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

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

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

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

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?

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?