The role of advisory committees in sustaining East Boston's awesomeness

Excel Academy is looking to build a high school a few blocks from my house in East Boston.  I heard a few days ago that the political leadership get to appoint the impact advisory committee members.  Two have already been named.  One has already begun to solicit early comments.  However, I'm worried about how it would operate and am frankly wondering what the value of any comments would have.

My concern is rooted in the fact that one of the other people who has already been appointed to the committee is someone who has publicly stated that immigrants, which comprise a significant part of the student population at Excel Academy, are not worthy public support. 

I know this because this individual signed (#615) a petition in 2009 expressing opposition to Governor Deval Patrick's New Americans Agenda. The petition specifically objected to:

• expanding programs to support English as a second language learning in public schools,
• increasing funding for translation and interpreter service in public schools,
• providing access to in-state college tuition for all immigrant residents in public universities, and 
• other services and programs that support the successful integration of our immigrant neighbors. 

The student body at Excel Academy in East Boston is 72% Latino and represents 23 different nationalities. And yet, this individual is publicly opposed to the very conditions that support the academic success of many of those students.

Why would anyone who wants to meaningfully contribute to the conversation and planning of this school make the time to participate when someone who has already been appointed to the committee itself believes that parents who are still learning to speak English should be denied translation when talking with teachers and school officials? Think about the message that sends to the rest of us who care about exactly the kinds of families that Excel Academy aims to serve.
 

The problem is not necessarily this individual.  She has every right to hold whatever opinion she wants and to express her political viewpoint in any legal manner available to her.  However, it strikes me as inappropriate that an individual whose public statements are in opposition to how a publicly funded charter school operates is appointed to advise on the siting of such school.

The problem, as I see it, is that it seems that our elected officials, who are responsible for appointing people to these advisory committees, seem to only know a handful of people who live in the neighborhood.

All eight advisory committee members for this committee will be appointed by four elected officials.  How many of those people will be Latinos (who comprise 54% of the neighborhood's population) or immigrants (50% of our neighbors are immigrants)?  How many of them will be parents of students who currently attend public schools?  How many of them will be educators who currently teach?  How many of them will be one of the growing number of urban planners and architects who live in our neighborhood?  How many of them will be people who physically live in the area where the new school will be sited?

Every time the same people keep getting appointed to these committees, we lose the opportunity to capitalize on the diversity of people and talent who live here.  We have immigrant neighbors who were professors of environmental sustainability in their native homelands.  We have young planners who know how to read transportation studies.  We have contractors who specialize in environmentally sustainable and healthy buildings who live in this neighborhood. We have bilingual parents who could more effectively bring those supposedly hard to reach parents to public meetings than either of the two appointed committee members.

If the city and BRA were really interested in a meaningful advisory process (and maybe they aren't), they could more effectively tap the organic talent that already exists in this neighborhood by actually opening up the process of applying to participate.

Instead of going to their friends and political contributors, how about asking for a list of people from all of the neighborhood groups.  And how about actually talking with those individuals to determine whether they have whatever skills are useful, but more importantly, the attitudes to work in a public process to support a public school that serves a population and neighborhood that deserves exactly the kind of support that the petition above opposes?

Think about what it would mean to East Boston's future if we could engage all of our residents, both long time residents and newcomers (domestic and foreign), in the decision-making processes in our neighborhood.  I think it would be awesome.

Thoughts on the political spectrum

Earlier this week, I was called by a political polling company to ask about my opinion about the candidates in the upcoming special election for the US Senate.  It's been years since I've been polled and my first thought is that it was interesting that they called my on my business cell phone rather than my personal cell phone.

Image source: https://www.arlingtonva.us/home/web/survey/page63192.aspx

I'm pretty sure that it was from Markey's people since the guy was a little too enthusiastic about my answers to the question about what I don't like about Gomez.  Nevertheless, as a social science researcher, it's always an interesting experience to be the subject rather than the investigator.

There was one question that really did get me to thinking, though.  It's a question that I've seen a million times in both real research surveys and political polls:  Would you describe yourself as liberal or conservative?  The scale is: very conservative, moderately conservative, neither conservative nor liberal, moderately liberal, and very liberal.

