Our place in history ...

Diversity Director, Melinda Wright,  One Day magazine, & "The Evolution of DCA," by Ting Yu

2012-01-11T02:43:00.000-08:00

(Originally published on January 11, 2012, as part of Leadership for Educational Equity's "Teach For America Alumni of Los Angeles" blog: http://blog.educationalequity.org/blog/story/2012/1/11/02311/9807).

DCA should be integrated into every aspect of pedagogy and classroom management. It shouldn't exist as a siloed discussion series, or be reduced to a headcount of representatives of marginalized communities. It is not a free therapy session for people who don't wish to feel guilty because of who they are/how they were raised. DCA must seek out voices capable of contributing to the vital dialogues educators and education policymakers must engage in. TFA ought use its “participant survey” culture to identify the specific ways DCA serves or fails educational and social justice movements, writ large.

***********

Perhaps, like me, you received an email from Melinda L. Wright, Teach for America’s Senior Managing Director, Alumni Diversity Initiatives, (on December 14, 2011) reading as follows:

“Among the many things I'll be up to in the coming weeks, I'm adding one thing that I hope you'll join me in doing: reading the current edition of One Day magazine, which is a diversity-themed issue.
I recently read this issue and was particularly inspired by both the cover story and the editor's letter written by fellow alumna, Ting Yu (NYC '03). Ting's letter grounded me in the importance of sharing our stories and engaging in authentic conversations around the role of diversity in making ‘One Day’ a reality. Below I have highlighted a bit more about the cover story and an article of particular interest entitled ‘The Evolution of DCA.’
‘The Evolution of DCA’ speaks to our challenges and progress with respect to diversity programming at the Institute. While these sessions have sparked conversations that have often proven difficult, they have also provided an opportunity for us to examine the intersection of race, class, and privilege in our work.”

Intrigued, I took Melinda Wright’s suggestion to heart, and read the latest issue of One Day magazine cover to cover. Doubly intrigued, I opened a Google search window and began rooting around the Internet, in search for published articles and blogs discussing people’s experiences with DCA. Teach for America’s summer institute for new corps members I attended in 1998, did not include a Diversity & Community Awareness component of the same ilk as the one currently in existence. I have, of course, through my own relationships with TFA corps members and staff, developed a notion of what DCA has come to signify and entail. But I did not wish to proceed with the process of documenting my thoughts, without first reading and discussing the opinions of others with an open mind.

Among corps members and staff identifying themselves as members of communities of color, one of the themes I noted was the notion that DCA was essentially designed for white, middle class, corps members in need of exposure to the realities of socioeconomic privilege, and the building blocks of racial/ethnic identity. In plain English, DCA was all about sending white people off to educate students of color without perpetuating the model proffered by Rudyard Kipling’s infamous text, “White Man’s Burden.”

Among corps members and staff not identifying themselves as members of communities of color, one of the themes I noted was the frustration white, middle class, corps members felt at having to sit and listen to tales of how horrible it was to confront racism, classism, etc., when it was not at all clear to them how exactly they were to apply the lessons of DCA to their classroom practice. In this context, DCA was, at best, a reminder of how different they were from the community in which they would teach, and how no matter how hard they tried, they would never fully fit in. At worst, it was a blob of mushy, politically correct gobbledygook, designed to instill the jargon and ideology of cultural and moral relativism.

Because this is a topic of such tremendous importance to me, I am going to try my very best to make my comments relevant to those of you who are still in the classroom, as well as to those of you who have gone on to lives in which you seek to impact district wide, statewide, or federal policy. Trust me when I tell you that I would love to engage in extensive debate over the themes I noted and have taken the time to highlight above. However, in the spirit of the new year, and in accordance with the predictions of the Maya and Hopi people that 2012 marks the end of one world, and the beginning of another, I will remain forward looking.

DCA should be integrated into every aspect of what corps members learn about pedagogy and classroom management. It should not exist solely as a siloed discussion series. It should not be reduced to a headcount of representatives of historically marginalized communities. And it should not be a free therapy session for people who do not wish to feel guilty because of who they are, or how they were raised.

In terms of pedagogy, Jaime Escalante always made mention of the fact that the Mayas invented the zero when teaching students whose parents were predominantly Mexican and Central American. He could have just as easily made mention of the ways in which Cambodians or Egyptians used advanced mathematics to build temples, or how nomadic Native Americans learned how to compensate for gravity, wind, and other variables in aiming during hunts and fishing expeditions. These bits of information, while they might seem trivial to some initially, very clearly paint the notion that the concept being introduced is one that has been and will be applied across cultures, nations, and contexts. Said quite plainly, even calculus does not belong to Isaac Newtown. Every concept has multiple fathers and multiple mothers. We may attribute one idea to one person because that is how we learned it, and because that is what helps us avoid getting accused of plagiarism in college. But our job as teachers is to make our students the owners of ideas and information. They are not empty vessels awaiting one cup of our vast knowledge each. And in order for our students to accept ownership of ideas and information, they must feel as though these are theirs to take. They must not feel as though these are being forced upon them from a source outside of their own experience, outside of their roots of racial/ethnic identity.

In terms of classroom management, I will relate quite plainly my frustration with teachers who send letters and notes home and then complain when parents do not respond to them, or who issue punishments, and then take offense when parents seek out the principal to voice a complaint about the punishment or the reason it was doled out. Doctors used to make house calls. The milkman used to follow the same route as the post office. But for a variety of reasons, teachers avoid, or are told to avoid, home visits. Race, class, privilege, these are all vestiges of power. On campus, the teacher and principal have the power. The difference in level of educational attainment the average TFA corps member boasts, versus that of the median parent of a student in that corps member’s classroom, plus the difference in annual salary an average corps member will clear after food and living expenses, versus the net pay the median parent will clear, is already enough to make it unfair for an average corps member to expect all dealings with parents to take place on school grounds, or via formal written communication. Add to this any other dynamics informed by race, language, religion, etc., and from where I stand, you’ve got to be incredibly naïve not to note the tremendous disadvantage the median parent must bear.

Whenever a fellow teacher would ask me to translate a letter or note home to Spanish speaking parents, I would always ask that teacher if the parents who were to receive this letter were able to read at all. Forget what language the darn thing is in if they only have a few years of school under their belts. Of course there are best practices for classroom management that do not depend at all on a solid relationship with a student’s parents, or any other caregiver in their lives. But when it comes to students who are constantly sabotaging their own education, knowing who has an influence on them, and having a relationship as equals with that person can completely turn everything around, and cause that student to flourish. Developing a relationship as equals with that person means meeting them somewhere where s/he feels comfortable speaking, opening yourself up, and confronting matters you might otherwise wish to avoid.

In my eyes there is a very direct bridge to the policy world here. Obviously we could speak ad nauseam about our racial, class, or other identities as teachers, or those of our students, or their parents. But what do we measure? Since our TFA culture is so data driven, once we step into the world of district policy, or statewide education code, or federal terrain, what exact outcomes should we be seeking in this department and how do we know if we’re making progress? The answer, fortunately, is remarkably simple: follow the various achievement gaps. Using value added instruments, and other constantly improving statistical tools, we are able to disaggregate standardized test scores and see if patterns emerge regarding the role each teacher plays in adding to, or reducing the achievement gap born by black male students who are part of the free or reduced cost meals program. As a teacher, when presented with evidence that I may very well work wonders when it comes to proof of learning for some of the students in my class, yet I have completely failed others, I am able to then demand professional development, tailored for eliminating that achievement gap, from my principal, organized labor representative, school district staff, and elected board of education members. Further, I am able to demand that those observing my classroom also receive the training and tools necessary to help me truly guarantee that all of my students are receiving an excellent education, not just the ones scoring at or above the range predicted by value added tools. By this logic, a policy maker’s job is clear: (1) Provide everyone with access to value added instruments, (2) Reform the structure of professional development so that it focuses on identifying and eliminating achievement gaps, (3) Change teacher certification, credentialing, and tenure so that they include cultural competency components, value and incorporate parental engagement, as well as include the planning time, curriculum flexibility, and resources needed to eliminate existing achievement gaps.

Now that I’ve said this part, I would like to indulge in a little bit of storytelling.

I have written extensively about race/ethnicity, socioeconomic class, and other factors related to privilege, identity, power, politics, and pop culture throughout the course of my adolescence and adult life. In 2005, shortly after the passing of Rosa Parks, I began posting some of my thoughts on a page entitled, “OurPlaceInHistory.Blogspot.com.” If you have an interest in discussing how I believe these factors impact elections, historic events, mass media, education and immigration policy, as well as headline dominating events, please take a moment to review its contents. As there are relatively few entries, doing so shan’t prove daunting or overwhelming. Here are four essays to get you started:

http://ourplaceinhistory.blogspot.com/2009/10/extended-version-of-submission-to.html

http://ourplaceinhistory.blogspot.com/2006/09/tupac-amaru-shakur-passed-away-on.html

http://ourplaceinhistory.blogspot.com/2006/07/where-is-voice-of-reason.html

http://ourplaceinhistory.blogspot.com/2005/11/corn-tortillas-and-peanut-butter.html

Stephen Colbert’s television persona often jokes that he doesn’t see race. This quip is humorous because the notion that perceived racial differences are inconsequential to a man whose ancestry lies exclusively in Northern and Western Europe is particularly ironic given human history over the last two thirds of a millennium. Although it is undeniably true that the racism we must confront and overcome is the result of a colonial, imperialistic, paternalistic, patriarchal, oppressive, exploitative power structures imposed on people of color, what I wish to posit and ask you to consider, are the ways in which we all, regardless of our appearance or identity, actively or passively perpetuate them.

The temptation to live in a world that denies racial difference is in fact one of the traps that we fall into quite often. When society views race as something of no more significance than manner of dress, then it loses a sense of the harm that can be caused by reducing the entirety of a culture to a collection of consumable costumes, foods, beverages, music, dance, and ritual. In the extreme, this manifests itself as a modern day minstrel show such as the one Spike Lee creates in the film Bamboozled, the dissolution of the line between social critique and perpetuated harm that caused Dave Chappelle to walk away from his successful, multi-season sketch series on Comedy Central, or a rise in crass disguises and Halloween garb, such as those highlighted in the “We are a culture, not a costume campaign” (http://lissawriting.wordpress.com/2011/10/23/racism-think/).

In the quotidian, it means casting Taylor Swift as Éponine, and Anne Hathaway as Fantine, in the upcoming film version of Les Misérables, after years of casting actresses of color, such as Felicia Curry, Lea Salonga-Chien, and Daphne Rubin-Vega in these roles. Most don’t see this as even a minor offense. After all, Les Misérables, takes place in France, and French people are now and always have been fair skinned, right? Wrong. Much as it is offensive to ignore the histories and contributions of Americans of color in recreations of the Revolutionary or Civil War, it is simply blatantly inaccurate to whitewash a nation with an extensive Mediterranean coast populated by Mesopotamians, Persians, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Iberians, Greeks, Byzantines, Romans, Italians, Illyrians, Thracians, Levantines, Gallics, Armenians, Arabs, Berbers, Jews, Aragons, Slavs, Turks, as well as a wealth of East Asians, Pacific Islanders, Amerindians, Caribbeans, and Northern and Sub-Saharan Africans displaced by French colonialism. In other words, just as it is offensive to use blackface, brownface, yellowface, or redface to turn a character into a caricature, like Mickey Rooney’s Mr. Yunioshi, in Breakfast at Tiffany’s, or Chloe Michalopolous’ Soledad from East L.A., in Ask A Chola, it is equally offensive to eliminate the presence of people of color when recounting or recreating history, however fictionalized those recountings and recreations may have been intended to be. Whether portraying the population of France as a homogenous collection of tall, thin, small-featured, fair-complexioned, Aryan-propaganda poster models, making a film version of the lives of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, while glossing over the existence of Paul Jennings, and Sarah Hemings, or casting Angelina Jolie as Cleopatra, (after already having cast Elizabeth Taylor as Cleopatra) the refusal to acknowledge the undisputable, inexpugnable, prominent place of people of color, as well as linguistic, religious, and other diverse peoples throughout history, is a form of perpetuated prejudice unfortunately few are disposed or prepared to confront. As educators, and education policymakers, however, we cannot lose sight of the impact this form of bigotry can have.

Since this is a Presidential election year, it’s impossible to ignore the dog whistle and overtly racist rhetoric that permeates political discourse. It continues to perplex me, for instance, that so many from the Tea Party to Donald Trump have managed to capture headlines and hog the media spotlight questioning Barack Obama’s citizenship. Never before has a Presidential candidate, much less a President, had to produce any sort of birth certificate, much less had the validity of such a legal document challenged. Mitt Romney’s father was born in Mexico. John McCain was born in Panama. Yet no such controversies have ever dogged these men. Barack Obama’s racial identity is a factor. When Newt Gingrich calls Barack Obama a “food stamp President,” it is not a race neutral slander. When he specifically says that if the NAACP invites him to speak, he’ll “go to their convention and talk about why the American-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps,” that’s not a statement whose true intent depends on the context in which it was delivered. The same can be said of Rick Santorum’s claim that he, “doesn’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them someone else’s money.” Similarly, nearly every argument uttered against amnesty, welfare, education, and healthcare for “illegal immigrants” is tied to a notion of racial supremacy that deifies Americans whose lineage ties them to Europe (and an arrival date between Plymouth or Jamestown and the zenith of Ellis Island traffic), but demonizes those whose lineage ties them to Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, East Asia, the Pacific Islands, the Caribbean, or Latin America (regardless of arrival date). All of this, of course, in a nation whose federal government is housed in a city whose NFL team, the Washington Redskins, won’t be changing its dehumanizing name anytime soon. Don’t even get me started on the unparalleled influence the states of Iowa and New Hampshire have, despite the fact that they are two of the least diverse in the country.

The political landscape, and the above-described environment created by consumerist industries, polarize and aversely influence our views on racial difference. Our passive acceptance of, or active participation in these worlds, without objection to their language, images, mindsets, and so forth, contribute to preserving racist macro-power structures. As educators and education policy makers, we must prioritize the cultural competencies and critical thinking capable of countering racist macro-power structures, and doing away with micro-aggressions, micro-assaults, micro-insults, and micro-invalidations. If you are unfamiliar with these concepts, their impact on student achievement, and what research tell us about altering problematic patterns, please review the following:

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2011/05/12/the-microaggressions-project-an-interview-with-vivian-lu-and-david-zhou/

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/microaggressions-in-everyday-life/201010/racial-microaggressions-in-everyday-life

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/10/minority-achievement.aspx

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/10/achievement-gap.aspx

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/10/immigrants.aspx

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/10/microaggressions.aspx

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/10/prejudice.aspx

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/10/biased-brain.aspx

http://www.clutchmagonline.com/2012/01/not-everyones-laughing-at-shit-white-girls-say-to-black-girls/

As I write these words, a number of my friends are still embroiled in a heated discussion about what it means that the “Sh*t White Girls Say to Black Girls” video has already garnered 4.5 million views (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylPUzxpIBe0). After all, the “Sh*t ____ Say” meme arrived relatively soon after the countless parodies inspired by the “Asians in the Library” rant (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoLLEZlpUxk). Concurrently, a video rant made by two white teenage girls in Arizona in 2010, following the passage of SB 1070, has officially gone viral. Spreading through social media like a wildfire through kindling brush desiccated by drought, thanks to reposting by Latino bloggers and watchdogs who monitor the escalations in violent rhetoric when advocates of anti-immigrant policies inflame racist and xenophobic sentiments, this video is painful (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO1PIauwBWs&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DnMBz1q9RUl4%26feature%3Drelated). Beyond explicitly threatening to kill Mexicans with guns, the girls explicitly state their belief that their teachers “are holding the entire class back,” and that the fault lies with the students who are “obviously not American citizens, because if they were American citizens, they obviously would have already learned English.” The fact that over two thirds of English Language Learners are US Citizens by birth, notwithstanding, what is most disturbing is the outright accusation that students from non-English speaking households are to blame for the decline of the public education system, and by extension the demise of American exceptionalism. China will overtake the US economy by 2020. India will do so by 2050.

As I feared, what I intended to be a brief blog entry on my reactions to reading the most recent issue of One Day magazine has turned into an endless assault on the senses of the limited readership these blogs enjoy. Regardless, I feel there is value in what I have shared. I am grateful to all of the work that went into this latest issue of One Day, and utterly indebted to the corps members, staff, advisors, and critics, who have contributed over the years to the creation and evolution of “Diversity & Community Awareness.” Moving forward, I hope DCA will continue to seek out voices capable of contributing to the vital dialogues educators and education policymakers must engage in, such as Tulane Professor, Melissa Harris-Perry. (Seen here on January 9, 2012’s episode of the Colbert Report discussing her new book, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/10/melissa-harris-perry-colbert_n_1196634.html). And more importantly, I hope that TFA will take advantage of its “participant survey” culture to learn more about the specific ways that DCA serves or fails corps members, staff, alumni, and the educational and social justice movement writ large. I would imagine one of the things that might emerge is how little time we’ve spent examining the factors that influence notions of race across cultures.

As a Mormon, Mitt Romney knows that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, (the LDS Church) had an explicit policy against ordaining black men to the priesthood until 1978. Yet, 5% of LDS Church members are black, and missionaries have made tremendous inroads in Latin America, the Caribbean, and West Africa, where they’ve built to major Mormon temples. Over 80% of Indians are Hindus, despite Gandhi’s contribution toward the emancipation of the “Untouchables,” the influence of the Hindu caste system is still felt in what, at times, openly denigrates into a disdain for dark skin. Bollywood headliners and other pop icons, especially female stars, tend to have fair skin. Moreover, skin-bleaching creams are not only sold throughout India, but marketed without shame, much less concern over political backlash, or economic repercussions. These products are made by multinational corporations, not just local “beauty product” producers. Yet these multinational corporations are astute enough not to flaunt these wares in nations like the United States, where the legacy of the Civil Rights movement continues to have enough palpable weight to strain their profit margins and public relations (PR) budgets. By offering these examples, I do not mean to attack these two communities of faith, or the membership of any organized religion, for that matter. I merely wish to point to the kinds of viewpoints we can overlook when discussing race.

When I went to school in Mexico as a child, the federal Secretary of Public Education, insisted that all Mexican children learn the contents of, La Raza Cósmica, (The Cosmic Race) an essay written by José Vasconcelos Calderón, and La Raza de Bronce, (The Bronze Race) a poem by Amado Nervo (also known as, Juan Crisóstomo Ruiz de Nervo). From Vasconcelos, we were to learn that the Mexican people were a new “fifth race,” created by merging the Aztecs and the other indigenous empires of the Americas, as well as the peoples of Europe, Asia, and Africa. From Nervo, we were to learn about the greatness of Benito Juarez, the self-made man, born in a tiny adobe home in the Mexican state of Oaxaca, who became a successful lawyer, resisted the French occupation of Mexico, overthrew the Napoleonic Empire, and used liberal efforts to modernize the country, while serving five times as President of the Mexican Republic. In other words, as a child in Mexico, I was taught to ignore racial difference. That there were no white Mexicans, black Mexicans, brown Mexicans, and so forth, there were only Mexicans. Other countries, like the United States, were racist because they lacked the mestizaje that gave Mexico its social cohesion. By deifying Benito Juarez, a dark skinned man with pronounced indigenous facial features, my teachers were attempting to inculcate me into the propagandist fiction that discrimination on the basis of racial appearance did not exist in Mexico. Yet racism was everywhere. Television and film screens, magazine covers, billboards, people walking down the street, sang the praises of the fair skin, light-eyes, and European features. The “güero” aesthetic was better than the “moreno” or “prieto” alternative. When people complained about how hard their bosses were working them, they’d call them “negreros.” I never once witnessed anyone with white skin being called a “naco.” And there could be no greater insult rendered than calling someone an “indio.”

Mexico is not alone in seeking a path forward from a troubled racial past through the creation of a nationalist propaganda that seeks to join its diverse people in one new harmonious race. This mindset influenced all of the Spanish speaking Latin American countries, and Portuguese speaking Brazil as well. There, mestiçagem was explained by the “less severe” Portuguese caste system that accommodated widespread interracial marriage and miscegenation. Yet nothing can erase the history and legacy of African slavery and indigenous genocide in Brazil, not even the fame and fortune of international non-white Brazilian superstars, from Pelé, (also known as, Edson Arantes dos Nascimento) to the present. It is this very history of slavery and genocide throughout the Americas, followed by relentless efforts to do minimize the damage of these histories through a propagandist narrative of a “rainbow” past, magically molding into a common, cohesive, social present, that makes the real work of unpacking privilege and confronting racist power structures so amazingly difficult. If you don’t believe me, take a few minutes to review the responses Latinos gave when confronted with the “race question” on the 2010 Census. As someone who participated in the campaign to guarantee that a record percentage of US residents completed their Census forms, I was asked to take on the prickly assignment of writing an unofficial set of instructions for how “Hispanics” might answer the race question on their Census forms:

Latinos who do not consider themselves racially “white,” or racially “black,” or racially “Asian,” are encouraged check “American Indian.” In the tribe section write “unknown” and then indicate country (countries) of family origin–Mexico, El Salvador, etc.–in parentheses. Also, please note that each individual is allowed to identify him/herself as belonging to more than one racial group. We are free to write “Latino” or “Chicano” or whatever we like on the Census in the race section without checking the “American Indian” racial identity box. However, after quite a number of years advocating that ethnicity, culture, and race are in fact different things, it makes most sense to identify one’s self using as many identifiers as possible. Further, from an objective standpoint, the “brown” most people of Latin American heritage wear on the outside, or can point to in their family line, comes from, in whole, or part, the indigenous peoples of the Americas that were living and flourishing here long before people from the continents of the Eastern Hemisphere arrived. Just because the explicit text of the current Census form ignores this fact, does not mean we should. At the end of the day, the borders of current nation-states (Canada, the USA, Mexico, Guatemala, etc.) are not the borders that nomadic or agrarian indigenous peoples adhered to. From a “racial” standpoint, all of the peoples of the Americas, whether Mapuches in Chile, Inuits in Canada, Navajos in Arizona, or mestizos in Mexico are related. We share a genetic ancestry, and a history of sudden and forced, as well as gradual and peripheral assimilation into the countries (El Salvador, Argentina, Nicaragua, etc.) we now call home. Again, it is important to check all of the boxes we know apply to making us who we are in terms of racial and ethnic identity. If I had an Asian great-grandparent, for example, I would most certainly indicate that fact, even if that person died before I was born. There are rumors that my father’s family includes an individual of African descent, but I have no real proof of this, and therefore I did not include this when filling out my Census form. I did, however, make note of the fact that my Mexican identity includes “American Indian” and “white” racial components. No matter what, it is critical that we complete and return the Census so political representation and material resources can be appropriately apportioned. So make sure you fill out and mail in your household form!

As a final thought, Id like to share a Vivir Latino blog entry I feel highlights why the Civil Rights movement shouldn’t be viewed as a 20th Century historical happening, but rather as an ongoing introspective and outward-looking endeavor. Entitled, Filling Out the Census While Latina or How My Mom is White and I’m Not, it stresses the need to revisit it for the sake of future generations (http://vivirlatino.com/2010/03/18/filling-out-the-census-while-latina-or-how-my-mom-is-white-and-im-not.php):

“I don’t claim Afro-Latinidad, as that hasn’t been my personal identity experience... but I also don’t claim whiteness... Rather, as a Puerto Rican I identify as mixed race, including ‘white’ Spanish colonial roots, African roots, and Indigenous. So, I check off all three... My mother is horrified by this. She checked off Puerto Rican and white for herself and my sister, without asking my sister how she identifies racially. This doesn’t surprise me but it makes me sad. When I was a child, the aunt that raised my mother would pull out old Puerto Rican history books and point to conquistadors with my same last name. As a middle schooler, I identified as ‘Spanish,’ denying my Rican roots. So this is a common narrative that has been passed on in my family, a narrative that shifted directions with me through my own process of politicization. The narrative my children are growing up with is complicated but clear in it’s complexity of not denying any part of our real history.”

TFA & Poverty... What is LEE's role?

2012-01-11T02:36:00.000-08:00

(Originally published on December 13, 2011, as part of Leadership for Educational Equity's "Teach For America Alumni of Los Angeles" blog: http://blog.educationalequity.org/blog/story/2011/12/13/12252/453).

We talk a lot about how our students can overcome poverty if we end educational inequity. We talk a good game about social justice and civil rights, but can we truly live up to our mission until we confront all the measurable factors that impede student success, every statistically significant thing that stands in the way of, “One day”?

Now is the time to change educational outcomes for kids by advocating on behalf of value-added measures, as well as the federal DREAM Act, and in opposition to LIFO, as well as laws leading to inequity in sentencing, incarceration, and recidivism.

***********

Later this week, my blog, aimed at the “Alumni of Los Angeles,” group will discuss the results of the vote to approve or reject the Tentative Agreement between UTLA and LAUSD. However, before analyzing that terrain I urge all of you to revisit what I wrote regarding the proposed contract, “Do you want the good news or the bad news first?” (http://blog.educationalequity.org/blog/story/2011/12/5/113037/558). My hope is by posting twice this week, I’ll “hook you” into a discussion before your attention spans become completely consumed by travel, shopping, etc. Please leave a comment. It is the gift that keeps on giving.

On the Saturday, December 10, 2011, a number of TFA alumni and LEE staff were able to take advantage of a comprehensive workshop session facilitated by Brianna Twofoot. I won’t dwell on too many of the details in this entry, but I do wish to open up the talk we had regarding the rhetoric of TFA’s public critics:

The diversity of opinions in the room seemed comfortable countering the critique that TFA stood for “teach for awhile” with the data on teacher burnout, RIFs (threatened or actual layoffs), wages (low salaries, lack of bonuses, slow pace of growth), high stakes pressure, and poor working conditions, that explain teacher turnover and attrition writ large (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/11/top-5-reasons-why-teacher_n_924428.html). If the problem of recruiting and retaining talent in the classroom were not an industry-wide issue, major organized labor wouldn’t be spending their time and energy researching solutions to the problem (http://www.aft.org/pdfs/teachers/genyreport0411.pdf). Nevertheless, we did agree that two years is a random number, and data demonstrates teachers hit their effectiveness stride at year three, and if TFA is a data driven organization, it should reconsider its fidelity to the current model.

We split over how to counter the critique that TFA is populated with white, middle class to affluent, Ivy League graduates, who seek to apply a competitive, private sector, corporate (for profit business) model to America’s public schools. We split over whether or not the (historically self-described) characterization of TFA corps members as the “best and brightest” was something we should combat. There was a time when “respect and humility” were core organizational values, and it was stressed that our job was to learn from more experienced teachers, and partner with other forces in the community seeking to make change. After No Child Left Behind came into existence, TFA sought to prove that corps members were just as qualified and effective as traditionally selected and trained instructors. This established the rift we live in today in which TFA lives in one corner, and organized labor bodies representing teachers in the other. Many questions arise as a result of this perceived shift away from “respect and humility.” Is it antithetical to, “One day, all children in this nation will have the opportunity to attain an excellent education,” to be so elite, effete, and exclusionary that only one out of every ten college graduates who applies meets TFA’s selection criteria? Is it the selection process guaranteeing student gains, or are support structures, observational feedback, and high performance expectations the engines of success? What would happen if half of acceptance in TFA’s future generations of corps members ran like a typical charter school lottery? Would the randomly selected underperform their pedigreed peers? Or would the data show otherwise? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/campus-overload/post/teach-for-america-2011-acceptance-rate-11-percent/2011/08/03/gIQAqX8bsI_blog.html & http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2011/08/tfa_selection_criteria_linked.html)

The most important and revealing dynamic in our discussion dealt with the amount of funding available to school sites for the provision of wrap around services. We took on the terrain of arguing that what public education needs is not more money, but a better strategy for spending the money it has. Discomfort abounded with the wholesale embrace of this narrative. We were, after all, holding this discussion in California, 43rd in per pupil spending, whose budget shortfalls threaten to shorten the school year to below 170 instructional days, despite the fact that 3/5 of all other states found $ to prevent the school year from falling below a minimum of 180. (http://toped.svefoundation.org/2011/01/12/now-43rd-in-per-student-spending/ & http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/11/17/471008ccaliforniabudgetschoolyear_ap.html). With RIFd teachers in the room, the discussion delved head on into LIFO, and seniority based layoffs, but it also acknowledged the Occupy L.A. and Occupy LAUSD protesters gathered in nearby Pershing Square. Teachers, librarians, counselors, etc. were fired because of budget cutbacks, not because of the results of an already implemented, tested, and proven, performance evaluation system. School funding is in crisis. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t see multiple efforts to tackle the issue publicly, through statewide ballot propositions that circumvent the broken legislative process (http://toped.svefoundation.org/2011/11/04/reformrevenue-plan-for-12-ballot/). The most important and critical part of the discussion, however, came from the frank admission that students and their families need more than just highly effective classroom teachers. They need (and deserve) advocates, access to information, protections from domestic abuse and street violence, as well as free or truly affordable (low cost) resources such as doctors, dentists, mental health services, etc.

Earlier this year, S. Paul Reville, the Massachusetts Secretary of Education, blogged in Education Week that reformers need now to think beyond the numbers and “admit that closing achievement gaps is not as simple as adopting a set of standards, accountability and instructional improvement strategies.” In Massachusetts, he wrote, “We have set the nation’s highest standards, been tough on accountability and invested billions in building school capacity, yet we still see a very strong correlation between socioeconomic background and educational achievement and attainment. It is now clear that unless and until we make a more active effort to mitigate the impediments to learning that are commonly associated with poverty, we will still be faced with large numbers of children who are either unable to come to school or so distracted as not to be able to be attentive and supply effort when they get there.” Reville called for “wraparound services” that would allow schools to provide students with a “healthy platform” from which they could begin to work on learning.

(http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/futures_of_reform/2011/05/bolder_broader_action_strategies_for_closing_the_poverty_gap.html)

Fortunately, there are some programs in place that have had real success in providing “wraparound services” that help children come to school ready to learn. In Northern California, for example, the Making Waves Foundation has for decades run a program providing tutoring, academic advising, college counseling, after school enrichment programs, mental health services, nutritional food, transportation and parent education to more than a thousand low-income children, selected by lottery. In Cincinnati, where more than 70% of children live in low-income households, a program called the Strive Partnership coordinates services and support for school children that include mentoring, health care, arts programs, quality preschool and financial aid for college — and the result, according to a new report from the independent think tank Education Sector, is that, over the last four years, Cincinnati schools have made greater gains than any other urban district in Ohio and have had the most success in reducing the percentage of its students who score at the very bottom on achievement tests.

(http://www.kappanmagazine.org/content/93/3/48.abstract & http://www.educationsector.org/publications/striving-student-success-model-shared-accountability)

John Kuhn, the superintendent of a small public school district in Texas, recently wrote the following:

“As a public school administrator, I have been a steadfast critic of the legacy of No Child Left Behind. But I’ve recently figured out a way that school reformers can get me on their side. It’s very simple… Reformers such as former Washington D.C. Schools chancellor Michelle Rhee and Sandy Kress — a lawyer who was a principal architect of the school accountability system in Texas (during the administration of then Gov. George W. Bush) which served as the basis for NCLB — assure us that all their reforms are really about the children. They repeatedly call on get teachers and administrators to quit making excuses and hold themselves accountable for the educational outcomes of poor and minority students. Who could be against that?... NCLB has done one important thing: By disaggregating data, it has forced teachers and administrators like me to agonize over the outcomes of our neediest students… The deck is stacked against kids who live in poverty not just because their schools are on average worse than others, but also because of the circumstances of their lives when they leave campus… I’m calling on reformers — Kress and Rhee included — to lend support for a new kind of reform, one that steps outside the schoolhouse and shares the onus for achievement with more than just teachers. I’m calling for data-driven equality, modeled on Kress’s work, expanding it to force greater societal changes that will help teachers bridge the achievement gap.”

“Let the 50 states disaggregate equality-related data by ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status, and let us rank the states and reward them for closing all the societal inequalities that are truly at the heart of our achievement gap. There should be an incentive for voters to elect lawmakers who will craft policies that minimize inequalities. Let’s have national benchmarks for equality in incarceration, equality in college enrollment, equality in health coverage, equality in income levels, employment rates, rates of drug addiction and child abuse. Let the states figure out how to close their gaps, but reward results. Citizens in states whose data shows progress toward equality benchmarks should be rewarded with a lower federal income tax rate. Note that the states can figure out how to get there, so no one can accuse me of urging socialist fixes to inequality. I don’t care how you fix it, just fix it.”

“As a teacher I am calling on society to do its part to save these kids! The kind of plan I am describing leaves mechanisms to the states — it merely incentivizes equality. We should all insist that our leaders build a system that guarantees the demise of inequity on these shores. Let’s move together toward a broader social accountability, driven by data and gauged by progress toward statistical, measurable, social equality. Here’s an incentive: As a state moves closer to demonstrable equality according to data, then Washington could reduce the federal income tax rates charged to citizens in that state. Let citizens who opt for equality in so doing opt for lower taxes and more individual liberties. Incentivize equality, and see if kids don’t do better in school. Let’s publish the data in newspapers. Let’s label all 50 states once a year. Let the states stand on their records and compare their progress. Let’s ensure that no more American Dreams get deferred because of unequal opportunity… As soon as the data shows that the average black student has the same opportunity to live and learn and hope and dream in America as the average white student, and as soon as the data shows that the average poor kid drinks water just as clean and breathes air just as pure as the average rich kid, then educators like me will no longer cry foul when this society sends us children and says: Get them all over the same hurdle… And so I as an educator now say to a nation exactly what it has said to me for years: No excuses! Just get results…Disaggregating data forced me to pay attention to minority students. Let’s force society to agonize over equality like teachers now agonize over test scores!”

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/a-superintendent-calls-school-reformers-bluff/2011/12/11/gIQABKBXoO_blog.html)

As TFA corps members, alumni, as LEE members, we talk a lot about educational equity and poverty. Our go to refrain is that we are overcoming poverty by ending educational inequity. Yet, despite the fact that we talk a good game about social justice and civil rights, we have yet to even take the small step of embracing the conclusions reached by researchers who have tracked the successes and failures of wrap around services (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/pdf/wraparound_report.pdf). TFA cannot truly live up to its mission until we utilize LEE to take on the big issues that impede progress in education. We need to take on prisons, immigration, housing, unemployment, and everything else that stands in the way of, “One day.” Just as an LAUSD school needs a cooperative Board of Education, and a California district needs a cooperative set of policies from Sacramento and Washington D.C., TFA corps members and alumni need the backing of a LEE that is willing to stand up and change educational outcomes for kids by advocating on behalf of value-added measures, as well as the federal DREAM Act, and in opposition to LIFO, as well as laws leading to inequity in sentencing, incarceration, and recidivism.

Teach For America is growing the movement of leaders who work to ensure that kids growing up in poverty get an excellent education.
Today, poverty limits educational opportunity - but it doesn't have to be that way.
(http://www.teachforamerica.org/our-mission)

***********

The Education & Poverty Debate Since NCLB:

2011
Class Matters. Why Won’t We Admit It?

(http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/opinion/the-unaddressed-link-between-poverty-and-education.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&smid=fb-share)

No one seriously disputes the fact that students from disadvantaged households perform less well in school, on average, than their peers from more advantaged backgrounds. But rather than confront this fact of life head-on, our policy makers mistakenly continue to reason that, since they cannot change the backgrounds of students, they should focus on things they can control.

2010
Ending Poverty through Education

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-laracy/ending-poverty-through-ed_b_454034.html)

As the leader of a school system in a privileged country, I know we cannot have the same conversation about poverty in developing nations as we can about urban and rural poverty in the United States. But when we ask what it will take to ensure that no child anywhere has to "beat the odds" to have viable future choices, the answer is the same whether we are in Washington, DC or in a brave Haiti enduring disaster from a poverty-stricken stance. The obstacle is not one of knowledge but of social and political will, with education as the lynchpin.

2009
Poverty Is Rooted In US Education System, Research Finds

(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090505111652.htm)

Inequalities are rooted in many areas of the U.S. education system, and the current system's relationship with poverty has not improved, according to a Kansas State University researcher. Kay Ann Taylor, associate professor of secondary education at K-State, has studied the historical and modern aspects of poverty, including its relationship with education. When teachers are not well informed about issues like poverty, Taylor said they are unable to relate to situations students face. For instance, when a child acts out, many teachers neglect to consider possibilities for the student's actions that could be effects of poverty. Taylor said educators should be respectful, caring and empathetic and should create a challenging and engaging learning environment for children at all levels. She said the essential characteristics include a small teacher-to-student ratio, relevant curriculum where the students see themselves represented and an environment where children feel safe.

2008
BLOG ACTION DAY: POVERTY AND EDUCATION IN AMERICA

(http://therottenlittlegirls.com/2008/10/15/blog-action-day-poverty-and-education-in-america/)

Just getting through elementary and middle school can be a challenge for children from lower income families. They are faced with obstacles that more-affluent families are not. Since I come from one of those lower income families, I have first hand experience with some of these obstacles: schools running out of paper by November, staying at the free after-school program at the local library until my mother came home at dinner time, apathetic teachers who weren’t motivated to teach a bunch of “unruly” children. Of course, these are merely examples, and they aren’t necessarily the experience everyone has had. However, I know that systematically the quality of education children receive in lower income neighborhoods is severely lacking compared to the wealthy neighborhoods. Where I grew up, we were lucky to have some Apple computers donated to our elementary school by the local bank, yet in a wealthy suburb several miles away, the children had plasma screen TVs in their state of the art gymnasium.

2007
Is Education the Cure for Poverty?

(http://prospect.org/article/education-cure-poverty)

Economists may disagree a lot on policy, but we all agree on the "education premium" -- the earnings boost associated with more education. But what role can education play in a realistic antipoverty policy agenda? And what are the limits of that role? First, it depends on whether you're talking about children or adults, and schooling versus job training. And second, the extent to which education is rewarded depends on what else is going on in the economy. As Greg J. Duncan's companion piece (page A20) suggests, investment in early childhood has immense benefits. And at the other end of the schooling spectrum, college graduates' wage advantage over those with only a high-school diploma went up dramatically in the 1980s and early '90s. But the premium that high-school graduates enjoy over dropouts has been flat for decades. In 1973, high-school grads earned about 15.7 percent more per hour than dropouts, 15.9 percent in 1989, 16.1 percent in 2000, and 15.5 percent last year. And for adult workers, the historical record for job-training programs is pretty dismal, though more recent initiatives -- with their focus on more carefully targeting training for local labor markets -- show much more promise. Nobody doubts that a better-educated workforce is more likely to enjoy higher earnings. But education by itself is a necessary insufficient antipoverty tool. Yes, poor people absolutely need more education and skill training, but they also need an economic context wherein they can realize the economic returns from their improved human capital. Over the past few decades, the set of institutions and norms that historically maintained the link between skills and incomes have been diminished, particularly for non-college-educated workers. Restoring their strength and status is essential if we want the poor to reap the benefits they deserve from educational advancement.

2006
Importing Poverty: Immigration and Poverty in the United States: A Book of Charts

(http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/10/importing-poverty-immigration-and-poverty-in-the-united-states-a-book-of-charts)

Since the immigration reforms of the 1960s, the U.S. has imported poverty through immigration policies that permitted and encouraged the entry and residence of millions of low-skill immigrants into the nation. Low-skill immigrants tend to be poor and to have children who, in turn, add to America's poverty problem, driving up governmental welfare, social service, and education costs. Today's immigrants differ greatly from historic immigrant populations. Prior to 1960, immigrants to the U.S. had education levels that were similar to those of the non-immigrant workforce and earned wages that were, on average, higher than those of non-immigrant workers. Since the mid-1960s, however, the education levels of new immigrants have plunged relative to non-immigrants; consequently, the average wages of immigrants are now well below those of the non-immigrant population. Recent immigrants increasingly occupy the low end of the U.S. socio-economic spectrum.

