes King out of context, so I won’t belabor that point. However, I am interested in why in the midst of honoring King he must appear more “meditative” and “less rigid”? This requirement builds on other situations in which racial reconciliatory moments have come at a cost. Moving forward and engaging in racial reconciliation seems to require that those who have experienced oppression relinquish the realities of their historic wrongs. Those who have a history of getting the shaft are often expected to bear the cost of racial transformation or reconciliation. Bearing the cost means exhibiting a willingness to pocket the pain, dispersing of any feelings of anger, disappointment, or condemnation. At any moment in which their well-earned anger is expressed they have violated the unspoken rules of reconciliation.

Now, I have always answered affirmatively the question “Can’t we all just get along?” but the question I find myself asking over and over again in powerful moments of racial transformation is on who’s terms and at what costs will this getting along occur? Does our collective “getting along” necessitate that we come to the table ignoring the conditions and histories of those who have experienced oppression at the hands of those in power? This is at the forefront of my thinking with every step of the O’Bama campaign beginning with his attempt at running a deracialized campaign yet running into the “black enough/ too black” debates. This is echoed for me with the controversy over Michelle O’Bama’s comment that she is proud of her country for the first time. And it is at the core of the outrage over Jeremiah Wright’s comments that America has not lived up to its creed. It concerns me that coming together must happen without recognition or note of the suffering that some have endured. Isn’t it possible to allow people who have suffered greatly to acknowledge their past and yet move forward together?

Facing the Re-emergence of Race-as-Biology

2008-05-19T12:01:00.004-05:00

By Andrew Grant-Thomas, Deputy Director of the Kirwan Institute

That race is socially constructed is widely seen as a truism within academia. Racial meanings, we argue, are not inscribed biologically on the bodies to which racial identities attach, but instead owe to particularities of history, geography, and politics.

Today, the scientific consensus about the relationship between race and biology is fraying. It’s true that we have never behaved as if we really believed that race is “socially constructed.” Within and outside the academy we talk and write about Whites, African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans as if these were natural, well-defined groups of people that have always existed as such. The 2000 Census was the first that allowed respondents to “mark all that apply” in identifying themselves racially.

Even as we have continued to act as if race were an objective fact, and a specifically biological one, for some time now that conventional wisdom has lacked the imprimatur of Science. This is changing, and we can expect the effects of that change to ripple increasingly into the cultural mainstream.

In 1994, the publication of The Bell Curve marked popular re-engagement with the relationship between race and genetics and its implications for social outcomes and policy. A decade later, the FDA approved its first race-targeted drug, a heart failure medication for African Americans. Recent developments in genetic science lead some to argue that race remains a useful proxy for genetic variations meaningful in the health context.

Last fall, Nobel Laureate James Watson, who helped discover the double-helix structure of DNA in the 1950’s, said that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really.”

Remarks like these and a long, grim history of scientific authority in the service of racist ideology have sparked concerns about the destructive ends the re-emerging notion of race-as-biology could be made to serve. We must not run from the work or the rhetoric. Instead, we must engage and understand them, ask our own questions, and shape informed, thoughtful responses.

What is the evidence for the biological basis of race? What do we know and what remains to be learned? What is the relationship between “race-as-biology,” and race, defined sociologically? How can we take advantage of the promise of genetic science without falling prey to the pitfalls of biological reductionism?

To be continued.

Toast for a thing named love…

2008-05-12T14:15:00.001-05:00

By Hiram José Irizarry Osorio, Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

“I toast for the woman, but for one, for the one that offered me her raptures and wrapped me in her kisses; for the woman who lulled me to sleep in the cradle.

“For the woman who taught me as a child the value of exquisite, deep, and real fondness; for the woman who lulled me to sleep in her arms and who gave me in pieces, one by one, the entire heart.”

These are a few of the last strophes of a long poem entitled in Spanish “El brindis del bohemio”. In this poem, a series of male friends take turns toasting the end of another year in a bar. The translated strophes included here are delivered by the last of these bohemians. In contradistinction to his preceding toasters, he decides to toast for that particular and important women of his life: his Mother.