Let's leave aside the legitimate question about whether political preferences range on a single dimensional continuum.  I do not have any problem recognizing that I am liberal.  The question for me was whether I considered myself moderately liberal or very liberal.  My instinct was to say moderately liberal because I consider myself a reasonable person.  I see very liberal people as inflexible and dogmatic as those who are very conservative.

Image source: http://www.mix-pics.net/img/13848/i-think-i-am-right-and-you-are-wrong

In the 20 seconds it took for me to answer the question, a number of thoughts came into my head.  Prominent among them is that I'm pretty sure that someone who does not share my positions on a many social or economic issues would consider me very liberal.  I am sure that someone who I would label as very conservative sees themselves as reasonable as I see myself.

From a survey design perspective, this is a real issue with the validity of both the question and the scale.  How we would recognize "moderate" when we see it.  And would we recognize ourselves if/when we deviate from it?  This is a question for all of us, regardless of the labels we apply to ourselves.

Image source: http://frabz.com/2nza

Of course I had to answer the question and I reminded myself that he is asking about how I see myself, not how others view my positions.  Which gets to the most important lesson of the day: it's not worth overthinking a political polling question.

Anti-Obama sentiment

Recently, we took my mother-in-law to DC. We usually don't go to tourist shops unless we need to make change but on this trip we found ourselves hitting the tourist shops in Alexandria, VA in search of souvenirs my mother-in-law could take back home. Now, in general, Northern Virginia is not as rabidly conservative or anti-government as other parts of the South are. However, even on this trip, even in the tourist shops, the anti-Obama sentiment could be seen.

The first place we went into, Old Town Trading Post, is your typical souvenir shop. Everything made in China, including the 'rah-rah America' stuff. There was quite a bit of anti-liberal and anti-Obama kitsch available for purchase. Lots of "Don't Blame Me, I voted for McCain" bumper stickers and "Friends don't let friends vote Democrat" t-shirts could be found here. I didn't see any anti-conservative/Republican or pro-liberal/Democrat products. But it's a kitsch shop and the owner had some clear political views. Being a part of the South, I was not surprised. What they didn't have, and what my mother-in-law was looking for, was a coffee mug that said "Alexandria, VA," so we moved on.

We found the Virginia Shop just off of King Street and were sure that we would find something to meet her needs there. They also sold wine, and we were hoping to find a bottle from the Fox Meadow Winery. My mother-in-law doesn't follow American politics closely (she lives in Mexico) and I found her looking at three shelves of "Don't Tread on Me" merchandise. I explained to her that this was the logo of the Tea Party. Since there was a guy wearing a confederate flag t-shirt within earshot, I made a point to state that, "They don't like people like us. You know, immigrants. Especially Mexicans." He and his wife did turn to look at us. I smiled at them and continued to browse the wines. Again, we left empty handed.

Finally, we went into the America! store. This is where you will find all things to "Express the Pride and Spirit of America!" There were Obama bobble heads and "Hail to Chef" aprons. You can buy your "official" White House ornament here. You can also buy Spy Museum merchandise, as well as hats and t-shirts that say FBI or CIA on it (interestingly, I didn't see any ICE or Homeland Security products). And even here there was anti-Obama merchandise for sale. In addition to the "Don't Blame Me, I Didn't Vote for Change" bumper stickers, there were t-shirts with GW Bush on it that said, "Miss me yet?" and coffee mugs that said, "NOPE" in which the "O" was Obama's campaign logo.

It struck me that even in this place, which was all about celebrating the US (through Chinese made merchandise), you could not get away from the anti-liberal/ anti-Obama sentiment. On their website the owners claim that they are not affiliated with any political group and that they present a variety of "satirical" merchandise for sale. And through the website you can purchase a "Stop the insanity" t-shirt which shows Sarah Palin turning into Edvard Munch's The Scream. That was not available in the Alexandria, VA store. What was available in the store was the Sarah Palin bobble-head.