2005
Why Segregation Matters: Poverty and Educational Inequality

(http://bsdweb.bsdvt.org/district/EquityExcellence/Research/Why_Segreg_Matters.pdf)

Much of the discussion about school reform in the U.S. in the past two decades has been about racial inequality. President Bush has promised that the No Child Left Behind Act and the forthcoming expansion of high stakes testing to high schools can end the “soft racism of low expectations.” Yet a disproportionate number of the schools being officially labeled as persistent failures and facing sanctions under this program are segregated minority schools. Large city school systems are engaged in massive efforts to break large segregated high poverty high schools into small schools, hoping that it will create a setting better able to reduce inequality, while others claim that market forces operating through charter schools and private schools could end racial inequalities even though both of these are even more segregated than public schools and there is no convincing evidence for either of these claims. More and more of the still standing court orders and plans for desegregated schools are being terminated or challenged in court, and the leaders of the small number of high achieving segregated schools in each big city or state are celebrated. The existence of these schools is being used to claim that we can have general educational success within the existing context of deepening segregation. Clearly the basic assumption is that separate schools can be made equal and that we need not worry about the abandonment of the movement for integration whose history was celebrated so extensively last year on the 50th anniversary of the Brown decision even as the schools continued to resegregate. There has been a continuous pattern of deepening segregation for black and Latino students now since the l980s.

2004
Every Nine Seconds in America a Student Becomes a Dropout

(http://www.aypf.org/publications/WhateverItTakes/WIT_nineseconds.pdf)

In 2004, there were 27,819,000 18-24-year-olds in the United States. Of these, 21,542,000 (78%) had either graduated from high school, earned a GED, completed some college, or earned an associate’s or bachelor’s degree. The balance, 6,277,000 (22%), had not yet completed high school. Some scholars exclude GED holders, resulting in a much higher noncompletion figure. Similarly, if researchers count the adult population over age 24, the high school noncompletion rate would be higher still. An estimated 3.8 million youth ages 18-24 are neither employed nor in school—15% of all young adults. From 2000 to 2004, the ranks of these disconnected young adults grew by 700,000.5

2003

High Performance in High Poverty Schools: 90/90/90 and Beyond

(http://www.sjboces.org/nisl/high%20performance%2090%2090%2090%20and%20beyond.pdf)

The 90/90/90 Schools have the following characteristics:
• More than 90 percent of the students are eligible for free and reduced lunch, a commonly used surrogate for low-income families.
• More than 90 percent of the students are from ethnic minorities.
• More than 90 percent of the students met or achieved high academic standards, according to independently conducted tests of academic achievement.
The educational practices in these schools are worthy of notice for several reasons. First, many people assume that there is an inextricable relationship between poverty, ethnicity, and academic achievement. The graph in Figure 1 expresses the commonly held belief that poverty and ethnic minority enrollment are inextricably linked to lower levels of student achievement. While the impact of poverty clearly has not been eliminated, the prevailing hypothesis that poverty and ethnic minority status are invariably linked to low student achievement does not conform to the data. Our research on the 90/90/90 Schools included both site visits and analyses of accountability data. The site visits allowed us to conduct a categorical analysis of instructional practices. In the same manner that the authors of In Search Of Excellence (Peters and Waterman, 1982) identified the common practices of excellent organizations, we sought to identify the extent to which there was a common set of behaviors exhibited by the leaders and teachers in schools with high achievement, high minority enrollment, and high poverty levels. As a result, we found five characteristics that were common to all “90/90/90 Schools.” These characteristics were:
• A focus on academic achievement
• Clear curriculum choices
• Frequent assessment of student progress and multiple opportunities for improvement
• An emphasis on nonfiction writing
• Collaborative scoring of student work

2002
Poverty has a Powerful Impact on Educational Attainment, or, Don't Trust Ed Trust

(http://fairtest.org/poverty-has-powerful-impact-educational-attainment-or-dont-trust-ed-trust)

The powerful impact of poverty on literacy development has been well documented. Children of poverty, in addition to the obvious problems they face, have very little access to reading material; they have fewer books in the home, inferior public libraries, inferior school libraries,and inferior classroom libraries, (e.g. Duke, 2000; Neuman and Celano, 2001). This means, of course, that they have fewer opportunities to read, and therefore make less progress in developing literacy.

The Ed Trust report is actually a stunning confirmation of the overwhelming effect of poverty. Even with a very loose definition of high performance, few schools perform in the upper one-third and a careful look at one state reveals that even fewer qualify. California has about five million children in school. Ed Trust claimed that about 230,000 were in high-poverty high-scoring schools for reading. According to this analysis, the real figure is less than 400. It is extremely difficult to "defy the odds." Poverty has a powerful effect on educational attainment.

2001

Why Do High-Poverty Schools Have Difficulty Staffing Their Classrooms with Qualified Teachers?

(http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/ingersoll-final.pdf)

The failure to ensure that the nation’s classrooms, especially those in disadvantaged schools, are all staffed with qualified teachers is one of the most important problems in contemporary American education. The conventional wisdom holds that these problems are primarily due to shortages of teachers, which, in turn, are primarily due to recent increases in teacher retirement and student enrollment. Unable to compete for the available supply of adequately trained teachers, poor school districts, especially those in urban areas, the critics hold, end up with large numbers of underqualified teachers. The latter is, in turn, held to be a primary factor in the unequal educational and occupational outcomes of children from poor communities. Understandably, the prevailing policy response to these school staffing problems has been to attempt to increase the supply of teachers. In recent years, a wide range of initiatives has been implemented to recruit new candidates into teaching, especially to disadvantaged settings. The data indicate that school staffing problems are not primarily due to teacher shortages, in the sense of an insufficient supply of qualified teachers. Rather, the data indicate that school staffing problems are primarily due to a “revolving door” – where large numbers of qualified teachers depart from their jobs long before retirement. The data show that high-poverty public schools, especially those in urban communities, lose, on average, over one fifth of their faculty each year. In such cases, ostensibly, an entire staff could change within a school in only a short number of years. The data show that much of the turnover is accounted for by teacher job dissatisfaction and teachers pursuing other jobs. The analyses indicate that one reason for high rates of turnover in these schools is, not surprisingly, teacher compensation. Teachers in these schools are often paid less than in other kinds of schools and depart accordingly. But, the data also indicate that low salaries are not the only reason for the high level of turnover in disadvantaged schools. Significant numbers of those who depart from their jobs in these schools report that they are hampered by inadequate support from the school administration, too many intrusions on classroom teaching time, student discipline problems and limited faculty input into school decision-making. From a policy perspective, the data suggest that schools are not simply victims of large-scale, inexorable demographic trends. In plain terms, the data suggest that recruiting more teachers will not solve staffing inadequacies if large numbers of such teachers then leave the profession. This report concludes that if schools want to ensure that all students are taught by qualified teachers, as the No Child Left Behind Act now mandates, then they must be concerned about low teacher retention rates.

The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly... MOU: LAUSD/UTLA School Stabilization and Empowerment Initiative

2012-01-11T02:30:00.000-08:00

(Originally published on December 5, 2011, as part of Leadership for Educational Equity's "Teach For America Alumni of Los Angeles" blog: http://blog.educationalequity.org/blog/story/2011/12/5/113037/558).

Despite the fact that exactly zero of you have officially left comments under these entries on the official LEE blog page, I’ve gotten enough face to face, text message, and social media comments regarding them, that I know that my words have not all been in vain.

Thank you for the love. But please, let’s get a little discussion going. We need it.

This week’s words are dedicated to the tentative agreement regarding the new teacher contract (a.k.a., the new collective bargaining agreement) between LAUSD and UTLA…

Do you want the good news or the bad news first?

***********

Despite the fact that exactly zero of you have officially left comments under these entries on the official LEE blog page, I’ve gotten enough face to face, text message, and social media comments regarding them, that I know that my words have not all been in vain.

Thank you for the love. But please, let’s get a little discussion going. We need it.

This week’s words are dedicated to the tentative agreement regarding the new teacher contract (a.k.a., the new collective bargaining agreement) between LAUSD and UTLA…

Do you want the good news or the bad news first? I’m guessing good, so let’s start there.

Good: In theory, this pact, if ratified by UTLA members, would give unprecedented freedom to all LAUSD campuses in the foreseeable future. Allowed to operate with a number of autonomies that charter schools enjoy, schools would place teachers on the basis of mutual consent, and tailor teaching practices unbound by previous district and/or union rules. This brings wide-scale reform to the entire landscape as opposed to relying on charters alone as a strategy for overall LAUSD transformation, something everyone agrees is not sustainable. The popular refrain from education historians is that charters were created as incubators of education, and that public schools were supposed to learn from their successes and then scale them. If this is indeed the case, then LAUSD’s John Deasy has done something really great here. He’s learned from charters what works, and he’s ready to take that to every corner of the district. By every measure, LAUSD has some exceptional schools, and a whole lot of schools that have not worked well for a very long time—schools in which students, parents, teachers, and even principals have been marginalized, and forced into looking for charters, smaller districts, or simply pushed out.

You’re probably asking how this will work. What is entailed in this move to free teachers and principals in the nation’s second largest school district from a range of previously established LAUSD policies and historic UTLA contract restrictions? First a 60% supermajority of teachers at individual school sites must approve flexibility over working conditions and educational decisions rules. Ever since Superintendent John Deasy took the helm, LAUSD has been UTLA to adopt a “thin” union contract in the hope that, liberated to make their own decisions, teachers would take the lead on school transformation. As per this new agreement, from a menu of 15 options that create more autonomy, teachers will be able to select school curricula, replace the district’s pacing guides, choose teaching materials, hire new principals (and, to an extent, other teachers), set daily school schedules and, to a degree yet to be determined, the school site budgets.

The principals and teachers must agree on alternative plans, which LAUSD must approve and monitor, and they must show evidence that they consulted student family members in the process. Specifically, two parents chosen by the School Site Council would be on an eight or nine person committee to hire staff, subject to the principal’s approval. The committee is required to give priority to laid-off teachers, but not forced to hire “lemons.” The first campuses eligible to become “local initiative schools” will be Focus and Service and Support schools (a.k.a., priority low-performing schools, whose API scores are in the lowest four deciles). These campuses will apply for the 2013-14 year. Staff members at the low-performing schools that would otherwise have gone through PSC will be required to seek flexibility waivers next fall. LAUSD and UTLA have agreed to find intervention strategies for these schools. All local initiative schools are expected to be variants of the 31 LAUSD pilot schools already in existence. Based on the Boston model, pilot schools came into being thanks to an agreement UTLA negotiated under former President and now charter school executive, A.J. Duffy. Pilot school teachers with experience drafting and/or implementing school plans based on autonomies (in budget, schedule, calendar, curriculum, staffing, assessment, and governance) for consideration under PSC, have committed to a detailed process leading the transformations intended to turnaround low-performing schools. This is as good an avenue for the voices of teachers in school reform as any, but there’s nothing to compel UTLA members to embrace teacher led reform. It takes an incredible amount of work to plan, open, and operate a school. It’s one thing to claim expertise is in schools and not at Beaudry (a.k.a., LAUSD’s central headquarters) or in Local District offices, and another to take up the mantle of change. This exciting opportunity has tremendous potential. I hope it’s more than Tinkering Toward Utopia.

Don’t get me wrong, the tentative agreement is just that, tentative. It is by no means a done deal. UTLA members may decide in bulk that they don’t want to trade seniority protections and guaranteed placement for the authority to dictate how their school is run. This trade-off could prove a major stumbling block. Many teachers may not be eager to trade away job security in an uncertain economy for the tremendous risk and responsibility of revamping their school. That said, competition from CMOs in the Public School Choice process has pushed several generations of teachers to step up. In the two years since PSC began, dozens of teacher-led teams have partnered with reform groups, or have developed plans on their own, and won the right to run their schools. Today’s LAUSD is like never before. Thanks to the largest school construction program in the nation, (100 new schools in 10 years) the district is populated with pilot schools, magnet schools, charter schools, partner schools, ESBMM schools, and traditional schools. Innovation is encouraged and failures are very much public and subject to deserved scrutiny and accountability. The proposed model makes cooperation on behalf of students easier—without handcuffs, or anything to block a school from undertaking the reforms in their single plans, as UTLA or LAUSD can no longer deny them anything.

Bad: This deal throws CMOs under the bus. Charters, and the push to proliferate them in high poverty areas, not just suburban, middle class, “white flight” neighborhoods, looking to exit LAUSD, have been cut off at the knees. As I alluded to in my last blog entry, the fact that the California Charter School Association failed to make the case for their role in delivering educational, social, and racial justice to L.A.’s families when Steve Zimmer first proposed to cut off CMO access to new LAUSD campuses, meant that charter schools and Public School Choice—the district’s two-year-old program the allowed charters to bid for control of new campuses and failing schools, and helped make LAUSD the center of a movement toward alternative schools—would suffer. This has occurred, indeed. And families that saw charters as alternatives to unsafe LAUSD campuses, populated by burned-out LAUSD teachers, are forced to place all of their eggs in one basket, as the pact wipes out PSC. By this standard, it’s not clear where parents fit in to the conversation between Superintendent Deasy and UTLA President Fletcher.

Both know perfectly well that a primary motivating factor for parents and legal guardians to seek spots for their kids in charters has nothing to do with test scores. If not overwhelmed with safety concerns, the differences in personal attention, class size, and possibilities for enrichment and/or intervention, are major drivers. What now for them? Sadly, families are seen as disengaged and incompetent, or confused and overwhelmed. When given a chance to weigh in on whom should run their campuses, approximately 1% of eligible parents turned out to vote in the advisory process. Yet neither LAUSD, nor UTLA really ever cared to understand why. When the advisory vote component of PSC eliminated, UTLA did a good job of spinning it to their advantage. But if either side actually cared about parental voice they would have assigned parent opinion a fixed percentage in the final decision-making matrix, incorporated parent voices from the brainstorming phase through plan writing, and found the funds needed to conduct the necessary outreach to parents for plan presentation and election events. But I digress.

While both Superintendent Deasy and President Fletcher declared the agreement, which UTLA members will likely ratify by December 12, a win-win, there’s no way of getting around the fact that for charter schools, it was a loss. Although it is subject to debate whether Superintendent Deasy agreed to a moratorium on LAUSD’s two-year PSC experiment (in which the district invited community groups and charter school operators to bid on the operation of newly built schools, or the chance to take over some failing schools) as an enticement or a concession to UTLA is irrelevant. The result is the same. The dozen charter schools, including high performers like Aspire and Alliance College-Ready Public Schools, that were selected through PSC, and opened in the last two years, designed to share large campuses, won’t be joined by any fellow charter compatriots. President Fletcher is quoted as characterizing the end of PSC as an “overdue corrective,” insisting the district and Board of Education had become “enraptured” by the prospect of turning to outside operators to solve LAUSD’s problems. He’s made sure to cite the L.A. Daily News study finding that in the first year, a majority of PSC schools (charters notably excepted) did no better or worse than neighborhood schools. More importantly, he’s argued the new LAUSD-UTLA agreement will save 690 district teaching jobs.

Though this calculation assumes the unlikely scenario that every campus in the next round of PSC would have gone charter, President Fletcher was very astute to hardline negotiate the gutting of CMOs. After all, L.A. has more charters than any system in the country, with one in five LAUSD campuses housing a publicly funded, charter-run school. The UTLA argument has always been that charters siphon money from the district, as education funds follow students enrolled in charter schools. And every time LAUSD has faced a budget shortfall because of the sorry state of education funding statewide, UTLA has been able to successfully spin the argument that no RIFs, furlough days, or academic calendar cutbacks would be necessary if LAUSD had not gone through a “giveaway of neighborhood schools intended to privatize public education.” Again, as I pointed out in my last blog entry, the real resistance to the spread of charters is the dilution of UTLA’s membership base, and its accompanying financial, political, and lobbying power. It is much easier to demonize CMOs than attempt to unionize them, or incorporate unionized charters like Green Dot into UTLA. While it’s noteworthy that Superintendent Deasy, President Fletcher, Educators4Excellence, and Randi Weingarten are all very excited by the prospect of teacher-led reform via this new contract, former Board Member Yolie Flores has made it clear that the tentative agreement “completely undercuts” the Board’s 2009 Motion because it, “eradicated the entire intent and purpose of PSC, which is to use choice and competition as a powerful lever [to improve outcomes for kids]… Autonomy’s great but without accountability you’re going to have a mess.”

Accountability is, in fact, king. And it’s in the accountability piece that the biggest problems with the proposed pact and the conditions surrounding it are found. While I agree with Superintendent Deasy that, “teachers and parents are uniquely qualified to have a relationship with their school.” The problem for teachers continues to be that they are subject to an uphill battle if they’re in pursuit of change. Requiring a supermajority just to get to the point where autonomies can be earned means it is unlikely any changes will take place at schools where teachers are satisfied with the conditions of the current contract, and aren’t at all excited by the prospect of taking on more responsibility, or risking workplace instability. If Superintendent Deasy hadn’t shown his hand by making changes to PSC prior to entering into negotiations with President Fletcher, it might have been possible for him to make it possible for all eligible teachers participate in LAUSD’s value-added teacher evaluation model, Academic Growth Over Time. As it stands right now, UTLA may have dropped its court challenge to LAUSD’s plans to roll out AGT on a voluntary participation basis. But that most certainly does not mean that President Fletcher is going to allow Superintendent Deasy to use data on actual student outcomes versus predicted scores on standardized exams such as the CST, part of the multiple measure teacher evaluation system LAUSD was hoping to rollout districtwide in 2013. Without AGT data professional development for teachers cannot be specifically tailored on the subset of students they are not reaching. For instance, a fifth grade teacher might be great with African American males, but lousy with English Language Learning girls. This kind of specific information is not often gleaned by classroom observation alone.

The unresolved issue of AGT data is most troubling for parents. Although LAUSD’s Programs and Policies office headed by TFA alum, Drew Furedi, has always insisted that AGT data should remain confidential, (as opposed to the approach taken by the L.A. Times in its application of its less sophisticated value-added model) the fact is that a parents have a right to expect that their children won’t find themselves trapped in a classroom with someone completely unaware of his or her role in perpetuating racial, ethnic, gender, etc. achievement gaps. Were I still in the classroom I would want to know which students I was consistently letting down so that I would never do such a thing again. Were I to discover that my failings were with African American girls, for instance, I would demand professional development to help my teaching improve, and I would make sure that my parental engagement efforts were much more focused on delivering the best possible outcomes for the students who AGT revealed I consistently let down. I would ask all parents to keep me accountable, but I would insist that the parents of the African American girls in my classroom found another resource at my school, or in the community where I taught, to make sure they understood every lesson, and has every question answered. This kind of unrelenting parental engagement is not taught or expected in teacher credentialing programs. And based on the fact that LAUSD has done absolutely the bare minimum with the recommendations presented to it by the Parents As Equal Partners Taskforce, I doubt it’ll become the norm under this new pact. LAUSD is already getting sued by parents claiming it failed to evaluate teachers under the Stull Act, and Parent Revolution successfully pulled the Parent Trigger in Compton long before it received the California Education Policy Fund monies that allowed it to expand statewide. If no accountability exists to meaningfully engage parents in this plan, if no real power is extended to parents to accept, or reject, teachers, and principals, at neighborhood schools, then they won’t play ball, and many teacher-led reforms will fail.

Beyond what the proposed deal does or doesn't include, or whether it’s ratified by the rank and file this month, the real issue of concern for TFA corps, alumni, and LEE members, is the failure to retain former Board Member Flores’ seat when she made public her decision to not seek reelection. Former Board Member Flores said she had to leave for financial reasons and was talking to a handful of folks about replacing her. But no clear candidate emerged. Luis Sanchez, Chief of Staff to Board President Monica Garcia, and founded of Inner City Struggle, ran and lost to Bennett Kayser, a candidate who emerged as the “official” UTLA nominee one month after it withdrew its financial support and public endorsement of John Fernandez. Red flag. The failure to find another candidate, one the reform-minded community would have supported, and/or the failure of the reform-minded community to get behind Luis Sanchez’s candidacy explain the deficits in the LAUSD-UTLA agreement on the table. Be clear, Superintendent Deasy was hired by one Board of Education. But he now works for another. He doesn’t have a majority, commanding strong, broad support from throughout the multifarious expanse that is LAUSD, to back him up, to take on a tough, long fight over contentious issues. Hence the end of choice and competition in LAUSD, the lack of mention of the role of student outcomes in teacher evaluations, much less any mention of differential pay, etc.

LEE friends, LEE-Angelinos, LEE countrymen, lend me your ears! I come here not to bury the reform-minded community in L.A., but to praise the dirty work of running candidates, getting out the vote, and instilling a Board with the power to un-encumber reform and provide public schools with the power and resources needed to offer each and every youth an empowering and transformative academic experience. Students deserve a path out of poverty, not a possible one, but one that is probable. If LEE members are willing to come together, that which was once only rhetorical, will be real: And one day all children will have the opportunity to attain an excellent education, will finally arrive.

Read more (New contract):

MOU: LAUSD/UTLA School Stabilization and Empowerment Initiative of 2011 http://www.scribd.com/doc/74649096/LAUSD-UTLA-LOCAL-SCHOOL-STABILIZATION-AND-EMPOWERMENT-INITIATIVE-OF-2011

Labor agreement would give more control to L.A. schools http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/school-labor-agreement.html

LAUSD & UTLA Agreement To Give Autonomy To Individual Schools And Put A Moratorium On Charter Schools http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/lausd-utla-agreement_n_1121359.html

#LAUSD: The Story Behind John Deasy's Mystifying Labor Deal http://scholasticadministrator.typepad.com/thisweekineducation/2011/12/lausd-utla-reach-agreement-granting-wider-autonomy-to-all-schools-on-teacher-placement-and-budgets-893-kpccthe-los-angel.html

LAUSD/UTLA MOU: 5.9 more years of failure http://edobserver.blogspot.com/2011/12/lausdutla-mou-59-more-years-of-failure.html

Big choices for LA teachers http://toped.svefoundation.org/2011/12/02/big-choices-for-la-teachers/

Individual Los Angeles schools gain new autonomy http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-1130-lausd-teachers-20111130,0,1644115.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Flocal+%28L.A.+Times+-+California+|+Local+News%29

News Release. November 29, 2011. #11/12-073. LAUSD Superintendent and UTLA President. Jointly Announce Historic Tentative Agreement notebook.lausd.net/.../TA%20RELEASE_SC_FINAL.PDF

LAUSD's promise of school freedom is progress, but no panacea http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-banks-20111204,0,6348666.column

UTLA reaches agreement with LAUSD to provide stability and local control to struggling schools http://www.utla.net/node/3550

Reform: What To Make Of The Proposed LAUSD-UTLA Deal? http://scholasticadministrator.typepad.com/thisweekineducation/2011/12/la.html

LAUSD announces tentative labor agreement with teachers http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_19436546

LAUSD & UTLA reach agreement granting wider autonomy to all schools on teacher placement and budgets http://66.226.4.226/programs/airtalk/2011/11/30/21573/lausd-utla-deal
LAUSD and UTLA Announce Contract Agreement http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/LAUSD-and-UTLA-Announce-Contract-Agreement-134725183.html

LAUSD Contract Deal Between John Deasy and Warren Fletcher: Bad Teachers Might be Ousted at Schools Freed from Old Rules http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/11/utla_deal_allows_bad_teacher_firings.php

Groundbreaking LAUSD school-by-school reforms unveiled http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_19437314
LAUSD, Teachers Have Tentative Contract Deal http://www.myfoxla.com/dpp/news/education/lausd-teachers-have-tentative-contract-deal-20111129

UTLA Gives Away Collectively Bargained Rights http://modeducation.blogspot.com/2011/12/utla-gives-away-collectively-bargained.html

Read more (UTLA’s stance toward evaluation):

L.A. teachers union drops legal challenge to evaluation system http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/12/la-teachers-union-drops-legal-challenge-to-evaluation-system.html

LA teachers' union drops case against new reviews http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_19460829

Time to step up.

2012-01-11T02:24:00.000-08:00

(Originally published on November 28, 2011, as part of Leadership for Educational Equity's "Teach For America Alumni of Los Angeles" blog: http://blog.educationalequity.org/blog/story/2011/11/28/8377/3412).

May this note find you and yours as well as possible.

This is intended for TFA alumni interested in what's happening in and around L.A.'s schools. Usually a new entry is posted during the latter half of each week. Welcome back from Thanksgiving weekend!

The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights came to Los Angeles to make it clear that policies and practices contributing to the achievement gaps plaguing ELLs and black students must change. http://blog.educationalequity.org/blog/story/2011/11/28/8377/3412

We will enjoy a tremendous window of opportunity to change statewide education policy in 2012.

We have arrived at a great moment to improve L.A. schools through a new LAUSD-UTLA contract.

Learn. Network. Take action.
Attend E4E’s first event in L.A.
RSVP: http://www.educators4excellence.org/events/nov30lattb

Sign the pledge www.dontholdusback.org
Email Felicia Jones & Edith Sargon
fjones@familiesinschools.org
esargon@unitedwayla.org
Let them know you’re a former/current teacher with something to say!

Please take a moment to check out this week's blog entry, and these as well:

Was it a mistake to implement changes to Public School Choice before concluding LAUSD-UTLA contract negotiations?
(http://blog.educationalequity.org/blog/story/2011/11/21/9937/5604)

ABCs of lawsuit filed by parents claiming LAUSD failed to enforce the Stull Act. (http://blog.educationalequity.org/blog/story/2011/11/4/121226/173)

Lessons "Don't Hold Us Back" coalition should glean from the 11/08/2011 "Issue 2" election in Ohio.
(http://blog.educationalequity.org/blog/story/2011/11/10/04245/189)

Future pieces will address "Occupy LAUSD," "The 2012 Kids Education Plan," the tax overhaul proposed by "Long Term," ongoing collective bargaining negotiations, public school choice, teacher education and credentialing, as well as Regular, Special, and Committee of the Whole, Board of Education meetings.

Remember that the advantage of the LEE blog is the fact it's not public: Whatever you write will only be seen by TFAers, so please comment and share your inklings freely.

I hope you don't mind me reaching out to you via email. I've been asked by LEE (educationalequity.org) to reach out to all Teach for America alums in L.A., and get a dialogue going regarding the "perfect storm" shaking up the educational establishment. Please join the discussion, and join LEE's "Alumni of Los Angeles" group if you haven't already!
(http://blog.educationalequity.org/blog/group/56)

Thanks ever so much in advance for your willingness to contribute your thoughts!
Best of the best today and always, - Unai -

***********

The Dept. of Ed.’s Office for Civil Rights says policies contributing to the achievement gaps plaguing ELLs and black students must change.

We will enjoy a tremendous window of opportunity to change statewide education policy in 2012.

We have arrived at a great moment to improve policies and practices at L.A. schools through the new LAUSD-UTLA contract.

Learn. Network. Take action. Attend E4E’s first event in L.A.
RSVP: http://www.educators4excellence.org/events/nov30lattb

Sign the pledge www.dontholdusback.org
Email Felicia Jones fjones@familiesinschools.org
Let her know you’re a former/current teacher with something to say!

***********

On Tueaday, October 11, 2011, the L.A. Times reported on the 19-month investigation by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights that found the Los Angeles Unified School District LAUSD) fails to provide an equal education to English language learners (ELLs) and black students. Via a press event featuring Secretary of Education, Arnie Duncan, LAUSD’s Board of Education announced the district’s agreement to sweeping reforms intended to become a model for school districts around the country. The Department of Education did not find that LAUSD intentionally discriminated against ELLs and African Americans. Nevertheless, the settlement requires LAUSD to engage in a top-to-bottom revision of the district's Master Plan for ELLs (already under way), and to provide ELLs and black students with more effective teachers. Improved teaching is to result from “ongoing and sustained” training. LAUSD is to develop the details under continuing oversight from the Ed. Dept.’s Office for Civil Rights.

LAUSD is the nation’s second-largest public education system and has more students learning English than any other school district in the United States—about 195,000 students, or 29 percent of enrollment. In 2009-2010, only 14.4 percent of ELLs were reclassified as fluent. The investigation also found that black students, who make up an estimated 10 percent of the district’s enrollment, are underrepresented in gifted and talented programs but overrepresented in suspensions and disciplinary actions. LAUSD schools with predominantly African American populations also lack technology and library resources. These findings and LAUSD’s demographic makeup writ large, explain why the Obama Administration was prompted to launch their investigation to determine if students who entered school speaking limited English, most of whom are Latino, receive adequate instruction. LAUSD’s program for ELLs had long been criticized for allowing students to remain untransitioned through the majority of their schooling. Even when meeting redesignation criteria for mainstream integration, ELLS fell or remained behind grade level proficiency, and ended up dropping out (without passing their CAHSEEs, or fulfilling their A-G course requirements). Consequently, under the settlement, LAUSD must focus on the academic progress of ELLs before and after redesignation, concentrating efforts on students who reach high school without mastering the reading and writing skills necessary to enroll in a college-preparatory curriculum—thereby more at risk of dropping out.

In previous blog entries, I’ve discussed how the civil-rights movement was and continues to be inextricably tied to the state of public education systems that fail to provide equal opportunities for learning and success. The dismantling of de jure segregation policies were supposed to ensure that all students had equal access to education. Yet, this goal remained largely elusive because de facto segregation, and disparities in academic achievement among students of different economic, racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds persisted. When I bagan teaching in 1998, California passed SB2042, legislation inteded to overhaul teacher education programs statewide. Uncreatively named, “Teacher Preparation Is Changing,” SB2042, led the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) to “establish and implement strong, effective standards of quality for the preparation and assessment of credential candidates” (a.k.a. classroom instructors applying for licenses to teach in California). When I left teaching and went off to graduate school in 2003, a report entitled “California’s Lowest-Performing Schools: Who They Are, The Challenges They Face, and How They Are Improving,” classified 109 of LAUSD’s elementary schools among the lowest-performing statewide. I can’t remember how many middle or high schools earned this rating, but I do recall the report recommended the adoption of a uniform curriculum, set of instructional tools, professional development programs, and common assessments. And this meant Open Court for all.

I’m not a fan of Open Court, Success For All, or any of the other form of “scripted” teaching. But based on what I’ve read and seen, the ultimate success of a Language Arts program depends, to a great extent, on a teacher’s training regarding its components, and application in meeting instructional objectives, as well as his/her efforts, commitment, and resourcefulness—creative use of (non)existing resources. Yet, while an effective teacher can often compensate for deficiencies in curriculum, materials, etc., his/her perspectives and views are vital in evaluating the effectiveness of a curricular program. It is a teacher’s expectations, theories, beliefs, educational knowledge, practical application of academic skill sets, as well as his/her reflections on classroom successes (and failures), that serve as the basis for any judgments and decisions about a program’s workability and relevance. Because a teacher’s role is so critical to its success, if his/her beliefs, values, and perceptions contradict or even conflict with objectives set forth by district officials, a program that does not take into account a teacher’s expectations, interests, and perspectives will instill anxiety, doubt, and diminished professional efficacy that translates into failure for vulnerable students.

Over a decade before this year’s settlement with the Dept. of Ed’s Office for Civil Rights, Eliezer Williams, et al vs. State of California, et al, a class action lawsuit argued that students received a fundamentally inequitable education statewide on the basis of wealth and language status. Around that time, California ELLs totaled around 1.6 million, or 40% of all ELLs nationwide. The primary claim related to inequity to the education of ELLs dealt with the lack of teacher training and credentials. At LAUSD’s Cahuenga Elementary for instance, 83.7 percent of students were ELLs, but 28 of the school’s 65 teachers lacked full, nonemergency credentials, and therefore were determined to lack adequate training to teach children in need of second language instruction. A lack of equal instruction, and therefore a lack of equal outcomes, were tied to the assignment of ELLs to less qualified teachers, inferior curriculum and less times to cover it, facilities segregated from their English speaking peers, assessments that provide little information about actual academic achivement. The case was settled in 2004, resulting in the state allocating $138 million in additional funding for standards-aligned instructional materials for schools in the first and second ranks (known as deciles) based on the 2003 Academic Performance Index (API), and another $50 million for implementation costs and other oversight-related activities for schools in deciles one through three.

Studies do not claim to prove a “causal relationship” between student achievement outcomes and teacher professional development, yet the view that a relationship between teacher preparation and pupil academic achievement is advocated by a preponderance of research experts, including criticis of current efforts to evaluate educators on the basis of student test data, such as Linda Darling-Hammond. It has been demonstrated that good professional development increases a teacher’s sense of competence and provides him/her with tangible strategies for better meeting student needs. Yet, while teacher professional development has been a cornerstone of many states’ education reform plans, surprisingly little emphasis has been placed on the specialized needs of teachers whose classrooms are comprised of ELLs. The instructional demands placed on teachers of ELLs have always been intense—expected to provide instruction in English language development while simultaneously or sequentially attempting to ensure access to the core curriculum. Sadly, the historic data is clear. Even where teachers have been teaching a majority of English learners, the professional development they’ve received dedicated to helping them instruct these students has been minimal. During my Corps years, the amount of hours dedicated to the instruction of ELLs represented a single digit percentage of professional development, despite the fact that California had very publicly, and controversially, eliminated bilingual education via Prop. 227 in 1998.

States that have passed ballot measures to get rid of bilingual education like California and Arizona, have greater gaps in achievement between ELLs and non-ELLs in math and reading, based on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data, than do states such as Texas and New Mexico, that require bilingual education. This of course, should not prove surprising to anyone who has studied the role of first language development in learning the English language, or any scholars out there who follow what research proves about the advantages of developing reading and writing skils in multiple languages. I was never in support of Proposition 227, and it is my hope that after years and years of evidence, everyone has joined me in asserting that dismantling bilingual education in California was a mistake. Nevertheless, the most important point is that the road forward for ELLs in California will be a long and difficult one without the support of teachers who view parents and families as allies, and embrace their role as agents of change.

Since 2008, California has required candidates for preliminary Multiple and Single Subject Teaching Credentials to pass assessements of their teaching performance designed to measure their knowledge, skills, and ability with relation to California’s Teaching Performance Expectations (TPEs), including demonstrating their ability to appropriately instruct all students in Student Academic Content Standards. Whatever happens with Felipe Fuentes’ educator effectiveness legislation AB5, or the Stull Act lawsuit, current and former classroom instructors are the ones who are going to have to advocate on behalf of a system that takes communicating educational progress and needs to parents and families, as well as student outcomes into account when it comes to training, coaching, and evaluating teachers—especially those with Culture, Language, and Development (CLAD) preparation and full credentials. We do not live in a time where it is enough to focus on delivery of instruction, and the development of pedagogies capable of meeting the needs of diverse students. The Dept. of Ed.’s Office for Civil Rights says policies contributing to the acivement gaps plaguing ELLs and black students must change. Believe me when I tell you that the final policies that will ultimately harm or benefit students have yet to be written. It’s time for us to step up.

We have a tremendous window of opportunity. 2012 education policies in Sacramento are still being written. There is still plenty of time to impact what state legislators will vote on when it comes to educator effectiveness evaluation, for instance, and how they will vote. 2012 education campaigns tied to statewide ballot initiatives are coming together, and there’s still time to educate your peers over social media, make phonecalls, knock on doors, and write letters to the editor in order to provide more education funding. Most importantly, we have arrived a great moment to improve policies and practices at LAUSD schools:

Learn. Network. Take action. Attend E4E’s first event in L.A., “The Behind-the-Scenes Work of Turning Around Schools: Lifting Morale & Performance,” featuring award-winning principal, Howard Lappin.
Date: Wednesday, November 30. Time: 5:30-7:00 pm. Location: Downtown Magnets High School. RSVP Here: http://www.educators4excellence.org/events/nov30lattb

Sign the pledge www.dontholdusback.org and join 26 organizations, and a growing number of parents and teachers calling for a reform contract between LAUSD and UTLA. Once you’ve done so, email Felicia Jones fjones@familiesinschools.org to let her know you’re a former/current teacher with something to say.

If you doubt me, just read L.A. Times columnist Steve Lopez: “Politics, ego, endless skirmishes between school districts and teacher unions — it all gets in the way of the kids’ best interests. And California spends less per pupil than all but a few states when you adjust for regional cost-of-living differences, leading to an annual ritual of laying off thousands of teachers and other staffers… But in Los Angeles, the status quo is under attack… It’s time for the grown-ups to stop mucking things up for the kids.”

Read more:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-1106-lopez-schools-20111106,0,6392609.column?utm_source=Don%27t+Hold+Us+Back&utm_campaign=3e173ecff3-Don_t_Hold_Us_Back_Email_110_31_2011&utm_medium=email

http://toped.svefoundation.org/2011/08/30/teacher-evaluation-bill-2012-priority/

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-1012-lausd-feds-20111011,0,4458591.story

http://www.schoolfunding.info/states/ca/lit_ca.php3

http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/CMMR/FullText/ELLs_in_California_Schools.pdf

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/learning-the-language/2008/06/tenyear_anniversary_of_proposi.html

http://www.edweek.org/media/bilingual_pdf.pdf

http://eduratireview.com/tag/proposition-227/

Public School Choice & UTLA's New Contract w/ LAUSD:

2012-01-11T02:17:00.000-08:00

(Originally published on November 21, 2011, as part of Leadership for Educational Equity's "Teach For America Alumni of Los Angeles" blog: http://blog.educationalequity.org/blog/story/2011/11/21/9937/5604).

May this note find you and yours as well as possible.

The blog I write is intended for TFA alumni interested in what’s happening in and around L.A.’s schools. Usually a new entry is posted during the latter half of each week. However, I held last week’s posting until Brent Tercero’s (L.A. ‘07) Pico Rivera City Council election results were made official. They have been…

On November 8, I shared my prediction that the election would come down to a few dozen votes, in order to communicate both a sense of urgency, and your power as LEE members, campaign donors, volunteers.

He ran in a race where the difference between the top vote getter and the next was 19 votes: Congratulations Brent! =o)

In this week’s piece I examine Public School Choice and its role in the collective bargaining currently underway between UTLA and LAUSD. I argue Superintendent John Deasy made a political decision that ultimately proved to be a strategic mistake by implementing changes to PSC before concluding contract negotiations.
(http://blog.educationalequity.org/blog/story/2011/11/21/9937/5604)

Please take a moment to look it over and leave a comment with your thoughts, and join the "Alumni of Los Angeles" group if you haven't already (http://blog.educationalequity.org/blog/group/56).

Remember that the advantage of the LEE blog is the fact it's not public: Whatever you write will only be seen by TFAers, so please comment and share your inklings freely.

Take a moment to check out the following blog entries as well:

ABCs of lawsuit filed by parents claiming LAUSD failed to enforce the Stull Act. (http://blog.educationalequity.org/blog/story/2011/11/4/121226/173)

Lessons “Don’t Hold Us Back” coalition should glean from the 11/08/2011 “Issue 2” election in Ohio.
(http://blog.educationalequity.org/blog/story/2011/11/10/04245/189)

Future pieces will address "Occupy LAUSD," "The 2012 Kids Education Plan," the tax overhaul proposed by “Long Term,” ongoing collective bargaining negotiations, public school choice, teacher education and credentialing, as well as Regular, Special, and Committee of the Whole, Board of Education meetings.

I hope you don't mind me reaching out to you via email. I've been asked by LEE (educationalequity.org) to reach out to all Teach for America alums in L.A., and get a dialogue going regarding the "perfect storm" shaking up the educational establishment. Please join the discussion, and join LEE’s "Alumni of Los Angeles" group if you haven't already!

Thanks ever so much in advance for your willingness to contribute your thoughts!