This poem is recited every December 31st (on TV and radio) in Puerto Rico. It was not written by a Puerto Rican, but I do remember when growing up, our New Year’s Eve family parties came to a complete stop to listen to low-pitched baritone voiced men reciting this poem. As a child, and even until recently, I did not give much thought to it. More than anything else, this poem’s reciting felt like a nuisance to me and an interruption of the good times I was having with my cousins, because of the need to stop playing and listen to a bunch of old men talking around a table, reading -incomprehensible words for me. In other words, I was always looking forward to its end (and it was a long wait because the poem is quite long). I felt no connection whatsoever with the subject matter of this poem: a bunch of bohemians toasting about their female adventures, with the exception of the last one, toasting in remembrance of his dead mother.

Why do I write about this? I do so because yesterday in many countries in the world (although not all of course), Mothers’ Day was celebrated.

A day like today, a mother that needed to suffer the lost of a son one day after Mother’s Day in 1981 was Cedella Marley Booker. Bob Marley passed away on Monday May 11, 1981. Because of this, I would like to close this entry with a quote from him: “Overcome the devils with a thing named love”.

Would we be able to do so? Would we be able to embrace love and transcend those socially constructed divisions that are so real, while imagined? That is for us to decide and do, but in the meantime let us toast for that nature’s “monster” of love and caring (like Lope de Vega was once called, “el monstruo de la naturaleza”, for his creative and prolific literary genius): Mothers.

“Mama,” this is my treat to you from afar (now empathizing a bit more with that last bohemian because of the geographic distance between us while living): I love you. Let the work toward justice continue once we have re-fueled and embraced motherly love…

…, but ethnic conflicts are products of colonialism!

2008-05-06T13:11:00.001-05:00

By Elsadig Elsheikh, Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

There is an old argument, often implied, that ethnic conflicts in Third World countries are consequences of backwardness of these societies. Or even worse, ‘it’s their destiny,’ because they don’t follow ‘our model.’ In post-colonial analysis this argument does not hold. Understanding the general framework of underdevelopment, unequal distribution of wealth, and undemocratic politics that are inherited from colonialism will allow a deeper realization of the origin and motives of ethnic conflicts in Third World countries. Ignoring this framework will make it almost impossible to assess the current state of ethnic conflicts in post-colonial societies in the Third World.

The literature that attempts to identify and explain ‘ethnically motivated’ conflicts in a Third World country often times ignores the very nature of colonialism. Therefore, any effort to understand the origin and motivation of ethnic conflicts that overlooks the colonial legacy of ‘divide and conquer’ *(e.g., Sudan, Kenya, among others) will fall into the trap of the conventional petite-bourgeois ideological framework. This ideological framework negates the colonial effects before and after independence in relation to ethnic conflicts.

Ethnic conflict, by its nature, is not an invention of, but one of the ugly products of European colonialism. When hegemony and coercion are applied to any society – as was the experience of the vast majority of Third World countries- the outcomes will be reactionary acts of violence. The ignorance and brutality of the colonial era will sneak again through the back door of the post-colonial nation-state model. Nevertheless, when the colonial rulers left their colonies the new ‘masters’ -gaining their knowledge and tools from the colonizers- continued the same ‘divide and conquer’ policies. The struggle for power legitimacy in these societies didn’t follow a decolonization framework, which requires a de-linking from the ideology and practices of colonialism. Nonetheless, the new ‘emerging’ elite class used their indigenous stamp to institute a new era of dependency. The product will be, as Eqbal Ahmad puts it, “a world of pain.”

He argued that “the colonial State maintained a sizeable tradition upper class whose legitimacy and power was emasculated through expropriation by and collaboration with colonialism, along with a subordinate state bourgeoisie created and sustained by it”. That is, the elite of the new independent state is incapable of establishing its hegemony over its own people. The only means and methods available to the elite were to apply its hegemony to utilize the benefits of the colonial apparatus of manipulation, control, and normalization. These apparatus are the educational system, the law, and the military. These new independent countries lack any coherent and functioning ideology. Furthermore, their leaders lack any legitimacy of authority. Their scapegoat is to build a sort of fascist state bound by nationalistic sentiments, as had occurred in some parts of Europe prior and after the WWII. This marriage produces an isolated, incapable, and paralyzed nation-state. Ultimately, when the façade leadership falls away and is uncovered, they cry for help from their ethnic groups to substitute the nation-state. It is then that ethnic conflict ensues.

