I have delved deeply into the civic life of Kansas City since my arrival in 2002. Not even my departure in 2008 has reduced my enthusiasm and belief in this city's potential. It's my occupational sideline - I bet on cities and their trajectory. My research has always been focused on the link between development and community - sometimes looking more at the development side, sometimes more at the neighborhood side. I have long been convinced that it is the dynamic of people interacting in the civic sector (elites, interest groups, and galvanized citizens) that determines the success of development. Development without the support of a wide swath of the public is doomed, regardless of how shiny and new it is or how hip and trendy, nor how well it adaptively reuses the city's history. Jane Jacobs defined this for me - it is the people that make cities work.
The 2010 school board elections, I believe, are a microcosm of what is happening in Kansas City. Change always creates stark differences between groups with different agendas and outlooks. The city has undergone a LOT of changes since 2002.
When people step up to lead with vision and thoughtfulness, with bold ideas and with candor, the genuineness cannot be overlooked. The 2010 KCMSD school board elections represent such an opportunity - people are stepping up, speaking out, and coming together for the common good of educating ALL the kids in this KC district.
The new vanguard is not protecting the few at the expense of the many. They are stepping up for ALL students, ALL parents, ALL citizens to say - enough is enough. The school district MUST function as a reflection of our community, not just a few schools.
In my opinion, here are the people you should follow on FaceBook, Twitter, listen to and interact with at public forums, and step up to volunteer your investment of time with their activities and campaigns. This is a momentous time that puts this city on the cusp of greatness and not gloom and doom as the naysayers will point to. These folks are all on FaceBook, some are on Twitter, and web sites are highlighted. Check them out and support the KCMSD!
Airick Leonard West - school board member, founder of BE1! (www.be1kc.org). You will always get a strong dose of realism, information, and listening from this public servant. *and in the spirit of disclosure, yes he is my very good friend. Catch him on FB and Twitter.
Kyleen Carroll - school board candidate at-large, former district teacher, and business entrepreneur. She has a head for understanding how to generate value in our district and deliver that to an engaged community. This is not just about balancing the books and finding savings in the district, but connecting it to the parents and community that want a value-added district that serves scholars and the city. We can have both.
Crispin Rea - school board candidate at-large, youth advocate at Mattie Rhodes, Northeast resident and champion, and unfairly maligned for his stint in the Mayor Funky administration. He is young and open to fresh ideas and understands why the Latino 25% segment of the school district population needs the perspective he can bring to the board.
Joseph Jackson -school board candidate 4th sub-district (Helen Ragsdale's open seat - she is not running), parent advocate and leader in the district DAC and SAC - putting ALL parents forward as an important voice in the governance of the school district. For too long, parents have been used as a political tool by those with a very limited agenda. Joseph has listened to the wide variety of parent opinions in the district and as a parent, he is adept at understanding those voices. His experience will bring forth a refreshing voice on the board.
Candace Koba - advocate and volunteer in the KCMSD schools and leader of a movement to engage parents and community members in a broad forum for the improvement of the district. You can sign up for involvement by going to Community Support Link. She is the epitome of a volunteer who cares about the future of the district and sees it as not a black/white divide but as an opportunity to support our children and the future of this city. She is the real deal and asks you to be sure to Register to Vote.
There are several other candidates who are running as new voices - Rose Bell and Bob Peterson.
There are others who are incumbents and newbies running with current board president Marilyn Simmons. I see their platform as the same old politics of divide and conquer with a self-serving protectionist bent that serves a few schools in the district quite well, but gives others a very short shrift. Ms. Simmons has had her chance to improve the district and has served while disaster after disaster has unfolded with poor leadership and cronyism. Her slate of candidates cannot be recommended. Unfortunately, her opposition candidate failed to reach the ballot and, therefore, she is automatically returned for yet another term.
April 6 is election day. If you are not registered to vote - you have until March 10 to do so (Register to Vote). This is a critical and pivotal point in the life of Kansas City. These folks are the real deal. They are not grandstanding for politics. They are putting their butts on the line for the scholars of this district. Your time will be well spent following their lead and doing the same!
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Camden Schools - ACTION NOW!
Today's Courier-Post has yet another article about the poor administrative state of the Camden City School District. This investigation centers on the fact that the district has not been keeping truancy records, sending out notifications, nor working with the parents and courts to monitor truancy. Last week there was an article about the very poor record keeping around teacher absences. The real sticker on the truancy issue is that there are TWO STAFF PEOPLE assigned to direct this effort and they each make over $100,000 per year. They have staff people below them as well. What are they doing to earn these salaries?
The response from commenters and social media are predictable - anger, amazement at the temerity of the district, questions about the competence of the superintendent, etc. But the money quote from this story is as follows...
The response from commenters and social media are predictable - anger, amazement at the temerity of the district, questions about the competence of the superintendent, etc. But the money quote from this story is as follows...
At the Nov. 17, 2009, Board of Education work session, Young revealed a bombshell that stunned several board members -- the school district had no truancy statistics, nor any plan to combat the ongoing problem.
Young said the district would be developing a new plan.
"I was surprised that for a year, the board has not been told there was no anti-truancy effort or a proactive effort to address truancy," board member Jose Delgado said he recalled thinking when he heard the news.
The board had not been told??? Seriously???? Why isn't this a regularly reported piece of data to the board? For two years they have not seen any truancy data and the board member response is "the board has not been told" UNACCEPTABLE!
Frankly, I am tired of reading about the poor performance. I don't know the skills or value of the super and I don't care. Mainly because it is quite evident that the board has expected NOTHING. Here is what I am suggesting for the Camden City School District Board and I hope the new mayor of Camden, Dana Redd, is listening.
ACTION NEEDED NOW
1. the board must set policy benchmarks for productivity in essential areas. They board must demand that the superintendent share her benchmarks for productivity and results in each of these areas:
3. the board must set a fiscal policy on rate of return for dollars spent in the district. Then they must demand that the superintendent justify all expenditures that do not support that policy. This is how inflated salaries and excess staff will be identified and remedied.
The board should not micro-manage the district. The superintendent is well paid to manage the district. The board, however, must set policy and hold the super accountable. The board does not wait to be told. The board sets policy and tells the super to provide information so they can assess the success of that policy.
The school board elections are in April. What is the plan for Camden's election? What and who will be on the ballot if anyone? Who will the mayor appoint and when will she share her vision for school improvement? Residents of Camden deserve and must demand answers to these questions.
Frankly, I am tired of reading about the poor performance. I don't know the skills or value of the super and I don't care. Mainly because it is quite evident that the board has expected NOTHING. Here is what I am suggesting for the Camden City School District Board and I hope the new mayor of Camden, Dana Redd, is listening.