Best of the best today and always, - Unai - ('98 L.A. Corps)

***********

Public School Choice & UTLA's New Contract w/ LAUSD

I began by discussing the unfolding case of five mothers, one father, and nine children who’ve decided to sue LAUSD for failure to comply with the Stull Act (i.e., a section of the statewide Education Code stating teachers must be regularly evaluated, "with data that reasonably measures, among other criteria, whether or not the students under an employee's charge are actually learning"). http://blog.educationalequity.org/blog/story/2011/11/4/121226/173 Last week, I talked about the challenges the “Don’t Hold Us Back” will likely face if it confronts UTLA and LAUSD’s Board of Education in demanding a collective bargaining contract that aligns so very closely with the one Superintendent John Deasy proposes, if it continues to proceed without some sort of a working relationship with an organized labor partner. http://blog.educationalequity.org/blog/story/2011/11/10/04245/189

As you may or may not know, Steve Barr, of Green Dot schools fame, is currently doubling down on an endeavor called “Future Is Now Schools,” whose projects include the now famous (or infamous, depending on whom you ask) “Teachers for a New Unionism,” an effort quarterbacked byNewTLA co-founder, Mike Stryer. Earlier this week, (on Tuesday, to be precise) Stryer’s coalition turned over 630 signatures to UTLA President Warren Fletcher in an effort to force a bargaining-unit-wide referendum on the teacher evaluation system currently being negotiated with LAUSD. UTLA’s governance document (its constitution, if you will) contains a provision that allows for such a referendum if 500 signatures are gathered and certified. As early as next Tuesday, Stryer will receive notice if these signatures have been accepted or not. If they are approved, Stryer will have succeeded in potentially overriding existing UTLA policy from within, although it remains to be seen to what extent the “teacher led” changes to the evaluation system Stryer proposes will be picked up by UTLA writ large. Warren Fletcher said he likes the ideas, but the “timing continues to be tricky because of legal disputes with LAUSD over a pilot evaluation program.” http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2011/11/la_union_caucus_seeks_to_put_e.html By which he means the injunction UTLA filed back in May to stop LAUSD teachers from voluntarily participating in a pilot program that incorporates a value-added model called “academic growth over time,” (AGT) as part of the multiple measures evaluation system it put together based on recommendations in the Final Report of the Teacher Effectiveness Taskforce http://sae.lausd.net/teacher_effectiveness_task_force. His welcoming stance is influenced by the fact that six in 10 voters believe test scores should count for at least 30% of a teacher's evaluation. In fact, 58% say the quality of public schools would be improved if the public had access to teachers' reviews, versus 23% who hold this kind of disclosure wouldn’t help or might make things worse. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-poll-teachers-20111121,0,4971525.story

Notwithstanding, there is one item where there is zero divergence between the 630 UTLA members supporting Stryer with their signatures (many of whom already belong to NewTLA), and UTLA’s current anti-reform leadership: Both sides agree that there should be a moratorium on layoffs, (a.k.a., RIFs)—a position in keeping with the deal the California Teacher’s Association (CTA) made with Governor Brown and the state legislature earlier this year. AB114, a bill that obligates school districts in California to return to 2010 staffing levels, and freeze any further firings of school site employees, was fast tracked, and consequently lacked the transparency, public hearings, or pre-vote scrutiny that is normally commonplace when it comes to budgetary matters. As you might expect a number of big name “education reform” camp players wrote a letter to Governor Brown asking him to repeal parts of AB114. It probably would not surprise you to know Ed Trust-West and the United Way of Greater L.A. spearheaded the effort, or that LAUSD Superintendent Deasy signed the final draft. But you might be surprised to know TFA - Bay Area, signed on to this move to pressure Brown into using his executive powers to excise three AB114 line items. https://docs.google.com/document/d/10Br42g7OPCpDXmtffFeHKsbdFGkhFyjPRplX_PVn7iU/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1

On Tuesday, November 15, 2011, the Board of Education held a regular session meeting, and LAUSD Superintendent John Deasy provided those assembled, watching on television, or streaming online with an update on the process of negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement with labor partner, United Teachers of Los Angeles. He talked about substantial agreement, but not substantive agreement; of collaboration impeded by consternation. At the end of his mostly vague presentation, the tenor, tone, and pace of his parlance changed. “What’s possible, and what’s needed is the courage to say, ‘yes’; to trust our teachers and our parents… I realize there’s no huge reservoir of trust in this district, but I am willing to deficit spend trust… Or health benefits decision was the right decision. We need to balance it with the right reforms... If we reach an agreement framework, I will notify this Board, so we can affirm the agreement, which I expect in the next couple of days.” As I listened to Deasy’s words, I analyzed his astuteness as a politician and I began to have some very realpolitik, Cold War thoughts about what he was willing to trade away and compromise on when negotiating with Warren Fletcher behind closed doors. The first, most obvious elephant in the room, (one that shouldn’t come as any surprise): Public School Choice.

After all, on August 30th, the Board voted unanimously to allow only internal applicants, (i.e., LAUSD teacher or administrator-led teams) the opportunity to have their bids (a.k.a., RFP applications) considered for the 15 new campuses seeking management and operations teams under Public School Choice 3.0. There were a number of conditions and variables in the resolution intended to couch and soften the blow. Charter school teams were still allowed, and in fact, encouraged to apply for “focus” schools (a.k.a. the lowest performing schools according to the criteria established by the tiering system established by former Superintendent Ramon Cortines, that ranked all of LAUSD’s schools as “focus,” service and support,” “advancing,” “achieving,” “excelling,” “specialized support,” or “Superintendent’s exception”
http://www.laschoolboard.org/files/Categorizing%20Schools%20for%20Support.pdf). The deadline for all proposals was bumped back until November 18. And the giant asterisk on the resolution was the contingency that UTLA consent to Superintendent Deasy’s proposal regarding performance evaluations, job requirements, and other conditions on any and all would-be operators of PSC campuses (i.e., all PSC school leaders must agree to utilize “thin contracts” that allow for mutual consent placement, and other autonomies) by November 1. If such an agreement were not reached by November 1, the original motion would be put back in place. Here’s the joint statement and original motion: http://www.utla.net/node/3522
http://notebook.lausd.net/pls/ptl/docs/PAGE/CA_LAUSD/LAUSDNET/RESOURCES/VOLUNTEER_PAGE/SCHOOL_OF_CHOICE/PUBLIC%20SCHOOL%20CHOICE%20MOTION%208-25-09.PDF

In my opinion, the California Charter Schools Association (CCSA) and charters (CMOs) writ large kind of flubbed everything leading up to and immediately following the resolution. Other than Green Dot, no one had really telegraphed interest in a PSC 3.0 focus school, so right off the bat, Steve Zimmer, the Board Member proposing the resolution was able to make the case that CMOs cherry pick instead of doing the hard work. (Ironically, Zimmer is a TFA and LEE member whose campaign largely relied on a promise to deliver school choice to all of the families in his District, but has become one of the most steady, reliable supporters of the “party line” echoed by UTLA’s current leadership). The charter community really needed to step up ahead of this resolution with a very irate stance voiced by parents, teachers, students, and principals. It needed to be made crystal clear that the students attending charter schools do not cease to be students of color (black and Latino) who are eligible for free and reduced price lunches once they enroll—they do not turn into white, middle class, suburbanites. This may seem glaringly obvious to all of you, but it is most certainly missing from public and media discussions. It is unfortunate that in a landscape of KIPP, Camino Nuevo, Larchmont, etc. CCSA relied so heavily on Families That Can to produce parents as spokespeople to oppose the resolution. There should be plenty of families, teachers, principals, and students invested in the “charter school movement.” This resolution was a tremendous opportunity for CMOs to put themselves out there as entities deeply committed to high quality public education for all youth. If anything, the CCSA and others should have taken the opportunity to shine a spotlight on all of the ways that Beaudry (LAUSD Central HQ), local district leadership, and existing staff at focus schools, make it practically impossible for charters to get a fair shake. In order to highlight the factual nature of this point, CCSA needed only point the Board and public’s attention at the debacle that took place at Huntington Park High School in PSC 2.5—the one that officially put a nail in the coffin of the “community advisory vote.”
http://www.laweekly.com/2011-04-28/news/can-john-deasy-fix-huntington-park-high/

Instead of this sort of spirited response, Jed Wallace, CCSA’s CEO issued the following statement:

“While we clearly would have preferred a different result today, we understand the process to reform and improve public education in Los Angeles is challenging and will require resolve. We continue to support the Board in its efforts to move forward with district reform, however, there can be no doubt that the changes approved today impede high-performing charter schools from applying for new schools and create roadblocks to in-district and charter school collaboration… We believe that when parents and the public learn of the incredible results that charters are already demonstrating (for example with the API results to be released on August 31) they will understand at an even deeper level how charter schools are an essential ingredient in reinventing public education in LAUSD and they will redouble their commitment to ensuring that LAUSD fundamentally reforms. Regardless of what happens in the short-term, we will continue our mission to close the achievement gap and provide high-quality educational options to families, and we look forward continue collaborating with the district on these goals.” (Too diplomatic. Where’s the passion? Where’s the argument that any lack in funding for public education in California is not the fault of charter schools? Where is the support for movements like “Think Long,” that seek tax reform in California to get to an expansion for public education funding, the “2012 Kids Education Plan” to shift to per pupil spending and workplace reforms in pursuit of expanded investments, or even “Educate Our State” and its “Wake Up California!” effort to avoid any future cuts in statewide preschool, K-12, or higher ed expenditures? http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-poll-schools-20111120,0,6181051.story This challenge was an incredibly important time to highlight the role of charter schools in the landscape of social and educational justice. This was a moment in which it would have been appropriate to shine a spotlight on Steve Zimmer who ran on a platform of school choice, and the entire Board of Education, immediately after they unanimously named LAUSD’s new high school for the arts after former Superintendent Cortines, a man who believed in collocating charters aside other types of schools in an effort to improve outcomes for all. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/15/local/la-me-0615-arts-high-20110615 http://www.dailynews.com/education/ci_17864545.

Again, I cannot stress how damaging losing the PR war associated with this resolution was. At the end of the day, in the battle of “charter schools are public schools providing an education so excellent that they transform the trajectory of students lives who have been previously trapped by the notion that poverty is destiny,” versus “LAUSD is engaging in a public school giveaway to corporate charter schools supported by billionaires seeking to dismantle public education,” the latter argument won. One of the casualties was the notion that CMOs stand with the 99%, thus making charters easy pickings for groups with narratives such as the ones advanced by the organizers of “Occupy LAUSD” (http://www.utla.net/press/20111021). The other, more significant casualty was to make the components of school choice the bargaining chips on the table during contract negotiations between UTLA and LAUSD. It is a mistake to think UTLA’s back is pinned against the wall because of the lawsuit regarding the application of the Stull Act, or Mike Stryer’s successful collection of enough signatures to force a referendum on teacher evaluations. After all, UTLA’s position on seniority-based layoffs (a.k.a., last in first out, LIFO) was not altered writ large by the decision issued in the Reed case. In fact, with Brown’s signature on AB114, (which is fundamentally, inextricably linked to design and implementation of a system of performance evaluation) along with the rise of popular support for Occupy LAUSD’s contention that schools are underfunded and understaffed, neutralized the issue on LIFO. We are now in an era where firings are unacceptable until the budgetary challenges districts throughout California are addressed. Don’t get me wrong, this is not an argument that I take issue with personally. I believe strongly that we need to tax the top 1%, radically augment the amount of per pupil funding out schools receive, and free up the amount of autonomy districts and individual schools are afforded when it comes to their budgets. However, from a cold, power politics point of view, the notion that UTLA has been neutered by the Reed case, Mike Stryer, the Stull Act, and/or the “Don’t Hold Us Back” coalitions’ support for John Deasy’s desired contract, is a mistaken notion. UTLA is a dues-driven entity. It is not harmed by changes to evaluation/seniority/tenure, but rather, by reductions in membership.

The rapid expansion of a competing labor entity, and/or nonunionized charters would gut UTLA’s political muscle—as would the introduction to public financing, and 100% spending transparency (disclosure) in elections, but that’s a story for another blog entry. As it stands, radical reform to teacher evaluation really doesn’t do much to ruffle Warren Fletcher’s feathers so long as he’s got AB114, and public sentiment against further reductions in force on his side. Using AGT (value added) as part of multiple metrics really isn’t a deal breaker for UTLA, so long as there’s a freeze on any future firings. The moratorium on layoffs ultimately preserves “must place” staffing (a.k.a., the dance of the lemons). And the Reed case merely dictates that must place teachers can’t all end up in high turnover, chronically underperforming schools. UTLA’s leadership was smart to file an injunction in opposition to LAUSD’s pilot evaluation system, hold a press conference organized as a show trial of LAUSD for overcrowded classrooms/understaffed schools, (http://www.utla.net/node/3482) publicly charge the district with running a $55 million surplus that would allow it to follow AB114 and rehire all RIFs from the past year, (http://www.utla.net/node/3474) and challenge the Board of Education’s PSC 2.0 decision to turn Henry Clay Middle School over to Green Dot, as well as the recommendation to turn Jordan High School over to the Partnership for L.A. Schools (without getting 50% of those employed at these sites to support a “conversion” of the sort stipulated in the Charter School Act, under Education Code 47605). From where I’m standing, it’s a great bait and switch to make it seem as though teacher evaluation is the central issue, when it’s really the preservation of current dues-paying membership numbers and the curtailing of any future reduction to UTLA’s membership base by freezing firings, and making sure new campuses are more likely to be occupied by UTLA members, regardless of whether they’re sailing under a traditional, “pilot,” expanded school based management model (ESBMM) flag. In retrospect, it was a mistake for Deasy to eliminate the advisory vote, and replace it with the parent/community advisory process now in place, before the conclusion of collective bargaining.

Read more:
(Public School Choice – Big Picture) http://www.laschoolboard.org/files/PSC%20Parent%20Student%20Community%20Presentation%20to%20BOE.pdf

http://4lakidsnews.blogspot.com/2011/05/deasy-proposes-overhaul-of-las-public.html

http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_17984023?source=rss

http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2011/10/27/21141/lausd-contract

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m4vqM5fuZ0

http://publicschoolchoice.lausd.net/psc_3.0_new_and_focus_schools

http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/05/educationreform.html

Read more:
(Elimination of PSC Advisory Vote) http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/05/board-of-education-officially-cancels-school-elections-over-school-reform-plans.html

http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_18130701?source=rss

http://www.ourweekly.com/education/lausd-board-education-eliminates-advisory-votes

http://egpnews.com/?p=25867

http://www.myfoxla.com/dpp/news/education/public-school-choice-plan-reform-20110524

Read more:
(August 30, 2011 PSC 3.0 Resolution) http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0831-lausd-charters-20110831,0,7205500.story

http://www.dailynews.com/education/ci_18792874
http://www.impre.com/laopinion/noticias/primera-pagina/2011/8/31/dan-prioridad-a-escuelas-nueva-270033-1.html
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/08/30/lausd-may-limit-charters-from-new-schools/
http://www.myfoxla.com/dpp/news/education/lausd-may-limit-charters-from-new-schools-20110830
http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2011/08/31/20516/charter-school/
Read more:

(AB114) http://www.utla.net/system/files/utla_ab114.pdf

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/08/opinion/la-ed-schoolfinance-20110708

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/10/local/la-me-teachers-budget-20110710

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/07/10/3759047/dan-walters-legislature-has-made.html#mi_rss=State%20Politics

http://toped.svefoundation.org/2011/07/01/brown-signs-trailer-bill-over-objections/

http://www.edtrust.org/west/press-room/headlines/california’s-greek-tragedy-new-lows-in-mortgaging-our-children’s-future

Read more:
(Stull Act lawsuit) http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-eval-20111117,0,5010697.story

http://www.laweekly.com/2011-11-17/news/outing-lemon-teachers-at-lausd/

http://www.educationnews.org/education-policy-and-politics/utla-heavily-involved-in-lausd-lawlessness/

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-teacher-evals-20111101,0,781805.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Flocal+%28L.A.+Times+-+California+%7C+Local+News%29

http://www.scribd.com/doc/71444873/Doe-v-Deasy-StullAct-LAUSD-suit110211-1

http://kmtg-educationlaw.blogspot.com/2011/11/suit-filed-against-lausd-seeks-to.html

Read more:
(UTLA injunction to stop pilot evaluation plan) http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/10/opinion/la-oe-reisler-utla-teachers-union-20110710

http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2011/06/14/19477/utla-teacher-effectiveness

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/walt_gardners_reality_check/2011/08/new_teacher_evaluation_deserves_a_fair_chance.html

http://www.dailynews.com/ci_18149088

Read more:
(Reed case & LIFO) http://toped.svefoundation.org/2010/10/06/lausd-agrees-to-new-rules-for-teacher-layoffs/

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/01/aclu_wins_lawsuit_utla_seniori.php

http://www.good.is/post/court-decision-ends-last-hired-first-fired-in-los-angeles-schools/

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/21/local/la-me-lausd-aclu-20110122

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=7296024

http://unitedwayla.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Joint-LAUSD-statement-ACLU-Lawsuit-Settlement.pdf

Lessons from Ohio for "Don't Hold Us Back" vs. UTLA:

2012-01-11T02:11:00.000-08:00

(Originally published on November 10, 2011, as part of Leadership for Educational Equity's "Teach For America Alumni of Los Angeles" blog: http://blog.educationalequity.org/blog/story/2011/11/10/04245/189).

What do the results of yesterday’s referendum on restrictions to the power of teachers unions in Ohio have to do with efforts to reform public education in L.A. and statewide?

Everything.

Many may wish to fire bad teachers and promote effective ones, but organized labor needs to be on board. Coalitions like Don’t Hold Us Back need unionized teachers as leaders/spokespeople (i.e., NewTLA members) in order to avoid the failures of Governors Kasich, Walker, and Schwarzenegger, who attempted to externally augment collective bargaining. The approach State Senator Johnson took, relying on AFT-Colorado to pass SB-191, is the one to emulate.

***********

In my last blog, (http://blog.educationalequity.org/blog/story/2011/11/4/121226/173) I asked whether or not a court decision could really have an impact on the educational trajectory of a child: I pointed out that while eradicating racial segregation in education was the battle that launched the civil rights era, 57 years after Brown vs. Board of Education, most students attend public schools that are both racially and socioeconomically homogenous. Yet, today when we speak of education and civil rights, we refer to the notion that a student’s zip code should not dictate the quality of instruction they receive, not how racially or socioeconomically diverse their classmates, or teachers and principals are. Thus, in the wake of the decision handed down in Reed et al vs. California et al—regarding the disproportionate impact of seniority based (a.k.a., last in, first out, or LIFO) layoff decisions (a.k.a., reductions in force, or RIFs) on high staff turnover, high poverty, low performing schools—it should be no surprise that five mothers, one father, and nine children decided to sue LAUSD for failure to comply with the Stull Act (i.e., a section of the statewide Education Code stating teachers must be regularly evaluated, “with data that reasonably measures, among other criteria, whether or not the students under an employee’s charge are actually learning”).

My original question still stands. Conventional wisdom tells us that court battles are fundamental pieces in the puzzle toward progress. But the decisions of the legislative and executive branches often clash with what the judiciary has to say. Even FDR, the only Commander in Chief to ever serve more than two terms, found this out the hard way when he tried to pass the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill in 1937, after the Supreme Court struck down eight of his New Deal programs as unconstitutional. Presently, many who argue on behalf of reform in public education rely on the mantra “poverty is not destiny,” and point to success stories from the “charter schools are public schools with no excuses” community, as well as TFA corps members and alumni, while supporting Race to the Top policies tying performance evaluations to student test data. Unfortunately, this means competing in the court of public opinion against universities whose schools of education produce the vast majority of public school instructors, as well as the local superintendents and school boards who resist Race to the Top, and want President Obama to end, not mend the most recent iteration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (a.k.a., No Child Left Behind). And tragically, it has come to mean stepping into the ring to face off against the leadership of organized labor in a popularity contest, or taking them on in all-out cage matches decided by voters casting ballots.

Molly Ivins once famously quipped, “The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet. It requires a certain relish for confusion.” Yesterday, one year after Republican legislatures swept across the country, and Waiting for Superman grossed $6,417,135, voters in Ohio rejected a law that would have stripped teachers of many of their collective bargaining rights—an outcome that reverberates well beyond their borders. The Ohio referendum, known as Issue 2, was perhaps the most closely watched ballot fight of the 2011 election. It drew a flood of attention from the media and political activists over the past few months, because it was regarded as an important, symbolic fight over collective bargaining and the influence of teachers’ unions and other organized labor groups. Organized labor spent millions of dollars on one side, and business organizations poured millions into the other. The cash flow financed a wave of televised advertising and other outreach designed to appeal to Ohioans, who are well accustomed to high-decibel political campaigns because of their state's status as a battleground during presidential elections.

The statute, backed by Governor John Kasich, would have imposed broad restrictions on public workers’ bargaining powers. In school districts, the measure would have blocked bargaining over class sizes, school assignments, and provisions that restrict principals from assigning workloads and job responsibilities. It also would have given school boards broad powers to put in place their final offer in negotiations with unions if the two sides could not come to an agreement. Additionally, the measure would have forbidden districts from giving preference in layoff decisions to teachers with more seniority, a provision similar to those approved in a number of other states this year, such as Florida and Idaho. The law also would have created a merit-pay system for teachers, though voters were not clear on how educators’ performance would be judged. Backers of the law touted the creation of a merit pay system in TV ads and other messages, believing the provision would prove popular among voters. It was not. Ohio’s legislature already approved a performance-pay system, and thus voters rejected the anti-labor narrative.

The landslide vote to reject collective bargaining restrictions—62 percent to 38 percent—represents a shot heard round the world for those who demonize organized labor as the main obstacle to needed reforms. Organized labor’s victory in this important swing state comes a year before the presidential election, and policy makers and political strategists will be studying ballot initiatives for clues to voter sentiment in 2012. Volunteers for President Obama’s re-election campaign fanned out across the state for weeks, urging voters to stand against the new law limiting collective bargaining. The issue did not break entirely along party lines. The law was a frontal assault on one of the most sacred principles for Democrats, i.e., the right of organized labor to collectively bargain. Winning this campaign to neuter labor would have required universal Republican support, which was not there because several registered Republicans opposed the law.

The main coalition supporting this bill, Building a Better Ohio, spent just under $8 million, but We Are Ohio, the main coalition that opposed the law, poured about $30 million into the campaign, and had about 17,000 volunteers out over the weekend knocking on doors to persuade residents to go out and vote. The central campaign in Ohio—as in similar Wisconsin and Michigan fights—was an unusual and relatively new form of coalition largely funded and led by organized labor, but includes a range of other groups in a widening pro-labor front. The biggest sponsor of We Are Ohio, was the National Education Association and its Ohio arm, the Ohio Education Association. They doled out $10 million on a massive campaign that forced their organizations to fully support the efforts of coalition of members they don’t always see eye to eye with, or trust in the world of Washington politics, like the AFL-CIO. As proof that this was money well spent, the AFL-CIO shared the following tally of member-to-member contacts and campaign work:
4.1 million worksite fliers 
Over 3,000 worksites leafletted 
1,101,751 doors knocked 
825,000 pieces of local union mail 
409,318 tele-town hall participants
“This is not a traditional role for us. There was so much at stake in this for educators and their ability to be involved and their work conditions that we took a very strong leadership role… Attacking education and other public employees is not at all what the public wants to see. It should resonate with politicians that they’ve gone too far,” said Karen M. White, political director of the National Education Association. “Those who would dare try to strip collective bargaining rights away from hard-working citizens will now think twice,” expressed Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers.

What do the results of yesterday’s referendum to restrict the power of teachers in Ohio to collectively bargain have to do with efforts to reform public education in Los Angeles and throughout California?

Everything.

When the founding members of the Don’t Hold Us Back coalition (a.k.a., the Civic Alliance) took out full page ads in the L.A. Times and La Opinion, and showed up in matching white t-shirts on October 24 to read and hand deliver a letter to the Board of Education, regarding the expected onset of collective bargaining between LAUSD’s current Superintendent, and the leadership of the United Teachers of Los Angeles, (UTLA) they made it very clear that if forced to pick a side, they would choose to support the contract John Deasy proposes, as opposed to the one Warren Fletcher’s negotiating team is expected to pursue. As they write, “We know the most critical difference in the academic success of a student is the quality of their teacher. Providing the students in our diverse district with the best possible education will require change and comprehensive reform in the way teachers and school leaders are recruited, compensated, evaluated, developed and retained… That would ensure that every student has access to quality teaching—not some who are lucky enough to be in high-performing charter schools, pilot schools or other teacher-led models that are graduating upwards of 90% of their poor children of color and who are proving it can be done.”

Looking down the list of membership organizations, while it is striking to note that a handful of historic UTLA allies such as the Community Coalition, are present, it is equally striking to note the absence of teacher recruitment, training, and membership organizations, as well as the lack of spokespersons from the organized labor community. This final point should prove especially problematic for those who want to see Don’t Hold Us Back succeed. As it stands now, Don’t Hold Us Back is not immune from criticism that its founding members are all funded by the United Way, as well as philanthropic foundations that are known for their billionaire founders, historic animus toward union leaders, and rampant unpopularity among those taking part in OccupyLAUSD. Where are Green Dot and the other unionized charters? Considering how closely aligned Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s office is with Don’t Hold Us Back, it’s surprising that the coalition hasn’t featured teachers currently in front of classrooms at Partnership for Los Angeles Schools. Considering that L.A.’s Promise just named former Communities for Teaching Excellence COO, and former Alliance for a Better Community Executive Director, Veronica Melvin, as it’s new CEO, it’s surprising not to see any teachers from L.A.’s Promise schools actively involved in the coalition. If at the very least, the coalition publicly included Teach for America, Teach Plus, the New Teacher Project, Educators 4 Excellence, and so forth, the argument could easily be made that any apparent disagreements within the ranks are generational. After all, the American Federation of Teachers and the American Institutes for Research looked at 11 nationally representative teacher surveys, and data from seven focus groups and three case studies and concluded that teachers in their mid thirties or younger (a.k.a., Generation Y teachers) and found they support policies potentially at odds with labor leadership:
Provide regular feedback to teachers on their effectiveness (a.k.a., actual impact on student learning).
Have fair, rigorous and meaningful evaluation systems.
Support peer learning and shared practice.
Recognize and reward high performance (a.k.a., differential pay scales informed by merit).
Use technology intelligently to enhance performance.
Without a strong, visible teachers’ voice, Don’t Hold Us Back, faces a tremendous challenge. Looking at what has made tremendous change possible in short periods of time elsewhere, it’s hard not to compare what happened in Ohio yesterday to what took place in Colorado last year, when the American Federation of Teachers Colorado and the Colorado Education Association split on Colorado State Senator Michael Johnston (Mississippi Delta Corps '97) SB 191. Without this split, SB 191 would likely not have passed. And if it still had, you can bet that there would have been a widespread backlash that would have combined an effort to win over the public and to seek relief via the courts—something the American Federation of Teachers has successfully undertaken in places like St. Louis, where the Missouri Supreme Court is hearing three cases regarding how municipal governments and school districts work with labor unions, including one challenging a district’s right to set school year salaries without first consulting with organized labor.

The fact is that whether you’re in a Blue state or a Purple one, the public writ large will not accept a change if it perceives it to have been shoved down the throat of teachers, or any other public sector workers, wrapped in an attempt to neuter the unions that represent them. The take away lesson from Ohio is not that voters disagreed with all of the elements of the reforms, but that they resented the attack on unions and the process of trying to impose change on them from the outside. This is not a new lesson. It is the one that Arnold Schwarzenegger learned on November 8, 2005, when California voters rejected all his proposed Reform Agenda ballot propositions, despite the fact that he was extremely popular at the time—following his repeal of former Governor Gray Davis’s increase in the vehicle registration fee, and rejection of “special interest” support for a bill allowing the issuance of driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants. Schwarzenegger claimed the Reform Agenda would clear the way for correction of the problems he was elected to solve, and called for a Special Election to allow voters to decide the fate of teacher tenure requirements, (Proposition 74) the use of union dues for political campaign contributions, (Proposition 75) state budgetary spending limits, (Proposition 76) and redistricting done by the legislature (Proposition 77).

The 2005 Special Election continues to be a harbinger for what happens when the decision is made to go after unions instead of working with them. Take for example, the fact that Schwarzenegger originally proposed a fifth proposition on the issue of public pensions, but dropped that proposition amid criticism that the proposition would eliminate death benefits to widows of police and firefighters who died in the line of duty. Schwarzenegger’s “paycheck protection” initiative, which did make it on the ballot, and would have forced unions to get permission from members to engage in any political activity, suffered horrendous defeat. Organized labor responded with television, radio, and print ads featuring teachers, nurses, police, and firefighters, giving emotional testimony on how this ballot measure would affect them personally. Even proponents of the removal of money in politics writ large were forced to admit that corporations do not have to seek any sort of similar permission from shareholders. Schwarzenegger lost the battle for hearts and minds. He failed to understand how much the average voter resents outside imposed change. More recently, in Wisconsin, Scott Walker made a similar miscalculation. He assumed that by splitting police and firefighters from the rest of public sector workers would make it possible for him to plow ahead with his list of proposed reforms. But unlike what happened in Colorado where the AFT-Colorado/CEA split was organic, Walker’s exemptions for police and firefighters left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth, and when it came time to take to the streets in protest in order to check and balance Walker’s administration, police and firefighters were there in solidarity, both inside and outside of the State Capitol. If you’ve seen Walker in recent interviews, it’s obvious he’s taken a page out of Schwarzenegger’s playbook, and moved toward the politically moderate rhetoric of “working with unions.” He “conceded mistakes” and began reaching out to Democrats in an attempt to “build trust.” Based on what happened yesterday in Ohio, and the fact he’s facing a recall threat in Wisconsin, I’m guessing Walker’s gonna fully flip flop, but I digress.

When TFA alum Jordan Henry, and Fairfax teacher Mike Stryer, brought forth NewTLA, (http://www.newtla.com/) they committed to a very narrow, specific theory of paradigm shift: In order to change UTLA’s priorities, UTLA’s leadership must change, and in order for UTLA’s leadership to change, the members of UTLA participating in leadership must change. This falls in line with Steven Brill’s conversion to believing organized labor must be part of the solution when it comes to making change because public school teaching can’t be improved by fighting unions. Brill’s recent book, Class Warfare, generated a lot of discussion—and a healthy dose of derision from critics who say his final chapter about unions contradicts everything he wrote before it (i.e., that unions were the major problem for education reform). But Brill’s change of heart isn’t terribly unusual. He wasn’t an expert in education when he began studying education reform, and like many others before him, his early instincts were to write in broad, simple themes: Reformers were heroic and status quo-protecting unions were evil. But then he discovered that education is very, very complex with lots of factors affecting student performance, and even a tremendous change for the good in any single factor cannot make a huge impact unless there is movement on other factors too. For years, some people have been determined to blame teachers’ unions for all that ails public education in America. According to this view, teachers unions negatively affect student achievement primarily through the mechanism of the collective bargaining agreement, or contract. Yet, states without binding teacher contracts are not doing better than their peers, and the majority are actually among the lowest performers in the nation. In contrast, those with the best coverage, also have the best scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests regardless of grade level or subject.

It’s easy to fall into the trap of believing simple solutions can solve the big problems in education. We cannot fix America’s public school system simply by “scaling” charter schools, for instance. Charter schools offer proof of the concept that great teaching is a huge difference-maker, but charters can only absorb a tiny fraction of the nation’s 50 million public schoolchildren. There may be 70,000 to 80,000 teachers in charter schools, but there are three million teachers in America’s public schools. For reforms to stick and succeed, they have to include organized labor membership, and union leadership. In New York, this means Randi Weingarten cutting deals with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to establish important pilot programs, and inching toward reforms such as the notion of measuring teachers on the basis of performance. Randi Weingarten can’t be the enemy anymore. She has to be a friend. In L.A., most in the education world knew A.J. Duffy, the fomer head of UTLA, as a status quo protector of teachers’ rights and virulently anti-charter. But when term limits forced Duffy from office in July of 2011, he became the Executive Director of Apple Academy Charter Schools. His first official act: To make tenure, a measure of job protection for teachers currently too close to a rubber stamp, more difficult to earn. He asked to see teachers demonstrate that they’re effective and to speed up the dismissal process for those who are underperforming. Under Duffy, UTLA was, in LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s words, “one unwavering roadblock to reform.” Today Duffy champions several of the reform causes he seemingly opposed under his leadership of UTLA. But since getting rid of bad teachers and protecting good ones doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive, maybe the bottom line is that so long as organized labor needs to transform organically, coalitions such as Don’t Hold Us Back, need to invest a lot more time and energy empowering teachers like the ones courted by NewTLA and entities like TeacherSolutions 2030 Team/Center for Teaching Quality, in order to avoid the sort of backlash Governors Kasich, Walker, and Schwarzenegger contended with, and see agreements like the one State Senator Johnson reached when relying on AFT-Colorado to pass SB-191.

Read more:
http://www.aft.org/pdfs/teachers/genyreport0411.pdf
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/guest-bloggers/how-states-with-no-teacher-uni.html
http://www.aclu-sc.org/releases/view/103060
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/nov/07/supreme-court-considers-collective-bargaining/

http://www.statebillnews.com/2010/05/sb10-191-teachers-union-divided/
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14953971

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/state_edwatch/2011/11/ohio_1.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1111/In_Ohio_unions_and_a_coalition.html?showall
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/us/politics/ohio-turns-back-a-law-limiting-unions-rights.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/16/us-usa-governors-walker-idUSTRE76F1WF20110716
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576502452669774360.html

http://teachingquality.org/ts2030team
http://www.newtla.com/

http://dontholdusback.org/2011/11/07/la-times-columnist-steve-lopez-on-dont-hold-us-back/
http://dontholdusback.org/2011/10/19/bringing-a-third-chair-to-the-bargaining-table/
http://dontholdusback.org/2011/10/19/los-angeles-charities-and-minority-groups-tell-united-teachers-los-angeles-and-lausd-dont-hold-us-back/

Coalition Members:
http://dontholdusback.org/

Alliance for a Better Community
Community Coalition
Communities for Teaching Excellence
Families In Schools
Asian Pacific American Legal Center
Los Angeles Urban League
United Way of Greater Los Angeles
Inner City Struggle
Council of Mexican Federations (COFEM)
East L.A. Community Corporation
Families That Can
Southern Christian Leadership Conference
Educate Our State
Watts/Century Latino Organization
Parent Revolution
Esteban Torres (Former: Congressman, Current: Senior Fellow UCLA School of Public Affairs)
DREAM Team L.A.
Youth Policy Institute
Boyle Heights Learning Collaborative
Youth Speak! Collective
Proyecto Pastoral at Dolores Mission
Union de Vecinos
Plaza Community Services
Education Trust-West

Can a court decision really have an impact on the educational trajectory of a child?

2012-01-11T01:57:00.000-08:00

(Originally published on November 4, 2011, as part of Leadership for Educational Equity's "Teach For America Alumni of Los Angeles" blog: http://blog.educationalequity.org/blog/story/2011/11/4/121226/173)

Today, 57 years after Brown vs. Board of Education, most students attend public schools that are both racially and socioeconomically homogenous.

Can a court decision really have an impact on the educational trajectory of a child?

For a group of families the answer is yes.

Five mothers, a father, and nine children are suing LAUSD in Superior Court for failing to comply with the Stull Act—a section of the California Education Code stating that teachers must be regularly evaluated, "with data that reasonably measures, among other criteria, whether or not the students under an employee's charge are actually learning."

***********

Using social science and Mendez vs. Westminster School District, a vital legal precedent from a federal appeals court in California, Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas demonstrated convincingly that separate facilities deprive students of equal educational opportunities essential to their success in life. Even if the physical facilities, equipment, and staffing could be proven to be materially “separate but equal,” education would retain substantive inequity, because racial segregation deprives students of the important interactions with diverse peers that enhance learning. On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling ending de jure segregation, de facto desegregation, did not follow.

Even with Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which threatened to deny government funding to noncompliant states, desegregation had to be enforced by the 1971 Supreme Court decision in Swann v Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education, which affirmed the appropriateness of busing to achieve integration. It took parents in Tampa eleven years after Brown to win a desegregation lawsuit against local school districts that forced black students to walk past many all-white schools to get to a black one. In New York, Chicago, Boston, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Dallas, Atlanta, and elsewhere, angry crowds violently resisted desegregation well into the late 1970's.

Today, 57 years after Brown vs. Board of Education, most students attend public schools that are both racially and socioeconomically homogenous. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, and UCLA’s Civil Rights Project, approximately 40 percent of black and Latino students are in schools than are over 90 percent black and Latino. The average black student goes to a school where 59 percent of their classmates live in poverty. The average Latino student goes to a school that’s 57 percent poor. Compare this to white students who are enrolled in schools that are 77 percent white, and 32 percent poor.

Can a court decision really have an impact on the educational trajectory of a child with illiterate parents, or unemployed ones; with illness left untreated because an absence of documented immigrant status, or no place to study because of homelessness, or the need to take shelter in a crowded, frenetic, volatile place?

Eradicating racial segregation in education was the battle that launched the civil rights era. That battle has since been abandoned. Today when we speak of education and civil rights, we refer to the notion that a student’s zip code should not dictate the quality of instruction they receive, not how racially or socioeconomically diverse their classmates, or teachers and principals are. A lengthy argument ensues about what exactly quality of instruction means, and how you measure it.

But for a group of parents in Southern California, the debate has been settled and accountability for failure falls squarely on the shoulders of ineffective teachers and principals, as well as the superintendents and elected officials who do nothing when the tests designed to measure learning, show little to no progress.

The plaintiffs—five mothers, a father, and nine children—are suing the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) in Superior Court, claiming LAUSD "annually fails hundreds of children," and violates the children's "fundamental right to basic educational equality and opportunity" by failing for the past four decades to comply with a law known as the Stull Act—a section of the California Education Code stating that teachers must be regularly evaluated, "with data that reasonably measures, among other criteria, whether or not the students under an employee's charge are actually learning." The parents and students brought this lawsuit as “Does” for fear of intimidation and retaliation against themselves and their families.

Named as defendants are Superintendent John Deasy, the seven members of the Board of Education, the Associated Administrators of Los Angeles (AALA), the United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA) and the California Public Employment Relations Board.

Read more:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/31/local/la-me-teacher-evals-20111101

http://rishawnbiddle.org/outsidereports/lausd_evaluations_letter.pdf

http://www.pe.com/local-news/topics/topics-education-headlines/20111102-a-legacy-of-segregation.ece

According to plaintiffs, LAUSD "never obeyed" the Stull Act's mandate to establish standards of pupil achievement and evaluate teachers according to their students' progress. They claim that "groups of politically powerful adults," have obstructed the law since it was enacted in 1971. According to the plaintiffs, the AALA and UTLA have "historically fought" teacher evaluations based on student progress and collectively bargained to prevent implementation of the law.

"The result is decades during which prior LAUSD superintendents and school boards have entered into unlawful collective bargaining contracts with these associations of adults that prevented compliance with the statutory mandate of evaluating certificated staff based even in part on available evidence of whether or not the children are learning… Indeed, the 2009-2011 collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and, on information and belief, the current one-year extension of the CBA between the AALA and the LAUSD does not allow for administrators to be evaluated as mandated by the Stull Act regarding the progress of pupils toward the standards established pursuant to Section 44662(a) and, if applicable, the state adopted academic content standards as measured by state adopted criterion-referenced assessments." 

According to plaintiffs the superintendent has publicly revealed his hostility to performance reviews, and that poor teachers are disciplined under the current system only if "they fail to meet an illegal standard of satisfactory performance or are convicted of the commission of serious crimes leading to mandatory credential suspension or revocation." 

"The system is protecting the working conditions of the certificated personnel, as well as preserving the political power of the board and the superintendent… For disenfranchised and socio-economically disadvantaged children, these adults have created systematic harm to students by allowing contracts to produce a concentration of under-qualified and ineffective certificated staff in chronically failing schools… There can be no dispute that the nation's second largest school district is a broken school system that has failed millions of children over the past 40 years… The very purpose of the district has been turned on its head by adults focused on employment conditions and political power instead of individual performance assessment and accountability measured at least in part on whether or not children are actually progressing toward standards of expected achievement. It is simply unacceptable under California Constitutional and statutory law to ignore the plight of students any longer… This petition seeks a writ of judicial mandate to compel the LAUSD immediately to comply with the clear mandate of the Stull Act and its strengthened statutory revisions, and further seeks a preliminary injunction to enjoin the district, its superintendent, members of the Board of Education, and the representatives of certificated personnel from using collective bargaining force to compel the district to continue to violate the Stull Act."