• http://www.bitsonline.net/eqbal/articles_by_eqbal_view.asp?id=2&cid=1
• Fanon, Frantz: The Wretched of the Earth. Grove Press, New York, NY 1963.

The Value of Life: The Sean Bell Verdict

2008-04-28T13:17:00.013-05:00

Angela Stanley, Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

In the wake of the acquittal of the three New York City police officers in the shooting of Sean Bell, the issue of race has yet again been thrust into the forefront. This time however, the focus is not on a presidential election; rather, it is about the treatment of people of color in America. Specifically for me, the question is whose lives are considered valuable in the United States?

What we saw happen to Sean Bell is not a new occurrence for New York City or the United States. For those who remember Amadou Diallo, he suffered a similar fate. Acquittal aside, it’s hard to sell the story that shooting an unarmed man 50 times (41 in the case of Diallo) is justifiable and expect every single person—including those of us who are Black and brown—to buy it. Unfortunately, so many of us have heard the story so many times that the ending is no longer a surprise. It’s frustrating, sad, and infuriating even, but one thing it is not is new.

We’ve gotten used to the news coverage of missing White women, while stories of missing women of color go unmentioned. It’s become expected that people of color receive longer sentences for committing the same crimes as their felonious White peers. The double standards, the blind eyes, the inconsistencies, the excessiveness…they have all become themes that, for many, are far too common in the American tale and reinforce the reality that some lives are deemed more valuable than others. Whether or not the verdict was right in the eyes of the law, I hope the humanity in individuals uncovers something different.

Below is an interesting op-ed written by activist Kevin Powell entitled “The Sean Bell Tragedy.” In it he states, “[U]ntil America recognizes the civil and human rights of all its citizens, systemic racism and police misconduct, joined at the hip, will never end. That is, until White sisters and brothers realize they, too, are Sean Bell, this will never end.” Every life is valuable, even when it is a stranger’s or belongs to someone who doesn’t look exactly like you.

http://uptownflavor.wordpress.com/2008/04/26/op-ed-kevin-powell-on-the-sean-bell-tragedy/

Banking is a Social Compact

2008-04-21T09:12:00.010-05:00

by Denis R. Rhoden, Jr., Research Associate at Kirwan Institute

In fifteen years, when we look back and observe how people and financial institutions engage each other today, this moment will matter. My claim is tongue in cheek, however, because we can argue that every moment fits that description. For many Americans, today’s economic conditions will serve as an anchor for their life events going forward. Enough has been written about the sluggish economy and solutions of all flavors, so I will focus on the practice of financial inclusion as today’s convention to reaffirm the social compact between bank, people and place.
First, financial inclusion is a practice and an orientation to society. The social compact is embedded in every financial act, from savings deposits to structured finance. Consider the power consumers confer to these institutions: A study of why people change banks in 1968 found 75% of people who switched did so because they moved. Recently, consumer research found customers were more likely to divorce than change their bank. So as we sit at the foot of history, an observation by Ferdinand Braudel came to mind:

“The key problem is to find out why that sector of society of the past, which I would not hesitate to call capitalist, should have lived as if in a bell jar, cut off from the rest; why was it not able to expand and conquer the whole of society?”

Two countries leading the way in practicing financial inclusion are India and the UK. ‘Universal Banking’ began as a partnership between UK Banks and the Government in 2003 to increase access to Britons who found themselves on the outside of the mainstream system. Before the program began the government estimated that 3 million people (5% of the population) were without an account and thus outside the bell jar.
Domestically the momentum to rid the financial system of irresponsible practices should bear witness to lessons learned about the sheer size and geographic scale of those needing interventions going forward in the US. If the UK underbanked experience is comparable, the US has 15 million people who may fit this condition, yet institutional responses is opaque and some argue non-existent.
People will remember these times, because of how it made them feel as much as for what happened. Bill Maher has a provocative but simple way of capturing today’s sentiment “If you default on your mortgage you are a loser, but if you default on a million mortgages you get a government bailout.”
Web Sites to Review:
Financial Inclusion Taskforce
British Banking Association
HM Treasury
BBC, “Universal banking launched”
Boston Consulting Group, “Next Billion Consumers”