All of this made me wonder whether there were similar anti-Bush merchandise available during the Bush years. I wonder what kind of satirical merchandise America! sold, if any, during that time. I don't remember walking into a souvenir shop during the Bush era and seeing that kind of thing. But we don't frequent these kinds of places. So I looked at the America! store website through the internet archives.

Between 2006 and early 2008, I did find some of what could be considered anti-Bush merchandise. There was a book of photo ops gone awry focusing on Bush, one on Bushisms, and Bushwhacked by Molly Ivans and Lou Dubose. Munch's The Scream appears on a t-shirt that says "Bush, 3 more years". They also sold the Bush countdown calendar (counting down to his leaving office). Most of these were found in 2007, right as election season was beginning to gear up. In 2006 (the just after the mid-term election), there were four items that could be considered anti-Bush. There are currently eight anti-Obama items available on the website, including one that implies that Obama is the one responsible for the bank bailouts.

It seems like there is a larger market for anti-liberal/anti-Obama merchandise, even in slightly left of center Northern Virginia. I do wonder why. Perhaps liberals just don't go in for that kind of thing. I know I would not waste $13 on a countdown calendar not matter how much I wanted Bush out of office (although I will admit to having bought a Bush-Pants-On-Fire doll for a present and kept one for myself). Certainly racism (conscious and unconscious) is a factor in some part of the opposition to Obama as president, but how much of this latent racial bias is fueled by a corporate media that feeds on sensationalism?

I left one of my favorite Southern cities feeling a little bit uneasy. I know that merchants will sell whatever people will buy. I guess it bothers me that people will buy that stuff. But I don't think having liberals buy anti-conservative products to wear, stick on their car, or use as a pencil holder in their office is the right response. The question is, what is the right response?

Politicizing

I was in the car yesterday, listening to the news. NPR to be exact, because I am a raging liberal. I don't know that I have the energy to rage; I barely have the energy to make myself breakfast. But I've been told that anyone who uses newspapers, NPR, or PBS as their primary source of news is a raging liberal.

But I digress.

NPR was reporting on the election of a Democrat in a heavily Republican district in New York state. The general consensus was that this unlikely turn of events was a response to Paul Ryan's Medicare reform proposals. Some Republican argued that Democrats were "politicizing" the issue of Medicare reform, which I guess is their explanation for why they lost so badly.

And then it occurred to me. Anyone who uses the term "politicizing" or "politicized" in reference to a political issue is stupid and apparently think I'm stupid too. And no one is calling them out on it.

I did a Lexis-Nexis search of US newspapers and was told that there are over 3000 references between 1978 and today in news articles that include the terms "politicized" or "politicizing." It gave me 1000 of what Lexis considers the "most relevant." In a random, and totally unsystematic, check of three articles (I didn't say I was doing research on this), the term is used as a pejorative. Which is stupid.

If you haven't figured it out yet:

• If you are an elected official, any official action you take is political.
  
• If you are appointed by any elected official or body (including you, judges), any official action you take is political.
  
• If you propose a law, you are creating a political issue.
  
• If you discuss a proposed or existing law, you are creating a political issue.
  
• If you support a proposed or existing law, you are taking a political position.
  
• If you oppose a proposed or existing law, you are taking a political position.
  
• If you are campaigning or lobbying for any elected or appointed position, you are engaged in a political act.
• If you do any of the above in relation to a court decision, regulation, policy, or government program (including government agencies like public schools), you are making a political issue, taking a political position, or otherwise engaged in political action.

By doing any of the above, you are in fact, "making something political." You are engaged in efforts that shift power, influence, and social benefits and burdens. In fact, by proclaiming that someone else has politicized something, you are engaged in that process of politics-making.

I think the next time I hear my political representatives, or the media pundits for that matter, assert that someone has "politicized" something, if I have the opportunity I am going to ask, "As opposed to what? Is this somehow a personal issue? Is this proposed or existing law, regulation, or policy somehow separate from the political sphere? And if so, exactly how?" And if their answers are not satisfactory, I will let them know that they are insulting my intelligence and will not likely support them in the future.

Feel free to do the same.