ACTION NEEDED NOW
1. the board must set policy benchmarks for productivity in essential areas. They board must demand that the superintendent share her benchmarks for productivity and results in each of these areas:
- teacher performance including attendance, evaluation, and progress
- student performance including truancy, grade level performance, and progress toward graduation
- security performance and safety in each building
- availability of textbooks and technology by building and by classroom
- incidence of suspension and dropout by building and grade
- nutritional report on cafeteria food actually served by building
3. the board must set a fiscal policy on rate of return for dollars spent in the district. Then they must demand that the superintendent justify all expenditures that do not support that policy. This is how inflated salaries and excess staff will be identified and remedied.
The board should not micro-manage the district. The superintendent is well paid to manage the district. The board, however, must set policy and hold the super accountable. The board does not wait to be told. The board sets policy and tells the super to provide information so they can assess the success of that policy.
The school board elections are in April. What is the plan for Camden's election? What and who will be on the ballot if anyone? Who will the mayor appoint and when will she share her vision for school improvement? Residents of Camden deserve and must demand answers to these questions.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
School Violence
I know I will catch flack for this post, but this has to be aired.
Here is a story and video about High School kids in Pennsylvania getting tazered at a basketball game. It shows that kids and adults were gathered, yelling loudly at each other, and getting agitated. The police came into the situation and started tazering. There is one view that kids misbehaving, acting threateningly, and not obeying cops must be stopped. There is another view that is seldom heard. That view suggests that these kids live in a very stressful environment and use survival skills that include yelling and standing their ground. Their bravado (and perhaps weaponry - though no shots were fired here) is what they have to make their stand. Making your stand is a primal urge. That urge is not necessary when you have plenty of other means and avenues to make your stand. These kids do not.
The rhetoric that follows an episode like this is usually that cops deserve to be supported and they have to tazer rather than shoot these violent students. I would suggest that there is a clash of cultures and ego going on. The kids are yelling in the hallway. Yelling is a way of life in urban schools and neighborhoods. All part of standing your ground. I see it in schools all the time. Teachers often mimic it because they think the kids will respond. Check the black adult male in the cap who is yelling and trying to tower over the student to make him cower and obey. There is a whole lot of yelling done in urban schools. Check the white teacher/administrator adult figures who are trying to get the students to go into the gymnasium. Let's be orderly. Would you walk into an enclosed area where you don't know what is going on? Not in that chaos.
Enter the police who see their job as ending the chaos immediately, as if their mere presence will ratchet down the emotion, quell the confusion, and bring peace and harmony to the situation. Face it, when the cops come in it is to berate the public into submission using nightsticks, guns, tazers, gruff voices, intimidation and whatever else they have. Usually when they start arresting people it intimidates the crowd to comply. The ego of the police is part of their strategy. We WILL get you to comply or else. We have the means and the law on our side. Ok, that's their job, but at what price? Notice when they handcuff the kid in the gym, the cop keeps the tazer on him lest he squirm away. Appropriate tactic. But once the kid is subdued the cop goes after him with the tazer because he doesn't like the kid mouthing off. Ego. This is not necessarily a case of "bad cops." This is what police are expected to do and we put them into the Colosseum and say, now quiet that mob.
Students, meanwhile are certain that when the police and other adult supervisors get involved that they will be emasculated and stripped of any street cred power they think they carry. Consider that in their neighborhood, that bravado and street cred is what may keep them alive, safe, or at least less likely to be hassled. The cops come in with licesnse to hassle. The tension and dichotomy of the situation is fairly obvious. But we keep doing it over and over.
Answers to this situation?
1. let them fight it out and beat the crap out of each other. Call the paramedics when it's over.
2. bring in more police with more serious weapons and get everyone orderly even faster. Bring more police wagons for those arrested. Build more prisons to house them.
3. make everyone don a shock collar upon entering the venue. If anyone gets out of line it's "dance mailman" (if you get the Cheers show reference).
4. throw up our hands and say there is no answer and hope they all leave school soon.
5. get real serious about attending to the environment in which people live and connect the dots to behavior in schools. Stop yelling at kids as if that will intimidate them into doing their school work or to be quiet in the lunch line. Save yelling for the moment a student gets violent. Engage all violent students in behavior mod sessions - maybe with the police. Talking to each other may be one step in not only recognizing but respecting each other.
Yeah, I'm the bleeding heart that can't stop bleeding. But this notion that kids can and should be tazered has got to stop. We treat stray dogs better than this.
Here is a story and video about High School kids in Pennsylvania getting tazered at a basketball game. It shows that kids and adults were gathered, yelling loudly at each other, and getting agitated. The police came into the situation and started tazering. There is one view that kids misbehaving, acting threateningly, and not obeying cops must be stopped. There is another view that is seldom heard. That view suggests that these kids live in a very stressful environment and use survival skills that include yelling and standing their ground. Their bravado (and perhaps weaponry - though no shots were fired here) is what they have to make their stand. Making your stand is a primal urge. That urge is not necessary when you have plenty of other means and avenues to make your stand. These kids do not.
The rhetoric that follows an episode like this is usually that cops deserve to be supported and they have to tazer rather than shoot these violent students. I would suggest that there is a clash of cultures and ego going on. The kids are yelling in the hallway. Yelling is a way of life in urban schools and neighborhoods. All part of standing your ground. I see it in schools all the time. Teachers often mimic it because they think the kids will respond. Check the black adult male in the cap who is yelling and trying to tower over the student to make him cower and obey. There is a whole lot of yelling done in urban schools. Check the white teacher/administrator adult figures who are trying to get the students to go into the gymnasium. Let's be orderly. Would you walk into an enclosed area where you don't know what is going on? Not in that chaos.
Enter the police who see their job as ending the chaos immediately, as if their mere presence will ratchet down the emotion, quell the confusion, and bring peace and harmony to the situation. Face it, when the cops come in it is to berate the public into submission using nightsticks, guns, tazers, gruff voices, intimidation and whatever else they have. Usually when they start arresting people it intimidates the crowd to comply. The ego of the police is part of their strategy. We WILL get you to comply or else. We have the means and the law on our side. Ok, that's their job, but at what price? Notice when they handcuff the kid in the gym, the cop keeps the tazer on him lest he squirm away. Appropriate tactic. But once the kid is subdued the cop goes after him with the tazer because he doesn't like the kid mouthing off. Ego. This is not necessarily a case of "bad cops." This is what police are expected to do and we put them into the Colosseum and say, now quiet that mob.
Students, meanwhile are certain that when the police and other adult supervisors get involved that they will be emasculated and stripped of any street cred power they think they carry. Consider that in their neighborhood, that bravado and street cred is what may keep them alive, safe, or at least less likely to be hassled. The cops come in with licesnse to hassle. The tension and dichotomy of the situation is fairly obvious. But we keep doing it over and over.
Answers to this situation?
1. let them fight it out and beat the crap out of each other. Call the paramedics when it's over.
2. bring in more police with more serious weapons and get everyone orderly even faster. Bring more police wagons for those arrested. Build more prisons to house them.