Racism: More than Meets the Eye

2008-04-14T10:12:00.002-05:00

By Becky Reno, Senior Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

Racism is typically presented in one of two ways: personal, which considers racial animus to be the source of discrimination and therefore disparities, and structural, which examines how our social structures and institutions are arranged to confer opportunity inequitably. Along the lines of the former, there are a number of online tests such as the Shooter Effect quiz or Implicit Association Test (IAT) that purportedly determine if one is racist, and precisely to what extent. While these tests are interesting and I can’t resist taking them myself, I also recognize there is one serious component missing that is typically required in any psychological experiment- processing. Now to be fair the IAT has a blurb on the gateway page which directs the test taker to more information about the test, and cautions that they make no claim regarding the validity of the interpretations they present at the end, but otherwise the subject is left with little or no opportunity to explore his or her results, and the larger implications they have in society.

This is problematic because for test takers, the quiz situates racism solely in the realm of the psychological. Certainly it is beyond the scope of the tests to initiate a comprehensive dialogue on racial disparities, but my concern is that without processing their results or receiving additional information, test takers will walk away with the assumption that personal racism is the sole source of discrimination in society. This criticism works the other way too -- a narrow focus on structural racism will mask the role of the individual, psychological state on the construction of a racialized society. Instead we need to move one step further in understanding the link between the individual, psychological existence of bias, and the physical actualization of it in our society.

Just as we cannot separate structures and institutions from the individuals who construct and uphold them, we cannot examine individual’s conscious and subconscious thoughts on race without also understanding the physical context in which they were formulated. Understanding prejudice and bias as a circular, mutually constructive phenomenon between the psychological and the physical necessitates intervention on multiple levels. We must continue to work to create arrangements which equitably confer opportunity to all, but we also must simultaneously understand the role of our mental representations in constructing this racialized society. Without this multi-level understanding and intervention we’ll be left shaking our heads in surprise at our test results indicating the presence of racial bias in our psyche, while simultaneously wondering why racial disparities remain deeply entrenched in our society.

Fair Housing For All

2008-04-08T11:31:00.000-05:00

By Stephen Menendian, Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

As we pay tribute to the life of MLK Jr. and celebrate the anniversary of the Fair Housing Act, it is fitting to reflect on a new housing crisis that is affecting our cities and urban neighborhoods. A wave of foreclosures threatens not just the lives of Americans who are black or poor, but entire regions. The short-term profit making of financial institutions, mortgage brokers, and securities dealers now threatens the health of the entire economy.

Deregulation in the 1980s and a rise in real estate values led investment bankers, hungry for mortgage backed securities to sell to investors, to promote asset-based lending rather than income-based lending, a practice that fueled the subprime market. This phenomenon took off in 1994 when $10 billion worth of subprime home equity loans were securitized. By the end of 2005, the volume of securitized loans leaped to $507 billion. This arrangement let mortgage companies specialize in home equity lending and make a lot more money. They could make loans and quickly resell the loan into the secondary market. Mortgage brokers were acting like direct salesmen rather than agents of the homeowner, marketing subprime loans to would-be homeowners who might not be able to afford a home under a prime mortgage arrangement and even those who qualified for prime mortgages.

This ponzi scheme may have made sense if property values kept on rising. You could purchase a home with very low, interest-only, monthly mortgage payments and refinance a few years later with tens of thousands of dollars of equity due to home value appreciation.

The mortgage broker earned an origination fee, typically $2500, and then made that money again when the homeowner refinanced. The investment bank had already made their money selling these securities to investors. The originating mortgage lender had already sold the mortgages to the investment banks. In short, the banks and mortgage brokers set people up in loans they knew they would not be able to afford and passed the risk off to investors and to the home-buyer.