Latino Vote 2012: The Elephants In The Room

2010-11-10T16:33:00.000-08:00

(This entry can also be found @ http://latinopoliticsblog.com/2010/12/17/latino-vote-2012-the-elephants-in-the-room/ & @ http://cuentamecentral.com/?p=1617)

When the 112th Congress convenes on January 3, 2011, eight Latino Republicans will join the eighteen Latino Democrats on Capitol Hill. Raul Labrador, the first Latino Congressman elected from the State of Idaho, Jaime Herrera, the first Latina Congresswoman elected from the State of Washington, and newly elected Bill Flores from the State of Texas, in the House of Representatives, and Marco Rubio from the State of Florida in the Senate, will work to rebrand the GOP inside the beltway. Fresh from hard won campaign victories, Brian Sandoval, the first Latino elected Governor of Nevada, and Susana Martinez, the first Latina elected Governor of New Mexico, both also Republicans, will find themselves placed on the fast track to starring roles in 2012.

According to Latino Decisions, and Pew Hispanic, with the exception of Rubio, none of these Latinos candidates won the majority of the Latino vote. Rubio carried 55% of Latinos who cast ballots—a number that can be unpacked into two very different statistics: 78% of Cuban-Americans backed Rubio, only 40% of all other Latinos in Florida felt compelled to vote for him. And yet, the bottom line is that nearly one-third of the Latinos in Congress, and these two Latino Swing State Governors, will be members of a political party whose National Convention Platform on immigration and the rule of law reads as follows:

"In an age of terrorism, drug cartels, and criminal gangs, allowing millions of unidentified persons to enter and remain in this country poses grave risks to the sovereignty of the United States and the security of its people… The rule of law means guaranteeing to law enforcement the tools and coordination to deport criminal aliens without delay—and correcting court decisions that have made deportation so difficult. It means enforcing the law against those who overstay their visas, rather than letting millions flout the generosity that gave them temporary entry. It means imposing maximum penalties on those who smuggle illegal aliens into the US… real consequences, including the denial of federal funds, for self-described sanctuary cities… It does not mean driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, nor does it mean that states should be allowed to flout the federal law barring them from giving in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens, nor does it mean that illegal aliens should receive social security benefits, or other public benefits… We oppose amnesty. The rule of law suffers if government policies encourage or reward illegal activity. The American people’s rejection of en masse legalizations is especially appropriate given the federal government’s past failures to enforce the law." (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/167861/2008-republican-platform-draft/stephen-spruiell)

Given the fact that the plurality of conservative incumbents and Grand Old Party faithful throughout the American political landscape credit the rise of the Tea Party with the electoral victories that led to Republican control of the House of Representatives and the gain of 680 State Legislature seats—elected offices that will allow unilateral control in the process of drawing boundaries for 190 Congressional Districts across the USA—it is unlikely that the rise of Latino Republicans to levels of prominence in the Party, will lead to less Draconian measures. (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/03/news/la-pn-state-legislatures-20101104) On the contrary, anti-immigrant rhetoric and policy proposals will run rampant like wildfire. Figures pouring kerosene will likely include Kentucky’s Rand Paul, Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey, Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson, Utah’s Mike Lee, and Massachusetts’ Scott Brown in the Senate, all of whom publicly thanked Tea Party activists for their volunteer efforts and financial contributions, heaping praise on the Tea Party’s “grassroots leadership,” despite endless evidence of behind-the-curtain, grasstops manipulation by front groups funded by the billionaire Koch brothers.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html)

The first elephant in the room for Latinos who are concerned about keeping families together, and preserving the human dignity and rights of all immigrants is that the rise of Latino Republicans might just mean worse outcomes for Latino immigrants and their families. There are 6.6 million families in which a head of household and/or spouse migrated without authorization. 3.1 million American-born children live in households headed by undocumented immigrants. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-04-25-mixed-status_x.htm) These mixed-status families live in constant danger of being torn apart under existing law. In order to stay with their family members, American citizens—those born and raised in the United States—are forced to relocate to a foreign country they have never known, because current immigration policies allow them no other viable option. What’s worse, these statistics only include mixed-status families that include citizens, they do not take into account mixed-status families comprised of households where undocumented migrants live with Permanent Residents, those with work permits, and foreign-born students invited to enroll in American academic institutions or professional development programs. According to Frank Sharry of America’s Voice, two-thirds of all mixed-status families, including those whose members belong to subpopulations just named, have been in the US for ten years or more.

This reality of a GOP whose rhetoric and actions are hostile to migrants is not just one impacting the viability of Comprehensive Immigration Reform proposals, and the chances of vital, urgent legislation such as the DREAM Act of receiving an up or down vote in 2011, if they fail to make it to the floor during the “lame duck” session of Congress convening during the brief window of time between now and the holiday season. This reality is one so dire that it even involves Latinos in powerful positions openly waging a war on immigrants in the most vulnerable positions. If you don’t believe this, please take a moment to look up newly elected Congressman Allen West’s Chief of Staff, Spanish-speaking Latina, Joyce Kaufman, on the search engine of your choosing. The Huffington Post highlights her saying, “We should hang you [illegal immigrants] and send your body back to where you came from, and your family should pay for it.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/09/joyce-kaufman-allen-west-chief-of-staff_n_781178.html) That’s just the tip of the iceberg. In fact, the wealth of egregious and incendiary material Kaufman is responsible for found on YouTube alone is too extensive to succinctly summarize.

Democrats had a nearly two-to-one advantage (64% versus 34%) over Republicans in 2010 House races among Latino voters. Moreover, with the exception of Florida, Democratic candidates won the Latino vote in all contests for which exit poll data exists. In Colorado, Tom Tancredo, the former Republican Congressman known for his especially polarizing immigration stance, joined the Governor’s race against Denver Mayor, Democrat John Hickenlooper. But Hickenlooper and Democratic Senate candidate Michael Bennett won the Latino vote by wide margins. They owe their victory to the electoral performance of low to mid propensity Latino voters mobilized via Get Out The Vote campaigns effectuated online by groups like Cuéntame, and on the ground by groups like Mi Familia Vota. In Arizona, although Democrat Terry Goddard lost the overall race to Republican Jan Brewer, he received 71% of the Latino vote. Latinos are solely responsible for saving Congressman Raul Grijalva from early retirement. And the fact that California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer won 65% of the Latino vote, California Democratic Gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown won 64% of the Latino vote, and Nevada Democratic Senator Harry Reid won 68% of the Latino vote, serves to explain their victories as well. Latinos represented 8% of all voters in 2010, the same share as they did in 2006 when Democrats “took back” Congress from Republican control. In 2006, 69% of Latinos voted for Democratic candidates in Congressional district races, 30% voted for Republicans. In 2008, 67% of Latinos voted for Democrat Barack Obama, 31% cast ballots for Republican John McCain. More than 19 million Latinos were eligible to vote in the 2010 Midterms, more than at any other time—9% of all eligible voters nationwide in 2010 were Latinos, up from 8.6% in 2006.

Print press pundits and talking heads on cable news have largely focused their attention on the role Arizona’s SB 1070 racial profiling legislation played in solidifying Latino support for Democratic candidates in 2010. An Univision-AP poll published in May demonstrated that 67% of Latinos vehemently opposed the bill. Republican Governor Jan Brewer who signed it into law, and Republican State Senator Russell Pearce who wrote it, became symbols of GOP animus against the Latino community—proponents of racial profiling disguised as “reasonable suspicion,” enemies of Ethnic Studies courses in Arizona’s universities, and proponents of arbitrarily policing the “accents” of K-12 teachers, including monolingual English-speaking Latinos who, didn’t “sound American.” Pearce was named head of the State Senate despite his direct and undeniable connections to white supremacists; in spite of his pledge to defy the 14th Amendment, and cancel automatic citizenship for children born to undocumented mothers. Brewer won reelection despite incontrovertible evidence that she and 30 of SB 1070’s 36 cosponsors received campaign contributions from the for-profit prison industry that co-authored the bill and lobbied legislators to pass it. Make no mistake about it, SB 1070, was a vicious attack on Latinos without an ounce of redemption. The billboard Cuéntame erected in Phoenix reading “Get your papers out: Racial profiling ahead,” was spot on.
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/axel-woolfolk/billboard-in-arizona-read_b_676904.html)

And yet, the second elephant in the room is that Latinos who are concerned about keeping families together, and preserving the human dignity and rights of all immigrants have not been rewarded for their overwhelming support of Democratic candidates. Instead of pursuing filibuster-proof Comprehensive Immigration Reform, and vital, urgent legislation such as the DREAM Act with the same all-encompassing zeal it employed in pursuit of Health Insurance Reform, this White House has instead focused on stopping undocumented immigrants from entering the United States and removing undocumented residents already in residence here. The idea that the Obama Administration is unquestionably pro-immigrant is erroneous. Claims made by Republicans, the Tea Party faithful, talk radio hosts, cable news personalities, conservative periodicals, and right-wing bloggers that the Obama Administration has neglected and underfunded border enforcement, in order to gain approval from the pro-amnesty crowd, are bold-faced lies:

The Obama Administration has thrown more drones and security personnel at the border than ever before. It made the E-Verify system, used to determine the immigration status of any part-time or fulltime employee, mandatory for all companies seeking federal contracts. It extended two aggressive enforcement programs: “Secure Communities,” making it mandatory for police to forward the identifying information of anyone they arrest to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and every county along the Southwest border, and “Operation Streamline,” allowing judges to engage in mass sentencing of immigrants caught crossing the border without authorization, instead of treating each migrant as an individual case. And instead of simply relying on Bush-era worksite raids, ICE under this White House has promoted a policy of “Silent Raids,” forcing employers to take action against workers whose Social Security number does not match up with a federal database. (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_enforcement_paradox) In the first half of the decade, (between 2000 and 2005) an average of 850,000 per year entered the US without authorization, by the end of 2009, that number had been reduced by nearly two-thirds, to 300,000. According to Douglas Massey, a Princeton University professor whose research focuses on migration,
“Life’s gotten pretty miserable for immigrants in the United States,” noting that even for legal immigrants, whether or not they have relatives who are undocumented, the increased scrutiny has been highly stressful.
(http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/09/02/report_shows_steep_decline_in_illegal_immigrants_entering_us/) ICE has deported more undocumented immigrants per year under the administration of President Barack Obama than under that of his predecessor, George W. Bush. ICE will deport more than 400,000 people this year alone, 25% more than the Bush Administration deported in 2007. ICE Director, John Morton, stated unequivocally that 400,000 deportations per year represent the absolute maximum number the processing, detention and immigration court system can handle.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR2010072501790.html)

In looking ahead to the role the Latino Vote will likely play in Presidential campaign of 2012, it is important for both Democrats and Republicans to reflect upon what occurred on November 2, 2010 in the Swing State of Nevada: 12% of registered voters in Nevada were Latino. Yet Latinos made up 16% of voters taking part in this election, a 13% increase since the last midterm. In the vast majority of states, the deadline to register to vote for this election was during the first week of October. By the time Pew Hispanic’s poll became public on October 5, declaring that 50% of Latino registered voters were planning on skipping out on the midterm election, the voter registration deadline had passed most everywhere. But not in Nevada: Thousands and thousands of voters registered in Nevada before the October 12 deadline thanks to Cuéntame’s online efforts, and a ground game executed by groups like the Hispanic Institute that registered 10,223 Latino voters in Clark County alone. 50% of Latino voters took advantage of early voting opportunities in Nevada, thus making shorter Election Day lines at polling places possible, and the likelihood of rapid responses to the vast majority of election protection issues probable. Nevada Latino voters rejected racist, anti-immigrant, anti-Latino political messages delivered by non-Hispanic whites. Nevada Latino voters rejected campaigns championing abstention from political participation, offered by Hispanic political strategists who wrongly believed Latinos could be manipulated by hypocrites, wolves in sheep’s clothing, and convinced to stay home on the basis of frustration with one political issue alone. Nevada Latino voters showed up in record numbers, and outperformed other voters when it counted.

Cuéntame and its partners will not allow the GOP to scapegoat Latinos, and use members of our community as political punching bags in their effort to win control of the White House in 2012. Regardless of whether or not the Republicans delivering the blows have Hispanic surnames, or Latino heritage. By the same token, we will not simply take Democrats at their word. While immigration is not the only issue that matters to Latinos, and it would be foolish to ignore the fact that millions of Latinos will benefit from policies championed by this White House, the Obama Administration’s reluctance to go all-in on legislative proposals such as the DREAM Act, that once boasted bipartisan support, has eroded the credibility and trust he earned on the campaign trail. Candidate Obama’s pledge to mend the broken immigration system stands in sharp contrast to President Obama’s hyper border enforcement and mass deportation policies.
(http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-06-28/univisions-jorge-ramos-obamas-immigration-promise/)

In order to hold both Democratic and Republican feet to the fire, and win the war currently being waged on immigrants—the most vulnerable members of our community—we need to legal residents who are eligible to begin the process of naturalization, and those who are citizens to register to vote long before 2012: 52,000 Latino youth turn 18 every month. 8.5 million Latinos in Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Florida, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Texas alone, are already eligible to vote, but have yet to register. We have the power to more than double the Latino Vote by 2050. By introducing new voices into the political process, we will never again find ourselves forced to choose between candidates who demonize us with their rhetoric while demoralizing us with their policies, and those who make bold pronouncements while dragging their feet on our priorities until the final weeks before Election Day.

The Day After...

2010-11-03T01:56:00.000-07:00

(This entry can also be found @ http://cuentamecentral.com/?p=1579)

First she went after Latino students seeking a path to college or the military through the DREAM Act (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=156949807669862). Then, she went after Latinos in general using political ads depicting Latinos as welfare check cashing, drug dealing, street gang members (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=162670083764501). And not to be outdone by other rampant racist candidates, she promoted an online board game so offensive (http://www.harryreidamnestygame.com/) that the makers of the board game “Monopoly” sent her a “cease and desist” letter (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/01/sharron-angle-hasbro-cease-desist_n_777107.html).

Who is she?

Tea Party supported Republican Nevada Senate candidate Sharon Angle.

Did she win?

No.

Although the race between incumbent Democrat Harry Reid and challenger Sharon Angle remained “too close to call” long after polls closed, one bit of exit poll data served as a clear weathervane: 90% of Latinos surveyed by MSNBC voted for Reid.

According to the Washington Post, 50% of Latino voters took advantage of early voting opportunities in Nevada. This represents a 13% increase since the last midterm election. One quarter of Nevadans are Latino, many are children, too young to vote, or immigrants who have yet to become citizens. 12% of all of the registered voters in Nevada are Latino. And yet Latinos made up 16% of voters taking part in this election. In other words, Latinos rejected Sharon Angle’s racist ads, showed up in record numbers, and outperformed other voters when it counted.

There will be a great deal of discussion about the Latino Vote in 2010, but everything you need to know about what will matter to the Latino Vote in 2012 you can learn by looking at Nevada. Latino votes for Reid did not come because the second he introduced the DREAM Act as an add on to the Defense Appropriations Bill, Latino voters went in droves to the Democratic Party like lemmings. Reid’s commitment to keep reintroducing DREAM until it finally had an up or down vote earned him a commitment from the national network of DREAM Act activists to make peer-to-peer contact with Latino voters. Undocumented students and their allies used traditional field tools like phonecalls and door-to-door canvasses, but they also maximized social media and online tools. National networks of youth multi-ethnic, multistate organizations, such as the Generational Alliance, used voter guides, mixtapes, ground events, and alliances in ways that added to the reach, volume, and capacity to peer-to-peer engagement efforts that in many ways eclipsed those run by Organizing for America, the Democratic Party’s 2.0 version of the 2008 Obama Presidential campaign. Cuéntame, the most popular Latino organization on Facebook, worked with undocumented students and responded when Sharon Angle attacked Harry Reid for introducing the DREAM Act. Cuéntame, translated the Generational Alliance’s voter guide for monolingual Spanish speakers and shared it in both languages with voters in Nevada. And Cuéntame’s deconstruction of Sharon Angle’s most racist ad traveled from Facebook, to Twitter, to email, to the media.

Pundits will discuss the fact that every single major national Latino organization denounced the so-called “Latinos for Reform” and their campaign discouraging Latinos from voting. Cuéntame’s rapid response to “Latinos for Reform” (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=160651357299707 & http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=160644320633744) earned us immediate print and television coverage. Hopefully, this means that pundits and politicians finally understand that Latinos are not a one-issue electorate. While immigration reform is immensely important, it is not the only thing that Latino voters care about. We are not greyhounds who will chase it around any track. To be clear, with their record participation Nevada Latino voters loudly rejected Sharon Angle’s racist tactics, and everything about “Latinos for Reform.” Primarily because Latinos felt that the rationale offered by the organization for not voting was unsound. Latinos very quickly witnessed “Latinos for Reform” challenged by organizations such as Cuéntame, and also saw Robert de Posada dissected by media voices such as Maria Teresa Kumar, the Executive Director of Voto Latino, who ably pointed out on more than one occasion that de Posada was a National Republican Party insider who, despite all of his abstention rhetoric, voted early in this election.

The one extremely critical factor that pundits will likely miss is the role that the late voter registration deadline in Nevada played in Reid’s victory over Angle. In the vast majority of states, the deadline to register to vote for this election was during the first week of October. By the time Pew Hispanic’s poll became public on October 5, declaring that 50% of Latino registered voters were planning on skipping out on the midterm election, the voter registration deadline had passed most everywhere. But not in Nevada, or California. Thousands and thousands of voters registered in Nevada before the October 12 deadline, and in California before the October 18 deadline. Cuéntame partnered with United We Win (Voto Latino), Ya Es Hora (NALEO, AltaMed, etc.), PowerPAC Foundation, and a number of other partners to register voters online and in person during the months of September and October. The numbers of voters we registered alone constitute enough voters to move a number of the close races pundits will debate when examining the results of this midterm election. It is no coincidence that a surge in late voter registration in California, for instance, created the Latino electorate that made Democrat Jerry Brown the next Governor of California. A simple Google search will reveal that Latino registered voters were not terribly excited about Brown initially. Republican Meg Whitman appealed to Latinos through huge ad buys on Univision, billboards in Latino enclaves like Boyle Heights, by opening campaign offices in places like East L.A., and by appearing with Latino leaders, hiring Latino staffers, and taking shots of tequila with Mexican Mariachis (http://vodpod.com/watch/4692604-mariachi-politics-taken-to-a-new-level-with-carly-fiorina-meg-whitman). There will be much discussion of Nicky Diaz Santillan and her press conference with Gloria Allred, and how this led to Meg Whitman’s loss of Latino support. But again, as was the case in Nevada this is not a sign that Latinos only care about the immigration issue. It is proof that Latinos refused to be used as political pawns. What led to Whitman’s demise was not that her maid was undocumented, but that she was fired solely because Whitman wanted to run for office. It’s not just that Whitman opposed the DREAM Act, it’s that in a debate on Univision, the network where she aired ad after ad swearing that she cared about Latino educational achievement, Whitman told a young Latina that she was lucky to have received her K through 12 education, but did not deserve to go to college because she would be “taking someone else’s place.” SEIU called this phenomenon of juxtaposed paradox “las dos caras de Meg Whitman” (“the two faces of Meg Whitman”). And Facebook/YouTube users captured it through a parody song called “Old Meg Whitman Had A Farm, E-I-E-I-O” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SsEcJh8q5E). The bottom line, however, is that just as Latinos in Nevada refused to be Sharon Angle’s scapegoat, Latinos in California rejected Meg Whitman’s bait and switch. It’s not clear who convinced Meg Whitman that Latinos would trust slick ads in Spanish, despite the fact that these ads directly contradicted all of her ads in English, but whomever that person is should be fired because he/she cost Meg Whitman the election. It turns out, $163 million later, Latino voters understood multiple languages, and were not for sale.

Anyway, as I said, there will be a great deal of discussion about the Latino Vote in 2010, but everything you need to know about what will matter to the Latino Vote in 2012 you can learn by looking at Nevada. Latino voters sent Harry Reid back to the Senate, but did not give all Democratic candidates across the board a thumbs-up. Democrat Rory Reid lost the Nevada Governor’s race to Republican Brian Sandoval. Latinos in Nevada and in New Mexico played a role in electing Republicans to the office of Statewide Executive. Latinos in Florida played a role in sending Marco Rubio to the Senate. This is an important lesson for Democrats who are already planning President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign, and for Republican would-be challengers ready to throw their hat into the 2012 Presidential race:

At one time, George W. Bush enjoyed the support of 44% of Latino voters. He lost this support because of an increasing quagmire in Iraq, a rapidly unfolding economic crisis, the unfunded mandate of “No Child Left Behind,” a culture of leadership that rewarded, “Yes men,” but told those associated with controversy to fall on their swords and go away, etc. It was not because he failed to promote Latino officials to high offices, such as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. It was not because he failed to use the bully pulpit to promote immigration reform. It was not because he failed to reach out to Latinos through churches and ambassadors such as the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans.

Barack Obama won office with 67% of the Latino vote. He might lose this support because of a quagmire in Afghanistan, a slow recovery from the economic crisis, the controversy ignited by “Race to the Top,” a culture of leadership that rewards, “Yes men,” but tells Van Jones, Yosi Sergant, Desiree Rogers, and so forth, to fall on their swords and go away, etc. It won’t be because he failed to promote Latino officials to high offices, such as Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. It won’t be because he failed to use the bully pulpit to promote immigration reform. It won’t be because he failed to reach out to Latinos through churches and ambassadors such as the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans…

But it might be because Latinos don’t feel his heart is in it.

After witnessing how much time and effort and sacrifice were involved in guaranteeing a filibuster proof majority in the Senate during the process of health care insurance reform, Latino voters are well aware of what it looks like when this White House goes all in. To win reelection, President Obama must carry Latino passions with him every step of the way on the road to 2012. If he does not, Latinos will be extremely unlikely to respond to a campaign effort that suddenly hires Latino staffers, recruits Latino volunteers, and only works to make itself visible in Latino communities during the weeks that lead up to the first Tuesday in November.

(Please visit @ http://www.facebook.com/cuentame)

Election Day Thoughts On The 2010 Latino Vote:

2010-11-02T16:23:00.001-07:00

(This entry can also be found @ http://cuentamecentral.com/?p=1577)

It’s mid-afternoon in California, but my Blackberry has been ringing and buzzing since before sunrise…

Spanish-speaking voters in California received notices in their mailboxes that due a technical problem, the election has been moved. This is a deceitful and fraudulent attempt to keep Latinos from voting today. It is a lie. It is wrong. It is a crime. It is also a smart tactic to suppress the Latino vote and steal the election:

While tampering with the contents of someone’s mailbox is a federal offense, as is providing someone with knowingly false information about an election, this tactic serves to redirect resources, and prevents campaigns from turning out as many voters to the polls. Please remember that the average campaign office only has a handful of people responsible for making thousands of phonecalls and knocking on thousands of doors. Once someone has been contacted, the campaign staffer or volunteer responsible for reaching out to a lengthy list of voters moves on to the next person on the list. If this staffer or volunteer has to double back and make sure that no one was fooled by some official looking notice, or official sounding phonecall, that contains misinformation, this increases the chances that someone further down on that list won’t get contacted. In addition, while staffers and volunteers spend their time chasing after the recipients of the misinformation, they are more likely to miss calls from people who need language assistance, or a ride to the polls. Because this is all happening on Election Day, this means that people calling to report problems at their place of voting are now competing for the attention of these very same staffers and volunteers.

We all remember the 2000 Florida Recount that the Supreme Court voted to end that made George W. Bush President, but did you know John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960 by one vote per polling place. Al Franken won a Senate race in November 2008, and was not sworn in until July 2009, because the results of the election were so close. In 2006, (during the last midterm election cycle) Oklahoma’s 25th Congressional District seat was claimed by a victor who earned exactly two votes more than his opponent.

It pains me to admit, but voter suppression tactics work well to change the outcome of close elections.

And the only way to really and truly combat these slimy entities that operate without morals or ethics is to make sure all who are eligible register before the deadline, and actually vote in each and every election.

Take for example the City of Bell, one that has been in the headlines lately because of all of the profiteering and corrupt practices elected and appointed administrators have been able to get away with for the last several years. Bell has over 10,000 registered voters, but only 500 of these voters have participated in six out of the last six elections. It is hard to believe Bell taxpayers would have had their money stolen if Bell voters were more engaged during election years that did not have a President or Governor on the ballot.

There are approximately 6 million Latinos in New York, Florida, California, and Texas alone, who are US citizens, eligible to vote, but have yet to register, and are unlikely to participate in the 2010 election. Why?

Maybe because the English-language media sometimes asks pundits about the “Hispanic vote,” yet never actually engages in a dialogue with Latino voters. But perhaps also because we enable the excuses our friends and families give us for not registering to vote before the deadline, or if registered, for not actually voting on Election Day—we have to be willing to push back if friends and family members are not voting!

In order to do away with discrimination—the bigotry and bias of individuals, as well as the systemic, pervasive and habitual policies that institutionalize the racism and xenophobia that harm Latinos
in housing, lending, (redlining) employment, and education—we must vote today and in all elections!

Almost 60% of all Americans go online through a wireless laptop or a cell phone. This statistic is not based solely on the activities of teens and twenty-somethings. Over 43 percent of people between the ages of 30 and 49 access the Internet through a wireless connection. If we note that African American and Hispanic WiFi consumers are at the forefront of mobile-Web adoption, and that more than 50 percent of Latinos and over 46 percent of African Americans access the Internet on their phones, compared with 33 percent of non-Hispanic whites. Then we must conclude that many Latinos can access the many places online where US citizens can register to vote. They choose not to. And it is this choice we must confront.

Of the 46 million Latinos in the USA, 60% have been citizens since birth. If those who have always had the power to vote elected representatives that supported the DREAM Act, for instance, automatically nearly 2 million more young Latinos would be on the path to citizenship and voting. If those who have always had the power to vote helped the 40% of Latinos who were born abroad get on the path to citizenship and voting, we would never again see injustices like the kinds we’ve seen recently:

Does anyone think Governor Brewer and her state legislature would have unleashed racial profiling law SB1070, if the 30% of Arizonans who are Latino actually voted?

Does anyone think if the same number of Latinos in California voted in every election as watch TV every week that 50% of Latino homes in California would have gone into foreclosure?

Does anyone think if the 100,000 eligible Latino voters in Pennsylvania were to register tomorrow, and vote in each and every future election, that any elected judge would ever again allow an all white jury to acquit two white men responsible for beating a Latino immigrant to death?

I can’t tell you how absolutely crazy it made me at the beginning of October when a Pew Hispanic poll said that nearly half of all registered Latino voters were planning on skipping the election. Or when those wolves in sheep’s clothing calling themselves, “Latinos For Reform” released ads in English and Spanish telling Latinos not to vote. Make no mistake about it, Latinos, already have the power to decide elections in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, New Mexico, Nevada, Texas, etc. Telling Latinos not to vote in any of these States constitutes a blatant attempt to muzzle Latino voices. A relentless barrage of political ads aimed at convincing white voters that Latinos are gangs of thugs who cross the border in packs of “illegals” in order to commit crimes, collect welfare checks, and send their kids to college on someone else’s dime, constitute a blatant attempt to discredit Latino voices… It’s like there’s a war against us.

In the United States of America, it is now more common for a young Latino (man) to go to prison than to go from high school to college. And a young Latina (woman) is now seven times more likely to have kids, and live in poverty because she never finished her degree, than any of her white peers. One-third of young Latinos already live below the poverty line. And with so many dropouts, with so few going to college, and with so few living wage jobs, things are only going to get worse… Unless, of course, Latinos always vote:

City and County elections are important. These local officials are the ones with the power to decide what kind of taxes you will have to pay monthly, how much money will go to neighborhood and charter schools, how many police and firefighters are there to help you, if someone will pick up your garbage and how often, etc. Again, just ask the residents of Bell how critically important it is to engage citizens in local politics. Yet today’s 2010 Midterm election is critically important for another reason. There are more than 30 gubernatorial contests going on, and the outcome of today’s races will influence the boundaries of every single last Congressional District until 2020. South Carolina, Texas, Florida, Indiana, and Georgia, for example, are poised to add 1 to 3 new members each to the House of Representatives. The idea that only elections in years when we select a President are important is a false notion. Every election is critical and has several long lasting implications. I encourage you to develop a tradition in which everyone comes together and participates in voting the same way everyone comes together and participates in a wedding.

Each time we vote, we have the power to change our lives, as well as the lives of others. And the only way to get others to stop pinning the blame on Latinos for illegal drug trafficking, overwhelmed emergency rooms, public health crises, excessively high crime rates, overcrowded prisons, the length of unemployment lines, strained welfare roles, school violence, test scores that compare unfavorably to those of other nations, and so on, and so forth is to VOTE today, Tuesday, November 2, 2010, and in every upcoming election.

Robert de Posada, the founder of “Latinos For Reform,” cast a ballot. After making such a huge stink in the press, and with the public, after insisting that Latinos should not show up on Election Day, he voted. And the sleazy, shady crowd who told Latinos in California not to vote today, already voted as well. Trust.

Polls are not closed on the East Coast. You have until 8 pm to get in line. Here in CA, 4 hours remain…

(Please visit @ http://www.facebook.com/cuentame)

First Thoughts Regarding the 2010 Latino Vote:

2010-09-19T17:20:00.000-07:00

(This entry can also be found @ http://cuentamecentral.com/?p=790)

Every once in a while, a group of teenagers and twenty-somethings who are Latino and eligible to vote ask me to tell them why they, or any other group of Latinos should vote:

Without giving them a history lesson about Martin Luther King Jr., César Chávez, and the “movement,” I tell them, if you look at everyone in the country as a whole, less than one third of registered voters are younger than middle age. But if you look only at Latinos, a full 48% are “young voters.” Only 18 million Latinos today are potential voters. Yet of the 46 million Latinos in the USA, 60% have been citizens since birth. If those who have always had the power to vote demanded the DREAM Act, for instance, automatically nearly 2 million more young Latinos would be on the path to citizenship and voting. If those who have always had the power to vote helped the 40% of Latinos who were born abroad get on the path to citizenship and voting, we would never again see injustices like the kinds we’ve seen in recent years.

Does anyone think Governor Brewer and her state legislature would have unleashed racial profiling law SB1070, if the 30% of Arizonans who are Latino actually voted?

Does anyone think if the same number of Latinos in California voted in every election as watch TV every week that 50% of Latino homes in California would have gone into foreclosure?

Does anyone think if the 100,000 eligible Latino voters in Pennsylvania were to register today, and vote in this and future elections, that any elected judge would ever again allow an all white jury to acquit two white men responsible for beating a Latino immigrant to death?

The year I left home and went off to college, roughly 75,000 Latinos graduated from California high schools. Only 3.5% enrolled in CalState or UC schools. And the vast remainder, were not keeping me company out East, or populating universities in the South, Midwest, Northwest, or Southwest. Educational attainment among Latinos throughout the country was already much lower than it was for other groups.

But today things are even worse: Most young Latinos don’t even make it to high school graduation. Of the 73.5% of students in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) who are Latino, for instance, it is believed that only two out of five will earn diplomas. 61% of LAUSD’s Latino students are expected to drop out without finishing high school. The same kind of pattern has emerged in New York, Florida, Texas, etc. And sadly, all across the country, the statistics for college completion aren’t any better. Only 16% of Latinos who actually manage to acquire high school diplomas go on to earn bachelor’s degrees.

In the United States of America, it is now more common for a young Latino (man) to go to prison than to go from high school to college. And a young Latina (woman) is now seven times more likely to have kids, and live in poverty because she never finished her degree, than any of her white peers. One-third of young Latinos already live below the poverty line. And with so many dropouts, with so few going to college, and with so few living wage jobs, things are only going to get worse… Unless, of course, young Latinos vote:

Each time we vote, we have the power to change our lives, as well as the lives of others. And the only way to get others to stop pinning the blame on Latinos for illegal drug trafficking, overwhelmed emergency rooms, public health crises, excessively high crime rates, overcrowded prisons, the length of unemployment lines, strained welfare roles, school violence, test scores that compare unfavorably to those of other nations, and so on, and so forth is to register and vote in this and every upcoming election.

In order to do away with discrimination—the bigotry and bias of individuals, as well as the systemic, pervasive and habitual policies that institutionalize the racism and xenophobia that harm Latinos in housing, lending, (redlining) employment, and education—we must seize this moment:

Very few voters are expected to turnout on November 2, 2010. If Latinos register to vote, and participate in this election, then Latinos dictate what will happen with jobs, education, immigration, the environment, etc. It is as simple as that. There are no excuses and no second chances. Once the registration deadline has passed. It has passed. But lucky for you: Registering to vote online is so easy, even grandma can do it!

(Please visit @ http://www.facebook.com/cuentame)

Giving thanks to and for women who know what's best:

2009-11-25T07:44:00.000-08:00

This Thanksgiving I am thankful for, I am eternally grateful for, my mother, Ana Maria Teresa Amparo Irueste Alejandre. First diagnosed with in situ cancer the year I graduated from high school, she had a lumpectomy and underwent several months of radiation treatments. After several years of living cancer-free, a biopsy demonstrated she had invasive cancer. Multiple medical opinions all concluded a double mastectomy was the best course of treatment. After surgery came intense chemotherapy. Then radiation. Then reconstruction. While all of this was scary, neither of these malignancies would have been caught early enough to battle with a high probability of success without annual mammograms and monthly self-exams.

“Spotting sexism sounds easy, but the sheer commonness of it, coupled with its surprising diversity, makes it so that even hardened feminists could use refreshers.” – Amanda Marcotte –

Without any certainty that all of the residents of this great nation will enjoy the blessings of high quality, affordable, comprehensive and humane healthcare, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is telling women they don’t need mammograms until 50, and even then they should only get them every other year. Also, forget about breast self-examination, specifically, don’t expect a doctor or nurse to teach you how to properly do one. It seems finding a lump is not the same as early detection, and might mean it’s already too late, or worry you unnecessarily, because there is really nothing wrong. Not to be left out, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) doesn’t want women to get pap smears until 21, unless already sexually active for more than three years, at which point they should get paps every other year, unless of course they’ve had three clear tests in a row, at which point they should only get one every three years. Again, here the idea is to avoid false positives. These tests, and the biopsies they can lead to, are expensive and anxiety producing. And there’s nothing worse than that.

Except cancer… But just we’re talking about just losing a few more women’s lives in exchange for reducing stress for hundreds. That’s just good utilitarianism, right?

And yet, I don’t remember there being a similar set of recommendations about prostate exams or other health issues impacting men. There were no press releases gender-neutral warnings against excessive medical testing, overtreatment, or whatever might feed a bourgeois culture of hypercondria, and further drive up the general cost of healthcare.

The simple fact is that women are the only ones explicitly being asked to sacrifice. The Stupak-Pitts amendment goes well beyond the Hyde amendment, which was already excessive, offensive, and spat in the face of Roe v. Wade, a US Supreme Court decision that has stood as the law of the land since 1973. With one in eight women affected by breast cancer, USPSTF’s decision to tell women not to be vigilant until they reach the age of 50 is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. As a general rule, Americans avoid check ups, dentists, eye doctors, and wait until what ails them takes them to an emergency room, if they ever go at all. Women are more likely to engage in this neglect, to put their health needs last. Public health officials are struggling to prevent the spread of Herpes, Chlamydia, and Human Papilloma Virus, (HPV) for instance. HPV is responsible for 70% of cervical cancer cases diagnosed each year. On some college campuses 60% of female students are currently infected. And yet, ACOG feels it necessary to tell women to not get paps.

Shirley Chisholm, who made history in Congress and during her 1972 Presidential run, once said, “Prejudice against blacks is becoming unacceptable although it will take years to eliminate it. But it is doomed because, slowly, white America is beginning to admit that it exists. Prejudice against women is still acceptable. There is very little understanding yet of the immorality involved.” It is believed that approximately 140 million women around the world have experienced female genital mutilation. Add this statistic to the other realities placing women’s health at risk abroad and at home, and the picture for what we might expect in the future, especially for women from marginalized communities, seems extremely dire.

Beyond coming off as primarily patriarchal, ACOG and USPSTF recommendations seem completely void of cultural competency. Health decisions do not occur in a vacuum. And mixed messages from establishment professionals are not helpful when the average woman is already being bombarded and berated with conflicting cultural counsel. A Latina, for instance, inherits a tradition in which a giant party and ceremony celebrate her becoming a woman at 15. Similarly, a Bat Mitzvah tells a 13-year-old Jewish adolescent that she is a woman. And yet, there is no Latina or Jewish household that I have ever visited where it would be acceptable for a 15-year-old, much less a 13-year-old to be sexually active. No, no, sex is always evil and demonized. So much so, that even in this great progressive Obama Generation era we are living in, abstinence-only education is still the law of the land. In fact, Section 2954 of the Senate health reform bill released last Wednesday, funds it until 2014.

My friend Phatiwe, worked tirelessly for the Massachusetts Bureau of Public Heath, as the Special Project Coordinator for the HIV/AIDS Bureau for over five years to educate everyone, remove the stigma felt by those suffering, empower those on the margin, advocate justice to those with influence, and change public policies that needed changing. She graduated in 1999. She died from ovarian cancer in 2005. I do not pretend to speak for her now, nor do I wish to upset any of her loved ones by making mention of her in this essay. But I can remember very clearly conversations with Phatiwe about the impact of the AIDS pandemic on women and girls around the world. She made me think well beyond condom use and access to medicine. (She also made me fall in love with the Red Sox, but that is a story for another day). Phatiwe asked me to think deeply about the dehumanization that a woman suffers once identified as HIV positive within a social setting that placed all of her value in the baskets of sexual intercourse and motherhood. If girls were already seen as less than boys in an AIDS-free world, imagine a world where there are an estimated 33% more infected women than infected men overall, and in places like Sub-Saharan Africa where there are 36 infected women, between the ages of 15 and 24, for every 10 infected men. I once thought of abstinence-only education as prudish, and sexist. Thanks to Phatiwe, I realized it was misogynistic and acutely dangerous.

In the 1984, John Hughes classic, “16 Candles,” there is a scene where Jake (Michael Schoeffling) tells Geek (Anthony Michael Hall) that Caroline (Haviland Morris) is passed out drunk. His exact words are, “I could violate her in 10 different ways if I wanted to.” Jake comes up with a plan that involves Geek taking Caroline in the Rolls Royce so that he can pursue Samantha (Molly Ringwald). When Caroline wakes up the next day with Geek, she says, “I don’t remember what happened, but I think I liked it.” This is but one of countless examples of moments in which popular culture has suggested that having sex with a woman who is too inebriated to consent is not rape. It is. And everyone knows it is. On those same college campuses where 60% of female students have HPV, one in four women is the victim of rape or attempted rape. Throughout the United States, the likelihood that a woman will be raped is four times greater during the years between 16th and her 24th birthday. And since nationally 84% of survivors know their attackers, what follows is that an unacceptable number of young women have been exposed to, or acquired one or more sexually transmitted diseases because of rape.

Rape is an act of violence, not a form of sex. But to speak of the rape of women in disproportionate numbers during their teens and twenties, involves an admission that adolescents are objectified and sexualized by the very same society that then tells them they are not allowed to pursue protected, consensual sex. Cultural traditions dictate a point of transformation in which a girl becomes a woman, but public policy and worried parents shove abstinence-only education down her throat. In other words, a girl becoming a woman is not allowed to enjoy her own anatomy, but she is expected to allow others to enjoy it by looking, or by blaming herself for what she consumed, where she went, or what she wore when she raped. This same kind of patriarchal mindset exists in ACOG recommendations concerning pap smears, and USPSTF recommendations concerning breast exams. These may be full of complexities and contingencies, but at best, they reinforce the false belief many young people hold that no harm can befall them, and at worst, they suggest something profoundly disturbing and insidious, about women’s bodies: A woman is supposed to value the aesthetic of her breasts, of her reproductive organs, because society does, but is not allowed to expect regular and accurate exams for her health.