3. make everyone don a shock collar upon entering the venue. If anyone gets out of line it's "dance mailman" (if you get the Cheers show reference).
4. throw up our hands and say there is no answer and hope they all leave school soon.
5. get real serious about attending to the environment in which people live and connect the dots to behavior in schools. Stop yelling at kids as if that will intimidate them into doing their school work or to be quiet in the lunch line. Save yelling for the moment a student gets violent. Engage all violent students in behavior mod sessions - maybe with the police. Talking to each other may be one step in not only recognizing but respecting each other.
Yeah, I'm the bleeding heart that can't stop bleeding. But this notion that kids can and should be tazered has got to stop. We treat stray dogs better than this.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Education: one key to urban revitalization
The Courier-Post has an investigative article today about absentee rates of teachers in the Camden city district schools. It's not pretty. Teachers have a generous leave policy, sick days that roll over until retirement (with a recently created cap), and a possible absentee rate this is higher than the student rate of absence. I say possible because apparently the record keeping on this kind of thing is poor. Absentee rates may be higher. I'm betting that the roll over days are meticulously kept...
I don't want to jump on the teacher bashing bandwagon, because I believe they do have a difficult job. Anyone who thinks a teacher works from 8-3 and has summers off, obviously has never been a teacher. Teachers have to do breakfast duty to monitor kids who come for their morning meal. They have to do lunch duty and give up their own meal. They have to do bus duty after school and stay late. They grade papers, do lesson plans, prepare materials during the after 3pm time. They take time to supervise after school activities, attend parent teacher meetings, make follow up phone calls at night, and the list goes on. It's easy to bash teachers for taking too much sick time, but let's keep it in perspective.
Camden schools have a teacher absence issue. This not only relates to the loss of continuity for students, but the cost of the additional pay laid out for substitute teachers. There are learning impacts and financial impacts for the district. Neither are good.
One of the points raised in the article is that teachers are stressed and sometimes need a down day. Um, you're kidding right? How can a teacher that lives outside the district be more stressed than a student that lives in the district? Think about the fact that your students make it to class and you are not there because you need a down day? Really? If the job is too stressful, find another job. The future of these scholars is a life and death issue - their education is what may save their life from the streets, from crime, from poverty. And you have stress?
I'm in a Camden elementary school once a week and now am increasing to twice a week until my little sister gets her science grades up. I see the good and the bad of what teachers have to deal with. I see the crummy conditions in which teachers have to teach, supervise, and be professionals. I see the difficulty that students create and have in getting to school, being in school, learning, and interacting with their peers. But it is what it is and it is the job you signed up for. But I worry greatly about a district that can't even keep proper records! How can it possibly support it professional staff in the classroom?
Make no mistake about it - the success of the education system in Camden is crucial. It affects not only the lives of the students, but their families as well. It affects the economic options for the city and everyone who lives in the city. It affects the business environment, the housing environment, and the city tax stream. Everyone in Camden should be working to create a world class educational system. And if that means starting with better record keeping, then get on it! We have a world class University here that I am sure could send some business students over to clean up the record keeping infrastructure in a few days. We MUST hold the district accountable and be there to HELP and SUPPORT the district. The district MUST be willing to accept help and stop being an insulated, self-indulgent island.
I don't want to jump on the teacher bashing bandwagon, because I believe they do have a difficult job. Anyone who thinks a teacher works from 8-3 and has summers off, obviously has never been a teacher. Teachers have to do breakfast duty to monitor kids who come for their morning meal. They have to do lunch duty and give up their own meal. They have to do bus duty after school and stay late. They grade papers, do lesson plans, prepare materials during the after 3pm time. They take time to supervise after school activities, attend parent teacher meetings, make follow up phone calls at night, and the list goes on. It's easy to bash teachers for taking too much sick time, but let's keep it in perspective.
Camden schools have a teacher absence issue. This not only relates to the loss of continuity for students, but the cost of the additional pay laid out for substitute teachers. There are learning impacts and financial impacts for the district. Neither are good.
One of the points raised in the article is that teachers are stressed and sometimes need a down day. Um, you're kidding right? How can a teacher that lives outside the district be more stressed than a student that lives in the district? Think about the fact that your students make it to class and you are not there because you need a down day? Really? If the job is too stressful, find another job. The future of these scholars is a life and death issue - their education is what may save their life from the streets, from crime, from poverty. And you have stress?
I'm in a Camden elementary school once a week and now am increasing to twice a week until my little sister gets her science grades up. I see the good and the bad of what teachers have to deal with. I see the crummy conditions in which teachers have to teach, supervise, and be professionals. I see the difficulty that students create and have in getting to school, being in school, learning, and interacting with their peers. But it is what it is and it is the job you signed up for. But I worry greatly about a district that can't even keep proper records! How can it possibly support it professional staff in the classroom?
Make no mistake about it - the success of the education system in Camden is crucial. It affects not only the lives of the students, but their families as well. It affects the economic options for the city and everyone who lives in the city. It affects the business environment, the housing environment, and the city tax stream. Everyone in Camden should be working to create a world class educational system. And if that means starting with better record keeping, then get on it! We have a world class University here that I am sure could send some business students over to clean up the record keeping infrastructure in a few days. We MUST hold the district accountable and be there to HELP and SUPPORT the district. The district MUST be willing to accept help and stop being an insulated, self-indulgent island.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Conventional Revitalization will not save Camden
John Kromer, author of the recent book Fixing Broken Cities, wrote an op ed for the Philadelphia Inquirer about the future of Camden. He gives several suggestions to the new mayor of Camden on development projects that will help turn the city around. Each has its value and all are conventional redevelopment techniques that are taught in every urban planning, urban studies, or urban development course in higher ed in this country. I respect Mr. Kromer, who did a stint in Camden as the redevelopment director. He knows his stuff and is a seasoned professional.
But I have to say, I think he is absolutely wrong on this one.
Conventional redevelopment assumes that what a city needs is rateables - property that will produce a stream of tax revenue to the city, and a density of uses that will create activity, energy, and spending of discretionary income. This is a winning formula for most urban downtowns in the last 20 years. Commerical development surrounded by tourist bubbles and hipster bubbles yields a positive economic cash flow. Camden certainly needs a positive economic cash flow. But rateables will not save Camden. I have a different view on the future.
Camden will not prosper without jobs and education. It is that simple.
Camden can build mixed income housing in Lanning Square for Cooper Hospital, mixed use at the water front (both north and south of the bridge), and rebuild its downtown (including the new DRPA developments planned around the transit stops) and marvel at the edifices. It won't solve the city's problems.
Camden has taxable property right now. The problem is that property owners cannot afford the taxes and new buyers wont buy because they don't think there is a return on investment, let alone adequate services for taxes paid. Bringing in more people who have higher incomes will yield two things - subsidized development that won't yield a positive tax revenue stream and expectations of a higher level of service that will be costly for the city.