About 46% of Hispanics and 55% of blacks who obtained mortgages in 2005 got higher-cost loans compared with about 17% of whites and Asians, according to Federal Reserve data. Other studies indicate they would have qualified for lower-rate loans. The most recent estimate is that African American and Latino homeowners will lose a quarter of a trillion dollars in home equity in the next two years as a result of the crisis—the largest loss of home equity ever experienced in US history among African American and Latino homeowners.

It’s not too late to do something about it, but it won’t be easy. The servicers, the companies hired by the mortgage holders to manage the mortgage payments, are not particularly interested in the well being of the homeowner or the investors either. They make more money when the homeowner is saddled with late payments and other ancillary fees. Forbearance agreements are onerous and tend to accelerate foreclosure rather than stave it off.

The final result is foreclosure. The homeowner loses their house. The investors lose their collateral asset. Foreclosures lead to abandoned and vacant homes. This causes neighborhoods, especially ones already struggling, to decline rapidly by reducing the value of property of nearby homes. (A Fannie Mae study using Chicago found that every foreclosure is responsible for an average decline of 1% in the value of each single-family home within a quarter mile). This in turn results in lost tax revenue from property taxes, which makes it more difficult for the city to borrow funds because the value of the property tax base is used to qualify for loans. Communities lose property tax values with cities and states suffering. Schools lose revenue. Services have to be cut back. In Baltimore, for example, the total estimated costs for the city are about $34,199 per foreclosure.

The subprime implosion is fueling a cycle of foreclosures and economic loss that is as vicious as it is pernicious. I only hope that it is not too late to intervene, but the solution will not come by saving Bear Sterns, by corporate tax breaks, or by rescuing investors from bad investments. It will come by empowering homeowners to renegotiate the basic terms of predatory mortgages to reflect the real value of the home and a realistic ability to repay.

Fair Housing 40-year first step?

2008-03-31T09:12:00.000-05:00

By Eavon Lee Mobley, Managing Editor at the Kirwan Institute

I can remember the first thing my daughter said upon coming home from the first day of school in the third grade. We had just moved back to Ohio from Michigan and were staying with family in Dublin. We had lived for 5 years in Michigan while their father attended the seminary studying to become a minister. Many racial and ethnic groups from the USA and around the world were represented in the community at the seminary and the university. We lived our lives day to day in a racially and ethnically diverse community. Our community was there for the common goal of education, and our life experiences were intertwined. But it was an artificial atmosphere. It was a reality separate from mainstream society in the USA. How do I know that? From what my daughter said to me after her first day of class in Dublin: “All the kids in school are white, Mom.”

That was 20 years ago. And the complexion of Dublin has changed very little.
Dublin’s racial homogeneity is a result of racial bias in mortgage and housing markets from the 1940s through the 1960s that limited entry for non-white populations. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 lifted these barriers by requiring the government to protect the freedom of individuals to choose where they wanted to live. However, this protection did not guarantee that communities would become integrated, as we can see from looking at examples of communities like Dublin. And then the Supreme Court Milliken decision in 1974 that exempted the suburban schools from desegregation orders increased white flight from urban areas to the suburbs like Dublin.

So what were my choices then and even now to live in an integrated community? Limited. I could choose the community that would offer good schools, public services, and jobs but it would be far from integrated and in all probability predominately white. Even my desire to live in an integrated community was not enough for me to decide to give up living in a community of opportunity and move to a community of less opportunity. No one chooses to live in a community of little opportunity unless either they have no other choice or other benefits of staying outweigh the complications of leaving.
I was reading a Columbia Law Review note by Brian Patrick Larkin on the Fair Housing Act (http://www.columbialawreview.org/pdf/Larkin.pdf) that I found very insightful. It’s called the Fair Housing Act the 40-year first step. The first step allowed for freedom of choice. What are the next steps to achieve “fair housing”? Fair housing should not be just about moving people to communities of opportunity; it should be about equity, about creating communities of opportunity in places currently suffering from disinvestment. The act, according to Larkin’s note, was intended to be supplemented by policies that addressed segregation and inequality in our communities but these policies were not enacted. These policies are critical in order to achieve these goals of desegregation and equality.

So here we are at the 40 year anniversary of the Fair Housing Act. What is the next step? How do we enact the policies necessary to achieve fair housing and create communities of opportunity so that we don’t wander aimlessly for another 40 years?