I am sitting in the middle of a pile of books filled with the words of bell hooks, Maxine Hong Kingston, Susan Moller Okin, Carol Gilligan, Betty Friedan, Alice Walker, Amalia Mesa-Bains, Gloria Anzaldua, Cherrie Moraga, Simone de Beauvoir, Gloria Steinem, Doris Lessing, Elaine Brown, Amanda Marcotte, Naomi Wolf, recalling a conversation I had recently with a twenty-something first generation American on the verge of taking her teenage sister to Planned Parenthood. Both women are dating other first generation Americans. All of the people involved are trying to please their immigrant parents. There is tension, cultural conflict, felt most acutely in this instant by the young women. Both love and respect their parents. They do not come from a household with an absent parent, or plagued by abuse of any kind, or suffering from a loss of dignity at the hand of poverty. They have survived racism and cross cultural conflicts with few scars. But their parents are upset with them. Both want to start taking oral birth control as their primary form of contraception. Their parents, like most, are not thrilled with the idea of their daughters having sex period, much less sex for the purposes of pleasure, not procreation, after “I dos” have been exchanged in a traditional wedding ceremony. In addition, like many immigrants that belong to communities of color, they’ve had negative experiences with medical professionals, and become sympathetic to conspiracy theories in which elites use injections and pills, distributed by nurses and doctors, to harm and humiliate.

It would be easier in one sense if these young women could simply reject their parents, label them old fashioned, or repressive, and simply prioritize their own desires. But it’s not that easy. It never is. And while the nostalgia of immigrants for times when people waited until their wedding night before they ever came to know one another physically, may seem idyllic and cheesy, or unrealistic and unfair, they invite us to think about something very basic and of paramount importance: Choice.

Each woman deserves the choice to follow the path her parents would choose for her; the choice to reject it; the choice to alter it by combining it with her own dreams and desires. Each woman deserves access to the data needed to make informed decisions, and the power to choose what works best for her. Each woman deserves the choice to have breast exams and pap smears on a schedule that works best for her, that keeps her healthiest. Each woman deserves the choice to have sex with whom she wants, when she wants, with a partner that she is attracted to, and that she consents to having sex with. If her partner is a man, or a woman, she deserves the right to determine how long to wait to have sex, and under what circumstances. If she chooses to wait until marriage before she is intimate with another person, then it is her right to marry the man, or woman, of her choice. And as the legendary Tupac Amaru Shakur once said, “Because a man can’t make one, he has no right to tell a woman, when and where to create one.” In other words, the decision of whether to use oral birth control or Depo Provera, prophylactics or another form of contraception, is a woman’s choice, as is the decision of whether or not to have a child, as well as when, where, and with whom. If you hold these truths to be self-evident, if you believe no government or social system has the right to erase the exercise of a woman’s freewill in school, at work, in life, in love, then you are a feminist. And that’s something else to be thankful, eternally grateful for.

“Women who grew to womanhood at the peak of contemporary feminist movement know that at that moment in time, sexual liberation was on the feminist agenda. The right to make decisions about our bodies was primary, as were reproductive rights… and yet it was also important to claim the body as a site of pleasure… We had sex. We did it with girls and boys. We did it across race, class, nationality… We embraced nakedness. We reclaimed the female body as a site of power and possibility… We were the generation of the birth-control pill. We saw female freedom as intimately and always tied to the issue of body rights. We believed that women would never be free if we did not have the right to recover our bodies from sexual slavery, from the prison of patriarchy… We were charting a journey from slavery to freedom. We were making revolution. Our bodies were occupied countries we liberated.” – bell hooks –

Extended version of submission to Washington Post's "America's Next Great Pundit" contest:

2009-10-21T21:22:00.000-07:00

Racism is sin. Not a sin, but the very definition of it. All men and women are guilty, finite, fallible, fallen, and in need of salvation. Unfortunately, the language we need to come to terms with and vanquish it is not that of the Messiah. Even after the elections of Nelson Mandela, Evo Morales, and Barack Obama, there’s nothing messianic or even millennial at play. There are prophets false and true. That is certain. But there is no serpent circling the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to pin the blame on. And there appear to be very few revelations about its genesis in the pipeline.

Racism is sin because history is sin. To paraphrase Jack Kennedy and Tupac Shakur, every generation, every individual, is born into a world not of his or her creation. And that birth is one marked by the pain of parting, as well as arrival. Baptism cleanses the inheritance of original sin, and leaves us with the burden of the sin we generate through the exercise of our own free will. Yet there is no such anointing that can cleanse us from history. And there is no savior to turn to, when our own free will leads us into the terrain of venial and mortal racism. Because confessing to racism fails to absolve us, we deny it.

Joe Wilson’s interruption of the President’s address was racism free, of course. It had nothing to do with Barack Obama’s racial identity. He was upset because a legislative option in the House of Representatives failed to guarantee that undocumented immigrants would be denied access to preventative care. This concern is also one that has nothing to do with the likely race of those without documentation. Those kids were not turned away from that pool in Philadelphia because they were African American and Latino. The well-to-do whites that gave the press conference denied their racism unequivocally. We need not speak of the signs and rhetoric of Teabag, Townhall, and 9/12 event participants, Astroturfers, or Minute Men border vigilantes. Sure blackface appeared on television in Australia, and in the pages of French Vogue, but the only time we show it in the good old US of A is when Mad Men is working to remind us that the 1960s were a different time.

In the time period between discovering the double helix and itemizing its contents, science has repeatedly affirmed and underlined the fact that there is but one race, the human race. Racism is everything that tells us that there are racial categories, every document that introduces a race box for us to check, or allows someone to check one for us. The Census has been racist since the fraction of 3/5, for instance. Yet the Census allows us to identify communities that are underrepresented and underserved, to determine if there are communities disproportionately impacted by public policy. In other words, to ban all mentions or concepts of race for the sake of purging history would prove detrimental in politics, in medicine, in education, in every arena where it is important to identify inequality of opportunity or outcome.

James Crowley arrested Henry Gates in his home. In his patrol car was a computer allowing him to see the Massachusetts Driver’s License of the person residing at that address. But its data was not employed. Crowley chose to proceed uninformed. As a result, two men, aware of little more than their individual assumptions, sparked a national discussion, placing everyone from 911-caller Lucia Whalen, to the President of the United States, under the microscope of public and media scrutiny. I still scratch my head at the overemphasis on the beverages consumed at the Beer Summit, and under-emphasis on the screed Boston Police Department’s Justin Barrett sent to Boston Globe’s Yvonne Abraham by email. Nevertheless, the arrest serves to remind us that whenever two strangers cross paths they are not free from the weight of history. The micro-history of individuals, their experientially informed biases, unknown, defensive postures are adopted. Crowley assumes he will be accused and dismisses Gates’ objections. Gates assumes Crowley will victimize him. Both are guilty of racism. Everyone is—as we are all guilty of sin.

On an individual level this is the most difficult notion to accept. The empirical evidence is overwhelming that decisions made by elites of European descent from the colonial era to the Cold War, inform the language of our discussion. There is no African Diaspora without the slave trade. There is no pan-indigenous identity or mestizaje without genocide. There can be no denying that being born with fair skin affords privileges similar to those afforded by being born male, or being born affluent. Yet two people interacting are simply that—two individuals with the opportunity to transcend the burdens and responsibilities of history. Each person has the choice to acknowledge racism, and employ free will to build bridges, the opportunity to conquer the divide between whites and people of color, or the divide within communities of color driven by differences in culture, language, religion, skin tone, hair texture, eye shape and pigmentation. Sometimes those two succeed, bridges are built, and sin is vanquished. Or they fail. But it’s not always their fault.

It’s hard to find someone to love—even harder to find someone who loves you back. Sisyphus has a better boulder versus hill success rate than most of us have in the relationship department. And although half of marriages end in divorce, most of us heterosexuals believe that if we can find someone to commit to us, we can get an, “I do,” under our belts before we shuffle off this mortal coil.

Yet, when Beth Humphrey and Terence McKay, of Hammond, Louisiana, wanted a license to be wed, Justice of the Peace, Keith Bardwell refused to issue them one. Neither person was underage, or rendered incapable of making an informed decision by reason of intoxication or mental defect. However, as Bardwell told the Associated Press, “I just don’t believe in mixing the races that way… I don’t want to put the children in a situation they didn’t bring on themselves.” In his capacity as a public official sworn to the defend the Constitution of the United States of America, this judge has openly refused to marry four interracial couples in the last two years.

Already frustrated by the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, and the disheartening decision of thirty states to pass same-sex marriage bans, I‘ve spent a significant amount of time since September, preparing for the possibility that melancholy might find me out once Maine voters cast Measure 1 ballots. But I never expected this. In the courthouse where Bardwell dawns his robe, hangs the portrait of Louisiana Governor, Bobby Jindal. Would this justice of the peace deny his own governor a marriage license—the chief executive elected to enforce the laws of his state—should Jindal decide to divorce his current wife, and then seek to wed a woman who is not South Asian? More importantly, in the courtroom where he renders verdicts, this judge presides from a bench beside a portrait of President, Barack Obama. How could this man, how could any public servant, have the unmitigated gall to declare biracial children somehow problematic, when the President of the United States of America is a biracial man?

It knocks the wind out of me to think past battles must be waged again. Especially when I think of my parents. My Mexican mother and father did not witness firsthand the marches to desegregate classrooms, buses, lunch counters, and neighborhoods. They were not participants in or beneficiaries of Freedom Rides to register voters in Jim Crow America. Yet they raised me, their US born child, to believe in the virtue of these social movements. In my experience there are no bigger believers in the principles and popular history of this country, no more die hard proponents of Horatio Alger folklore, and the “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” mentality than immigrants with kids. But I digress.

I can’t help but return to the idea of racism as the sin of history. A sin for which some looked upon the election of Barack Obama as a moment of salvation. It wasn’t. And to dissect voters via a racial breakdown of widely accepted exit poll data, just makes the whole thing sting worse: 95% of African Americans cast ballots for our current President, 66% of Latinos, 61% of Asians, 65% of the voters from other communities of color, but only 43% of whites—barely better than two out of five. Without confession, repentance, salvation, denying racism seems the only choice.

I know I’m just having a Chicken Little moment, and the sky isn’t really falling. After all, Valerie Willard, a spokesperson for the Louisiana Supreme Court insists that she fielded, “about eight million complaints from the public,” before Friday of last week. Beth Humphrey and Terence McKay married. My mestizo/indigenous father and Basque mother did as well. And even if whatever kids they have don’t make it from Inland Empire, CA to the Ivy League like me, or the White House like President Obama, chances are they will be just fine. Because if there is anything I learned while working as a teacher, or that has been made clear to me since becoming an organizer, it is that Americans of all backgrounds have been, and continue to be dedicated to elevating the capacity of individuals, organizations, communities, and this entire nation to make change. Perhaps providing those with such passions a platform for their voices will allow us to confront the sin of history. It couldn’t hurt.

May all who read these words refuse silence and inaction...

2009-07-30T01:34:00.000-07:00

The criticism I receive from others for my views on race usually involve dismissive remarks about my appearance: When I lived in the African American Studies, and Native American Studies residence halls at Dartmouth, some would say, "You're not black," or "Your great grandmother might have been indigenous, but you're white." Before college, and every year since, every week of my life has involved some sort of comment about how I, "don't look Mexican," like my father.

Despite the fact that I do enjoy all of the privileges of light skin, of being a straight man, with an education, who now belongs to the middle class, and is not considered to be either underage or overweight, the prejudices of others have impacted certain aspects of my life and certain situational outcomes.

In high school I punched a student because he said, "You should thank God you're not a sh*t brown, greasy, fugly, taco sh*tt*ng border n*gg*r, wetback, beaner." I was suspended for my act of violence. But nothing happened to him. In graduate school I was physically attacked by a classmate following a heated discussion over the article "Dusty Baker Exposed," (The Justice, Brandeis University, October 21, 2003). The campus officer who took my statement did not believe that the student who attacked me made derogative remarks about my heritage, and then in the same breath made a series of comments about how my appearance did not match my name. Despite the fact that I never lifted a finger in my defense, the campus officers, the Dean, and the majority of the white students in my class, decided that both my attacker and I were, "equally responsible" for what occurred. And despite his act of violence, nothing happened to him.

Over the last decade, cops who have pulled me over in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Illinois, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and California, have made cracks about my name, and in an impolite manner, asked me where I'm, "from," despite the fact that they are holding my valid, current address, CA driver's license in their hands. They knew exactly where I was from. What interested them was knowing my precise racial/ethnic origin, so they knew what prejudice to call forth. (Don't even get me started with problems I've had with INS/Homeland Security personnel in their offices, as well as at airports, and border crossings).

For this reason, I highly doubt the veracity of the claims made by the officers that arrested Harvard Professor, Henry Louis Gates. If Professor Gates made any statements protesting the actions or words of the officers who expected him to produce his ID and step outside of his home, he was justified in making them. It is empirically incontrovertible that if Professor Gates had not been a person of color, the officer would have primarily asked him if he was ok, if he was injured or threatened by the robbers, and then asked him to give a statement as a witness to the breaking and entering complaint. But the fact that Professor Gates is a person of color meant quite simply and unequivocally that the officer primarily expected proof that he was not the robber. In other words, because he is black, Professor Gates was not worthy of the officer's empathetic concern. He could have been injured. He could have been threatened. None of that mattered as much as the color of his skin.

The fact that the arrest of Professor Gates follows the story of the black and Latino children in Philadelphia turned away from a swimming pool, and the story of the historically African American cemetery outside of Chicago where Emmett Till is buried, that was desecrated by some men who thought they could simply dig up bodies, dump them in a refuse pile and resell the plots, is probably one of the reasons why I am unleashing this unedited rant on the Facebook universe. But in as calm and rational and reasonable a way I can possibly muster, let me say this:

All the members of our society are expected to uphold certain codes of community. Every individual, organization, office, department, and institutional entity comprising the government is especially compelled to aver standards of inclusiveness and sensitivity, as well as champion the principles of justice and truth unto its innermost parts. While it is obvious that those responsible for the arrest of Professor Gates are in violation of some element of these codes, standards, and principles, it should be equally blatant that we are all to blame if proactive responses to this incident do not eclipse reactive ones. In other words, this is not just Professor Gates' problem, not just the City of Cambridge's problem, not just a problem impacting people of color...

Once the debate over this particular story ends, the lion's share of real work begins. All mission statements, charters, guidelines, structures, and day-to-day operational elements defining our living, learning, working, and public environments must be scrutinized. If the codes, standards, and principles of freedom, equality, and justice are not palpable throughout, then changes must be made.

An egalitarian society is achieved when all are equally responsible for engendering it. When the burden of opposing racism, sexism, heterosexism, ethnocentrism, classism, and similar forms of assumption-driven discrimination, is primarily borne by those most affected by inequality, injustice, etc., we are all placed at risk for degradation. If the members of traditionally marginalized populations represent the foremost voices to thoroughly and consistently address issues rooted in, or related to, legacies of prejudice, it will be difficult for the nation to overcome widespread feelings of tremendous anger, shame, resentment, and humiliation.

In other words, it is good that Rachel Maddow, took the time to disprove Pat Buchanan's claims that white men built the United States. And it is good that not only black men are outraged by Professor Gates' arrest. And it is good that the outrage over what happened to those children at that pool in Philadelphia is felt by more than African Americans and Latinos. But we cannot relent. More voices are needed. Every state with a ban on same sex marriage is the problem of every citizen of the United States, whether gay or straight. The high school drop out crisis is the problem of every American, whether an adolescent or a senior, whether wealthy or working class, whether college educated or functionally illiterate. A lack of healthcare, a lack of employment, the loss of a home, these are problems that behoove all of us to get involved. We must all act as advocates, whether or not we are personally impacted. Life may not be fair. But we can be...

"Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. And man can be a s big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
- John F. Kennedy -

Officer Justin Barrett & 10 Reasons Why His Sexism & Racism Mean Something:

2009-07-29T23:21:00.000-07:00

The email appearing below is from Boston Police Department Officer, Justin Barrett. Officer Barrett sent this email to Boston Globe Columnist,Yvonne Abraham. The email, obtained by Boston's Fox 25, is the subject of 263 news articles thus far. Please read this email and my accompanying comments:

"Article writer, That was, by far, the worst article I've ever read. I am a former English teacher, writer, current police officer, father, husband and military veteran."

(1) Officer Barrett is well aware that Yvonne Abraham is the author of the article he decries, yet he cannot be bothered to address her in a polite and appropriate manner. (2) In his fit of rage, Officer Barrett rattles off a list of what entitles him to speak with authority, what makes him "so special" if you will. However, when Professor Gates declared himself as a Harvard faculty member, both Officer Barrett and Officer Crowley (the arresting officer) felt this to be uncooperative and ungrateful, uppity if you will.

"You need to be corrected and I certainly hope others have attempted, for your written messages and material is so 4th grade level, I am embarassed [Unai: his misspelling] I paid 1.50 for the paper (rest assured it is my aim to tell as many readers [Unai: his omission of the word 'of'] The Boston Globe and [Unai: his use of 'and' instead of the world 'of'] your biased reporting [Unai: his omission of the word 'that'] is both sub standard and strictly one sided). For you are not professional and basically, your writing is ridiculous."

(3) There is nothing constructive in Officer Barrett's criticism. These are personal attacks. He is talking down to, patronizing a woman, a professional columnist. He says her work is infantile. I find this insulting, degrading, and sexist. I doubt he would stand for this kind of criticism of his job performance, so let's add hypocritical to that list.

"A reader may assume, per your article, that criminals are never well-dressed with a tucked in polo (2nd paragraphed). Your defense (4th paragraph) of Gates while he is on the phone while being confronted (INDEED) with a police officer is assuming he had rights when considered a suspect [Unai: his omission of a predicate in a sentence where he sets up 'your defense' as the subject]. He is a suspect and will always remain a suspect."

(4) It's nice to know that Officer Barret feels as though Miranda warnings and other practices intended to uphold the judicial principle of innocent until proven guilty, and other aspects of the Bill of Rights, do not apply to him. Also, it is nice to know that both Officer Barrett, and Officer Crowley (the arresting officer) did not consider that Professor Gates could have been the victim of an attempted or actual robbery. Nether officer seemed overwhelmed by a sense of empathy or concern for Professor Gates who could have been injured or threatened if there had actually been a robbery. Neither officer viewed Professor Gates as a potential witness, only as a suspected criminal.

"His first priority of effort should be to get off the phone and comply with police, for it [Unai: his use of 'it' instead of the word 'if'] I was [Unai: his use of 'was' instead of 'were,' the correct conditional tense of 'to be'] the officer he verbally assaulted like a banana-eating jungle monkey, I would have sprayed him in the face with OC deserving of his belligerent non-compliance."

(5) This is a very telling passage. Here Officer Barrett makes it clear that Professor Gates is a belligerent, non-compliant, banana-eating jungle monkey, because Professor Gates did not immediately interrupt his telephone conversation to jump at the beckon call of the officer arriving unannounced at his door. Perhaps it is wrong of me to read this as proof that both Officer Barrett, and Officer Crowley (the arresting officer) expected Professor Gates to bend over backwards in deference of the uniform. But the overt declaration that Officer Barrett feels Professor Gates was deserving of getting OC sprayed in his face, certainly suggests that he expects some yessir steppin' and fetchin'.

"Further (5th paragraph), a reader may assume that crimes only happen in back alleys at 0300?! You're kidding me, right? Are you still in 5th grade, Catholic School? That paragraph was as pathetic as jungle monkey gibberish - I might as well ax you the question, 'Is this your first test at reporting?'"

(6) Again Officer Barrett is talking down to, patronizing, a woman, a professional columnist. And although her caliber of work has improved from 4th to 5th grade, (either that or he believes 5th grade in a Catholic school is equivalent to 4th grade anywhere else) he continues to insist it is infantile. Once again, I deem this insulting, degrading, sexist, and hypocritical (since he would not stand for similar criticism of how he does his job). And yet here, Officer Barrett adds another dose of overt racism to the mix. Jungle monkey might have been a term that Officer Barrett could have insisted was not intended to target a specific race/ethnicity. He could have put forth evidence, however flimsy, that this is a term he applies to all non-compliant suspects, regardless of heritage and skin color. But the use of ax in place of ask, proves that in using jungle monkey, Officer Barrett means to target persons from working class, urban communities, persons who disproportionately belong to communities of color.

"You do not understand roles, tactics and dangers police officers face, as apparently you think no one wearing a polo might possess a firearm or knife on his/her person. might you fathom a woman could be a criminal? Or are criminals all hairy, dirty, stinky, mean looking ugly men? You are a hot little bird with minimal experiences in a hard field. You are a fool. An infidel you have no business writing for a US newspaper nevermind detailing and analyzing half truths. You should serve me coffee and donuts on Sunday morning."

(7) I Googled hot little bird, in search of a colloquial definition derived from common usage of this phrase. One of the first entries I found was from, 'Girl on an old motorcycle,' with the tagline, 'I have to give it 10 outta 10 for the bare naked shots of that totally hot little bird!' Here, bare naked, clearly applies to the woman, not the motorcycle. And so, once again, Officer Barrett proves that his sexism is off the charts. The idea that he would patronize this professional woman to the point of telling her that she should serve him breakfast goes beyond insulting, beyond degrading. This man is not only a white supremacist. He is a misogynist.

"My last point counters your final 2 paragraphs, in which you state Gates is 'this immensely famous expert on race' - you really have to be kidding me? Famous for what? Expert why and says who? What has he done for me and my family? What has he done for the law enforcement community or military veterans or to secure freedoms and our borders in this country? What has he done to help limit and reduce my income tax? He has proven to work to get himself attention and become a wealthy lecturer. He lectures students on the subject of racial ethics and profiling. Jee whiz. I must attend that lecture lest I lose my identity and right to free speech and the right to celebrate God and beliefs as I see fit. I am not a racist, but I am prejudice towards people who are stupid and pretend to stand up and preach for something they claim is freedom when it is merely attention because you do not receive enough of it in your little fear-dwelling circle of on-the-bandwagon followers."

(8) The fact that Officer Barrett does not see the value of Professor Gates' work is to me emblematic of the problem highlighted by Pat Buchanan's rant on Rachel Maddow's MSNBC show. Officer Barrett thinks his day-to-day life has not been improved by the work of a black intellectual. Pat Buchanan thinks white men, and no one else, built this country. Professor Gates has contributed to every single one of the areas Officer Barrett identifies. That is obvious. What strikes me are the areas Officer Barrett identifies. If any of you have read the Edsall and Edsall text, 'Chain Reaction,' you know that these are precisely the areas that evolved from the now notorious 'Suthern Strategy.' Officer Barrett is not the independent, free-thinker he believes himself to be. He is regurgitating what has been empirically proven to be Machiavellian propaganda. The introduction of specious arguments about religion and border security are the ultimate proof of this. At least with taxes Officer Barrett is sticking to his day-to-day argument. At least with law enforcement community and veterans, Officer Barrett is saying something that relates to his personal narrative. What the point of bringing up God, other than to spit up the right wing talking point that blames America's woes on 'secular progressives'? What is the point of bringing up border security, other than to spit up the right wing talking point that blames America's woes on 'illegal aliens'? By declaring that he is not a racist, Officer Barrett demonstrates a complete lack of awareness of his white supremacy he is espousing. By accusing Yvonne Abraham of being part of a circle of on-the-bandwagon followers, Officer Barrett demonstrates a complete lack of awareness of the fact that his rant, from beginning to end, lacks any original thought.

"You mention Gates' charges were dropped but that it was too late to stop the damage? Damage? Still kidding? You need to serve a day with the infantry and get swarmed by black gnats while manning your sector. Or you just need to get slapped, look in the mirror, and admit, 'Wow, I am a failure. I am a follower. Who am I kidding?' Again, I like a warm cruller and hot Panamanian, black. no sugar. Your final statement reads, 'Gates, whose great success has allowed him to transcend the racial divide-' to which I ask, when did he transcend? he indeed has transcended back to a bumbling jungle monkey, thus he forever tremains [sic] amid this nation's great social/racial divide that makes it free and great nation mixed with crazy and awkward differences. Go ahead, ax me what I think? Gates is a goddamned fool and you the article writer simply a poor follower and maybe worse, a poor writer. Your article should read CONDUCT UNBECOMING A JUNGLE MONKEY-BACK TO ONE'S ROOTS. JB"

(9) Here Officer Barrett concludes that a professional woman needs to get slapped for being a follower and poor writer. And his misogyny once again manifests itself in his inability to politely and appropriately address her, as well as in the order that she serve him the donut he lies, and coffee the way he likes it. Officer Barrett also demonstrates a complete inability to recognize the irony his hypocritical views on race represent. The intriguing description of the United States as a free and great nation mixed with crazy and awkward differences, is absolutely canceled out by his twice relying on the term, jungle monkey, and his decision to once again use ax instead of the word ask.

(10) Although there are no more passages of Officer Barrett's email to review, I would like to end by examination of it with the following thoughts: I have pale skin. I speak English without a foreign or urban accent. I am a straight man, who is neither underage or overweight. As a Christian, I belong to the community of faith that comprises the majority of this country. These things afford me privileges. That means they make my life easier. If any of these things also describe you, I certainly hope that you are able to acknowledge the fact that you too enjoy privileges that others do not.

My father continues to be discriminated against because of his brown skin. My mother continues to be discriminated against because of her gender and her foreign accent. I know this because I have seen the prejudice and discrimination both have faced with my own eyes--on the street, in airports, at malls, in immigration offices, etc. Neither one ever pulled 'the race card,' or tried to inculcate me into some sort of 'victim mentality' where his failures can be blamed on the white man, quite the contrary. After we were deported, when I was 6 years old, both my mother and father did everything in their power to return our family to the US and earn citizenship. Starting from scratch, from the back of the line, it took two decades, but they did it.

Our family was deported not because we committed any crime, not because my parents were unemployed, not because they didn't pay their taxes, or joined the communist party, or went on food stamps, but because one INS officer arbitrarily decided to deny the renewal of their permission to work in the United States. Can I prove that this INS officer targeted my parents because they were Mexican? No, but for whatever reason the British immigrants my dad played soccer with never had any problems renewing their papers. When we finally returned to the US, the INS officer we met with us stated to our face, "This country has spent a lot of time and money keeping you people out." Can I prove that he addressed us as 'you people,' instead of by our names because we were Mexican. No, but when I was in a relationship with a French woman, and I asked her how long it took her to get her Green Card, her answer was not comparable to the number of years it took my parents to get theirs. When I asked if she had ever a work permission renewal request denied by the INS, she responded with a confused look, as though she did not understand the question, or could not possibly conceive of such a thing.

Why do I bring this up? Because beyond whatever individual experiences any of us may have, there is empirical evidence to demonstrate that institutional prejudices exist. One in four black men end up in the criminal justice system. Latino statistics are similarly dire. White defendants receive less severe sentences on such charges as drug possession than defendants of color. The high school dropout crisis disproportionately impacts communities of color. People of color are over-represented among the uninsured, those who are ill from preventable diseases, those who die from treatable ones. I could go on, but I shouldn't have to. You and I both know that there is nothing in today's US Constitution, or the current Constitution of any of the 50 states that requires disparate treatment of, or outcomes for, whites. When we talk about institutional discrimination, when we blame 'the system,' we forget that these institutions, that this system, is staffed by people who have biases, prejudices, preferences, etc. Logic and objectivity are ideals because these forms of subjectivity dominate.

I ask those of you who are skeptical of the role race played in Professor Gates' arrest to honestly assess if you believe that a police officer would have looked upon a middle-aged white man with a cane as a criminal suspect. Or if you believe, as I do, that a police would have assumed that the middle-aged white man with a cane was a possible witness to whomever broke into the house, that the middle-aged white man might be in need of emergency medical support because he was injured or threatened by those who broke in. If you refuse to believe that Professor Gates was not offered this sort of compassion and empathy by Officer Crowley because Professor Gates is a middle-aged black man with a cane, then I ask you to think about this. How many women have received traffic tickets or other expensive punitive citations from Officer Barrett over the course of his career? How many people of color have gone to jail because of Officer Barrett's testimony? How many more women and people of color would have suffered as a result of Officer Barrett's misogyny and white supremacy if he had never hit 'send,' if he had misspelled Yvonne Abraham's email address, or if the internet server he was using at that day, at that time, has simply gone down, and failed to deliver Officer Barrett's disgusting screed?

Getting out of bed...

2008-09-11T12:28:00.000-07:00

I have written many potential blog posts over the course of this year. Some were not published because my nonprofit, noncandidate, nonpartisan role as Southwest Voter Registration Education Project’s National Youth Vote Director became very public, and my televised, radio, and print appearances became more and more frequent. Others simply failed to reach the status of anything more cohesive and well shaped than feverishly written pleas, rants, supplications, screeds, hopes/dreams/prayers, observations scribed from a telescopic or panoramic lens of cultural critique. But the weight of this day and the gravity of the social, political, and economic environment that couches it, are extracting these words.

I feel hurt today. I am frightened that the sheer sadness of loss, as well as the stress provoked by the struggles that come at present as a result of the health issues my mother presently confronts, and the personal challenges I face at the hands of immediate financial pressures, and what appears to be an uncertain professional and personal path have exhausted my resilience. Not long ago, the tears I shed on every anniversary of this day were silverlined. I remembered my college mentoring program hermanito, Juan Cisneros, and believed that I might be able to carry his goals and aspirations forward during the course of my life. I did not pass on the burden of championing his vision of the world to anyone else who knew him, to the many he befriended and inspired. I felt it was mine alone to carry. I did by best not to wave his flag, or draw attention to the fact that I molded it to my being, I just tried to move it forward. But it was not long before I began to sense that I was failing in this commitment to Juan. In fact, it became painfully obvious that I was not advancing the aspirations of any of the dear friends I had been forced to say goodbye to long before their time.

Those of you who’ve spoken of life and death with me know that I take very personally the loss of friends with globally transformative passions, especially when they leave this earth at an unacceptably young age. Today, I feel the absence of the wisdom and guidance of Don Baer, Mont Wolf, Roger Maestas, and many family members, especially mi tía Pili, in addition to the deficit of inspiration and enthusiasm, Peter Franzek, Mary Anne Manzo, Wally Rodriguez, Zeke Webber, Phatiwe Cohen, and Eric Tang once provided. Like with Juan, I swore upon news of the passing each young person that touched my life, that I would take hold of their banner and bring it with me, make in an inexorable, inextricable, inexpugnable part of my spirit, being, and path. And as with Juan, today I feel the weight and pressure on my chest of a suffocating stillness. I feel inert, immobile, static, motionless, stuck. I feel as though I am failing in my pledge to do with my life what departing this earth way too soon prevented my young friends from doing with theirs.

What is frustrating, what is infuriating, what is tragic, is that I feel this defeat, this hopelessness on this day, when I know others who have overcome, and are overcoming much more than I face. And even if I did not know heroic, unstoppable, resilient figures, I would be a disconnected self-centered, self-obsessed, selfish fool if I did not open my eyes to the fact that the world is filled with survivors of genocide, refugees, AIDS orphans, rape survivors, and countless other heroes whose heroism is epic, legendary, and awe-provoking, but whose stories are seldom if ever acknowledged in art, song, film, media, or even by family members, friends, peers, or strangers during colloquial interactions in church pews, (or temple, mosque, etc. equivalent) by water coolers or copy/fax machines, at breakfast/lunch/dinnertables, or while waiting-in-line (forming a queque). I am still able to touch, see, hear, taste, and breathe in the olfactory textures of this world. This is a blessing. This should be enough. But today I am heartbroken, and my impulse to curl-up into a ball and hide in a corner, my desire to run away and hide on a remote desert island (like the one where Tom Hanks befriended a volleyball, not the LOST one inhabited by “others” and polar bears) knows no bounds.

Today, not even righteous anger got me out of bed—that sort of indignation that drove King David and Habakkuk to question why God allows good people to suffer incredibly scarring hardships, while shallow, dispassionate, narcissists are bestowed riches, popularity, success, respect, companionship, even adulation and adoration. I did not feel like shaking a fist at anyone, much less God. I couldn’t form a first today even if I wanted to. Not long ago, a friend asked me about my faith since I am often critical of the Catholic church, (and of most organized religious institutions) but refuse to fully divorce myself, even when egregious revelations, such as the scandal involving the practice of covering-up for and reassigning pedophile priests, afford me an Antonov AN-225 Mriya-sized landing strip window of opportunity to do so. My response: I take the Kierkegaardian leap and believe in God without demanding any Aquinasian or other proof. This makes me devout. However, while I believe without reservation, that Jesus Christ was the son of God, conceived immaculately by Mary and the Holy Spirit, I also hold that it would be enough for me, and I would learn just as much about God’s infinite grace, omnipotence, omniscience, and love, if Jesus were just a carpenter, just a man who saw injustice perpetrated by Pharisees, Sadducees, and the institutions, and the individuals with power and influence in his time, and tried to organize Jews, gentiles, everyone he could reach in his 33 years of life, to reject arbitrary inequalities and curtailments on freewill. This makes me at best, a skeptic, and at worst a heretic, but it is who I am without apology, excuse, or pretense.

At some point in my quest to know more about this world, I came across the concepts of sunyata and svabhava. As I understand it, Indian Buddhism largely flourished as a result of conversions made by Hindus who no longer wished to accept their classification as Untouchables, and these two concepts went from being confined to Sanskrit to living and breathing in the daily belief systems of those whose faith had previously lacked the inclusivity of egalitarian interdependence. Svabhava is the essential inherit nature that all living beings possess. Everyone brings the same amount of it to the table, no matter how old, how learned, how wealthy, how accomplished. Sunyata is emptiness, plain an simple. It is something that we cannot shake or get rid of. It is the reason we need one another. We need to fill ourselves with more than what we bring to the table with svabhava. Again, nothing we do by our own accord, learn in our lifetimes, experience with our senses, or inherit (whether it be wealth, property, heirlooms, or merely the metaphoric or very real blood, sweat, tears, and broken bones of our ancestors) can fill us. During our lives, we need something greater than ourselves, and we need other people, or we remain empty.

What got me out of bed today, and what will fill me with hope and fire again once the defeat I feel at present diminishes, is svabhava, and sunyata, or as Jesus Christ said, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind… Love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets” (Mt 22:36). While it is fair to debate whether God interacts proactively with our existential reality, or if God’s commitment to freewill is such that all the unfairness, discord, and suffering we rightly and accurately perceive are manmade, and thus require action and improvement by human will and human actions, it is clear that God is the embodiment of that something greater than ourselves. Seeking to understand with clarity what was previously murky or unknown is as much a statement of faith as finding the resilience to keep moving, keep living when hell is the only reality you know. If you never heard the Gospel, read the Talmud, prayed the Qu’ran, etc. you would know God by the simple truth of making it in a world that often falls short of even purgatory in its expressions of goodness. Maybe a more palpable narrative for this notion begins with Chomsky’s ideas on language acquisition, and continues with August Wilson’s epic question, “Why did you learn to read?”

God is that something higher, ever present, like language in the known and unknown history of human beings. But to love God heart, soul, and mind, is like learning to read and write in order to practice loving—loving to learn, loving your family and friends, loving a cause, loving a place, loving love. To paraphrase what Mr. Rogers said, it might just be that loving God, and loving your neighbor, are the very same thing. And in the same fashion as there is nothing I can do to avoid sin and imperfection as a finite, fallible, fallen, human being, I will be empty, weak and unable to follow through on what I have pledged to those I was blessed to know on this earth, if I attempt to advance without all of you. Please indulge me in as far as this request touches you: Please hold this day as a day of reflection, remembrance, mourning losses, and reaching out to those still on this earth that you have the power to touch, help, motivate. I’m not asking you to pray or meditate and call it a day. I’m asking you to do something. Speak up. Speak out. Try to forgive. Try to apologize. Try to thank everyone who does even the most minimal good. Try to tell those you love that you love them, or at the very least try to guarantee that these persons will learn of your love before they depart this earth. Try to improve the lot of some living being, or some place present in your heart, soul, and mind as you read these words.

I know nothing is ever as simple as, “this too shall pass,” or “everything happens for a reason,” or “it’s in God’s hands now/it’s God’s plan and it’s not for us to understand.” But let’s get out of bed, and fight as best we can the very large part of us that is so disgusted and disheartened that curling up in a ball or running away, caving to literal or substance-induced escapist tendencies. Its time again to make fists and shake them; it’s time again to hold hands and sing, and chant, and march, and organize. It’s time to hope again. It’s time to use our faith, in something higher, in one another, no matter how tattered, no matter how weathered, worn, or neglected, as an Aegis. These beliefs, these passions, these ideals are not naïve, stupid, pointless, or powerless. There is a reason we’ve made metaphoric or symbolic flags and banners inexorable, inextricable, and inexpugnable. Our sunyata calls us to reach up, to reach out, to find faith in something greater than ourselves, to find faith in one another. Loss and broken-heartedness are so wide, so deep, so broad, so profound, that no words in any language humans have ever mastered can fully undrown or erase the pain. But access outside of today’s very real limits to our realities is a reason to get out of bed, a purpose that honors those no longer with us, and a place where we can come together if we are willing to keep trying, stay engaged, and ask everyone we can reach in our uncertain, undetermined, and unpromised years of life, to challenge the institutions, and the individuals with power and influence in our time, to reject arbitrary inequalities and curtailments on freewill, and to seek inclusivity, fairness, symbiotic (not parasitic) interconnectedness, and democratic, pluralistic (culturally diverse) equal opportunities for sustainable, tangible, real, true blue, honest to goodness, positive change.

What happened in the January 2008 NH Primary:

2008-01-09T00:28:00.000-08:00

The media projected the image of an unstoppable Obama for America campaign. No one paid attention to what Hillary Clinton was doing on the ground. No one gave John Edwards an opportunity to make any sort of an impact on his own campaign or anyone else's. Tom Brokaw, for example, called the Senator from Illinois, "A thoroughbred who has broken away from the pack." Polls showed that Independents and Decline to State Party voters overwhelmingly favored Barack Obama and John McCain. Because the impression given by TV, newpapers, magazines, and radio that Obama's road was an easy one, and McCain's still uncertain, Independents and Decline to State Party voters decided to give McCain a safe margin of victory, in order to prevent a loss or virtual tie to Mitt Romney. This can be proven by looking at the turnout of Independents and Decline to State Party men above projections for McCain and below projections for Obama.

Second, although there was record turnout in the NH Primary and many polling locations actually ran out of ballots, several thousand people who would have voted for Obama, surely did not vote because the media had already crowned him the victor. The proof of this contention can be demonstrated by examining the turnout patterns of voters who live in NH, but work in Massachusetts. Instead of voting on their way to work or after their work days, these persons surely decided just to avoid long lines all together, and did not vote. Further proof of the veracity of this can be demonstrated by university student turnout. In Iowa, Obama for America made every effort to turnout high school seniors and Iowa university students, regardless of whether or not their schools were in session. In NH, Obama for America did not make similar efforts. They concentrated attention on in session Dartmouth College, but did not make the kind of push for not in session University of New Hampshire students for the Primary that they made for not in session University of Iowa students for the Caucus.

Third, Hillary Clinton stopped trying to compete with Barack Obama for Independents and Decline to State Party voters. She favored multi-hour, small to medium crowd townhall events with no press, over several-minute large audience appearances with tons of press. In short, they let Obama be a rock star and media darling and they focused on turning out their base. This explains the significant victory with Democratic women. In Iowa, Obama benefited from the variables controlling Caucus viability to claim the majority of women Caucus goers. But Clinton was smart is using both direct references to making history as the first female President, as well as in framing the moment when the media slammed her for crying in public as proof that there is "Still a double standard for women in this country." Hillary Clinton has always benefited concurrently from the presence of her husband, the former President, as part of her audience looks to him with admiration, and part of her audience looks to her as the victim of his affairs and attempt to cover them up. This point serves to explain why the median age of a female Clinton supporter in Iowa was 60, and the median age of a female Clinton supporter in NH was 40.