Camden residents need jobs and education. It's that simple. Camden residents need assistance with business start-ups and expansion, green manufacturing, light industry, and urban agriculture. If Camden gets that right, it will create a climate for investment and that's when you can do the conventional redevelopment projects. Every dollar of federal grants, foundation assistance, and city revenue should be spent on items that create jobs and support education for residents of Camden. It's very nice that the Camden Reinvestment money paid for the RU law school expansion. It is a beautiful example of conventional revitalization. It does nothing to help educate the citizens of Camden. Same goes for the aquarium, music center, baseball stadium, and Victor building. All beautiful and each a fine example of conventional redevelopment. None of these provide education to the residents or significant job opportunities.
Camden just received $25 million in Neighborhood Stabilization funding from the feds. It will help to build, rehab, and tear down housing - all of which is badly needed. The estimates are that it will create 300 jobs. Let's be clear...it will create 300 employment opportunities. Some will last a month, some will last a year. Construction is a piecemeal industry and when the electrician's job is done, the drywall guy takes over. They are not the same person and these jobs don't last that long. Will Camden residents will get 100% of these jobs?
The most important strategy our new Mayor can take on is to devote the city to creating permanent jobs and to ensuring a world class education for K-12. The mayor has just been granted extraordinary powers over the city AND the school district. I hope she will use them well. Here are my recommendations (no offense Mr. Kromer, but I hope she takes my advise and not yours).
1. build things that will produce jobs, businesses, and green industry
2. commit to a public education system that works and support that system with every financial, political, and social piece of capital that Camden has.
3. reduce city services to the essentials of fire, police and courts, sanitation, and infrastructure. Make those services extremely efficient.
4. Every other worker should be focused on jobs and education - every planner, every human resource worker, every social service worker, every IT person - should have a clear mission and singular focus.
I know these are radical, and somewhat heretical suggestions. I'm not against redevelopment and in fact have taught and sung its praises for 20 years. I'm not against social services and helping folks with housing. I'm a neighborhood advocate. But Camden is on life support and unless the supplies get moving, people will die - just as we are witnessing in Haiti. Every reporter, every viewer of that catastrophe is asking - why aren't supplies getting to the people that need them? The large organizations, the military, and UN are worried about logistics and order and not creating more problems. Meanwhile people die in the streets.
Camden is at a crossroads. We have a golden opportunity to make the city a better place for its residents. What will it be Madame Mayor?
But I have to say, I think he is absolutely wrong on this one.
Conventional redevelopment assumes that what a city needs is rateables - property that will produce a stream of tax revenue to the city, and a density of uses that will create activity, energy, and spending of discretionary income. This is a winning formula for most urban downtowns in the last 20 years. Commerical development surrounded by tourist bubbles and hipster bubbles yields a positive economic cash flow. Camden certainly needs a positive economic cash flow. But rateables will not save Camden. I have a different view on the future.
Camden will not prosper without jobs and education. It is that simple.
Camden can build mixed income housing in Lanning Square for Cooper Hospital, mixed use at the water front (both north and south of the bridge), and rebuild its downtown (including the new DRPA developments planned around the transit stops) and marvel at the edifices. It won't solve the city's problems.
Camden has taxable property right now. The problem is that property owners cannot afford the taxes and new buyers wont buy because they don't think there is a return on investment, let alone adequate services for taxes paid. Bringing in more people who have higher incomes will yield two things - subsidized development that won't yield a positive tax revenue stream and expectations of a higher level of service that will be costly for the city.
Camden residents need jobs and education. It's that simple. Camden residents need assistance with business start-ups and expansion, green manufacturing, light industry, and urban agriculture. If Camden gets that right, it will create a climate for investment and that's when you can do the conventional redevelopment projects. Every dollar of federal grants, foundation assistance, and city revenue should be spent on items that create jobs and support education for residents of Camden. It's very nice that the Camden Reinvestment money paid for the RU law school expansion. It is a beautiful example of conventional revitalization. It does nothing to help educate the citizens of Camden. Same goes for the aquarium, music center, baseball stadium, and Victor building. All beautiful and each a fine example of conventional redevelopment. None of these provide education to the residents or significant job opportunities.
Camden just received $25 million in Neighborhood Stabilization funding from the feds. It will help to build, rehab, and tear down housing - all of which is badly needed. The estimates are that it will create 300 jobs. Let's be clear...it will create 300 employment opportunities. Some will last a month, some will last a year. Construction is a piecemeal industry and when the electrician's job is done, the drywall guy takes over. They are not the same person and these jobs don't last that long. Will Camden residents will get 100% of these jobs?
The most important strategy our new Mayor can take on is to devote the city to creating permanent jobs and to ensuring a world class education for K-12. The mayor has just been granted extraordinary powers over the city AND the school district. I hope she will use them well. Here are my recommendations (no offense Mr. Kromer, but I hope she takes my advise and not yours).
1. build things that will produce jobs, businesses, and green industry
2. commit to a public education system that works and support that system with every financial, political, and social piece of capital that Camden has.
3. reduce city services to the essentials of fire, police and courts, sanitation, and infrastructure. Make those services extremely efficient.
4. Every other worker should be focused on jobs and education - every planner, every human resource worker, every social service worker, every IT person - should have a clear mission and singular focus.
I know these are radical, and somewhat heretical suggestions. I'm not against redevelopment and in fact have taught and sung its praises for 20 years. I'm not against social services and helping folks with housing. I'm a neighborhood advocate. But Camden is on life support and unless the supplies get moving, people will die - just as we are witnessing in Haiti. Every reporter, every viewer of that catastrophe is asking - why aren't supplies getting to the people that need them? The large organizations, the military, and UN are worried about logistics and order and not creating more problems. Meanwhile people die in the streets.
Camden is at a crossroads. We have a golden opportunity to make the city a better place for its residents. What will it be Madame Mayor?
Sunday, January 17, 2010
It's MLK day - what is the measure?
Like many people, I have been paying attention to the Haiti earthquake aftermath. What a luxury that I get to sit here and type my thoughts on a computer and you get to read them. I have a bottle of water here, a comfortable chair, and time on my hands. The world in many places is cruel and difficult. It's hard for those of us in industrialized nations to see that. In some cases, it is just hard for people in middle and upper class surroundings to see that. Life is not great on the streets of Camden either, or Chicago, or D.C. or Kansas City. People die violent deaths, people go hungry, people are cold, and people live in their cars. Haves and have-nots - whether it is at the scale of country or at the scale of person - are an economic conundrum of a market-based society.
Prejudice and bigotry is, at its heart, a have/have-not dichotomy that is fueled by market forces. When people compete, we need a measure by which to assign value. If some people can be permanently marked down because of the color of the skin, there is a floor to which some people will never sink. This is why arguing against prejudice and bigotry is flawed. As long as one group can always have an "edge" on another group, it is in their self-interest to perpetuate those differences. Dr. King talked about the content of character and not the color of skin. Unfortunately, the content of character is not a recognizable commodity in the pursuit of economic advantage (unless you have a fixed, caste system as India once had). Color of skin, however, is measurable and indelible. Of course there are are exceptions - Sammy Sosa used a skin lightening product and has dramatically changed his color. Why he did this is for him to explain to his shrink, but he did not have to do it for economic gain.
