April 23, 2012

Why do I need I.D. to get I.D.?


Since the 2008 historic election of Barack Obama to the Presidency, there have been an increasing number of states which have begun to implement new voter ID laws – laws requiring people to present photo identification when voting in an election.  This seems to be a no brainer to some, and a controversial, voter suppression, reversion back to Jim Crow laws to others.

Here in Pennsylvania the campaign season arrives tomorrow (http://tinyurl.com/d2tzhya).  On television and in print media, there has hardly been any coverage of this election cycle.  If there has been any coverage about the upcoming election, it has focused on the new voter ID law passed by Governor Corbett just six weeks ago which requires voters in the state to present identification when casting a ballot.  Overall there are approximately 34 states which have begun to push these measures through their respective state legislatures.  My biggest question, concern is not whether or not this potential law is a new form of voter suppression, but rather a more philosophical question; why in the 21st Century are there people in this country who do not have identification in the first place?

I am keenly aware of the historical significance of the 1965 Voting Rights Act which eliminated such punitive and racists measures like poll taxes and other means which denied citizens  - namely Black Americans, their right to vote.  I am also quite aware of the history of one of the groups promoting voter ID laws throughout the states, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and their intention to gain Republican votes simply through the elimination of Democratic ones.  They believe; “Our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”  I am also aware of the legitimate arguments made by progressives and Democrats who argue that there is an unintended cost to voting, that by having to purchase an identification card (or update an old card) one can conclude that if one has to pay for identification, they are basically paying to vote.

My problem with my fellow progressives and Democrats is this; why wouldn’t we want the most fool proof way of having our votes count?  Through presenting legitimate identification (which can range from state issued IDs to other types of photo identification), there can no longer be the “excuse” that a person’s absentee ballot should not count, that our names do not match (because of misspelling or other “mistakes”) and thus we need a provisional ballot, or any other structural limitations to our being able to express our freedom to vote.

What is also problematic is the lengthy list of places often frequented where one does need identification; to cash a check (either at a bank or a check cashing store, to open a utility account (electric, gas, cell phone…), to travel (not just through the air, but also via train or bus), to enter 21 and over establishments, to receive discounts based on age (whether student rates or senior citizens fares), to rent an apartment or other housing, and finally to receive a voter ID card itself.  These are just but a few examples where people need to present identification. 

I understand my position goes against what many in the progressive community believe.  I respectfully disagree.  While there have been very few, if any, examples of voter fraud based on identification in the past few years, as we hope to grow voting to include perhaps online voting, same day registration and the like, it seems to me that the easier it is to identify who is casting a ballot, the easier it will be to make sure that that vote counts.

Finally, with such laws already on the books such as the “Motor Voter Bill” and in some states, same day registration, we should be in the business of making it easier to increase the voter rolls rather than reduce that number.  As it stands, outside of the historic 2008 election, voting in the 2010 Congressional races, 2011 municipal elections and the current primary season has been dismal without these voter ID laws in place.  In two examples, Chicago and Philadelphia, the election turnout in the past two elections has been well below 40 percent.
It is unclear whether or not these new voter ID laws will increase voter populations or as some believe, suppress voter turnout even further.  What is encouraging is that groups like the NAACP and the ACLU, while fighting the Constitutionality of the law, are also fighting in the streets, educating the voting population on what they need to be able to go to the polls in cities such as Philadelphia, not just during primary season, but in November for the general election.  Hopefully, this civic education will benefit the electorate as opposed to what ALEC intends which is to sway the election in their favor.  

April 17, 2012

Fall Down Seven Times, Get up Eight.


Recently there was an interesting article in the Philadelphia Inquirer  by Kristen Graham (http://tinyurl.com/d3ecu5d) about a young man who is currently lamenting his participation in a program in which he committed to teach in the Philadelphia Public Schools upon graduation from college.  He is second guessing his participation in this school district because of its mismanagement, so much so that he is quoted as saying “It saddens my heart that I don't want to teach in Philadelphia…”  Many responded both on Graham’s blog/webpage as well as on the Inquirer page.  The comments ranged from support to derision.  The critical take away from this article is why would this young man, young man of color to be exact, want to renege on his promise?

Let me be clear, I can understand and appreciate his sentiment.  However, perhaps because of my upbringing, or my stubbornness, or a combination of both, I’d see the troubles surrounding Philly and other major school districts as a blessing, not a curse.  I’d see it as a challenge rather than an impediment.  I see it as an opportunity to effect change and...Oh wait, I did just that.

Back in 2000 I made a failed attempt at my dream career.  I wanted to be a lawyer.  I had always been told that I would make a good lawyer, and wanted badly to be able to argue for a living.  Not to mention, I had a dream of becoming the next Thurgood Marshall, even all the way to the lifetime appointment in the building which cites “Equal Justice, Under Law” as its premise.