Disowning America

2008-03-25T09:43:00.001-05:00

By Michelle Alexander, Associate professor of Law at the Moritz College of Law with a joint appointment at the Kirwan Institute

Last week, in one of the most extraordinary political speeches in modern times, Barack Obama refused to disown his former pastor, Reverend Wright, as media pundits and some political advisers had urged him to do. The uproar over the YouTube videos depicting Reverend Wright fiercely denouncing white America, blaming American foreign policy for the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and mocking Hillary Clinton for never having been called a nigger, threatened to derail his presidential campaign. Yet bravely, and without apology, Obama declared that Reverend Wright “is like family to me.“ He denounced Wright’s controversial remarks “unequivocally,” but forcefully rejected calls to disown the man, saying:
“I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe. These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love."
This clip has been shown repeatedly on all the major news channels, with media pundits invariably focusing on Obama’s reference to his white grandmother, who apparently was not immune to racial stereotypes. I suppose it is possible to interpret his remarks as narrowly as the media has chosen to do. No doubt, Obama was pointing out that even someone as wonderful and loving as his own grandmother is far from perfect on race. But I think a much larger point has been missed here. Obama was not simply refusing to disown his former pastor or point out the prevalence of racial stereotypes; he was refusing to do something even more profound – nearly radical. He was refusing to participate in the politics of disownership.
As a society, we have become accustomed to disowning one another. We condemn and disown those who disagree with us, who look different from us, who have a different religion, who have a different sexual orientation, who lack status, and who behave in ways we do not understand, especially when they commit crimes.
Among politicians, disownership is nearly a rite of passage – some individual, or group of people, must be publicly condemned in order for a candidate to be viewed as “tough enough.” Tough enough to do what? Tough enough to expel “the others” from the body politic, to deny them the basic privileges of American citizenship the rest of us take for granted. In our society, we feel utterly comfortable imagining that some people – many people – are simply unworthy of belonging. There is an undeniable racial element to this belief.
During the past few decades, it has been the welfare queens, the crack mothers, the “super-predators,” the gangbangers, and the “drug pushers” who have been designated the enemy – the ones who exist outside our circle of concern, and who have been the targets of political campaigns to purge them, literally, from our society. Indeed, the dramatic explosion of our prison population during the past three decades, from a mere 350,000 in the mid-1970s, to more than 2 million today, is an excellent example of how serious we, Americans, are about disownership.
But the politics of disownership goes beyond purging people from welfare rolls and locking them up for longer periods of time than any other country in the world. We can see it in our immigration debates, and not just among those who argue for mass deportation of “illegals.” It is evident even among those who argue for guest worker programs, programs which allow – in our great generosity – immigrants to come to America to mow our lawns and clean our toilets, but without any hope of ever enjoying the benefits and privileges of citizenship.
We can see it, too, in how we care for the sick and educate our children. Those who cannot afford health care are not our concern. They are literally left to die. And those children who live on the wrong side of the tracks, so to speak, they are not our concern either. When their schools are crumbling, and their grades failing, we look away. Of course, if those children were in our family, we’d care. But they’re not. They’ve been disowned; quietly perhaps, but cast out all the same.
When Barack Obama refused to disown his former pastor, no matter what he had done, and when he refused to disown the black community (no matter what it has done or it may do), he showed us, by example, what a politics of unity might look like.
We need not disown one in other in order to disagree – even strongly. None of us need be outside our circle of concern. None of us need fear that we are beyond hope, beyond redemption. We can be one American family. There can be room enough for us all, no matter how flawed and imperfect each of us may be.
Admittedly, this is not the path most traveled. But regardless of your political views, political party, or preferred candidate, can we not agree that it is a path that could make all the difference?

“A More Perfect Union” Sen. Barack Obama’s Speech on Race

2008-03-19T10:51:00.002-05:00

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama spoke about race during an address at Philadelphia's National Constitution Center, Tuesday, March 18, 2008.

Video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU

Full transcript of the speech: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23690567/

Editorials, commentaries, reviews, analyses are popping up everywhere and we would like to offer our blog to invite your thoughts and reactions to his speech.