Yet, Sammy may be perpetuating social myths. In many ethnic and race-based cultures there are social pecking orders that are based on skin color. The lighter the shade, the "higher" the status. This pecking order has had an effect on who gets what job or career, social standing in the community, who gets to marry whom, etc. So, perhaps the content of character does have a "look" that is measurable. I don't buy it, but then I am not part of this conversation.
President Obama, our first African-American president (a parent who is African and a parent who is American) has made MLK day a national day of service. People all over the country will be out and about tomorrow at parades, church services, community gatherings, and stopping in at food banks, neighborhood centers, soup kitchens, and wherever else they can lend a hand. We'll text our donations on our cell phones for Haiti relief funds and pause for a moment to count our own blessings. We'll put up with the nonsensical rantings of the pundits like Beck and Limbaugh who will no doubt take the occassion to lambast our President and besmirch the legacy of civil rights.
What do we do on Tuesday?
Work, school, chores, errands, and all the other elements of our daily life will consume our attention. We'll get back into the competition and assume our spots on the ladder, jockeying for position and for some of us, sighing relief that there will always be someone below us. Even as the tragedy of Haiti unfolded, there were haves and have-nots. Rescuers from foreign countries went to the UN building and promptly dug out white victims. Other white Americans were ferried onto planes for transport to reach medical attention outside of Haiti. Meanwhile, Haitains dropped dead in the street from exposure and wounds or died silently under the rubble. White journalists are roaming the streets bringing us the story - if they managed to get there with their equipment, why can't the - well you know the story.
This year, as you observe MLK day, in whatever fashion you do - even if it is just a passing glance as you enjoy a day off from work - think about how you benefit by silently oppressing others. We can't all be equal in our resources, but can we create a playing field where some are not economically penalized at their first breath because of their skin color?
Prejudice and bigotry is, at its heart, a have/have-not dichotomy that is fueled by market forces. When people compete, we need a measure by which to assign value. If some people can be permanently marked down because of the color of the skin, there is a floor to which some people will never sink. This is why arguing against prejudice and bigotry is flawed. As long as one group can always have an "edge" on another group, it is in their self-interest to perpetuate those differences. Dr. King talked about the content of character and not the color of skin. Unfortunately, the content of character is not a recognizable commodity in the pursuit of economic advantage (unless you have a fixed, caste system as India once had). Color of skin, however, is measurable and indelible. Of course there are are exceptions - Sammy Sosa used a skin lightening product and has dramatically changed his color. Why he did this is for him to explain to his shrink, but he did not have to do it for economic gain.
Yet, Sammy may be perpetuating social myths. In many ethnic and race-based cultures there are social pecking orders that are based on skin color. The lighter the shade, the "higher" the status. This pecking order has had an effect on who gets what job or career, social standing in the community, who gets to marry whom, etc. So, perhaps the content of character does have a "look" that is measurable. I don't buy it, but then I am not part of this conversation.
President Obama, our first African-American president (a parent who is African and a parent who is American) has made MLK day a national day of service. People all over the country will be out and about tomorrow at parades, church services, community gatherings, and stopping in at food banks, neighborhood centers, soup kitchens, and wherever else they can lend a hand. We'll text our donations on our cell phones for Haiti relief funds and pause for a moment to count our own blessings. We'll put up with the nonsensical rantings of the pundits like Beck and Limbaugh who will no doubt take the occassion to lambast our President and besmirch the legacy of civil rights.
What do we do on Tuesday?
Work, school, chores, errands, and all the other elements of our daily life will consume our attention. We'll get back into the competition and assume our spots on the ladder, jockeying for position and for some of us, sighing relief that there will always be someone below us. Even as the tragedy of Haiti unfolded, there were haves and have-nots. Rescuers from foreign countries went to the UN building and promptly dug out white victims. Other white Americans were ferried onto planes for transport to reach medical attention outside of Haiti. Meanwhile, Haitains dropped dead in the street from exposure and wounds or died silently under the rubble. White journalists are roaming the streets bringing us the story - if they managed to get there with their equipment, why can't the - well you know the story.
This year, as you observe MLK day, in whatever fashion you do - even if it is just a passing glance as you enjoy a day off from work - think about how you benefit by silently oppressing others. We can't all be equal in our resources, but can we create a playing field where some are not economically penalized at their first breath because of their skin color?
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Getting Cities to Work
I've been thinking about cities my entire life and as an adult, I've gotten paid to do it. Nice gig. But I feel guilty that I don't have the answer. I'm supposed to be about creating new knowledge and transmitting it to the next generation of scholars. I feel like if I were good at my job, cities like Camden would not be "cities like Camden." But then I realize that there are a zillion economists in the world and they get Nobel prizes and none of them foretold the current depression or can figure out how to fix it. I don't feel so bad.
Still, I have enduring faith that cities can work. People can live densely together and enjoy an uban environment. If we sold city living the way suburban marketers sold suburbs, we couldn't get into a city apartment - kind of the way Manhattan is - the most expensive real estate in the country. But Camden is not Manhattan and neither is Kansas City. Why are some cities working and some aren't? Maybe other cities need a song.
I've been thinking a lot about crowdsourcing lately. I think it originated as an IT term that has now made its way into trendy status as an approach to problem solving. Some people have appropriated it as a modern version of public participation, particularly in urban planning contexts. The idea is that a crowd of people can contribute to a solution better than a single expert. We used to call this consensus building through facilitation. Now it's crowdsourcing.
But I think for cities there is a real utility in this concept. If things are not working in a city as I outlined in my last post, then how can we go about fixing them? That's the traditional approach, right? If it doesn't work, then fix it! American ingenuity and all that. But what if more, better, different doesn't work? What if there is no fixing it? 20 or more years ago, Time magazine had a cover story that basically said, let's just let cities go and not fix them. Regionalism was just beginning to be faddish and people said let the central city die and we'll all move to the suburbs. It hasn't happened. Why? If cities are so bad, why don't people abandon them? Is that what is happening to Detroit? I don't think so. But the idea of "fixing" a city is a fallacy. It needs to be organized and operated as an environment that fits with the people. What we sometimes do is change out the people to fit the environment, aka gentrification. But what if we used a crowdsourcing technique to find an optimum way for a particular city to work?