Alas that did not happen.  In 2003, I made the cross country journey in a car I did not own 48 hours before to a city where I did not have a home to “just” became a teacher – the family business.  What I did to become a teacher was all in.  I left my home city, moved to another city without the promise of a job, and had no where to stay.  I did so because of a plethora of selfish reasons (not wanting to be in my family's shadow in Chicago was the main one), but also because I wanted to help the students of South Central - I wanted to teach them they way I was taught in an independent school setting, in their public school environment. 

My journey into the classroom is not what I want to focus on today.  I want to critique a culture and a society in which this young man is increasingly becoming the norm rather than the exception when it comes to giving back through teaching as well those who continue to demean young folks who want to get into this business of education. Psychologically speaking for a long time (and perhaps even now if you ask some) I feel as if I let myself down by becoming an educator, that I missed my life calling.  What makes me forget that feeling are the constant reminders of the influence I have had on a large number (over 1000) young people – from a diverse range of races as well as social classes.  Not just in the classroom, but in the streets volunteering, building homes and communities with young folk from many states.  Contributing to that number of young people in such diverse educational experiences has to have had a profound impact on the leaders of tomorrow - not to mention how I view the world.  However, I strongly believe that I was not THE difference in their lives, but rather A difference in their life.  Marianne Williamson said it best; “I am not the teacher in life, I am the student.”  I have learned so much from my students, mentees and other young people that I would be disingenuous if I said otherwise.

So to the young man who doesn’t want to stay in Philadelphia after his initial teaching contract expires and for those Teach for America teachers who are constantly maligned by naysayers on both sides of the aisle, in the immortal words of two late 20th century poets T.S. Shakur said; “Keep ya head up” and Billy Joel concurred by encouraging at the end of each of his concerts to “Don’t take no s**t from anyone!”

My message is simple.  Youth are the leaders of tomorrow.  Sometimes us “older” folk have selective amnesia when it comes to our own youth.  We look in the rear view mirror and only see our mistakes and what we shouldn’t have done.  Rarely do we see the good, and our reflexive mirror seems bent towards the negative.  Thus either through trying to protect young folk, or because we think they are too "immature," we want younger people to be “seen and not heard” to “learn the lessons from their elders” and other types of sayings that are as old as the typewriter they were written on.  In sum, in order to lead, you have to make mistakes.  If we want “perfection” we will never achieve change.  In other words, you have to fall down seven times, get up eight.  Learn from your mistakes, dust yourself off, and continue the fight.  Otherwise we will forever be mired in slow, methodical change from top down rather than organic, grassroots change from the ground up.

April 10, 2012

"Service is the Rent We Pay for the Privilege of Living on This Earth" - Shirley Chilsom

This weeks blog (due to grading and the holiday) is from the vault.  Enjoy...

Mandatory Service seems like an oxymoron, in the sense that one is being forced to perform or participate in what is generally perceived to be an inherently voluntary act. However, when it comes to service learning in schools or in urban communities, one can see that there is a strong need to for youth to reach out to either their own population or populations in which they share common boundaries. These youth perhaps might otherwise not be engaged in learning about their communities or the inhabitants, if service was not a part of their school curriculum, religious or non-profit organizations mission or purpose.

In my experience as Assistant Community Learning Program Director at the University of Chicago Laboratory High School, oftentimes I had to explain to sophomores from, in general, a higher socio-economic background, that their mandatory high school graduation requirement of two semesters (approximately 20 weeks) of service was required, but it was up to them to decide what type of service experience they wanted to perform (afterschool program, working with seniors, homeless, hospital setting, etc). Oftentimes I repeated a quote from Marianne Williamson which says “It is not up to you what you learn, but whether you learn through joy or pain.” Having to participate in service learning, regardless of your background, has been shown to raise academic performance, self esteem, connect students to their communities, and fosters an increased acceptance of diversity (Newman, Wehlage, Lamborn (1992), Blyth, Saito & Berkas (1997), Billig (2004)). Regardless of whether or not these students had previous experience with service through their churches or synagogues or other out of school organizations, creating a shared experience behind service for all of the sophomores concerning issues surrounding community, “isms” and social justice, really made their excursions into the community an overwhelming success. One of the major questions in examining this approach to service learning is – why did students respond to mandatory service more positively than many who have been required to perform service and had less than stellar results?

Service learning has the potential to transform lives. When people (especially high school students) are required to perform service, it is incumbent upon those who place the requirement or are stewards of the implementation of the requirements to make sure students are trained to be prepared for a vast array of experiences. When the adults are not trained correctly, the likelihood of students having a positive service learning experience is greatly reduced (Seitsinger, 2005). It is incumbent then that we as both researchers and educators make sure that when students are mandated to perform service, the adults are also mandated – mandated to undergo rigorous training in order for authentic service learning to occur. When we are diligent in our implementation of training adults to administer service learning programs, then the experiences of students are more likely to be positive, sustained and has the potential to be life altering experiences in which students will want to engage in for the rest of their lives.