Fourth, Clinton did in NH what Huckabee did in Iowa, and actively went after the supporters of candidates no longer in the race. In Huckabee's case, it was the pursuit of supporters of Sam Brownback that first propelled Huckabee into double digits. In NH, it was Clinton's courting of supporters of Joe Biden that added to the majority she carried of Democrats who feel experience is the most important quality a Presidential candidate should possess. This point and the third one demonstrate the strength of the Clinton Field machine. Those of you who have been following events in NH for several months will recall Obama's invisibility during events like Dartmouth College Homecoming and Hillary Clinton's perpetual visibility at all Homecoming events. Clinton has known for sometime that she was at a disadvantage with young voters. In Iowa she chose to dissuade the turnout of high school and and university age attendees. For this Clinton was criticized by Rock the Vote on Facebook, and by a wealth of other Youth Vote organizations. In NH, Clinton decided to peel away some of Obama's youth support by targeting young women. This strategy paid off, and Obama's margin of victory among young people diminished significantly.

Last but certainly not least, there has been a shift in the issues that those voting in Democratic races in the Early States consider paramount. Barack Obama dominates when Iraq is center stage because he is the only major candidate to oppose the Iraq War from the start. The healthcare reform vote has always been split amongst Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. But due to her husband's perpetual presence, and the not so distant memory of the prosperous 1990s, Clinton runs the table when it comes to voters concerned first and foremost with the economy. "It's the economy stupid" may be a hackneyed phrase, but its impact rings as true as ever. Obama made an indisputable argument that in the face of an uncertain world, judgment counts for far more than experience -- both Edwards and Clinton voted for the War in Iraq before opposing it. But Clinton made an even more compelling argument concerning the devil you know versus the one you don't. if you are on the verge of losing your house, or worried about losing your job, the weakening dollar, an impending recession, don't you want someone back in the role of economic-steward-in-chief who took away the deficit and gave you an economic surplus at the Federal level, along with countless dot com millionaires? Obama, sheltered by hype and perceived momentum did not feel the need to propose tangible planks of economic growth. A mistake he will not likely repeat.

In the final analysis it is impossible to know exactly what the measurable impact is of race and gender was in the NH Primary. It is clear as Eugene Robinson noted, that in the past, both Tom Bradley and Doug Wilder polled well among white voters heading into election day and then came up short. However, I give much more weight and significance to the focus of the Clinton Field effort. They attacked Barack Obama viciously, and while this did not have a sizeable impact on Obama supporters, it surely fired up Clinton's base and made Dodd and Biden supporters more likely to either support Clinton or stay home. I cannot overemphasize the importance of the role talking heads, pundits, media figures, talk radio, newspaper headlines, etc. had on the decision of Independents and Decline to State Party men to show up for McCain and not feel the need to show up for Obama. While it is common for women to outnumber men in Democratic voting, NH has never seen a disparity of 57% women vs. 43% men in terms of overall Democratic turnout. This clearly demonstrates that mid to low propensity Democratic men stayed home, and low to mid propensity women showed up. Again, just as Clinton has known for sometime of her disadvantage among young people, it has also been obvious to her and everyone else that her support among Democrats came from those possessing no college diploma, as opposed to the educated populace. The Clinton Field machine turnout out its base. Obama for America took for granted its base and focused its time and energy on Independents and Decline to State Party voters. Said another way, in November 2004, George Bush won a Presidential election because John Kerry made the same mistake nationwide that Barack Obama made in the NH January 2008 Primary.

The month of April...

2007-04-29T18:35:00.000-07:00

Today marks the 15th year since an unrest that began April 29, 1992 on the streets of Los Angeles, went on to impact the whole of the nation. After the results of a controversial court decision became public, destruction, frustration and hatred flooded the streets. On television, in print, over the radio airwaves stories of hope, of grace, of heroism and salvation were drowned out by claims that racial difference was enough to explain crime—from petty robbery to gang warfare. Yet when the inferno smoldered away, phoenix after phoenix emerged from the ashes. Americans with roots in Asia, Latin America, Europe and Africa built houses of seven pillars, sat down at common tables and sent out the maidens of forgiveness, wisdom, and reconciliation. This was the case not only in the State of California, but in places as far away as New England, the breadbasket, the Bible belt, the Gulf Coast.

Every generation has moments that give it pause, obstacles that give it purpose, and never-concealed scars from indescribable hurts that never heal. The Greatest Generation, (titled by Tom Brokaw) barely kept its head above water when confronted by the hardships of the Great Depression, yet refused to drown even when swimming against the currents and tides of a World War driven by fascist aggression—an extended conflict of mass casualties, unsung heroes, and horrible weapons that truly began in 1936 in Spain, and not in 1939, when Hitler invaded Poland.

My grandmother, exiled across the Atlantic Ocean by the Spanish Civil War, gave life to us all despite never spilling forth the anguish of her still-broken heart. Before she died last year, she confessed that decades passed before she could listen to the roar of an airplane engine without having a panic attack. Francisco Franco directed the German allies of his fascist cause to perfect the blitzkrieg on Basque soil. A fact immortalized by Pablo Picasso’s portrait of the April 26, 1937 destruction of the most significant piece of land in any of the seven provinces of Basque territory.

Guernica was not the first or last blitzkrieg. My grandmother saw the faces of low flying assassins from many roadsides, buildings, and countrysides. Fascism relied on terror unlike anything anyone had seen before. Bombs were directed at both grieving families and bodies freshly laid to rest in exposed cemeteries where no shelter could be found. Corpses were unearthed, and fresh blood spilled upon them. I repeat. My grandmother saw the eyes of every man sent to kill her. Guernica is more than a painting. It is a reminder of how armed hate shatters us all. Yet neither fear, nor grieving can serve as motivation to move forward. My grandmother survived because her faith in God buttressed her faith in humanity, because she knew the only thing more intolerable than tyranny is unwillingness to hope audaciously for a future of justice and righteousness; the choice of inaction instead of working toward that end.

It is still too soon to do anything but mourn tragedy that robbed our family and friends in Virginia on April 16, 2007 of irreplaceable loved ones. But it does us no good to channel our grief and disgust into an anger that seeks a quick and easy outlet. It does us no good to focus on the citizenship of the assassin. He was a sick and broken young man who spent more years in this country than in any other. Accountability for his actions is now surely in the hands of God. Here on earth, it behooves us to repair each and every crevasse in the system that allowed a clear danger to himself-and-others to act on cruel, unforgivable, and empathy-less intention. But again it does us no good to dwell exclusively on any one matter, not even the place the Second Amendment holds in our contemporary understanding of Constitutionally delineated rights.

Robert Kennedy stated, “What happens to the country, to the world, depends on what we do with what others have left us.” Bobby Kennedy was no stranger to loss, to challenge, to the sometimes-frightening prospect of change, to both welcomed and uninvited transformation. But he also believed, as I do, that God is no closer or farther in difficult days than in glorious ones. This country and its people must bear a heavy mantle: a burden of greatness—both when confronted by an enemy at the gates and when facing discord inside our own house.

We must have courage. We have faced violence before. And we will face it again. But whether it begins in the form of urban unrest as it did 15 years ago in Los Angeles, another World War and Great Depression, or maniacal bloodshed at the hands of a broken individual as it did less than two weeks ago in Virginia, this nation and its people can rise. We can and we must. These events are not symbols. They are tragedies. Violence made them tragic. Violence directed by one member of the community on another. And as was the case in tragedies before, heroism ran rampant, and those with everything-to-lose stood in the path of violence, and stopped it from advancing further.

Courage is not impulsive action. Not a path paved by inflamed passion and unchecked emotion. Courage is standing fast for principle. The genuine love for humanity that moves the desire to help others, free from the defeatist attitude that we lack the energies, talents, strategies, or resources needed to meet the challenges that lay before us. Let us heal with courage. Let us not fall into the temptation of exploiting tragedy for the sake of punditry. Let us not forget to pray for patience, restraint, and compassion. And let us all have courage enough to not fall into familiar traps. No political party, no faith, culture, church, race, ethnic origin, no editorial desk, television or radio host is empowered to judge this tragedy. I call on all those who have already pointed the finger of blame, to instead open the entirety of their hands and extend them in signs of peace. This we have witnessed in Blacksburg, Virginia is violence. Senseless violence. If there is any true enemy, any pure evil, it is this. And there is no answer to violence, nothing that prevents the existence of cycles where harm begets harm, other than courage—the courage to stand as heirs of the American Revolution, Abolition, the Suffrage, and Civil Rights movements, and champion Bobby Kennedy’s words.

Homes of seven pillars will come from ashes as before. Setting common tables will help us as a people move from mourning to building in Virginia. Human dignity, our spirit and perseverance will prevail, and even greater tributes to courage will stand everlasting beckoning audacious hope for a future of justice and righteousness. May all those who shed tears be blessed with maidens of forgiveness, wisdom, and reconciliation; may we work to bestow this blessing upon every corner of this great country, and throughout the lands and seas of this ever shrinking globe.

*******

“There are plenty of good reasons for fighting, but no good reason ever to hate without reservation, to imagine that God Almighty Himself hates with you, too."
—Mother Night

“Many people need desperately to receive this message: I feel and think much as you do, care about many of the things you care about, although most people do not care about them. You are not alone.”
—Timequake

Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
November 11, 1922 - April 11, 2007

VOTE FOR RINKO AND BARACK!!!—Part 1

2007-01-24T16:02:00.000-08:00

(Alternate title: Obama and the 2008 Presidential Election, Babel and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences… Also, thoughts on Superbowl XLI, as well as Latinos and racism in the United States of America)

On February 4, 2007 an African American head coach, either Tony Dungy, or Lovie Smith, will hold up the National Football League’s Vince Lombardi championship trophy for the first time in the history of the sport. Several weeks ago an NPR essayist contended that America’s love affair with Barack Obama stemmed from his status as an African immigrant’s son—a success story focused solely on tomorrow—as opposed to an African American directly connected to the legacy of slavery in the United States of America, unable to escape the past. The other day an LA Weekly contributor stated his concern that Latinos were replacing whites as the “faceless oppressors” of African Americans in California, and used the example of those who procure extra, better quality salsa utilizing Spanish language and familiarity on a daily basis and remain silent while African American customers are mistreated. Last morning, Salma Hayek read the names of Penélope Cruz, (Best Actress) Adriana Barraza, (Best Supporting Actress nominee) Guillermo del Toro, (Best Original Screenplay & Best Foreign picture nominee) Alfonso Cuarón Orozco, (Best Adopted Screenplay nominee) and Alejandro González Iñárritu, (Best Director & Best Picture nominee) alongside those of my personal favorites Rinko Kucuchi (Best Supporting Actress nominee) and Forest Whitaker (Best Actor nominee).

My fear at this point in time is that in 20007, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (or their supporters) will destroy one another in exactly the same way that Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean destroyed one another in 2003, thus making all this talk about a “first woman President” or a “first black President” moot. For the record, let me state that I am a huge fan of Senator Obama, and have been since his keynote address brought me to tears during the 2004 Democratic National Convention. It was hot and humid to the point of sticky, as it is every summer in Boston. Yet and still I felt chills. Big ones. All the hair on the back of my neck stood straight up and a single tear streamed down my left check. Good public speaking means a lot to me. Its absence upsets me tremendously. George W. Bush is a horrendous orator, but the contrast between Bush and Gore or Bush and Kerry was obviously not tremendous enough to shake up the stalemate in either contest. Of Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Tom Vilsack, John Kerry, Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Wesley Clark, Al Gore, Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, and Bill Richardson, Obama is the only one to thus far make me weep and fill me with the intoxicating hope that makes all great things seem possible. As the child of Mexican immigrants I feel an undeniable bond with Richardson, but a tremendous kinship with Obama as well. He is the product of a Kenyan father, a mother from Kansas, and friendships formed during formative years in heavily Asian and Native American Hawaii, and Islamic Indonesia, (Jakarta). His family cannot be defined without moving beyond borders and boundaries; his American identity rooted in an experience of return to a place of sameness through diversity, after an experience of witnessing sameness through homogeneity overseas. It is not that Obama is free from the baggage of domestic history that makes him appealing. It is that he is uniquely equipped to navigate the history of the world. He wants to author chapters in which the United States is victorious because the international public face of America accurately reflects its residents and the light emanating from all peoples, toiling and striving to thrive, regardless of identity, or the location of their homelands around the geopolitical globe.

Obama is to the 2008 Presidential Election as “Babel” is to the 2007 Oscars. The story of the Tower of Babel is popularly interpreted as an indictment on man’s unwavering unity when possessed by the arrogant belief it could climb to the divine place beyond the skies. In this reading, God creates division and confusion, the Tower comes down, and future highway-to-heaven schemes are forever thwarted. This movie's multiple, multicultural storyline approach, works because it successfully communicates a sense of irony to an entertained movie audience—engaged by much more than the occasional reading of subtitles when confronted with a language they do not speak. Those who argue that those (monolingual) directors who built their careers on the intertwining of tales on film, have more often demonstrated a mastery of depicting coincidence interwoven by violence than successfully fully developed Aristotelian tragic heroes (undermined by their own hubris) are correct. The Bible’s Tower introduces us to such characters. Alejandro González Iñárritu depicts them thoroughly in his Babel. Human beings are tremendously gifted, brilliant beings who can construct complex cultural identities and helpful power structures around commonalities. God doesn’t take this away from us. We take it away from ourselves. When compassion dies, Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett find their greatest challenge is not receiving help from resource-poor, isolated Moroccans, but acquiring support from fellow well-resourced, well-traveled English speakers. When compassion dies, Adriana Barraza is forbidden from attending her son’s wedding by parents who leave their children behind while they casually cross the globe; she is endangered by her own flesh and blood through drunk driving and abandonment in the desert after a failed attempt to flee border patrol agents; she is berated, humiliated, rejected, and deported by representatives of the only country she believes in, loves dearly, and considers home.

Compassion is the language of human understanding. Everything else is just window dressing. It is both the irony of the divine punishment ascribed to the Tower story, and the point. Without a plurality of languages, cultures, nationalities, et cetera we manage to sabotage ourselves via our inability or unwillingness to demonstrate compassion for those we are able to communicate with sans translator. Said Tarchani and Boubker Ait El Caid play two adolescent boys at the center of a global incident authorities in Morocco take as pretext to harass, torture, terrorize, and even murder their own people. We know they are deserving of a compassion they do not receive at home, in their homeland, or worldwide. The story of the Tower proves the Bible is not intended for literal reading from start to finish. Babel, the film, is demonstrative of the idea that when God leaves things alone, we still derail as a result of the chaos produced by not listening to anything but our own shortsighted desires. We are quite capable of overcoming racial, linguistic, cultural, and other differences, and do so daily in sports and game venues, as well as via academic, marketplace, diplomatic, and interpersonal exchanges. It is not (as a literal reading suggests) that our languages are confused that prevents our actualization. Even critical, postmodern, deconstructivist views of human communication resist positing this. Quite simply, we do this to ourselves. In Babel, the very lives of individuals depend on the competence and compassion of those seeking or already assuming authority. We seek power for the sake of survival because we are at the bottom, because we are narcissistic and wish to make it to the top/remain there, yet not often because we are motivated by a calling—an altruism inspired by a disembodied love beyond description; a virtue higher than humanism or any form of religion. If the actions of those in power are the deciding factor in the outcome of a given situation, then all of us are responsible for making the world wholly grotesque or change it from being so, but some of us are entrusted with an even greater burden. (To whom much is given, much is expected—Luke 12:48) In illustrative fashion, the central characters resist easy pigeonholing and challenge clichés and stereotypes. As a result, some pop culture critics accuse the film of being preachy and manipulative—especially with respect to its largely sentimental treatment of the hot button issue of undocumented immigration. But the conclusion must be another:

Babel, like the very world we occupy, invites us to analyze and systematize, yet remains infinitely more than merely the sum of its broken down, itemized, individuated, and dissected parts. The film shows us our disjointed and dismal reality. Things are going wrong and have strayed far from the ideal represented by the creation story found in the first pages of Genesis. Communication and understanding are signposts for the pain of isolation felt in words and silences, a lack of uniqueness and the difference of “otherness,” abilities and disabilities, difficulties gained via physical/emotional access and the perpetual prohibitions of access barriers. More than the metaphoric diamond of hope abandoned in an otherwise empty Pandora’s box, the film’s conclusion is a beautiful and tangible template for compassion. Without saying a word, or covering her any part of her naked physical or emotional frame, Rinko Kucuchi’s vulnerability no longer seems to express itself in a way that makes others uncomfortable. Kucuchi’s portrayal of a teenage, deaf-mute, wealthy, Japanese girl in search of a cure to the angst of existential crisis, oscillates between common ennui and the desperation the loss of her mother serves to accelerate and exacerbate. Whatever the background of the viewer with whom I have discussed Babel, Kucuchi’s is the first character people want to talk about. In my eyes, this is single handedly the bravest performance ever given by any actor—regardless of personal identity or artistic venue. This human being’s otherness is greater than that of any individual featured in the film, yet our connection with her, and compassion for her are without rival. It is her choice to refuse suicide that wells our eyes up with joy and fills our torsos with hope (and the desire to wrap our arms, legs, and entire bodies around those we hold most dear). We identify with Kucuchi even though on the surface we have almost nothing in common with her. This was likely the intent of the writers, producers, and director, but it is Kucuchi’s genius that engenders this irony and makes it palpable.

I spent this most recent Saturday morning in a classroom leading workshops for high school students seeking the tools, resources, and networks to make a positive impact on their campuses and in their communities. My friend Shakari and I have been imagining and actualizing this Youth Empowerment Conference on behalf of District 1 Board Member, Marguerite LaMotte, since last year. Since Mark Ridley-Thomas’ 15th Annual Empowerment Congress (for adults) occurred concurrently on the other side West L.A. College’s campus, student participants earned an opportunity to meet State Senator Ridley-Thomas, as well as listen to a speech by his keynote speaker, Dr. Cornel West. Now, I love Cornel West. Love him. Anyone who knows me knows that. If I had the necessary student profile and academic rigor, I would enroll in a PhD program at Princeton and do any and every possible thing for him to serve as my advisor. These students on Saturday knew nothing of Cornel, but he won them over. And he challenged them all to realize themselves in cohesive communities as unique individuals. Although not intended for my adoption, the challenge is sticking with me. Am I now (have I been) living up to the potential demonstrated by the 19-year-old Unai who wrote the following for the United Nations’ Voices of Youth during World Summit for Social Development?

http://www.unicef.org/voy/past/voyI/un-2402.html

“The problems of poverty, pollution, health care, and education are problems which are both international in scope and in implication. There is no country in the world which can claim for itself total enlightenment in any or all of these areas.

The simple reality is that the allowance and acceptance of the belief that poverty is either a lifestyle choice, or an inevitable truth of this world, breeds the apathy that does not allow for progress in this area. Unfortunately, this belief that the conditions of people will not change, regardless of the goodwill and efforts of citizens around the world, affects progress in all other international issues as well.

There must be an establishment of the legitimacy of international law. People should be charged with and punished for their specific violations of the UN Declaration of Rights. It is no longer enough to say that such and such a nation violates Rights. It has become overwhelmingly clear that only cases successfully brought against individuals will set the precedent for future attempts to enforce international law. Only when we are able to prove that all citizens of the world are responsible for respecting one another will we truly have a world in which anything is possible.”

(To Be Continued…)

If you haven't already, please go see "Bobby"─

2006-11-28T01:15:00.000-08:00

My contribution to the multinational corporate economy Thanksgiving weekend usually takes the form of Cineplex movies instead of mega-shopping center bargain hunting. The afternoon following Turkey Day dinner the bulk of my fellow bird, side-dishes, and gravy aficionados entered a 3:25 pm showing of the latest in the multi-decade, multi-actor James Bond saga. Since I managed to get that one in on opening night, I purchased a ticket for “Borat,” the all-too-popular pulp piece shot as a pseudo-documentary. My concern that audiences were not flocking to this flick because of a newfound appreciation for satire, but rather were reacting to a desire to see fellow human beings humiliated, and popular stereotypes about our differences confirmed, kept me from seeing it on a prior date. Some of my preconceived notions were confirmed; others shattered. In some ways, “Borat” represents an intersection of three strings of popular culture: (1) Ben Stiller comedies in which humor is provoked by discomfort like “There’s Something About Mary” and “Meet the Fockers”; (2) public spectacles designed around voyeuristic urges—don’t try this at home car crashes and double-dog dares—a la MTV’s “Jackass” and the raising of the “America’s Funniest Home Videos” broadcasting bar that “Bum Fights” videos as well as YouTube downloads (with or without police brutality) represent; and (3) the gaping void Carlos Mencia and others have been scrambling to fill since Dave Chappelle chose a plane ticket to Africa over the $50 million the Comedy Central network offered in exchange for another season’s worth of primetime episodes.

After a dinner of leftovers I both returned to the multiplex theater for a post-evening showing of “Bobby,” and indulged in a late night DVD entitled DIG—an indy rock exposé of the shenanigans associated with the personal and private lives of “the Brian Jonestown Massacre” and “the Dandy Warhols.” The later reminded me of the days when I daydreamed my writing would resurrect “Raygun” magazine and transform me into the most important cultural critic of my generation. It also served to remind me of all of the reasons I am not a postmodern artist or self-described musical genius. My Woodstock was listening to Barak Obama speak at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, not any combination of concerts or permutation of jam sessions. Whether popular or avant-garde, great collections contain at least one piece that remind us of Tupac Amaru Shakur’s claim that he (as an individual human being interacting with other human beings through speech and actions) might not change the world, but he knew with certainty that he (as the creator of powerful phrases assembled by the labor of combining accessible words) would plant a seed in and inspire the mind that would. BJM and the Warhols are part of a great collection, but their creations—as much as I enjoy them— do not inspire visions of seeds taking root, finding nourishment, and blooming into change.

“Bobby,” on the other hand, is an epic dedication of able hands to the care of fertile soil. And whether the yield is that of a garden a family farm, or an agribusiness monster, it is obvious that writer/director Emilio Estevez spent seven years looking for just the right spot to start working, and equipment to labor with, before attempting to break ground. In the interest of full disclosure I will admit that I was fearful of serving as a patron to a mediocre movie. I doubted Estevez. I was wrong for this and I apologize. “The People v. John Lennon” was disappointing. It seemed directionless, (and not in a planned Dadaist fashion) as well as lackluster in execution—as though everyone behind the scenes, from the makeup artists to the postproduction editors, knew the film was doomed because of its unwillingness to embrace the conspiracy theory the audience expected: Lennon was purposefully killed because he possessed sufficient power to challenge the conservative ascendance Ronald Regan represented, and shift the pendulum left again. My assumption “Bobby” would suffer from similar cinematic shortcomings evaporated within moments. Each storyline and aspect of character development brought to fruition by actors giving performances as strong as any rendered over the course of their careers, this labor of love succeeded in making the past present and culling hope for the future. I’m not ashamed to admit I cried at the film’s culmination. I expected and found myself more than prepared for the spilling of Kennedy’s blood. Nothing could have maintained my distance from the resonance and poignancy of his words. Estevez selects a speech in which RFK moves an angry, despair-ridden audience from violence to peace; from sheer hopelessness to open eyes, heads held high; from humanity’s defeat to its greatest glory.

Tupac Amaru Shakur passed away on September 13, 1996...

2006-09-13T23:33:00.000-07:00

I wrote and published the following article, "Bamboozled by the Rap Industry" in 2000. Print media articles about Tupac and the state of hip hop written before, or written since, have earned me some acclaim. But this one, both still floats arond the internet and motivates emails from hip hop fans/scholars/advocates.

Rest in peace Tupac. You were arguably the important artist of my generation.

*******

2Pac keeps putting out records despite the fact that he was killed in 1996. None of them seem to be going platinum, and all of them seem to be political. Spike Lee's latest cinematic hyperbole,"Bamboozled," may provide the reason why rap's most heralded "thug life gangsta" has yet to hit number one with any of his posthumous releases. Unfortunately, it may provide the "why" for a lot of questions that we have been afraid to ask until fairly recently.

It is trendy this election year to go after the explicit content of rap music, especially now that 70 percent of its fan base resides in suburban America and has sun-sensitive skin. Interestingly, those who have been paying close attention to the recent criticisms of the art form have noticed that many of rap's harshest critics are its founders and its ideologically positive minority. Why would those who made their living bringing baggy clothes, "ill beats" and a gun-toting "f--k da police" attitude into style now make a complete 180 and act like members of Vanity's born again congregation? The answer parallels the plot of Mary Shelley's first novel.

The monster is loose, and we cannot stop him. He will hunt us down and kill us if it is the last thing he does.

As Spike Lee's film points out, at the turn of the 20th Century, blacks wore black face and played the parts of mammies and sambos because they had no other choice. Those were the only roles available to black entertainers. Then Spike Lee and John Singleton came along, and pretty soon Steven Speilberg wanted to make a big budget movie about slaves who won the right to return to Africa.
We used to have only Richard Pryor to make us laugh, and now we have Chris Tucker, Chris Rock and all of "the Kings of Comedy".

If "Roots" had been made in the 1980s, Levar Burton probably would not have played Kunta Kinte, because Lawrence Fishbourne and Denzel Washington would have been battling it out with Wesley Snipes for the role. If it had been cast in the 1990s, "real African actors" would have been cast into its starring roles, and we would have gotten the chance to hear some Ibo, Bgandan, Swahili or some other easily identifiable African language on the big screen. We would have felt as though we were really experiencing slavery, and we would have felt audibly lost without the subtitles.

Aren't these signs of progress? Doesn't this show how far we have come in such little time? We used to have only Richard Pryor to make us laugh, and now we have Chris Tucker, Chris Rock and all of "the Kings of Comedy". In addition, there is the "Russell Simmons Def Comedy Jam" in syndication. Isn't that progress? Spike Lee intentionally, or not, obliterates our notion that we have come so far in such a short period of time. He makes us realize that we are just recycling the same routine. The comedian who started out telling jokes in a minstrel show about how voluptuous black women are and how funny black folks can be is the same man who today has an HBO special, in which he uses the word "nigga" several hundred times.

The original rap crews and posses that first threatened to fight back with force against an oppressive white establishment were quickly replaced by those who were willing and able to rap about themselves and their material dreams. People did not want to hear about the struggles in "da hood." They wanted to hear about "slappin' b--ches and jockin' hos." Public Enemy's "Fight the Power" received little nourishment from audiences who were told by those who dominated the airwaves that rap was to be trusted to the Beastie Boys and was about fighting for "your right to party."

So what did hip hoppers do in the face of this "white" taking of their music? Did they become even more political? Did they rally together to expose the white man's establishment for what it really was? No, they bought MC Hammer records. They stopped rapping about the struggle to survive in the ghetto and started rapping about dreams of leaving the ghetto. They started rapping about their ability to sleep with a lot of women. They started rapping about how the women they were getting with were tricks, whores and b--ches. Eventually, they started comparing women to motor vehicles and farm animals.

Everyone knew MC Hammer and Vanilla Ice were media produced fads, but with them, the pattern of rap success was born. The "hook" of a hit was to be a sample of a song that was not too old to sound unfamiliar but also was not so recent that listeners had reached saturation with it. The video for a hit had to have dancers with tightly choreographed moves, and the performer had to include several visuals of himself rolling with his posse in his hood or his favorite club. The lyrics of a hit had to be about how untouchable the artist said he was. "You can't touch this," isn't far from "You can get with this or you can get with that ... I think you'll get with this 'cuz this is kind of phat," and it is closely related to "Wu-Tang Clan ain't nuthin' to f--k with."

The lyrics had to have the artist repeating his name enough times that even a listener who did not speak English would know whose record he was listening to. "Vanilla Ice Ice baby," bears a striking resemblance to "it's the N-O, T-O, R-I-O, U-S you just lay down slow," as well as to "I'm Slim Shady yes I'm the real Shady, all you other Slim Shadies are just immitatin', so won't the real Shady please stand up."

But how did it get to be this way? How did we come to accept this grossly exaggerated, highly negative and offensive image of black people? A black performer is not "keepin' it real" unless he or she speaks in an unintelligible, agglutinating slang pattern. A black comedian is not funny unless he pokes fun at the differences between white and black people in the same show as he refers to himself and every other black person in the audience as a "nigga." A black rapper must wear baggy clothes and have tattoos and wear big platinum chains. He must like expensive cars and guns and have several of each. A young black woman must either wear a blonde wig or dye her afro some Las Vegas neon color. She must wear revealing, scandalous clothes, and she must be a gold-digger willing to perform any act if the price is right.

Progress has not been made. It hurts to write that, but in terms of the media, it is true.

How did we go so wrong? The sad truth is that we did it to ourselves. Just as in Spike Lee's film, blacks come up with what the minstrel should look like, and whites finance it. It is no longer the case that blacks must play minstrel roles in order to become famous, but they want to. It is the fastest way to the top. It is the way to go when you are a young black person who is full of ambition. You do not even have to be old enough to vote.

Long ago, when there was no black middle class or big groups of black consumers of popular culture, jazz tunes born in black neighborhoods were covered by white bands. Black rock n' roll classics made Elvis king. But now, in the 21st century, when 10 percent of the U.S. population has billions to spend and is a more impressive and dynamic population than it has ever been, they choose to continue to focus on producing bigger and better minstrel shows. More Ferraris in the next video. More ethnic jokes in the next routine. More scantily clad women on stage during prime time performances. More references to women's body parts and name dropping in the lyrics on the next CD.

Black people have been bamboozled so bad that they are doing to it themselves, and why not? When they aired the First Latin Grammies, Latino/Hispanics proved that dying your hair blonde is a necessary prerequisite to making a major TV appearance. White people have bamboozled themselves into believing that all of the stereotyping and categorizing they are doing nowadays is somehow not racist. In fact, they think it is progressive and liberal.

Michael Rapaport's character in Spike Lee's latest film is a white executive with a black wife and two bi-racial children. He uses they word "nigga" but only to show how "black and down" he is. He has pictures of famous black athletes on the walls of his office. He owns several pieces of African art. He, like the members of the minstrel show's audience, adorn themselves in literal and metaphoric black face and becomes upset when this act is challenged.

White kids listening to the Wu-Tang are yelling out the lyrics to "Shame on a nigga who tried to run game on a nigga." They are not censoring themselves. When the "n-word" comes up, they are blasting it at top volume. Maybe if these same kids have black friends they are reciting the lyrics in front of them. By doing this they feel as though they are proving that they are "down." White people saying "nigga" used to be something that symbolized how far from "black" they were. Only rednecks used that word. Now every kid in suburbia with a sound system uses the word as though it were a conjunctive phrase.

Progress has not been made. It hurts to write that, but in terms of the media, it is true. 2Pac might have said a lot of beautiful inspirational things, but his double album "All Eyez on Me," in which he talks about drinking, smoking and f--king, is the one which sold the most copies. We are all responsible for that. How many minority graduates are there from Ivy League schools? Learned minorities were supposed to change the world. That is why Booker T. Washington wanted us to educate ourselves, so that we could deal with the world on our own terms. That is why JFK wanted us to ask what we could do for our country, so that we wouldn't have to feel as though change was something that happened from the top down. That is why Malcom told us to read and why MLK dared to dream, so that we could make informed decisions concerning our lives and provide our children with a sense of peace and hope.

Spike Lee's "Skool Daze" was about how blacks criticize and hurt one another despite the fact that they depend on white approval and money to do what they do. Most of the movies Spike Lee made after that were pretty bad. They had predictable hyperboles that did little to engender a purposeful dialogue between the races. "Bamboozled" is a mirror. It's Spike Lee's mirror. It is not distorted, and after almost two- and- a- half hours, the figure in the mirror most clearly seen, other than one's self, is Spike Lee's. Maybe it was the experience of making "Malcom X." Maybe Spike Lee finally had an epiphany one day reading the New York Times on the toilet. Either way, the man became the Oracle of Delphi for long enough to put us in front of a mirror in which we look like the exploiters that we are.

I have made ethnic jokes and poked fun at friends based on stereotypes. I did it because it proved that I was "down." I could date women from any race, culture and/or religion because I was so "down." I not only exploited others, but I exploited myself. I bought into that whole Latin-lover stereotype fabricated by Hollywood during the "good neighbor era" and perpetuated by Ricky Martin's PR team. I thought that because I was Latino/Hispanic, spoke Spanish fluently, knew how to dance salsa and ate rice with beans and fried plantains that I was beyond reproach. I thought I could say and do anything I wanted. I built my reputation on this fact.

I've been bamboozled. I've bamboozled myself. To steal a term from rap, "I played myself," and the only thing that makes me sadder than this fact is the fact that we've all played ourselves.

Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. (Matt. 5:4)

2006-09-11T06:54:00.000-07:00

[Image of centerpiece, “Appeal to the Great Spirit,” found in the Tower Room of Baker Library, Dartmouth College—bronze sculpture of a Native American man, adorned with a headdress, staring at the heavens while atop a horse with his arms stretched out].

FIRST APPEAL

“The soul can never be cut to pieces by any weapon, nor burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind.

One who has taken his birth is sure to die, and after death one is sure to take birth again. Therefore, in the unavoidable discharge of your duty, you should not lament.

As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones, the soul similarly accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones.”

Excerpt from the “Bhagavad Gita” Religious Text

Mahatma Gandhi exemplified faith in the face of great turmoil. Cries of “Death to Gandhi!” erupted during prayer meetings in January 1948. Prophetically, Gandhi told close friend and follower, Manubehn: “I wish I might face the assassin’s bullets while lying on your lap and repeating the name of Rama with a smile on my face.” As Gandhi moved into the crowd to speak, a man fired three shots. “Sri Ram! Sri Ram!” Gandhi said, as he tumbled to the ground.

Gandhi’s final wish is universal. We may not all call out to Rama, the deified hero, worshiped as an incarnation of Vishnu, preserver and protector of worlds, but we, whether Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, agnostic, atheist, or other, hope to be accompanied in the moment of departure by a calm smile, a heart filled with the beliefs we hold inviolable, and the image of a beloved being we associate with a place of safety, and the comfort of companionship, held inside our shut eyelids.

This day is dedicated to the members of our Dartmouth family, immediate and extended, who have gone before us. In addition to those who attended this institution, we acknowledge all those connected to it by spirit, by blood, by law, by the bonds of love and friendship—human beings, mensches, all. We do not forget that all present here today have lost. We do not forget that all not present here today have lost as well. Sadness and suffering have visited every doorstep. But the human spirit is inexorable, inextricable, and inexpugnable. And today is a day for the human spirit. And thus today we remember:

• All departed classmates, friends, and family—especially those who left us too soon, too young, too fast
• Those who lost their lives as a result of the events of September 11, 2001—including Juan Pablo Cisneros Alvarez ‘99
• Those who lost their lives as a result of disease, poverty, injustice; struggles they did not start, a world they did not make
• Those who lost their lives in pursuit of human progress in all its forms; greater understanding of our planet and universe

REFLECTIONS FROM POPULAR SCRIPTURE

First Reader: “Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil for you are with me (Excerpt, Psalm 23)”

Second Reader: “My help comes from the LORD, the Maker of heaven and earth … The LORD will keep you from harm—he will watch over your life; the LORD will watch over your coming and going both now and forevermore (Excerpt, Psalm 121)”

Third Reader: “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven: a time to be born and a time to die … a time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance … a time to embrace and a time to refrain, a time to search and a time to give up, a time to keep and a time to throw away, a time to tear and a time to mend, a time to be silent and a time to speak … a time to love … a time for peace (Ecclesiastes 3:1-2, 4, 5-7, 8)”

Fourth Reader: “A good name is better than a fine perfume, and the day of death better than the day of birth. It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of feasting, for death is the destiny of every man; the living should take this to heart … The end of a matter is better than its beginning, and patience is better than pride (Ecclesiastes 7:1-2, 8)”

Fifth Reader: “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God … Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed (1 Corinthians 15:50, 51-52)”

Sixth Reader: “Supreme over his servants, He sendeth forth guardians who watch over you, until, when death overtaketh any one of you, our messengers take his soul, and fail not: Then are they returned to God their Lord, the True (Surah al-An’am: 61, 62)”

Seventh Reader: “And the earth shall shine with the light of her Lord, and the Book shall be set, and the prophets shall be brought up, and the witnesses; and judgment shall be given between them with equity; and none shall be wronged (Surah az-Zumar: 69)”

ALL: “Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together … let us encourage one another (Hebrews 10: 23-24, 25)”

APPEAL IN SONG

All members of the congregation are invited to join.

“IN MY LIFE”

There are places I'll remember all my life
Though some have changed
Some forever not for better
Some have gone and some remain

All these places had their moments
With lovers and friends I still can recall
Some are dead and some are living
In my life I've loved them all

But of all these friends and lovers
There is no one compares with you
And these memories lose their meaning
When I think of love as something new

Though I know I'll never lose affection
For people and things that went before
I know I'll often stop and think about them
In my life I'll love you more

Though I know I'll never lose affection
For people and things that went before
I know I'll often stop and think about them
In my life I'll love you more

In my life I'll love you more

FROM THE 1965 ALBUM, RUBBER SOUL BY THE BEATLES

FINAL APPEAL

“Through your blessing, grace, and guidance, through the power of the light that streams from you:

May all my negative karma, destructive emotions, obscurations, and blockages be purified and removed,

May I know myself forgiven for all the harm I may have thought and done,

May I accomplish this profound practice of phowa, and die a good and peaceful death,

And through the triumph of my death, may I be able to benefit all other beings, living or dead.”

Excerpt from “The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying” by Sogyal Rinpoche

At the time of his death on January 29, 1963, Robert Frost was considered the eternal, albeit unofficial, poet laureate of this nation. Frost was born in San Francisco, California. His father, a journalist named William, died when Frost was about eleven years old. Isabelle, his Scottish mother, resumed her career as a schoolteacher to support her family. The family lived in Lawrence, Massachusetts, with his paternal grandfather, William Prescott Frost—the man who gave Frost his first, and perhaps most rigorous schooling. In 1892, Frost graduated from high school and came to Dartmouth, but attended the College only briefly.

Over the next ten years he held a number of jobs: textile mill worker and expert instructor of Latin at his mother’s school in Methuen, Massachusetts, among these. In 1895, Frost married former schoolmate, Elinor White. Together they parented six children. Frost published his first books in Great Britain in the second decade of the Twentieth Century. Soon thereafter he became the most read and constantly anthologized poet in the United States, awarded the Pulitzer Prize four times. In his poems, Frost depicted the fields and farms of his surroundings, and observed the details of rural life, which hide universal meaning. “I would have written of me on my stone: I had a lover’s quarrel with the world,” Frost once said.

Many of Frost’s great poems are appropriate to share today. But standing in memorial of those who have gone before us; here in the town of Hanover, so near the still waters of Storrs and Occum, in a clearing by the center of the thick forests of Vermont and New Hampshire, and accompanied by the proverbial barns and farmhouses that adorn the shores of the Connecticut River, one seems exceptionally fitting. In “Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening,” Frost writes:

Whose woods these are I think I know.
His house is in the village though;
He will not see me stopping here
To watch his woods fill up with snow.

My little horse must think it queer
To stop without a farmhouse near
Between the woods and frozen lake
The darkest evening of the year.

He gives his harness bells a shake
To ask if there is some mistake.
The only other sound's the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.

Frost speaks of “miles to go.” He suggests that longevity is more than an expanse of time; more than a sum of the moments we have lived—the total number of days, weeks, months, and years. A long life, it seems, is one of welcomed travels and interactions, not one grounded in the shunning of environmental or human connection. Nature and rural surroundings are especially significant for Frost, as they serve as his chief source for insight into the deeper design of life. Who among us can forget the first time we, as matriculated Dartmouth students, saw the leaves change along the Appalachian Trail; the dusting of snow come November; the blue ice of Winter; the first flowers of Spring; the refreshing river in the summertime? Who among us can ignore the wisdom to come from these? If a good life is measured in experiences, not decades, then surely all those whom we remember today lived good, if not great, if not enviable lives.