Detroit is taking up urban farming. Why? Because land is cheap and plentiful (though polluted) and people need food they can afford. People who want to have local and green lifestyles also may like being in proximity to other people and things to do. This is why green living has become popular in places such as Chicago (though I don't think Grant Park is about to turn into a farm just yet). The naysayers say that Detroit is a manufacturing city (correction, "was"), or a tourist city (see baseball stadium and casino downtown), or a high tech city (maybe?). What if it is a green place that the people there are comfortable taking on and more people who want that come there? This is what the creative class is about. People such as Richard Florida dubbed it so, and turned it into a synonym for "hipster." But creative has many different contexts and outcomes. The crowd will determine what the creativity is and then enjoy it.
Today the NJ legislature announced that it was returning power to Camden and ending state management of the city. In addition, the state would provide a guarentee of funding and impose a new occupational fee in lieu of property tax on non-property tax paying buildings where people are employed (schools, hospitals, nonprofits, churches, government buildings). Ratables and generating income is what the city must be about. What if the crowd decided differently? What if, through crowdsourcing, people came up with inovative ideas that made sense to them? What if this became the centerpiece of transformation? Let's face it, urban renewal is designed to produce benefits for investors, not citizens. So what if we tried urban transformation built by citizens? Would that generate the foundation for a working city?
Here is an example from Cleveland!
Still, I have enduring faith that cities can work. People can live densely together and enjoy an uban environment. If we sold city living the way suburban marketers sold suburbs, we couldn't get into a city apartment - kind of the way Manhattan is - the most expensive real estate in the country. But Camden is not Manhattan and neither is Kansas City. Why are some cities working and some aren't? Maybe other cities need a song.
I've been thinking a lot about crowdsourcing lately. I think it originated as an IT term that has now made its way into trendy status as an approach to problem solving. Some people have appropriated it as a modern version of public participation, particularly in urban planning contexts. The idea is that a crowd of people can contribute to a solution better than a single expert. We used to call this consensus building through facilitation. Now it's crowdsourcing.
But I think for cities there is a real utility in this concept. If things are not working in a city as I outlined in my last post, then how can we go about fixing them? That's the traditional approach, right? If it doesn't work, then fix it! American ingenuity and all that. But what if more, better, different doesn't work? What if there is no fixing it? 20 or more years ago, Time magazine had a cover story that basically said, let's just let cities go and not fix them. Regionalism was just beginning to be faddish and people said let the central city die and we'll all move to the suburbs. It hasn't happened. Why? If cities are so bad, why don't people abandon them? Is that what is happening to Detroit? I don't think so. But the idea of "fixing" a city is a fallacy. It needs to be organized and operated as an environment that fits with the people. What we sometimes do is change out the people to fit the environment, aka gentrification. But what if we used a crowdsourcing technique to find an optimum way for a particular city to work?
Detroit is taking up urban farming. Why? Because land is cheap and plentiful (though polluted) and people need food they can afford. People who want to have local and green lifestyles also may like being in proximity to other people and things to do. This is why green living has become popular in places such as Chicago (though I don't think Grant Park is about to turn into a farm just yet). The naysayers say that Detroit is a manufacturing city (correction, "was"), or a tourist city (see baseball stadium and casino downtown), or a high tech city (maybe?). What if it is a green place that the people there are comfortable taking on and more people who want that come there? This is what the creative class is about. People such as Richard Florida dubbed it so, and turned it into a synonym for "hipster." But creative has many different contexts and outcomes. The crowd will determine what the creativity is and then enjoy it.
Today the NJ legislature announced that it was returning power to Camden and ending state management of the city. In addition, the state would provide a guarentee of funding and impose a new occupational fee in lieu of property tax on non-property tax paying buildings where people are employed (schools, hospitals, nonprofits, churches, government buildings). Ratables and generating income is what the city must be about. What if the crowd decided differently? What if, through crowdsourcing, people came up with inovative ideas that made sense to them? What if this became the centerpiece of transformation? Let's face it, urban renewal is designed to produce benefits for investors, not citizens. So what if we tried urban transformation built by citizens? Would that generate the foundation for a working city?
Here is an example from Cleveland!
Saturday, January 2, 2010
2010: New Decade, New Results
New Year's Resolutions are piling up and will likely find their way to the circular file in most of our lives. But, I've got one that I am determined to see through.
I resolve to take whatever approaches are necessary to generate the results we all want to achieve in our pursuit of urban revitalization.
I believe in the go hard or go home strategy. I don't like to take on small projects. :D
There are too many critical issues that must be addressed this decade to leave to the same old strategies. Detroit is changing and remaking itself before our very eyes. People are wising up to the devastation in our food supply from things like modified wheat and high fructose corn syrup. School systems are realizing that they must educate children and that the issues of the adults in the system are irrelevant if kids are not learning! Cities need to get on the ball and realize that they can't keep doing things the same way - because it is not working!
I read an article about Baton Rouge, LA and how they lost a homegrown tech company to North Carolina. Ouch. Seems that the school system was not producing an educated workforce that could take on the jobs at the company and LSU, the state university in this city, was farting around with some BS bureaucracy that the company did not have time to wait on. Gee, this sounds like Kansas City or Camden, or other cities that squander the resources they have and are inept at innovation or even supplying the basic services and conditions for which they could and should be responsible.
So what I hope to explore in this blog is how to keep this resolution. It cannot be done without taking into account the social polarization, racial divides, economic inequities, social injustices, and political demagoguery that we have all come to accept as the status quo. To suggest that "that's just the way it is" won't cut it anymore.
To quote a movie from my youth, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore."
But anger, dissatisfaction, and resistance will only take us so far. We need to have bold expectations that common results will actually occur. Kids will be educated and able to take on the world's challenges or at least be able to read at grade level upon graduation. Urban farming and green technology will become the mainstay of urban economies - or at least be present so that people will recognize that pollution and processed food are not the only option. Urban economies, development, and infrastructure will be sustainable and support the population - there is no compromise on this.
I know this is possible. There are brilliant ideas and movements available to achieve these results. The supply is there - we just have to demand it, purchase it, and implement it. Of course that is the tricky part - that requires serious conversation and building expectations.
Transformation is not easy or free. What are you willing to give up to make it happen?
Let's see how far we can take this.
PS: I get my attitude from the self discovery I have done through Landmark Education (www.landmarkeducation.com). For those in the Philadelphia area, we are having a discovery of self - create what is possible session on Jan. 7 at 7pm in downtown Philly. It's free and it will be an incredible 3 hours to create what is possible in the new year. You also can sign up for the Landmark Forum, the doorway to doing whatever it is you want to do in your life. Contact me for details!
I resolve to take whatever approaches are necessary to generate the results we all want to achieve in our pursuit of urban revitalization.
I believe in the go hard or go home strategy. I don't like to take on small projects. :D
There are too many critical issues that must be addressed this decade to leave to the same old strategies. Detroit is changing and remaking itself before our very eyes. People are wising up to the devastation in our food supply from things like modified wheat and high fructose corn syrup. School systems are realizing that they must educate children and that the issues of the adults in the system are irrelevant if kids are not learning! Cities need to get on the ball and realize that they can't keep doing things the same way - because it is not working!