One of the final benefits to having mandatory service is the motivational effect. In short, students need positive reinforcement and positive examples of service in order to have a favorable impression of service. Being mandated to do service – especially when programs are of high quality and possess all of the characteristics of “successful” service (Seitsinger, 2005). While working at Lab, the positive effects on the students were many. I saw students who were afraid, skeptical and uncertain about themselves and what they had to contribute, blossom into confident, concerned and engaged budding community activist. In our program, one of the benefits which seemed to be an unintended consequence was that these students would discuss their experiences at home, with their parents and others, who in turn were in positions of authority and/or influence in the city or community. Therefore the engagement of their daughters/sons had a direct impact on their own visions of the city and the community which affected their professional practice (whether they were lawyers, doctors or university professors). It will be interesting to see as the mandate for service learning expands into public schools, how this mandate will affect family members and guardians of the student participants.

April 2, 2012

Fear of a Black Planet

In the wake of the Trayvon Martin murder, the reelection campaign of President Obama and the general state of racial affairs in this country, many people have been repeating the phrase “we do not live in a post-racial society.”  They’ve said it in print, on the air, in the blogosphere, and in countless discussions on social media.  The one question I’ve been thinking is – who “invented” the term post-racial in the first place?

Well of course in this day and age, I took to Google to do a perfunctory search of the term.  I came across several interesting links.  The first one was a definition from the Urban Dictionary which read:
A term used to describe a society or time period in which discussions around race and racism have been deemed no longer relevant to current social dynamics.  Popularized after the election of Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States of America in 2009.” (www.urbandictonary.com)
Of course there are many books on the subject of race in general and the concept of post-racial, including Racism without Racists by Edward Bonilla-Silva.  In the book’s latest edition, Bonilla-Silva devotes the entire last chapter to the election of President Obama and what it means for race relations in this country. 

Another example is a book entitled The Myth of Post-Racial America: Searching for Equality in the Age of Materialism by Roy Kaplan.  What is problematic from the title of this book is that there is a presupposition that the discussion about post-racial America has already taken place, and we all agree that it is a myth that we do indeed live in a post-racial world.  I  have never seen this discussion take place on the nightly cable talking head shows, or the Sunday morning shows.  When did we actually have this discussion and reach the conclusion that it is unanimously preposterous to think that we live in a post-racial world?

Presently, the reelection campaign of Barack Obama has given us an opportunity to reflect on the past three and a half years and examine whether or not we live in a world which, as Ronald Reagan when running for the Presidency said, is “better off” that it was four years ago.  In terms of race, of course that is a complicated question.   
For those who naively thought that the election of President Obama would all of a sudden make a black and white world Technicolor (as in the Wizard of Oz, or the park scene in She's Gotta Have It) maybe their glasses were rose colored from the beginning.  For most of us, the reality of the complexities of race has always been a shade of grey.  In a recent article in the Washington Post (http://tinyurl.com/7psmtxr) Reniqua Allen articulates the current difficulties in bringing up race in a mixed setting.  She brilliantly highlights the same sentiments I feel, that after the latest tragedy (fill in the blank... Trayvon, Oscar, Sean, Troy Davis, Rodney King, etc…) “we have big debates over racial prejudice and disparities in this country, and then nothing happens.”   Her premise is that due to Obama’s election, it has made it hard to talk openly about race; I contend that we never had these conversations in the public square in mixed company in the first place.  Normally these conversations, if they take place at all, take place exclusively in single race, or occasionally singularly oppressed group (i.e. Blacks and Latinos) company.

In perhaps the most interesting and honest discussion available about the idea of a post-racial America,  NPR held a discussion nearly one year after the election of President Obama entitled “The Post-Racial Conversation, One Year In.”  In this discussion, two scholars discussed race and the term post-racial.  The first, Ralph Eubanks (author of House at the End of the Road) defined post-racial in two ways; first – race is no longer an issue or an impediment in American society and two – a colorblind society where race is not an issue, we’re all Americans (http://tinyurl.com/yamtnfa).  The other participant in the discussion Mark Anthony Neil (http://newblackman.blogspot.com/) articulated an interesting premise.  He contends that there is a difference between post-racial and post-racists in which the latter is perhaps a time in the future where slights no longer exist.  He also contends that many want to jump into a post-racial society not because the discussions on race have already taken place, but so that those conversations disappear, in other words conversation fatigue. 

Both authors highlight two critical points which are profoundly meaningful to my work; one, that hip-hop has served as an influential conduit or bridge in helping to advance even the possibility of a post-racial society upon at least one if not two generations of young people and two, that those same young folk have what I call historical amnesia.

Perhaps...ok we do not currently live in a post-racial world.  But that day is coming – how long, not long…What is problematic to achieving this lofty ideal is that those of us with direct links to the 60s era Civil Rights Movement (either as the daughters/sons of those who lived through that era, or lived through that era ourselves) want to impose our racial standards and constructs on what we deem, “naïve” children or young adults.  Perhaps the current transformational shift through which the younger generations view race in this country is another example (like the aforementioned Civil Rights Movement itself) of older folks sitting back and allowing younger folk to lead us into a better society.  Not through the absence of a deep and profound historical understanding of what has transpired throughout the tumultuous history of America, but because of that understanding. 

Coming to terms with our own racial history and the painful, oftentimes deadly history of race in this country does not mean we have to keep reliving that pain.