Frost speaks of “sleep,” and of “woods, lovely, dark and deep,” filling with “downy flakes of snow.” Is this an acceptance of death that borders on longing; an undercurrent, tingeing the surface, reinforcing and playing off the night and winter images? Yes. What motivates this sentiment? “Ho ka hey!” “Today is a good day to die!” is what Crazy Horse, Chief of the Oglala Sioux nation, sang each morning. Some call it “battle cry,” demonstrative of Crazy Horse’s fearlessness; his willingness to surrender to death at any time. But standing atop the granite of New Hampshire, the still North in our hearts; the still North in our soul, the hill-winds in our breath; the hill-winds in our veins, the Oglala Sioux chief’s words seem remarkably similar to ones with which we are exceptionally familiar: “Live Free or Die!” Not an invitation for life to end. But a summons to exalt the life of each and every human being to draw a breath in this world; a celebration of the human spirit: inexorable, inextricable, and inexpugnable. An invitation: to believe in our future, to praise each person in the present, and to remember.

“If you could only sense how important you are to the lives of those you meet; how important you can be to the people you may never even dream of. There is something of yourself that you leave at every meeting with another person.”
--Fred Rogers, “The World According to Mister Rogers: Important Things to Remember”

2003 Memorial Ceremony Excerpts:
Officiated & authored by Unai Montes-Irueste ’98 with assistance from Belinda Chiu ‘98

Where is the voice of reason?

2006-07-15T03:47:00.000-07:00

I wrote the following over three years ago. Recent hostility against "illegal aliens" moved me to revisit it. Immigrants without documents to protect them are the easiest and most vulnerable targets for those who seek validation through the mass support that can be gained by manipulating rage and fear. PEW Research data confirms that hate crimes against Latino/Hispanics have risen to an alarming rate. As much as talking-heads, politicians, and conservative activists claim that their "crusade against the illegal invasion" is not motivated by xenophobia and racism, the result of their unholy war has been violence against men, women, and children from Mexico, Central and South America. No terrorist acts have been prevented by the so-called Minute Men. No wall across the border, English-only law, or move to alter the Fourteenth Amendment (so the children of immigrants can be denied US Citizenship) has brought an end to Al-Quaeda, fast-tracked the implementation of the policy recommendations made by the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, or brought "red" and "blue" together.

***

I am an American in need of a hero, in need of hope. All those
feelings of resilience and community felt looking at the rubble of
Trade Center Plaza, and the smoke rising from the side of the Pentagon
and that field in Pennsylvania, gone.

First there were attacks and shootings of brown people who "looked
like terrorists," men with turbans, women with covered heads, and
Islamic children walking to school. Heroic firefighters, members of
police forces, and public servants in and out of uniform squabbled
publicly over the look of proposed statues, as well as the licensing
and copyrights of ground zero videos and photographs. Both stories
featured on the news.

Money raised was selectively given to victims. In death, some lives
are worth more than others, the government told us, because in life
certain people earned more money than others. OK, the public said.
That's fair. Don't survey the widows, the grieving children, or those
left behind. Washington knows the difference between right and wrong.
We're sorry but we can't give you money at all. Why not? Because
your husband, wife, father, mother, brother, sister, son, and daughter
were illegal immigrants. We owe them and you nothing. And you can't
have any either … why do "gays" always want "special" rights?

We won the "war" in Afghanistan. (Did we?) I saw some Americans not
come home on TV. I saw some families not cry tears of joy. Aren't we
still there? When we leave will they have an infrastructure and
democracy, or just a new reason to "hate" us? President George W.
Bush said that the war would take a long time, that we must be
patient, that all nations that aid, and abed, terrorists are our
enemies, and that we will find Osama Bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda
members and bring them to justice. But I'm not sure who we're
fighting anymore, how long I should wait to remember, or who our
enemies are.

Is Bin Laden dead or alive? Does it matter anymore? Fifteen of the
hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, now we're relying on them to keep
the peace in Middle East, and to help us attack Iraq. Where did all
of those countries that swore solidarity to our quest to stamp out
terrorism go? I thought Saudi Arabia was our enemy because of their
efforts to aid and abed terrorists, why is President Bush trying to
convince us that they are not? When they passed the Patriot Act and
when we were all flying red, white, and blue flags, my government told
me that the world could be divided into good and evil. What happened?

Every time I turn on the TV I see dead bodies. Dead Israelis. Dead
Palestinians. Dead men. Dead women. Dead children. Dead children!
People in Europe blame the Jews. We blame the Palestinians. In
Europe there are lots of Islamic people. Here there are lots of Jews.
In both places the governments are run by Christians, Christians that
watch Jews kill Palestinians; Christians that watch Palestinians kill
Jews. On the news they say that the "Bush Doctrine" dictates that we
don't negotiate with terrorists and that the Palestinians have no
democratically elected leader. But I thought the reason they were
fighting was because they don't have a sovereign country. How can you
elect a leader when you don't have a nation with citizens and borders?

They also say that the Europeans are anti-Semitic. I understand that
children in France have to hide their stars of David, and can't play
outside. If that is true, then at least part of Europe has not
changed. Funny though, during World War II France was our ally. They
weren't Nazis. They didn't build concentration camps … did they? I
don't remember there being a lot of pages dedicated to those opposing
the Vichy government in my history textbook. Israel has a right to
exist according to the United Nations. Egypt recognized the Jewish
state over twenty-five years ago. Why is Israel's existence still an
issue? And why can't we all understand why the Palestinians want to
be free?

In elementary, middle, and high school I learned that Patrick Henry
said, "Give me liberty or give me death!" I went to college in New
Hampshire. Its state motto is, "Live free or die!" My parents, who
both went to school in Mexico, learned Emilio Zapata's version, "It is
better to die on your feet than to spend a lifetime on your knees!" I
am disgusted when I see people with bombs strapped to their bodies.
But how am I supposed to pretend as though I can't paraphrase their
final words before they go.

My president cannot convince me that our government is not
contradicting itself. I teach kids in a Latino/Hispanic neighborhood.
More than once I have been asked if I am a spy. At first I thought
they were afraid of terrorists, then I understood. Not long ago,
these kids came home and heard that immigrants were costing California
money and that they didn't deserve to go to hospitals or learn in
school. Last year, they were told that immigrants were to blame for
drugs, crime, and disease. Today, they 're told that terrorists are
crossing the border with them. The children I teach are afraid …

They are afraid of the government they pledge allegiance to every
morning, afraid that their English and the flag stickers on their
notebooks won't be enough to protect them.

"If they took the people that were from Islam that were US citizens
and the ones with the Green Cards, they might come for me and my
family," one boy says to me.

'You're being silly,' I say. 'Do your math …' I wonder of lying to
him is wrong.

I am an American in need of a hero, in need of hope. All those
feelings of resilience and community felt looking at the rubble of
Trade Center Plaza, and the smoke rising from the side of the Pentagon
and that field in Pennsylvania, gone. And I am not alone.

In memoriam:

2006-04-24T01:21:00.000-07:00

This was written several weeks ago when I first received word of his passing. I offer no excuse for why it remains incomplete. But please rest assured, my prayers have been consistently marked by the completeness, eloquence, and purposefulness my texts lack.

- Unai -

*******

My 1998 Dartmouth College diploma is not signed by, President, James O. Freedman. But it should be. I foolishly delayed the satisfaction of one of my quantitative analysis distributive requirements until the spring of my senior year. I slept through the morning midterm—an exam that could not be made up, a test that amounted to 50% of my final grade. The kind-hearted professor afforded me the only option that would allow me to walk with my class on graduation day: After completing all expected coursework for the term, I accepted an incomplete credit, and received a remarkably challenging exam days after my departure from Hanover. I completed it in the window of allotted time. Faxed it back. Received the necessary passing marks. And by July, I was ready to receive my parchment signed by President Freedman. One small problem—Freedman’s term had ended and I was forced to wait until President James Wright assumed his post and the full assembly of Trustees gathered in the fall, before I could adorn my wall with that highly coveted document written in Latin. I always thought I would have the chance to add President Freedman’s signature to my diploma—he seemed so very vibrant and strong.

I am saddened terribly by the loss of this great man. I am without nearby family other than my mother, and therefore I have always looked to my fellow College alumni as kin. My mother wept when I shared the news of his passing. My Dartmouth family sighed with heavy hearts welled-up eyes as well. It only seems strange to persons tied to typical universities or those without any relationship whatsoever to higher education (much less a close-knit liberal arts institution of academic excellence and social camaraderie) that we mourn the loss of a school figurehead so deeply and openly. To those of us with granite in our veins and memories of moose-crossing signs; sensory recollections of contact with the Connecticut River and imprints of the purple, fuchsia, and golden sunrises over Dartmouth Hall so deep into our grey-matter that they are inseparable from the essence of our souls, these tears, sighs, and heavy hearts are forgone conclusions. We truly love the College. And for eleven years many of us came to love the College because of this man.

President Freedman once played John F. Kennedy opposite Dean of the College, M. Lee Pelton, in a stage production paying homage to the icons of the 1960s Civil Rights era. While this dramatic recreation hinted that President Freedman’s career as a thespian, had he had one, would have posed little threat to the legacy of canonic actors like Laurence Olivier. It was demonstrative of the breadth of his passion. James Freedman spoke and wrote and acted so that others might live the dream—the dream restored, revitalized, and re-imagined countless times between 1776 and the present; the dream Langston Hughes demarcated as deferred for too many peoples for too long; the dream the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. transformed into a communitywide, nationwide, worldwide peaceful revolution of love. Mahatma Gandhi remarked, “You must be the change you want to see in the world.” President Freedman championed these words—I hope to become over the course of my lifetime what he proved to be in but one of the four years I knew him.

*******
PRESIDENT JAMES WRIGHT'S EULOGY FOR JAMES O. FREEDMAN:
Congregation Kehillath Israel, Brookline, Massachusetts
March 23, 2006
Sheba, Deborah, and Jared - we share your loss and mourn with you. Susan and I offer our deepest condolences to you and to all of your family. The lives of each of us in this room are diminished by the loss of a friend - but we remember warmly how much we each were enriched by knowing Jim Freedman as a friend. That warmth can never be lost.
A few years ago, Jim Freedman said to a Boston Globe interviewer that his great regret was that due to his illness, his grandchildren would not know him. Isaac, Jacob, Sasha, and Noah: we resolve you will know him. Let me record for you….
Susan and I have known Jim and Sheba Freedman for 19 years - good and full years, but also years that tested him regularly. The cruel accumulation of physical assaults upon his body never diminished his spirit or his mind. He met the repeated challenges with grace and with courage and did so in ways that inspired all who were privileged to be in his good company.
James O. Freedman was a man of many parts - husband, father, and grandfather, a son of New Hampshire, law professor, university president, academic spokesman and leader, lover of books, public intellectual, sports enthusiast, a special friend who was so proud of his Jewish heritage. Each of these he embraced to the fullest. He excelled in living a good and generous life, always comfortable with who he was.
When I first met him in 1987 what stood out was his wisdom, the power of his intellect and the range of his learning. He read so widely. He was curious to know more about many things. And he came to know more. But knowing things was not enough - reflecting upon them, learning from them, relating them to life's problems and questions, sharing the wisdom derived from this process, these things were the purpose of education at its best and they shaped the intellectual meaning of his life. He was always a teacher, always patient and wise.
As Dartmouth's fifteenth president, he focused consistently on raising even more the intellectual sights and expectations of the College. He encouraged the creation of new academic programs, affirmed and strengthened the College's commitment to diversity, oversaw major construction projects, and completed a successful capital campaign.
His passion for learning, for liberal learning, for discovery, these things always shaped his administration. Dartmouth's distinguished reputation today stands as a tribute to his vision.
We learned from his ideas, from his passionate defense of the liberal arts, from his unflinching support of academic freedom. He willingly fought for the ideas he believed in, and he challenged us to strive for the best. He did not flinch from controversy nor did he step back from challenge.
I had the good fortune to serve as Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and as Provost with Jim, and, when he took a sabbatical in 1995, as acting president. Jim was the sort of colleague you could spend hours with talking over the day-to-day issues of campus and of the world. He loved to talk about books, about the day's news, about baseball, and he had an ear finely tuned to the academic rumor network! Many sought his advice and counsel. He had a wonderful sense of humor and a laugh that would lighten the heaviest of subjects. We spent many hours together - hours that I will never forget and will always cherish.
If his wisdom and intellect shaped his approach to life, for the last dozen years his courage marked his life and together these qualities made a strong teacher the stronger and made his great passion for liberal learning the greater. As he said at Dartmouth's 1994 commencement, just completing his chemotherapy, his first chemotherapy, "although liberal education isn't perfect, it is the best preparation there is for life and its exigencies. It does enable us to make sense of the events that either break over us, like a wave, or quietly envelop us before we know it, like a drifting fog."
At that time none could have imagined that our friend would have so many subsequent opportunities to test this preparation; none of us could have handled these repeated assaults with so much dignity and such understated courage.
The Anti-Defamation League recognized him twice, with their William O. Douglas First Amendment Freedom Award and with the David Rose Civil Rights Award. The testimonials that led to these tributes said so much about a teacher who taught and who lived the value of liberal learning in making the world the better.
A few years ago we talked about his dealing with what then must have been the fifth or sixth recurrence of his cancer. I asked him about his spirits and he acknowledged that sometimes he felt terribly depressed and discouraged. But he said that he coped with these feelings by reminding himself that if in 1994 someone could have promised him ten more years, time to finish two books, to meet and to hold his grandchildren, Isaac, Jacob, Sasha, and Noah, to enjoy old friends and to make new ones, he would have felt blessed. But, he observed, those ten years had gone quickly, too quickly, so that perhaps with ten more years he would feel doubly blessed!
He lived to see the Red Sox win the World Series. And many here will know his passion for this team. He could recite details from Red Sox history that would challenge the best historians and he loved speculating on trades or moves. He was quite capable of second guessing managers - and he laughed when I told him that even in this world of specialization the two things that most Americans thought they could do better than the person doing the job was manage a baseball team and run a college or university.
Along with his native intellect, his exceptional wisdom, his demonstrated courage, there was another defining quality, increasingly important to Jim - he was Jewish. I recall a conversation a few years ago when I said to him that while of course I did not know him before 1987, I thought that his Jewish heritage and values had become even more powerful forces in his life over the last ten or fifteen years. He agreed that this was true, and it was something from which he took great comfort.
He grew up in Manchester, New Hampshire, the son of a high school teacher and an accountant, and a member of a small Jewish community. As a child he developed his passion for ideas, and books, and the life of the mind and he understood early that so much of identity was tied to his being rooted in this Jewish community.
Jim once wrote, "Growing up … I often wondered … what it meant to be a Jew. I gradually came to understand that a devotion to learning was at the center of Jewish identity. My parents were both readers. Our house abounded with books and conversations about ideas. And so, as I matured, my search for my most authentic self was ineluctably linked to my identity as an intellectual, and that identity was inextricably linked to my sense of myself as a Jew."
In his distinguished service for the American Jewish Committee, recognized by them with their National Distinguished Leadership Award, that secular sense of self became a profound sense of responsibility, a passion to protect and to enhance Jewish life.
When Susan and I last visited Jim a month ago at Massachusetts General Hospital, he was as eager as always to know news and to share views of the world. Pitchers and catchers had reported but we all recognized that he might not see another opening day.
He was nonetheless so pleased when he told us that Princeton University Press was publishing the book that he had been working on for the last several years, one that would provide reflections on his family, his community, and his education. And through the bandages and patches and tubes he positively beamed when he said that he was dedicating the book to Sheba. Left unsaid, but surely recognized by those in that room - and all in this temple today - is the reciprocity of this dedication, a recognition by Jim of how Sheba Freedman has dedicated so much of her life to protecting the quality of his life. Sheba, you inspire us all.
Eudora Welty, one of Jim Freedman’s favorite writers, once wrote, "Integrity can be neither lost nor concealed nor faked nor quenched nor artificially come by nor outlived, nor, I believe, in the long run, denied."
Here we attest and shout out that Jim Freedman was truly a man of integrity. Everything he did, he did truthfully and with integrity. Quietly, he encouraged us to do the same. It is with sadness, for sure, that I stand here today. But it is also with deep pride and affection for all that Jim Freedman accomplished and meant to us.
In the 2003 Globe interview in which he reflected upon his mortality, Jim Freedman hoped that his grandchildren would know of him that "I thought it was valuable to try to nurture some values to help people live better." Isaac, Jacob, Sasha, and Noah, your grandfather did that. And those lessons endure.
He liked the line from The Education of Henry Adams, "A teacher affects eternity; he can never tell where his influence stops." Today we honor a man whose ideas can have no end and whose values must have no end - and we celebrate our good fortune in having known him.

*******

MEMORIAL SERVICE MAY 15 FOR PRESIDENT EMERITUS
JAMES O. FREEDMAN

A memorial service for James O. Freedman, President Emeritus of Dartmouth, will be held Monday, May 15 at 2 p.m. in Rollins Chapel, with a reception to follow in the Top of the Hop. All are welcome to attend.
Mr. Freedman was Dartmouth's 15th president, from 1987 to 1998. He died on March 21 at his home in Cambridge, Mass., after a long and courageous battle with cancer. He was 70 years old. A native of Manchester, N.H., he graduated from Harvard College cum laude in 1957, and from Yale University Law School in 1962. After a clerkship with then-U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Thurgood Marshall, Mr. Freedman became an associate for the New York law firm of Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison.
His career in academic leadership began in 1979 when he was named dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. In 1982 he was appointed president of the University of Iowa, leading that institution for five years. He joined the Wheelock Succession of Dartmouth presidents in 1987. Mr. Freedman's administration was marked by numerous academic initiatives, including the first overhaul of the curriculum in over 70 years; the most successful capital campaign in Dartmouth's history, "The Will to Excel"; the achievement of gender parity in the student body; and an increase in the number of women among tenured and tenure-track faculty that established Dartmouth as a leader in the Ivy League. During his presidency, the College's endowment surpassed the $1 billion mark and its valued policy of need-blind admissions continued.
At Mr. Freedman's March 23 funeral at Congregation Kehillath Israel in Brookline, Mass., President Wright said, "His passion for learning, for liberal learning, for discovery, these things always shaped his administration. Dartmouth's distinguished reputation today stands as a tribute to his vision."
Mr. Freedman was the author of three books, Crisis and Legitimacy: The Administrative Process and American Government (1978), Idealism and Liberal Education (1996), and Liberal Education and the Public Interest (2003). His memoirs are forthcoming from Princeton University Press. During his tenure and in the years since, Mr. Freedman was an impassioned voice in a range of forums and a respected advocate for liberal education, equal opportunity and affirmative action, and for the need for university leaders to find their voices in the public sphere.
In lieu of flowers, remembrances may be made to the Bathsheba A. Freedman Scholarship Fund at Dartmouth, Dartmouth College Gift Recording Office, Hanover, NH 03755; the oncology department at the Massachusetts General Hospital in care of the Development Office, 165 Cambridge St., Boston, MA 02114; or the American Jewish Committee, 165 East 56th St., New York, N.Y. 10022.

*******

400 attend Colors' rally against injustice
By James M. Hunnicutt, News Editor
Published on Monday, February 5, 1996

Standing below a banner reading, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," about 400 people braved the frigid cold for two hours Friday afternoon outside the Parkhurst administration building to rally against injustice.
More than 40 students, faculty members, administrators and community members spoke before the crowd -- often very emotionally -- and condemned the recent spate of hate-speech incidents.
In the past three weeks, two Asian-American men in Little Hall and two Asian-American women living off-campus found racial slurs, such as "chink," written on the doors of their residences.
Last term, unknown assailants threw dirt at the window of a woman living in Lord Hall, who had hung a Dartmouth Rainbow Alliance flag in the window. Other students in the Gold Coast found homophobic slurs, such as "Kill the faggots," written on their doors bearing "Gay friendly space" stickers.
Last summer, an allegedly racist and sexist poem was read aloud during a meeting at Beta Theta Pi fraternity.
President of the College James Freedman, Dean of the College Lee Pelton and several members of Colors, a new campus group comprised of the presidents and vice presidents of seven campus minority organizations, stood on the steps of Parkhurst and addressed the crowd in turn.
In an electric voice that elicited much cheering from the audience Unai Montes-Irueste '98 said, "We're going to have the institution change and the system change."
Montes-Irueste, a member of the Student Assembly, encouraged students to sign a petition he wrote requesting the College to make all students pass a course about race relations in order to graduate.
Montes-Irueste finished his speech by saying, "If you are cold, get closer together because that's what it's all about."
Freedman encouraged students to continue to protest hate speech.
"Hate has no place at Dartmouth. We want to love one another and treat one another with ... respect," Freedman said.
"Let's pluck a rose of sweetness and harmony out of ... thorns of intolerance and bigotry," he said

*******

Student rally mourns Calif. Proposition 209
By Beth Duncan And Erik Tanouye
Published on Thursday, November 21, 1996

A group of students, faculty members and administrators, including Dean of the College Lee Pelton, denounced Proposition 209 to an audience that was at times as large as 200 people in front of the Collis Center yesterday.
The "speak out" started at noon after about 50 students conducted a mock funeral procession marching around the campus carrying a coffin that had "Here lies affirmative action" painted on its side before arriving in front of Collis.
A group calling itself the Dartmouth Coalition for Equal Access and Opportunity planned the event, which started with presentations by speakers followed by an open microphone.
Pelton said he was speaking "as one who has proudly benefited from the American principle to act affirmatively."
"Proposition 209 is neither social nor is it just. It targets the most vulnerable people in our society," Pelton said.
"Dartmouth College's commitment to affirmative action, despite the forces of opposition elsewhere, is unswerving, clear and as rock solid as the granite that graces the New Hampshire hillside," Pelton said.
Unai Montes-Irueste '98 read an e-mail message from College President James Freedman who was out of town yesterday.
"I want to say, clearly and unambiguously, that Dartmouth is and will remain strongly committed to affirmative action in its hiring and to the pursuit of multifaceted diversity among its students," Freedman's message said.

From talking the talk to walking the walk...

2006-02-23T23:57:00.000-08:00

PLATFORM DRAFT PREPARED FOR DEMOCRATIC PARTY CA 24TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT CANDIDATE:

TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION, ESTABLISH JUSTICE, INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY, PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, AND SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA’S 24TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Unai Montes-Irueste, February 2006)

When next you sit in front of a computer with access to the world-wide-web, type the following phrases into your favorite internet search engine: “Vision for California’s 24th Congressional District,” “Future of California’s 24th Congressional District,” “Tomorrow in California’s 24th Congressional District,” “Direction for California’s 24th Congressional District”…

Your search will yield zero results.

This is because for the last two decades, our representative in Congress, Elton Gallegly, has placed the desires of the elite and extreme wing of his party’s leadership before those of We The People. The exclusive and wealthy cadre he has aligned with have handed him campaign funds and lobbyist dollars—every two years since 1986—to pay for pollsters, messaging marketers, and political consultants to help him remain on a payroll we fund with tax dollars (that don’t provide what they did but a few years ago).

In exchange for his job as a career politician, Gallegly has been asked to not provide a direction for the District, or speak of what tomorrow should look like here and in the United States of America; to avoid imagining a future for California, and vote as he’s told instead of defining a vision for the Americans who sent him to Washington D.C. with the hope that if given one more term in the legislature of the oldest and most vibrant multicultural democracy in the world, one more chance to lead the greatest force in the global economy, he could… But he didn’t… And he won’t…

“Few will have the greatness to bend history itself; but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total; of all those acts will be written the history of this generation.”~ Robert F. Kennedy

The United States of America is a place where destiny is a journey shared, and shaped, and remade by ordinary people who become extraordinary leaders when they act on the belief that against seemingly insurmountable odds, a more perfect union is formed when we establish justice, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, as well as secure the blessings of liberty. People around the world know the story of the colonists who overthrew an empire for the sake of this idea, and for 230 years men, women, and children have left Europe, Asia, Latin America, and Africa—by choice or force—and dedicated their efforts, many surrendering their very lives in heroic military or public service, to the construction of the American Dream.

The building of this collective dream has often advanced slowly and imperfectly—it was scarred by our treatment of Native Americans, betrayed by slavery and segregation, sullied by the marginalization of women, Asians, Latino/Hispanics, and poor whites; tested by wars and economic downturns, the threat of nuclear winter, and terror—yet, brick by brick, rail by rail, calloused hand by calloused hand, people dreamed and keep dreaming, and built and keep building. A generation ago men like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and César Chávez, and women like Coretta Scott King and Dolores Huerta, worked and marched, addressed and petitioned our government, boycotted and sacrificed their safety and health until America was made a land where the question of our place in history is not answered for us, it is constructed by us.

Now, I’ve worked through the politics, economics, and social pressures of construction consistently for the last 13 years. Believe me when I tell you, building is often difficult… But it can be done… And it must be done now…

Technology and globalization have combined like never before. And while commercial advertisers and politicians have asked us to focus only on how much easier technology has made our lives—after all, we can send emails back and forth, place and answer telephone calls, keep an agenda, surf the web, listen to mp3s, as well as send and receive instant messages, using a machine small enough to fit in a jacket pocket—we’ve been asked to ignore the multinational-corporate revolution that has dictated which barriers stand and which barriers fall in the process of connecting the world’s economies. Recent public policy priorities have encouraged businesses to relocate, (and move jobs) not only wherever they find factories, but also wherever they find internet-connections.

Countries like India and China quickly realized this. They understood that they were no longer confined to the role of underdeveloped nation only able to serve as source of cheap labor or cheap exports. They wanted to move to a position from which they could compete with us on a global scale—in every arena. Initially, (not that long ago, in fact) they lacked the human capital, the professional people to make it happen. But they started schooling their kids earlier, for longer periods, and placed a greater emphasis on mastery in the areas of math, science and technology. Soon, China and India’s most talented students were able to compete with skilled, educated workers in the USA. Pursuit of a higher standard of living became no longer synonymous with migration here.

China, for instance, is graduating four times the number of engineers than the United States is graduating. Today, accounting firms are emailing tax-returns filed by residents and citizens in the United States to workers in India who can figure them out and send them back as fast as the average tax specialist in California is able to. Yet, despite all of the evidence at our disposal that the American dream can be once again constructed, there are far too many in the Senate and House of Representatives in Washington D.C. who believe that there isn’t much we can do about our current disadvantages as a nation.

They hold that the best idea is to give everyone in the top 1% of income-earners one big “pass Go” without having to pay their fair share of our national obligations, and that it is ok if CEOs make 500 times what workers due year after year, wave of massive layoffs, after wave of massive layoffs.

They hold that the rest of us need to express gratitude for the nominal refund check we get from this government—a government that asks us to trust its wisdom despite a chaotic Iraq, an aggressive Iran, and a Homeland Security department that couldn’t clothe, feed, or keep the people of New Orleans from drowning in waters filled with disease, misery, and despair.

They hold that indictments in the Office of the President and the United States Congress; no-bid contracts and millions and billions of dollars misspent, mismanaged, and missing money do not represent a “culture of corruption.”

They hold that family values and responsible government mean preserving the estate tax for those handing down fortunes of over $3.5 million at all costs and the “ownership society,” as opposed to investing this revenue in the information technology, nanotechnology, and biotechnology sectors of the American economy, lowering the impact of our record debt and deficits, and addressing the glaring needs of the working poor and the middle-class—needs not solved by divvying up nominal refund checks.

Nominal refund-checks do not provide 47 million Americans with healthcare, cover the costs of a generation of retiring baby-boomers who are need Social Security to keep them out of poverty now that corporation after corporation has abandoned its commitment to the pensions designed to serve as the principal retirement plan for workers; it doesn’t cover the costs of childcare, higher education, home ownership, or make life any easier for the countless men and women who have been sent off to war without the body armor, the protection from improvised explosive devices, (IEDs) and the exit strategy needed to bring mothers/fathers, sisters/brothers, sons/daughters alive, with all their limbs and veteran’s benefits that more closely approximate the level of service and willingness the members of the armed services deserve for what they risk and sacrifice. Their bravery and devotion should not be manipulated for political gain.

With my Nephew, a graduate of Annapolis, and, a cousin, a Marine now in Iraq, cause our family to struggle with the many decisions this Administration and Congress make and maintain. Because we disagree, it does not mean any of us are any less patriotic. All of us have benefited from being residents and citizens of the United States. We love our country.

Government research and investment made the railways possible and the internet highways. From the Northwest Ordinance to the Homestead Act to the New Deal to the National Highways Bill and Civil Rights legislation, the public policies prioritized by the federal government of the United States have played a leading role in the creation, expansion, and maintenance of a massive middle-class. Most Americans belong to the middle-class because of wages and benefits and schooling that allowed us to prosper.

Our economic dependence depended on individual initiative and innovation. It depended on a belief in the power of free markets. But it also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, the idea that everybody has a stake in this country—that we’re all in it together and everybody deserves a fair shot at community, inclusion, and opportunity. This is what has produced our unrivaled political stability. If we do nothing to construct a calculus capable of confronting the current face of global economic opportunism; if we refuse to build a better bridge to bring fundamentalists out of the business of worldwide terror, then we surrender the American dream… And betray the next Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and César Chávez; Coretta Scott King and Dolores Huerta, all of whom might very well be sitting together somewhere in California’s 24th Congressional District at present, wondering if they’ll ever learn to read now that the funding for integrated preschool support that includes family literacy has been reduced by 56%, praying their parents will win the lottery so that they can pay for college in an America of ever-increasing tuition, Pell Grant elimination, escalating student loan interest rates, and crippling levels of individual and family debt.

We recently celebrated the birthday of the reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the passing of Coretta Scott King. In many ways, they exemplify the best of a life and mind involved in social, political, and economic affairs; the best public face of Christianity in the recent history of the United States. Organic intellectuals, proponents of nonviolent resistance, they held out the only slim hope for social sanity in a violence-ridden world. If prophets are sent to edify, exhort, and console; figures who make others uncomfortable because of the radical way they live the Gospel, yet speak of faith and love because they point to peace and reconciliation, then in spiritual terms there is no more fitting description for these two. And yet, like all great prophets, their teachings and example hold real value and worth in the context of the secular world as well.

I am passionate about this call to run for office. Those who know me know that I must forever stand true to my egalitarian principles. This is not about office, dogma, or even Party. I wish to serve the working-class and middle-class communities I have known and made my living among for the duration of my life. But I by no means wish to remain in Congress for a generation or more. I am a minister, a person of the cloth, an unapologetic Christian. But I believe thoroughly in the “separation of church and state,” the right of each woman to choose concerning her reproductive freedom, and the legal protection (not prosecution) of same-sex couples who wish to commit themselves to one another until death do them part. There is a difference between moralistic acts and moral actions. A Constitutional Amendment comprises the former. It is rhetoric, a Golden Calf of words. This is a time for moral actions. Scripture, the foundation of my moral activity calls us “To do unto others as you would have them do to you.” We are called to actively participate in making the world a better place for all. We are responsible to and for each other. We are “our brothers keeper.”

The American dream is an inspiration to all oppressed peoples around the world who struggle for human rights, democracy, freedom, and equality. My campaign for Congress is the next logical and heartfelt step in a life dedicated to championing construction coalitions between conservatives, liberals, and moderates; building the bridges of community, inclusion, and opportunity that allow the for-profit, nonprofit, and public sectors to work together in partnerships that are complementary and symbiotic (instead of combative and zero-sum). Everything during this campaign and during my time in Congress will focus on what needs to be done to truly make families stronger, (to protect sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins) and to actualize our priorities, (by committing the necessary time, energy, and resources to make them tangible). I served as shepherd to affordable housing construction efforts that both yielded the income necessary to spur further building and adhered to the prevailing wage and overtime incentives to work with organized labor without conflict.

My work united churchgoers and secular persons, people of color and whites, men and women, the affluent and the socioeconomic poor, the political left, the political right, and the political middle behind common goals. I led with integrity. And when I did what mattered most was not my female gender, or my Mexican-American heritage, or my title in the Presbytery as Reverend. Because like the vast majority of citizens and residents in California’s 24th Congressional District, and throughout the United States, I believe deeply in, and try to live life by moral acts, I am compelled to think about, bear witness to, and act on enhancing the plight of the poor, the predicament of the powerless and the quality of life for all—as Americans have done for 230 years.

Support my election to Congress and when next you sit in front of a computer with access to the world wide web, and type the following phrases into your favorite internet search engine: “Vision for California’s 24th Congressional District,” “Future of California’s 24th Congressional District,” “Tomorrow in California’s 24th Congressional District,” “Direction for California’s 24th Congressional District”…

Your search will yield results—and you will see them everywhere in the District.

And if a problem should arise that falls outside of the expertise, experience and expectations I walk into Congress with—using energy independence, IT, biotech, and nanotech to generate jobs in the USA; strengthening our national defense by speaking truth to our citizens, our soldiers and our allies; establishing honesty and integrity in government, (effectively ending the culture of corruption) and creating healthcare and education systems that work for every American so we can once again champion community, inclusion, and opportunity in this country—I have a plan:

Be one with greatness. Rise to the occasion by repeatedly reconnecting with my commitment to serve. Face the aspect of the problem of greatest concern and impact. Confront the hopelessness it calls forth in others. Search for root causes, remedies, and treatment for present needs. Move courageously. Solve the problem.

• An adequate level of health care is guaranteed to everyone and made affordable and accessible for all citizens and residents—especially the 47 million currently uninsured—by managing the cost of premiums, co-payments, and deductibles.

• Health care services are affordable to middle-class and working-class families because we crack down on the waste, greed, and abuse in the healthcare system that costs families up to $1,000 a year on inflated premiums.

• We empower each American to pick his or her own doctor—and patients and doctors, not insurance company bureaucrats, make critical medical decisions.

• We empower Medicare and others to negotiate lower drug prices for seniors by supporting the purchase of less expensive prescription drugs from countries like Canada.

• Patients with the assistance of doctors make medicinal health decisions, not insurance companies—the cost of medicine never determines if one gets needed treatment or not.

• No matter where you work or how many times you switch jobs, you have healthcare so you have the flexibility to move to a better job or start a new business.

• We commit to the idea that health care is not a privilege for the wealthy, the connected, and the elected—it is the right of every American.

• We invest $10,000 in each child to give each child a Head Start, Early Start, Smart Start, the best possible start in life.

• Schools produce students capable of meeting the highest of academic standards. We prepare every child in America with the education and skills they need to compete in the global economy.

• Teachers aren’t forced to be babysitters, but properly paid and trained to empower youth to succeed in an economy driven by nanotech, biotech, and information technology.

• We demand full accountability from parents, teachers, and schools in exchange for a federal guarantee to reduce class sizes and treat teachers like the professionals they are.

• We make sure all our children are safe in the afternoons after school.

• Students are encouraged to attend college, and parents can afford to pay tuition.

• We give tax credits to families for each and every year of college.

• We value an America that controls its own destiny because it’s finally and forever independent of Mideast oil—we stop risking our economy and our national security by relying on foreign countries for fifty-three percent of the petroleum we consume (so that no young American in uniform will ever be held hostage to our dependence on oil).

• Alternative fuels and hybrid vehicles are not only researched, but 100% used—our energy plan provides for a stronger America by investing in new technologies and alternative fuels and the cars of the future

• We provide incentives to revitalize manufacturing so the most cost-effective, resource-efficient alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles are manufactured in the United States.

• Environmental policy and business growth are linked in every conceivable way.

• We protect those who protect human rights by contributing the necessary assistance to prevent human trafficking, genocide, and further spread of the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

• We find a breakthrough to cure Parkinson’s, diabetes, Alzheimer’s and AIDS

• We believe in science and unleash the wonders of discovery like stem cell research to treat illness and save millions of lives.

• Instead of cutting budgets for research and development and science, we fuel the genius and the innovation that will lead to the new jobs and new industries of the future.

• We provide emergency food, clothing, shelter, and medicine directly to those in need.

• We protect the pensions and Social Security benefits of those to whom they were promised, and develop a fair strategy to deal with the needs of future retirees.

• No matter where you work or how many times you switch jobs, you have a pension that stays with you always, so you have the flexibility to move to a better job or start a new business.

• Tax cuts and tax incentives benefit middle class and working class families.

• We invest in the technology and innovation sectors that will create the good-paying jobs of the future—such as IT, nanotech, and biotech.

• We disincentivize outsourcing and reincentivize domestic job creation.

• Top income earners pay their fair share of military, homeland security, health care, education, infrastructure, deficit reduction, debt repayment, foreign aid obligations.

• We vote against making the rollback of tax burdens for the wealthiest individuals permanent (including the estate tax) and invest in job creation, health care and education.

• We return to fiscal responsibility because it is the foundation of our economic strength— cut the deficit in half by ending tax giveaways that are nothing more than corporate welfare (government should live by the household budget rule: pay as you go).

• We establish a moratorium for raising taxes on the middle-class and working-class.

• We reduce the overall middle-class tax burden by reducing small business taxes.

• We reduce economic inequality and create opportunity for all by rewarding businesses where both workers and shareholders benefit from profit margins, not companies where CEOs earn 500 times more than the average employee after instituting massive layoffs.

• We commit to building a stronger national defense by increasing funding for the equipment our military needs (body armor for soldiers and tanks, for instance).

• We develop and fund a counter-terrorism program that incorporates the recommendations by the 9/11 Commission (especially the proposed funding and training for the officers and firefighters expected to rapidly evacuate urban populations, keep the peace, and connect evacuees with those distributing food, medicine, and other emergency resources).

• We build stronger families by supporting good parents, holding deadbeat dads accountable, and reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies—our commitment to protect the right to individual privacy and preserve the legality of reproductive freedom does not mean that we should not strive to make abortion as rare as we possibly can.

• We allow consenting adults involved in same-sex relationships to enter into legal agreements that afford them the same medical and property rights as married couples.

• We have a leadership that is as good as the American dream—so that bigotry and hatred never again steal the hope and future of any American.

• We don’t walk away from the challenge of the American dream—a challenge that focuses on much more than simply making a buck, for that alone would show a poverty of ambition—a challenge that we take up as a nation, not because of our debt to those who helped us in our lifetime and lifetimes before, (although that debt is present) but because the individual dream, depends on the collective one, and it is only when we attach ourselves to something greater than ourselves that we realize our true potential.

Statements prepared for those interested in equal opportunity access to higher education:

2006-01-27T05:43:00.000-08:00

Updated statement—(for Phatiwe and other departed friends)

My blood relatives were born and raised in Mexico, save my maternal grandmother—whose plans to study were interrupted by the Spanish Civil War. She, a Basque republican, faced fascism and lost. I read Michel del Castillo, seeking greater understanding of her experience. And Hemingway. Papa Ernest wrote, “We have come out of the time when obedience, the acceptance of discipline, intelligent courage, and resolution were most important, into that more difficult time when it is a man's duty to understand his world rather than simply fight for it.”

It is this sentiment that motivates me to seek the Presidency of the Dartmouth Association of Latino/Hispanic Alumni (DALA). I see this position as one that requires not only a commitment to the wellbeing of the College, as well as the students, alumni, faculty, staff, trustees, and others that comprise it, but also a commitment to the greater Latino/Hispanic community—with special attention to the fact that half of the members of this indispensable nationwide population are under 25 years of age.

In 1994, when I left home for Dartmouth, roughly 75,000 Latino/Hispanics graduated from California high schools. Only 3.5% enrolled in the University of California system. The vast remainder were not keeping me company in the Ivy League or overwhelmingly populating colleges and universities in the East, South, Midwest, or Southwest. Educational attainment among Latino/Hispanics then (both in California and throughout the USA) was significantly lower than that of other racial/ethnic groups.

Today’s data is even more suffocating. (We don’t even see high school graduation).

For instance, the majority of the 73.5% of the students in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) of Latino/Hispanic descent are expected to drop out. 61% of LAUSD’s Latino/Hispanic students presently in ninth grade will leave high school before graduation. And there is no public, private, or nonprofit sector effort currently underway expected to reverse this trend for this or future generations. In fact, across the USA, Latinas (girls) are the most likely high school dropouts, and Latinos (boys) are more likely to receive GEDs in prison than degrees from institutions of higher education.

To put it another way: Right now, nationwide, Latino/Hispanic students walking into preschools, kindergartens, and first grade classrooms are seven times more likely than their “white” peers to come from households headed by high school dropouts. And to make matters worse, high school graduation rates are not the end all, be all, of the education attainment challenge. Only 16% of those Latino/Hispanics who do manage to acquire high school diplomas earn bachelor’s degrees before/by the age of 29.