I read an article about Baton Rouge, LA and how they lost a homegrown tech company to North Carolina. Ouch. Seems that the school system was not producing an educated workforce that could take on the jobs at the company and LSU, the state university in this city, was farting around with some BS bureaucracy that the company did not have time to wait on. Gee, this sounds like Kansas City or Camden, or other cities that squander the resources they have and are inept at innovation or even supplying the basic services and conditions for which they could and should be responsible.
- If a school district is not educating kids, it is not working.
- If a city is not working with that school district to make sure kids are educated, then the city is not working.
- If a city is more successful at incarcerating people than educating them, it is not working.
- If it is easier to get a free meal than to get a job, then the city is not working (and neither are the citizens).
- If people are more likely to buy junk food, processed food, and fast food than high quality fresh food, then the city is not working.
So what I hope to explore in this blog is how to keep this resolution. It cannot be done without taking into account the social polarization, racial divides, economic inequities, social injustices, and political demagoguery that we have all come to accept as the status quo. To suggest that "that's just the way it is" won't cut it anymore.
To quote a movie from my youth, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore."
But anger, dissatisfaction, and resistance will only take us so far. We need to have bold expectations that common results will actually occur. Kids will be educated and able to take on the world's challenges or at least be able to read at grade level upon graduation. Urban farming and green technology will become the mainstay of urban economies - or at least be present so that people will recognize that pollution and processed food are not the only option. Urban economies, development, and infrastructure will be sustainable and support the population - there is no compromise on this.
I know this is possible. There are brilliant ideas and movements available to achieve these results. The supply is there - we just have to demand it, purchase it, and implement it. Of course that is the tricky part - that requires serious conversation and building expectations.
Transformation is not easy or free. What are you willing to give up to make it happen?
Let's see how far we can take this.
PS: I get my attitude from the self discovery I have done through Landmark Education (www.landmarkeducation.com). For those in the Philadelphia area, we are having a discovery of self - create what is possible session on Jan. 7 at 7pm in downtown Philly. It's free and it will be an incredible 3 hours to create what is possible in the new year. You also can sign up for the Landmark Forum, the doorway to doing whatever it is you want to do in your life. Contact me for details!
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Why kids in school fight
From CNN a short video (apparently a series of reports) on violence as experienced by teens in High School. Violence is about surviving where you live as well as surviving the traditional jockeying for position on the high school totem pole. This view of their reality suggests that until that reality is adjusted, they will continue to fight, represent, and avoid being punked. In this Chicago school, leadership training seems to be having an effect on individual responses, but not on the reality of having to carry a weapon.
Airick Leonard West recently conducted a 3 day session on leadership to deter bullying at one of the local KCMSD schools. He worked with 6th, 7th, and 8th graders at one school to change the dynamics of the pecking order and improve communications and options when faced with an escalating situation.
But as the CNN piece suggests, when kids come from poor neighborhoods where there is no strong future of prosperity, where adults are not modeling supportive behavior, and where survival is a daily concern, we can expect that kids will do whatever they are inclined to believe they have to do. They may be making incorrect assumptions, based on a perspective from outside their environment. But from the inside, to them, it seems reasonable, plausible, and defensible. You play be the rules of the environment in which you live. If you do not go beyond the boundaries of that place, if you are challenged when you do go beyond those boundaries, if you are unwelcome outside those boundaries, then you will continue to live by the rules of your boundaries.
Then check out this other CNN story about a teacher that cuts off the braid of a 6 year old girl in front of the class because she kept twirling it. The teacher appologized later and said she was "frustrated." The school declined to take the teacher out of the classroom. Those are rules of an environment in which these kids are learning to engage.
Thoughts?
Airick Leonard West recently conducted a 3 day session on leadership to deter bullying at one of the local KCMSD schools. He worked with 6th, 7th, and 8th graders at one school to change the dynamics of the pecking order and improve communications and options when faced with an escalating situation.
But as the CNN piece suggests, when kids come from poor neighborhoods where there is no strong future of prosperity, where adults are not modeling supportive behavior, and where survival is a daily concern, we can expect that kids will do whatever they are inclined to believe they have to do. They may be making incorrect assumptions, based on a perspective from outside their environment. But from the inside, to them, it seems reasonable, plausible, and defensible. You play be the rules of the environment in which you live. If you do not go beyond the boundaries of that place, if you are challenged when you do go beyond those boundaries, if you are unwelcome outside those boundaries, then you will continue to live by the rules of your boundaries.
Then check out this other CNN story about a teacher that cuts off the braid of a 6 year old girl in front of the class because she kept twirling it. The teacher appologized later and said she was "frustrated." The school declined to take the teacher out of the classroom. Those are rules of an environment in which these kids are learning to engage.
Thoughts?
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Self-Responsibility, Caring, and Responses
I haven't seen the movie Precious yet, but I have read reviews and media coverage. I feel I should go see it, but it seems so depressing. Do I really want to spend two hours watching in full color what I already know exists? Has anyone else seen it? I stumbled upon a discussion board at IMDB about the movie and the thread was a discussion of whether the protagonist, Precious, had properly acknowledged her obesity and many commenters questioned why she didn't add getting healthy and thin to her litany of improvements. Some stated they didn't feel sympathy for the character because she was so fat - that she was unworthy of their concern because she wasn't concerned for herself.
I have an acquaintance on FaceBook that posted an op-ed piece written by the President of Rockhurst University in Kansas City detailing his response to the tragic killing that took place just oustside the campus at 54th and Troost. A 17 year old kid got off a city bus and was shot to death. He was black and he had a college application in his pocket. The piece details that the head of Rockhurst now has a picture of this young man on his desk to remind him every day of the senseless tragedy. He goes on to state, "We will not rest on rhetoric around this tragedy but rather will choose to make a difference by calling our neighbors, faculty, staff, alumni and friends to work with us to find solutions to end these senseless tragedies."
I juxtapose these two stories of young people of color in the inner city to try to wrestle with my own reactions to the events and to others' comments. The last time I criticized white do-gooders I got an earful from Dan Ryan at Gone Mild. Today I commented on the FaceBook posting about Rockhurst and was basically told I was a cynic.
It's easy to be sympathetic to the young man gunned down in KC. He was doing everything he could to bring himself up - applying to college, etc. Apparently he was just a victim of circumstance. The good Rev. Curran of Rockhurst is displaying his sympathy openly and unequivocally. To be sure, Rockhurst U. is community minded, a good neighbor on Troost for the most part, and does not have its institutional head in the sand. So bravo for getting involved. But it is a fairly low risk strategy for a low risk victim - nice kid who wanted to go to college, not a 'hood rat.
It is hard to be sympathetic to a young woman of color in a movie who was a victim of circumstance in her own home and was an illiterate, obese, mother of 2 at 16. Apparently the movie is about her struggle to get beyond her circumstances, with the exception of getting beyond her obesity as the commenters note. One of those posts was honest and said, would I have felt more sorry for her if she were thinner and lighter? Apparently for some of the viewers it was too risky to be all in for this character and they hedged their sympathy for one reason or another.
Young people in urban places are victims every day of violence that finds them or lives with them. Every day. Not just the ones in movies and not just the college-bound bootstrappers. Kids of every kind in urban places are victims every day. Some of those kids are perpetrators and it goes down badly for them. Some of those kids are victims of circumstance at the wrong place at the wrong time. Some of those kids are held in a spider web of violence from which they can't escape and some see the exit door but have no clue as to how to walk through it. There are more than enough kids in trouble to rally our attention. We don't need to wait for a movie to create a cause celebre. We don't need to wait for a "good kid" to get gunned down to move us to action.
For the Precious's out there, they are to pull themselves up and take advantage of the help that's waiting for them. For the Nelson's out there who have taken that help and want to go to college, they will get the President of a University to carry their torch.
If these kids are the bookends of the spectrum, then what about all the kids inbetween? What do we do as institutions, as people, as neighbors, as teachers to answer the needs of these kids? What are we doing to help them put the guns down, get an education, and get a job? What are we doing to overcome the unlevel playing field that Rev. Curran identifies as an obstacle? Calling a meeting to find solutions is a start, but not an end.
I honestly believe that action is necessary and that most of us are free riders. We wait for someone else to "do something" or we do something that is essentially low risk to demonstrate our commitment. KC has 480,000 people. The majority of them have never set foot anywhere near the locus of urban problems because that would be risky. You can't be empathetic, raise money, and volunteer, while keeping everything at arms length. But neither does sitting foursquare in the midst of the inner city entitle you to say you are doing something except being there. I look at this situation and feel absolutely impotent. I don't know how not to be a free rider and I don't know what to do to prevent the next Precious or to make it safe for the next Nelson. I volunteer, I advocate, I am engaged, and yet it makes so little difference in the grand scheme of things. I can help 10 kids or a 100 kids, but there are millions that are at risk.
I have helped to shape this country by being a citizen. And I have helped to shape a system that is way out of balance and allows conditions to exist that create a Precious or a Nelson and all the kids in between. I, as one person, cannot put it right because I, as one person, did not put it out of balance. We each contributed in our own way to tilting the playing field. We each have to contribute to leveling it. There is no risk in doing the tilting because it often serves our own interest. There is great risk in leveling it and it will take more than a meeting to call people to do so. Here's hoping that Rev. Curran can find the courage he needs at that meeting.
Meanwhile, do you have suggestions for solutions? Or is this so overwhelming that you will leave this and click on something else whilst shaking your head?
I have an acquaintance on FaceBook that posted an op-ed piece written by the President of Rockhurst University in Kansas City detailing his response to the tragic killing that took place just oustside the campus at 54th and Troost. A 17 year old kid got off a city bus and was shot to death. He was black and he had a college application in his pocket. The piece details that the head of Rockhurst now has a picture of this young man on his desk to remind him every day of the senseless tragedy. He goes on to state, "We will not rest on rhetoric around this tragedy but rather will choose to make a difference by calling our neighbors, faculty, staff, alumni and friends to work with us to find solutions to end these senseless tragedies."
I juxtapose these two stories of young people of color in the inner city to try to wrestle with my own reactions to the events and to others' comments. The last time I criticized white do-gooders I got an earful from Dan Ryan at Gone Mild. Today I commented on the FaceBook posting about Rockhurst and was basically told I was a cynic.
It's easy to be sympathetic to the young man gunned down in KC. He was doing everything he could to bring himself up - applying to college, etc. Apparently he was just a victim of circumstance. The good Rev. Curran of Rockhurst is displaying his sympathy openly and unequivocally. To be sure, Rockhurst U. is community minded, a good neighbor on Troost for the most part, and does not have its institutional head in the sand. So bravo for getting involved. But it is a fairly low risk strategy for a low risk victim - nice kid who wanted to go to college, not a 'hood rat.
It is hard to be sympathetic to a young woman of color in a movie who was a victim of circumstance in her own home and was an illiterate, obese, mother of 2 at 16. Apparently the movie is about her struggle to get beyond her circumstances, with the exception of getting beyond her obesity as the commenters note. One of those posts was honest and said, would I have felt more sorry for her if she were thinner and lighter? Apparently for some of the viewers it was too risky to be all in for this character and they hedged their sympathy for one reason or another.
Young people in urban places are victims every day of violence that finds them or lives with them. Every day. Not just the ones in movies and not just the college-bound bootstrappers. Kids of every kind in urban places are victims every day. Some of those kids are perpetrators and it goes down badly for them. Some of those kids are victims of circumstance at the wrong place at the wrong time. Some of those kids are held in a spider web of violence from which they can't escape and some see the exit door but have no clue as to how to walk through it. There are more than enough kids in trouble to rally our attention. We don't need to wait for a movie to create a cause celebre. We don't need to wait for a "good kid" to get gunned down to move us to action.
For the Precious's out there, they are to pull themselves up and take advantage of the help that's waiting for them. For the Nelson's out there who have taken that help and want to go to college, they will get the President of a University to carry their torch.
If these kids are the bookends of the spectrum, then what about all the kids inbetween? What do we do as institutions, as people, as neighbors, as teachers to answer the needs of these kids? What are we doing to help them put the guns down, get an education, and get a job? What are we doing to overcome the unlevel playing field that Rev. Curran identifies as an obstacle? Calling a meeting to find solutions is a start, but not an end.
I honestly believe that action is necessary and that most of us are free riders. We wait for someone else to "do something" or we do something that is essentially low risk to demonstrate our commitment. KC has 480,000 people. The majority of them have never set foot anywhere near the locus of urban problems because that would be risky. You can't be empathetic, raise money, and volunteer, while keeping everything at arms length. But neither does sitting foursquare in the midst of the inner city entitle you to say you are doing something except being there. I look at this situation and feel absolutely impotent. I don't know how not to be a free rider and I don't know what to do to prevent the next Precious or to make it safe for the next Nelson. I volunteer, I advocate, I am engaged, and yet it makes so little difference in the grand scheme of things. I can help 10 kids or a 100 kids, but there are millions that are at risk.
I have helped to shape this country by being a citizen. And I have helped to shape a system that is way out of balance and allows conditions to exist that create a Precious or a Nelson and all the kids in between. I, as one person, cannot put it right because I, as one person, did not put it out of balance. We each contributed in our own way to tilting the playing field. We each have to contribute to leveling it. There is no risk in doing the tilting because it often serves our own interest. There is great risk in leveling it and it will take more than a meeting to call people to do so. Here's hoping that Rev. Curran can find the courage he needs at that meeting.
Meanwhile, do you have suggestions for solutions? Or is this so overwhelming that you will leave this and click on something else whilst shaking your head?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