Latino/Hispanics are repeatedly disadvantaged by power-seeking figures looking for a scapegoat to pin the blame on for economic downturns, illegal drug trafficking, overwhelmed emergency rooms, public health crises, excessively high crime rates, overcrowded prisons, the length of unemployment lines, strained welfare roles, school violence, test scores that compare unfavorably to those of other nations, and so on, and so forth. The unrelenting demonizing of undocumented immigrants from Latin America has produced an inertia effect. The entire Latino/Hispanic community is, and has been historically impacted in an adverse way. The legions of citizens who want to join the Minutemen Project, for instance, seem to be growing faster than the number of trained authorities and human rights observers. Arguments over the US-Mexican border are producing a sociopolitical environment of racial polarization akin to one (I witnessed firsthand) that preceded, accompanied, and followed the Rodney King riots.

As Latino/Hispanic communities increase their visibility in every sector of US American life, it is clear that the state of the Latino/Hispanic population cannot be distinguished from the state of the nation itself. Indeed, within a generation this country’s overall wellbeing will depend on how well Latino/Hispanic communities fare. As of Census 2000, one in eight Americans self-identified as being Latino/Hispanic, and 40% of the Latino/Hispanic population self-identified as being foreign-born; Latino/Hispanics resided in centuries-old communities in the Southwest, traditional ethnic enclaves in big cities such as New York, Chicago, the District of Columbia, and Miami, as well as in “new” places like Alaska, Iowa, Missouri, Georgia, and Carolina North and South. For several years, Latino/Hispanics have constituted the USA’s largest racial/ethnic minority. What has, and continues to change is the demographic “face” of this nation’s future.

“People of color” currently comprise over one-third of this country’s total population, and by the year 2050, this figure will reach 50%. Women and “people of color” represent 70% of new entrants to the workforce predicted for this year. Companies owned by women and “people of color” are the fastest growing small-business segment, increasing by 150% from 1992-1997, and representing $495 billion in revenue during that time period. The collective buying power of African Americans, Asian Americans, Latino/Hispanics, and Native Americans alone reached $1.3 trillion by 2001. Notwithstanding, “communities of color” tend to have mixed social and economic outcomes when compared to “whites.”

Latino/Hispanics are the most obvious canaries, social/health service centers and educational institutions, ballot boxes and the seats of power in the three branches of government, as well as multinational corporations and the global marketplace the mines.

One-third of Latino/Hispanic children live below the poverty line, despite the fact that Latino/Hispanic children tend to live in two-parent, working families. One in every nine US workers is Latino/Hispanic, (and Latino/Hispanics contribute to economic growth through high rates of productivity and small business development) but Latino/Hispanics represent the working population least likely to possess health, and other forms of insurance designed to buttress stability and protect livelihood.

These statistics reflect the fundamental and irreversible structural shifts that have demarcated the employment sector in recent years. Latino/Hispanics occupy the margin because the academic skills demanded by entry-level professional sector jobs are higher than the thresholds that must generally be crossed to access postsecondary education. Culturally competent education, (that identifies and meets real world needs, involves metrically effective teaching and learning, and relies on community involvement and strategic planning) as well as affordable training opportunities for those wishing to gain new skills, offer the only truly viable route for success in an economy largely driven by information technology, biotechnology, and nanotechnology. Frequent displacement, (geographic relocation) poverty, and language barriers prevent Latino/Hispanic access to nearly all forms of education and job training.

And then there’s discrimination—the bigotry and bias of individuals, as well as the systemic, pervasive and habitual policies that institutionalize the racism and xenophobia that damn Latino/Hispanics in housing, lending, (redlining) employment, and education.

Having light skin, speaking fluent English, and being a US citizen did not protect me from having vile insults like “wetback,” “beaner,” and “taco-shitting border-nigger” launched at me (and my friends) by peers. More pernicious still, participating in accelerated academics, all manner of extracurricular activities, or even varsity athletics did not seem to protect any Latino/Hispanic student from the diminished expectations of school and community decision-makers. For instance, one day, I was plucked from one of a handful of Advanced Placement courses offered at my high school, and accommodated in the audience of the campus’ largest auditorium. All “students of color” with an above 3.00 GPA were provided copies of our transcripts, and placed before representatives facilitating the Cal State pre-admission process. I questioned whether the exclusion of representatives from the UC system, and private colleges/universities encouraged student success or limited it. My guidance counselor, responded, “You’re not as smart as you think you are, and when you apply to colleges, they’ll be able to tell that you’re just a smart ass and nothing more.”

My decision to attend Dartmouth College was in large part motivated by my wish to help improve the conditions in which juxtaposed diverse peoples lived, worked, and learned. Yet my last days of public school education, and my privileged years in the Ivy League, were marked by the ever increasing tension that ushered in Propositions 187, 209, and 227 in California, and caused them to be replicated across state lines (throughout the USA) during both the decade closing the 20th Century and the one opening the 21st.

After graduation from the College, I joined Teach for America (TFA). I thought that by becoming a public school teacher, I would be able to sow the seeds of distinguished dreams in the hearts of kids from communities like the one I grew up in. I was to teach English reading and writing skills to a group of solely Spanish speaking children, using a form of pedagogy dubbed “immersion.” I didn’t let the injustices I perceived distract me from my classroom duties. The school district sent representatives to remove the Spanish literacy posters from the walls of my classroom, as well as the Spanish-language books from my classroom library shelves (without replacing them with comparable English-language materials). I adopted the attitude that because I was an “urban public school teacher,” I was supposed to face these situations. I taught using butcher paper and crayons, my own childhood books, and whatever school supplies I was able to purchase with my modest monthly paycheck.

Speaking no English whatsoever, two last minute additions to my classroom, (one girl from Nicaragua, and one from El Salvador) drew pictures on their hands with multicolor pens, unless showered with bilingual instruction (a form of pedagogy declared illegal in California by a statewide initiative in 1998). School administrators would not classify them “special needs,” a status affording structured individual support; the district urged me to retain them—“unofficial” policy was the expectation that teachers would ask the parents of students not able to complete standardized tests in English to volunteer their children for retention. Credentialed, graduate degreed professionals, many with doctorates, found forced grade-level repetition the solution to language acquisition challenges, not academic resources; social integration. I refused. At the end of the year, I left the district, and became a nonprofit sector youth/education policy reform advocate.

TFA recently asked 2,000 of its active corps members if they feel that the general public understands the causes of the socioeconomic and ethnic/racial educational achievement gaps (and if they think people have a grasp of the right solutions)—these teachers are recent college graduates from top colleges and universities and all academic majors who have committed two years to educating students in the USA’s lowest-income urban and rural communities. 98% of these educators who directly witness the greatest challenges students face in under-resourced schools, answered, “no.” It turns out they were right. According to the most recent Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup survey, most Americans blame a lack of parental involvement, problems in students’ home life/upbringing, as well as lack of scholarly interest/motivation for the achievement gap—more than 75% of those polled said they believe that “students of color” have the same academic opportunities as “whites.”

In contrast, TFA corps members, who confront socioeconomic poverty every school day, and interact almost exclusively with “students of color” believe the key to closing the achievement gap is the training and employment of better teachers, improvement in the quality of leaders who make decisions in schools and school districts, and the expectation (championed by teachers, principals and parents) that students can meet challenging academic standards. Working in classrooms that some consider hopeless, these teachers have repeatedly proven that even children who fell behind in school initially can succeed.

TFA corps members and alumni consistently hold that (despite seemingly distressing odds) educational environments where students growing up in low-income areas achieve academically can be developed on a school-wide, district-wide, even nationwide basis if persons in positions of influence are willing to prioritize the elimination of barriers that prevent access to educational opportunity.

Research identifies many different barriers that prevent access, some of which include:

Information & encouragement—

Low-income students often do not receive sufficient information and encouragement to strive for an education beyond high school. Socioeconomic status strongly affects access to reliable information about college. In addition, a 1997 study suggested four factors would improve college participation rates: improving school conditions, having more interested teachers and actively involved counselors, instilling college possibilities earlier, and emphasizing cultural awareness. Also, many families misperceive the cost of postsecondary education, and many students are unsure about application requirements and financial aid options.

Academic preparation—

It goes without saying that a rigorous academic high school program improves a student’s chances to succeed in postsecondary education. Since participation in college-preparatory curriculums varies by race/ethnicity and income, it should be no surprise that college attendance rates vary by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic characteristics.

Financial aid—

The cost of college has increased sharply, and low-income students have been hit hardest. In the past decade, average public four-year college tuition fees rose 51 percent, after adjusting for inflation. By the year 2000, the average debt load of a four-year public college graduate was approximately $19,300 (more than double levels seen a decade earlier). Consequently, even before the current Congress moved to gut them, the buying power of Pell Grants and Stafford Loans dropped sharply (thus reducing college access for lower-income students). Grant programs in general have failed to keep pace with increasing college costs. In the 2003-2004 school year, when the average Pell Grant failed to even reach $2,500, other sources of financial aid, (informed by financial policies and practices on the federal, state and private institutional entities) failed to restructure in order to maximize access and success for all those endeavoring a college education.

*******

On February 29, 2004, before the 86th Annual Meeting of the American Council on Education, Harvard University’s current President offered the following remarks:

Our national economy has been transformed in recent years… The gap in income for going to college has risen from 31 percent in 1979 to 66 percent in 1997. Accompanying this change has been substantial increase in inequality. In 1979, the top one percent of the population earned less than half the share received by the bottom 40 percent. The most recent data suggest that today the top one percent earn more than the bottom 40 percent. Or, to put the point differently, in the same period when the median family income was going up 18 percent, the top one percent of all families saw a 200 percent increase in their income.

Sharp increases in inequality and their relation to education are a serious concern. They are even more troubling when one examines changes in intergenerational mobility… Evidence suggests that intergenerational mobility in America is no longer increasing and may well be decreasing. One recent study found that a child born in the bottom 10 percent of families by income has only one chance in three of getting out of the bottom 20 percent… More inequality, and more persistence of inequality, mean just this: The gap between the children of different economic backgrounds has sharply increased in this country over the last generation.

Increasing disparity based on parental position has never been anyone’s definition of the American dream.

Going back to the beginning of the Republic, and Jefferson’s view that virtue and talent were sown as liberally among the poor as the rich, the contribution of education—and especially higher education—to equality of opportunity has been a central concern… We in higher education and the nation have done much since the Second World War to promote equality of opportunity. We made genuine progress through the happy accident of the GI Bill. By 1947 one out of every two students in higher education was financed by the Bill, and the proportion of young people going to college had almost doubled.

Many feared that the influx of students from a broad cross-section of America would strain capacity and dilute quality, but in fact the opposite proved true… Furthermore, the rising number of educated people ushered in a period of growth and prosperity unmatched in our history.

The success of the GI Bill, and the success of the students it brought into our nation's colleges and universities, had far-reaching impact. Harvard and many other universities substantially increased the resources for financial aid, and a number of leading institutions adopted need-based financial aid policies. State and local governments invested on an unprecedented scale in constructing campuses that made college pervasively available. And with the passage of the Higher Education Act, the federal government made a major commitment to assure, in the words of President Johnson, that “a high school senior anywhere in this great land of ours can apply to any college or any university in any of the 50 States and not be turned away because his family is poor.”

The civil rights movement added yet another dimension to equality of opportunity in higher education… And every graduating class in America looks very different today from the way it did decades ago.

This evolution in the composition of our student bodies has not happened by accident, by coincidence, or by the invisible hand. It is the result of conscious choice in the public and private sectors, by people determined to bring us to this point. It reflects a choice that institutions make with an awareness of the profound importance of fairness to all—and with the recognition that what is fair is also effective… We have a long way to go to make sure that we deliver, in the experience and academic success of minority students on our campuses, on the promise we make at the door.

We have a long way to go to close the gap in academic achievement and standardized test scores separating black and Hispanic students from their white and Asian-American counterparts. And we have a long way to go in bringing to bear on the problems plaguing our public schools sufficient imagination, insight, and relentlessness to begin to make a dent… Given the changes in the United States over the last generation in inequality and its current magnitude, it behooves us to ask whether we in higher education are doing enough. I believe that we are not.

In the United States today, a student from the top income quartile is more than six times as likely as a student from the bottom quartile to graduate with a B.A. within five years of leaving high school. And in the most selective colleges and universities, only three percent of students come from the bottom income quartile and only 10 percent come from the bottom half of the income scale. Let me underscore what I just said.

Children whose families are in the lower half of the American income distribution are underrepresented by 80 percent.

These differences cannot be fully accounted for by native ability or academic preparation. Indeed, a student from the highest income quartile and the lowest aptitude quartile is as likely to be enrolled in college as a student from the lowest income quartile and the highest aptitude quartile.

Why do these gaps in attendance and graduation persist?

In part, because some students simply cannot afford to go to college. At all but the most well-endowed institutions, many students face high tuition and inadequate financial aid.

In part, because many students never consider applying to certain colleges or universities because they believe them to be out of reach. This past fall we held focus groups at Harvard with students with family incomes under $50,000. We learned that these students often work to make up the parental contribution because they do not want to subject their parents to additional financial stress.

There are also issues that are specific to highly selective institutions. The evidence is overwhelming that binding early decision programs of the kind that some colleges and universities use penalize students in need of financial aid by precluding them from comparing offers in choosing a college.

Students fortunate enough to be able to be channeled toward prep courses for the SATs surely show up more favorably at any given level of ability than other students. I would venture a guess that the classrooms of Stanley Kaplan and the Princeton Review are among the least diverse in America.
Many very talented students from low and middle-income families cannot compete with their more affluent peers in the apparent level of cultural or athletic extra-curricular pursuits reflected in their college applications.

Whatever the reasons, the degree of inequality in access to higher education is a problem that must be addressed:

It is more urgent than ever before because the economic impact of going to college in general, and going to a more selective college in particular, has never been greater, and some research suggests that this impact may be greatest for the poorest students.

It is more urgent than ever before because one in five American children now has a foreign-born parent, and the children of immigrants are twice as likely to be poor.

It is more urgent than ever before because our nation's competitiveness depends ever more on the quality of those who graduate from our nation's universities and colleges. And only by assuring access to everyone can we maximize the quality of our nation's college graduates.

And it is more urgent than ever before because excellence in education depends on diversity. If our college graduates are to learn all they can from each other, we must assure that they come from a truly wide range of backgrounds…

In this spirit, we are announcing at Harvard a new initiative to encourage talented students from families of low and moderate income to attend Harvard College. The program has four major components:

1) Financial aid: Beginning next year, parents in families with incomes of less than $40,000 will no longer be expected to contribute to the cost of attending Harvard for their children. In addition, Harvard will reduce the contributions expected of families with incomes between $40,000 and $60,000;

2) Recruiting: The College Admissions Office has intensified its efforts to reach out to talented students across the nation who might not think of Harvard as an option and make sure that they understand Harvard's long-standing commitment to enrolling students from a wide range of backgrounds and regardless of financial circumstances;

3) Admissions: Harvard is reemphasizing, in the context of its highly personalized process of admissions, the policy of taking note of applicants who have achieved a great deal despite limited resources at home or in their local schools and communities;

4) Pipeline: Harvard recently announced the establishment of the Crimson Summer Academy, an intensive summer program for academically talented high school students from financially disadvantaged backgrounds in the greater Boston area. Each student will participate for three successive summers, beginning after ninth grade, receiving encouragement and preparation to attend a challenging four-year college or university.

We want to send the strongest possible message that Harvard is open to talented students from all economic backgrounds. Too often, outstanding students from families of modest means do not believe that college is an option for them -- much less an Ivy League university. Our doors have long been open to talented students regardless of financial need, but many students simply do not know or believe this. We are determined to change both the perception and the reality.

We have also taken steps at the graduate level to assure that students who wish to pursue careers in public service are not deterred because of finances. Last year we established a $14 million Presidential Scholars program to fund top masters and doctoral students choosing careers in fields such as education, public health, and government service.

Harvard is fortunate to have the resources to undertake these programs. But as one institution, we are a very small piece of the puzzle… The trends I have described today are not unrelated to the fact that we have allowed the purchasing power of the Pell Grant to decline for the last thirty years by 11 percent in real terms, relative to overall price increases at private institutions of 150 percent; that we have moved from grants to loans as the primary vehicle for federal financial aid; and that state legislatures have slashed operating support for universities, sending tuitions higher, while diverting scarce grant resources to merit aid.

It is not the work of one bill, or one administration, to restore higher education to its full force as an engine of equal opportunity… But we need to understand, as we did after World War II, that education is not a discretionary expense; it is a necessary investment in the future of the next generation and, thus, in the future of the nation. We need to support programs that work with children from a very early age to make sure that they set their sights high and have the preparation to succeed in college and meet challenging goals… We need to recognize that the most serious domestic problem in the United States today is the widening gap between the children of the rich and the children of the poor, and education is the most powerful weapon we have to address that problem. Let us make sure that the American dream is a possible dream for every child in the nation.

*******

Attending the College afforded me tremendous opportunities from the onset: Before graduation from Dartmouth in 1998, I helped launch and was selected to serve as the first Multicultural Project Coordinator for the Tucker Foundation for Community Service; I was chosen by the Dean of the College to sit on the Advisory Board for the Bildner Endowment, as well as to representative undergraduates on the College’s Student Life, Budget Priorities Advisory, and Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Policy committees; I even had opportunity to know life as a writer/actor in the Nuestras Voces Latino playgroup, a writer/editor for Snapshots of Color arts-prose-poetry journal, a member of the men’s first-year lightweight crew team, a dancer in one of the first incarnations of the Sheba hip-hop ensemble, a founding member and rhythm guitarist in Ritual, (the College’s only rock en español band) a contributor of regular editorials in half-a-dozen student-driven publications, and a senior employee in the work-study world of Dartmouth Dining Services.

Most importantly, while La Alianza Latina President, and subsequently as the elected vice-chair of the Student Assembly (SA) Membership and Internal Affairs Committee, as well as the appointed chair of on of the SA president’s executive committees, I worked tirelessly to bring permanency to Dartmouth’s Latin American and Caribbean Studies department, to establish Latino/Hispanic studies as a permanent option in the College’s curriculum, to hire a permanent advisor to improve rates of Latino/Hispanic retention and graduation, and to create a Latino/Hispanic & Latin American and Caribbean Studies Resource Center.

I inherited these causes from Latino/Hispanics who entered Hanover, NH before me. Others worked with me on them. Together with the efforts of those who matriculated after me they were all achieved. Now the truly difficult and important work begins:

Using alumni to cultivate the existing pipeline—

Instead of establishing and running a Big Green summer institute to rival Harvard’s Crimson Summer Academy, I suggest hiring a “network manager” (a bridge between Alumni Relations and Admissions) whose job it is to connect alumni with each of the top 1,000 public high schools in the USA (according to Newsweek). School #60 for instance, is populated by the children of farm workers in Oxnard, California, and is minutes away from where a Latino/Hispanic member of the Class of 1997 lives and works. In addition, there are private schools throughout urban areas recruiting talented students from diverse backgrounds, and retaining them (especially the ones from low-income households) with a wide array of scholarships, that Dartmouth infrequently connects with. Crossroads Academy, and the Pilgrim School are two such schools found here in Los Angeles.

Another network manager should serve under the direction of the Tucker Foundation as a bridge between Alumni Relations, Admissions, and this nation’s successful educational opportunity producing nonprofits. The Posse Foundation, Citizen Schools, the Rhode Island Children’s Crusade, and the SEED Foundation are but a few that come to mind. The New Teacher Project, New Leaders for New Schools, and Teach for America are the three Dartmouth cannot neglect developing an active, ongoing relationship with. The College would be well served by a program encouraging wide-scale alumni participation in the first two, and increased student interest in TFA. There is no better way to increase the number, and improve the caliber of students in the pipeline of applicants than to place multiple alumni directly into positions of influence in high schools throughout the USA.

It is unacceptable to have an anemic pipeline of applicants that guarantees that Latino/Hispanics will perpetually be underrepresented in colleges and universities throughout the USA. High school graduates prepared for the challenges of a liberal arts education will thrive in an economy driven by information technology, biotechnology, and nanotechnology. We need to reverse dropout trends—we must confront the crisis head on. And we need to reach the most talented Latino/Hispanic high school graduates, and convince them to apply, matriculate, and complete their degrees at Dartmouth.

How the competition lowers attendance costs—

The price tag on a Dartmouth diploma is prohibiting. Even with student loans and scholarships the burden students and families must bear is exorbitant. State and private colleges/universities are sitting on top of huge endowments. Instead of government policies that encourage this practice of wealth amassing, laws governing these 501c3s should reward them for putting this capital to use. If it is not possible for all students with financial need to be educated for free by the College, it should at least be possible to tailor tuition rates to reflect ability to pay (without incurring unreasonable debt).

Middle class families are fraught with the same alienation that has historically plagued the socioeconomic poor. The median income for a family of four in the USA is approximately $62,000, yet middle class families with kids admitted to Dartmouth are expected to come up with $200,000 per child (the cost of four years of classes and housing at the College). And if tuition rates soared from less than $15,000 in 1990, to over $30,000 ten years later, there is no reason to assume that they won’t double again. Loans presently comprise around 70 percent of financial aid packages, making Dartmouth an increasingly sour deal for middle class families, who are saddled with debt once students graduate. (Since I still find myself paying college loans taken out under my mom’s and my name, I am no exception to this rule—my household’s estimated income during my years at the College was higher than before or after, but so was the credit card debt my parents were sitting on by the time I received an acceptance letter).

Similar to its rival in Cambridge, MA, it is likely that half of Dartmouth College’s undergraduate population in 2004 would have qualified for financial need grants of around $24,000 each year had they gone to Harvard (I believe approximately two-thirds of students at both school received some form of financial aid then). But unlike its rival, Dartmouth’s total annual scholarship budget for undergraduates fell fall short of the nearly $80 million Harvard College set aside to benefit more than 1000 households.

But Harvard isn’t the only school Dartmouth must be concerned with. Eight years ago, Princeton embarked on an ambitious project that altered dramatically the makeup of its student body. First came small changes, such as striking home equity from the family-assets equation; then, the university replaced loans with grants that need not be repaid. Princeton made these changes to ensure that all admitted students could attend, and would permit graduates who wanted to enter public service or attend graduate school to do so without worrying about undergraduate debt.

The changes have attracted more “students of color” and students from modest socioeconomic backgrounds. Compared with Princeton’s Class of 2001, the class that will graduate this year from Princeton has 152 more students receiving financial aid and 50% more students from families earning less than the median family income (which Princeton estimates at approximately $47,900). The proportion receiving grants rose from 38 to 51 percent—a Princeton record and the highest in the Ivy League. When loans disappeared from its financial aid packages, Princeton spent years as the only nonmilitary institution to go loan-free (until Harvard announced plans to do the same).

Said another way, once Princeton phased out loans and raised its financial aid budget 85 percent to $52 million, the impact rippled throughout the upper echelons of higher education, helping reshape financial aid policies in the Ivy League. Harvard moved to match Princeton’s aid packages and raised its scholarship budget by 50 percent between 1998 and 2003. Harvard increased its scholarships by more than $4,500 per student (partly because of tuition increases), and half of all students received some type of aid. As of 2004, Harvard lowered “self help” expectations to $3,250, (a combination of a campus job and student loans) Princeton required $2,350 from a campus job, Yale reduced self help to $3,900, M.I.T. knocked $2,000 off its self help standard, reducing it to $5,600, Stanford self help lowered to $5,250, and middle-income families saw their home-equity value capped, Brown eliminated their job requirements all together.

Less than 1 percent of students in the USA go to elite high-cost institutions like Dartmouth College. Increasing racial/ethnic and socioeconomic diversity will not completely erase the lingering taint of elitism. Even if Dartmouth were to offer free tuition to all middle class and low-income students, and a cadre of similarly ranked schools followed suit, it is debatable whether or not such a move would even make a dent in terms of college affordability nationwide.

When Princeton adopted its no-loan policy, David Longanecker, an assistant secretary for postsecondary education in the Clinton administration said, “As a statement, it was an interesting one and a benevolent act. But in terms of higher education in the country, it’s meaningless.” Many so-called higher education finance experts argued that Princeton only intensified competition among rich, elite schools without making aid available for more students. Arguing further that among the elites, the zero-sum nature of competition means that Princeton’s gains might be likely to be felt elsewhere as losses.

Michael McPherson, president of Macalester College and coauthor of The Student Aid Game, puts it this way, “The effect is to increase the gap between the hyper-elite institutions and the institutions that are one step down. It increases the tendency to concentrate the most elite students in just a handful of places. At institutions that think of themselves as close competitors with Princeton but don’t have the resources, the pressure will be to do that selectively—they will in effect do merit scholarships to try to match awards for those students who they think will get into Princeton.”

Such preferential packaging may be exacerbated by a troubled economy that has shrunk endowments and depleted financial aid programs across the fifty states. And as tuition increases hit double-digit percentages on a mass scale, indebtedness will become an even greater concern at colleges and universities nationwide. While a plethora of higher education institutions would like to become more affordable, many have struggled just to maintain aid awards as tuitions rise and more families face decreased earnings. It goes without saying that poor economic conditions are responsible for making Princeton’s policies more popular (and more costly) than that school’s trustees originally envisioned.

In the world of financial aid, only a few dozen schools can afford to meet, even through loans, the full need of a class admitted without regard to financial circumstances. Dartmouth is part of a very exclusive group of only 20 schools in the entire country to maintain a commitment to need-blind admissions. Princeton’s $8.1 billion endowment is the fourth largest in the country, but on a per-student basis, no school is wealthier than Princeton. The no-loan policy and other adjustments, such as the elimination of home equity from the aid calculation, are helping more and more low and middle-income families afford a Princeton education. Depending on their circumstances and number of children, even families with incomes of $100,000 and higher can qualify for financial aid. And while a source of some controversy, one third of aid recipients fall into this category.

The advantages to including income categories this high are expressed by Bob Laird, former admission director for the University of California, Berkeley, “It reverses this trend, started in the Reagan years, of a public policy stance that says a college education is an individual benefit rather than a benefit to all of society, and therefore the individual should pay for it through loans. People who are making between $80,000 and $120,000 a year really have been priced out of the elite private institutions unless they are willing to go into debt enormously. There’s not much point in having a big effort at the very bottom end of the economic spectrum and affluent families who can afford it with no problem, and a real squeeze in the middle. It skews who ends up at that university.”

Princeton’s former President, Harold Shapiro championed financial aid package reform in the last years of his tenure. Of this aspect of his legacy he is noted as saying, “I think some resented the fact that we, having made this move, might force their hand in this area, which would not have been their preference.” Noting that Princeton had more qualified applicants than could be admitted, he advanced the notion that the school’s goal should be to create an institution that was truly open to students from all backgrounds. While Shapiro claimed the financial aid program redesign was not intended to grant the school a competitive advantage, Princeton did indeed gain a competitive edge.

Eight years ago, only 60 percent of students admitted with financial aid chose to attend Princeton. By 2003 that figure (the school’s yield rate for students on aid) climbed to 71%, and Princeton’s overall yield shot up from 65.6% to 74% (placing Princeton second only to Harvard’s 79% overall yield).

Additionally, Princeton’s Dean of the College, Nancy Malkiel, credited the system for boosting the school’s racial/ethnic diversity. In 2002, the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education ranked Princeton third among leading universities, and first among the Ivies, for diversity, citing the university’s financial aid innovations for helping to increase African-American enrollment. Cecilia Rouse, a Princeton professor of economics and public affairs, studied financial aid policies and posited that enough research had been amassed to conclude that “students of color” were more averse to debt than “whites.”

Harvard’s financial aid director, Sally Donahue, credits Princeton with “leading the charge,” and adds that by adopting its own no-loan program, Harvard hopes to erase the development and perpetuation of an “upstairs-downstairs phenomenon” in which students obligated to work15-20 hours a week (or more) must forgo extracurricular activities, such as campus-wide publications and productions that require significant time commitments.

Whether Princeton’s no-loan financial aid program will be seen as the pioneer plan in a larger movement to end student debt remains up in the air. It also remains unclear whether or not ending student debt will, as many predict, motivate more students to pursue public-service careers and/or attend graduate school. The overall state of the economy must improve, financial aid directors across the country must take their wish lists off the shelf, and other influential institutions of higher education must enter the game and either fold or raise the stakes—proposing a strategy that produces outcomes capable of assuaging education access barriers and (re)directing the global marketplace.

Dartmouth College as an agent of change—

Dartmouth, the last of the “Ancient Eight” to co-educate, decided it would consider admitting women only if it could be achieved without massive construction or a drop in male enrollment. 25 years later, while the College’s 17.6% of tenured women faculty members constituted the highest percentage of female professors with tenure in the Ivy League, only 29.8% of the total number of tenured and untenured were women—in 1996, only one tenured or tenure-track professor in the physics department was a woman, for instance, and only three of the 24 faculty at the Thayer School of Engineering were female, and none of these women were full professors.

By the late 1960s each one of the Ivies admitted women on equal footing with men except for Dartmouth. The “good old boys” controlled the College on every level. Women were all but excluded from the student body, the administration, the Trustees and the faculty. The alumni body was (for obvious reasons) entirely male. But the social upheavals of the time made single-sex education look like a thing of the past. Students and faculty moved for the admission of women for years. Trustees were reluctant to conduct a formal study on coeducation despite the frequent externally introduced resolutions asking the Board to consider the benefits of admitting female applicants.

In early 1969, a study of coeducation conducted by Princeton University framed the discussion in the following terms: All colleges and universities needed to coeducate or risk fading as institutions of higher learning. The Princeton Report said the market for single sex education was evaporating, and all schools, even the Ivies, needed to admit women to remain competitive. The federal government began to put pressure on colleges and universities that did not admit women. Bills were introduced to Congress that threatened to withdraw federal support from institutions of higher education that refused applications from applicants of both genders.

Continuing to admit only men would lower the quality of the student body. Dartmouth was exhausting the pool of talented male applicants willing to attend a single sex school in the 60s and 70s, while women were both proving that they were more than qualified to match or outperform their male counterparts in elite liberal arts education, and swelling the ranks of Dartmouth’s peers. In October of 1967, the Undergraduate Council (the precursor of the modern day Student Assembly) announced that 200 women from Mt. Holyoke College would “experiment” with taking classes at the College for a term (or more). None of these women received a Dartmouth diploma. As the 1970 academic year began, a survey revealed that almost 60% of alumni favored coeducation. The survey contained an even more important statistic: 70% of alumni would not change the amount of their donations if the College were to admit women as fulltime students. Dartmouth President John Kemeny promised a decision would be reached and action plan enacted by early 1971. The Trustees were no longer able to delay arriving at this pivotal decision. After 202 years of solely male matriculates, coeducation began in earnest in 1972.

A generation ago, the College did not lead—it followed. Let us not let Dartmouth continue to trail behind in the effort to eliminate the access barriers to higher education.

The College cannot outspend the capital produced by Princeton’s $8 billion endowment. Harvard’s endowment is nearly $20 billion, Yale’s $11 billion, and the University of Pennsylvania sits atop $3.5 billion. Yet Dartmouth’s over $2 billion is nothing to sneeze at, especially if we begin to think of the College as a potential strategic partner in the effort to make college accessible to a wider array of high school students.

321 colleges and universities are sitting on endowments of $100 million or more. Clearly not all of these schools consider themselves Dartmouth’s rivals and would welcome the sort of collaboration that would make all involved parties more competitive. The College should propose the creation of a common investment fund for well-endowed private colleges and universities seeking the additional revenue necessary to afford all middle class and low-income undergraduates debt-free tuition. Concurrently, Dartmouth and its partners should lobby the federal government for expansion of the Higher Education Act, and for a commitment to peg Pell Grants and Stafford Loans to regular interest rate and cost of living increases. On the graduate level, Dartmouth and its partners should found a “think tank” dedicated explicitly to pragmatic approaches for access barrier reduction. This think tank will remain necessary until every public high school in the USA produces graduates that can thrive academically in liberal arts college environments, and are free to matriculate in their favorite of the schools they win admission to, without regard to cost.

*******

Previous statement—(from 05/05/05)

Cinco de Mayo is a day that remembers the victory of poorly armed everyday townspeople over the Imperial French Army in the Battle of Puebla. Several of my peers and friends are wearing brown on this day, in the same way that a majority of Americans wear green on St. Patrick's Day. I join them in this action. Alcohol manufacturers may use these holidays as an excuse to promote greater sales, but most of us think of these days as ones in which we can be proud that the USA would not be the country that it is without the historic contributions of the Irish and the Mexican peoples.

In most American history classrooms, speaking of the Irish cannot occur without speaking of the Italians, the Polish, and the tired, poor, huddled, yearning to breathe free that passed through Ellis Island in the hey of mass European immigration. Likewise, it is not possible to speak of Mexicans without speaking of Puerto Ricans, Cubans, as well as the myriad other populations that constitute the
Latino/Hispanic census group and are indivisible from this country's history. This is an imperfect comparison, of course. Many Mexicans come from families that became part of this country when a 19th century war turned their lands into US territory, Puerto Ricans have all been US citizens since WWI, and so on, and so forth. But my point remains, the American story is one of readjustment and redefinition;
to paraphrase Cornel West, there is no American dream without the faith that history can be transcended by substantive democracy's realization.

My friend, and Dartmouth classmate, Juan Cisneros, died on 9/11. This event led another friend and Dartmouth classmate, Andrew Vera, to a military action in Iraq that he wanted no part of. One fact did not need to necessarily lead to the other, but we were told by the majority of our elected officials that it did. My purpose is not to reengage in an argument already overheated by the 2004 Presidential Election. My purpose is to illustrate that every issue no matter how black and white it may seem, involves people dressed in grey.

Every time I watch Lou Dobbs on CNN or Bill O'Reilly on Fox News, I get scared. I have nightmares in which the legions of citizens who want to join the Minutemen Project grows faster than the number of trained authorities and human rights observers and the border becomes a warzone. The larger and faster groups fueled by frustration grow the more likely violence and destruction will occur. I fear that I
will again see something akin to the mob mentality of the Rodney King riots I witnessed firsthand in high school. It won't matter who deals the first blow or delivers the first shot. People will die or survive life scarring atrocities. I am the son of immigrants. I lived in both the USA and Mexico because of US policies that seemed arbitrary to me as a child. My bias is, has been, and always will be with those who risk their lives to find better ones across the border. But I can
admit that undocumented immigration potentially poses a threat.

I would be a fool and a horrible person if I did not do everything in my power to help make impossible the occurrence of anything even remotely similar to 9/11. Beyond that there are undocumented immigrants (some who overstay legally issued Visas, some who cross the northern or southern border without permission) who commit crimes—some of them horrific. But closed borders and xenophobia have never allowed any people to flourish, not even the inhabitants of Sir Thomas Moore's Utopia. There has to be a better solution to regulating the inflow of human beings in the name of Homeland Security than militarizing the borders and/or further dehumanizing those who wish to cross them. I have begun to hear more about addressing what occurs on the employment side. I have begun to see more concern about employer exploitation of workers living under the threat of deportation, trying to provide for their families in a hostile socio-political environment. I am hopeful that the dialogue will come to embrace all stakeholders, instead of targeting those migrants who are uneducated,
economically poor, and essentially defenseless.

When I was in high school, my decision to attend Dartmouth College was in large part motivated by my wish to help improve the conditions in which juxtaposed diverse peoples lived, worked, and learned. Beyond the riots, my last days of public school education were marked by increasing tension focused upon Latino/Hispanic immigrants.
Proposition 187, which passed during my first year at the College, hurt me deeply. I felt personally attacked and targeted. My heartfelt desire was to surround myself with people from different backgrounds who all got along. It was during this search that I met Walter Rodriguez. He made me believe again that such a world was
possible. Thanks in part to his encouragement I entered campus political life. When I learned of Wally's death three years after graduation a hole in my heart opened beside the one opened by Juan's passing.

Statistically speaking, my graduation from Dartmouth converted me into more of a minority than I ever thought I'd be. The number of Latino/Hispanics that graduate from four year colleges and universities is laughable; the number graduating from Ivy League or similarly prestigious schools is so miniscule it's hardly even worth
mentioning. According to various sources of population research data, by belonging to the census group I belong to means that I am much more likely to be a high school drop out; a gang member; an uninsured worker suffering from AIDS/some other incurable disease; in the armed services; a functional illiterate; in prison; a casualty in a street or military conflict. I want to see the day where belonging to this or any other census group means little to nothing at all. I want to be part of an effort that can transform census categories into anachronistic anomalies instead of likely indicators of socio-politico-economic standing.

It is this sentiment that motivates me to seek the Presidency of the Dartmouth Association of Latino/Hispanic Alumni (DALA). I see this position as one that requires not only a commitment to the wellbeing of the College, as well as the students, alumni, faculty, staff, trustees, and others that comprise it, but also a commitment to the greater Latino/Hispanic community. All children, regardless of who
their parents are, should know of Dartmouth and institutions of higher education like it. All children, regardless of their parents' status, should feel as though they have a shot at applying to, attending, and graduating from Dartmouth or one of its elite competitors. As an applicant I sometimes felt "less than"; once accepted I felt equal; at some point as a student I began to feel less than again; after
graduation this feeling ebbed and flowed, depending on how much money/time/assistance others wished me to provide and how much I was able to.

At Dartmouth I worked tirelessly to bring permanency to the Latin American and Caribbean Studies Department, to establish Latino/Hispanic studies as a permanent part of the curriculum, to hire a permanent advisor to improve rates of Latino/Hispanic retention and graduation, and to create a Latino/Hispanic & Latin American and Caribbean Studies Resource Center. I inherited these causes from those before me. Others taught me how to work on them. Together with the efforts of many others they were all eventually achieved. Now the truly difficult and important work begins:

It is unacceptable to have an anemic pipeline of applicants that guarantees that Latino/Hispanics will perpetually be underrepresented in colleges and universities throughout the US. We need more high school graduates prepared for the challenges of higher education. High stakes testing and No Child Left Behind are not cutting it.
Groups like Teach For America that have made their reputation on delivering impressive results in troubled school districts must enter the political arena by contributing to the education-reform work produced by policy think-tanks. The price tag on a diploma has become prohibiting. Even with student loans and scholarships the burden students and families must bear is exorbitant. State and private
colleges/universities are sitting on top of huge endowments. Instead of government policies that encourage this practice, laws governing these 501c3s should reward them for putting this wealth to use. If it is not possible for all students with financial need to be educated for free, it should at least be possible to adjust tuition rates to reflect ability to pay (a system theoretically similar to the federal tax code). Affirmative action must be improved so as to take into account socioeconomic class, parental educational background, and other factors that are relevant to producing the most dynamic and diverse student bodies possible. In similar fashion, the issue of preferences for legacies (children and relatives of alumni) and athletic recruits must be addressed. We must at all costs continue to
use education as a tool to combat arbitrary disparities. I agree with Dartmouth alum/former Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich: a world that ignores the distance between have and not, is a perilous one.

I share these thoughts with you because I ask your help in refining and improving them. I beg your assistance in bringing their best rendition into incarnated fruition. In other words, help me bring the best of what I have said here to life. And if there is anything I have said here that inspires an idea, a desire, an impulse to improve Dartmouth, this country we all call home, or this world we share, please communicate those thoughts with me; impart those passions. I know there is much more to be done than what I have already addressed. Students in high school need mentors to make it to higher education. Students in college need mentors to make it to graduation. Alumni need mentors to make it through the real world without hitting walls or finding themselves slowed by stumbles.

I m sure that I have not yet learned all that I need to in order to make this world a better place, but I am confident that with the guidance and advice you are able to offer I will soon find myself well on my way there. I am as anxious to hear from those of you who do not consider yourselves part of the communities I feel linked to, as I am to hear from those of you who feel enveloped by the same circles. I do not know what to do other than reach out. I see no better way to reach important goals. My friend and Dartmouth classmate, Ezekiel Webber is still who I think of when describing an embodiment of this philosophy. Zeke made it possible for fraternity members, observant Christians, and members of the GLBT community from all racial/ethnic backgrounds to stand together. A third hole in my heart was added a
little over one year ago. I often ask why I live and these men do not. I have no answer, but any success I have in this I dedicate to them.