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.

Dear Marty Walsh - I would like to vote for you

Dear Marty Walsh,

I admit that I did not expect you to be one of the top candidates in the preliminary.  This says more about me than about you.  I was clearly not paying as much attention as I thought.

You should know that, in the past, I have worked with John Connolly.  He provided urban sustainability projects that my urban studies students could work on.  He even came and spoke with my students about development issues.  I also found his office helpful in assisting some parent start to address longstanding issues at the local high school.  Going into the preliminary, I thought, regardless of who I supported on September 24, I would end up voting for him on November 5.

But shortly after the preliminary, I became increasingly skeptical about the friends Connolly keeps.  While he criticized you for the support you received from organized labor, he was receiving money from those who support a number of causes that I oppose and, in one case find offensive (e.g. Pioneer Institute, American Crossroads).

As I tried to make an informed decision about which candidate to support, I began to lean in your direction.  I was able to meet with you when you made time to speak to some of the Latinas of East Boston.  I was impressed when you appeared to be visibly upset by the stories told by one of our youth of high school counselors actively discouraging Latino students from pursuing a college education.  I was also impressed by the level of detailed knowledge around development issues, and the BRA in particular, that you showed. And people who I have a lot of respect for made compelling arguments in your favor.

However, I go into this election as an East Boston resident, more so than in any other election.  We are faced with potentially the most important change this neighborhood has seen since the airport dispossessed us of Wood Island Park in the 1960s.  I've never been a single issue voter, but this time, there is one issue that can make or break the quality of life in the neighborhood I have come to call home.

Just as decades of expansion of Logan Airport continues to negatively impact the quality of life in this neighborhood, the proposed casino at Suffolk Downs will no doubt have large repercussions for me and my neighbors.

You voted in favor of the casino bill when you were in the statehouse.  And you have publicly stated your support for a casino at Suffolk Downs. After much thought and research, I do not believe a casino in this (or any) dense, urban neighborhood is a good idea.

Some of my neighbors believe that the only thing that could save Suffolk Downs-the racetrack, after the failure of more than two decades of public subsidies and at least one bailout, is a casino.  You give every indication that you believe this as well.

But more importantly, if the residents of East Boston vote against the casino mitigation agreement, you have not publicly stated whether you would reopen host community agreement negotiations with Suffolk Downs if presented the opportunity.

Without that assurance, I cannot bring myself to vote for you. Given the available evidence, I've come to believe that a vote for you is a vote for a casino.  Without a public statement to the contrary, I will unfortunately not be able to support you at this time.

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.

Challenge for the next mayor

Early this afternoon, I had an unpleasant interaction with a City of Boston Parking Enforcement officer.  To be honest, it was pretty horrible.  It started out almost funny when I was threatened with a ticket while I was still parked on the correct side of the street and then told that there would be "no one I could complain to." 

Image source: http://www.guystuffcounseling.com/counseling-men-blog/bid/22929/Married-to-an-Angry-Man-A-Wife-s-View-of-Her-Husband-s-Anger

 As a law and policy scholar, the claim is laughably absurd.  When the individual's aggressiveness escalated, I was on the phone with the Mayor's hotline immediately.  When I was told that the individual also resorted to using gender based epithets and racist comments, I became angry. All of this was reported to the Mayor's hotline, Facebook, and Twitter.  Thanks to a neighbor whose connections are more direct than mine, I was soon after contacted by someone who can do something about this and was promised that there will be follow up.  For that I am grateful, as is my blood pressure.

This is the kind of incident that really diminishes our quality of life.  It is the kind of incident that makes people wonder whether they want to live here or not.  I've lived in Boston for more than a decade and this is one aspect of the city that hasn't changed much.  Which gets me to the race for mayor.

Image source: http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2013/06/14/meet-the-12-confirmed-candidates-for-bostons-2013-mayoral-election/

Most of the candidates have focused their platforms around issues like education or community and economic development.  This makes sense.  The city has more control over these than other important issues that affect Boston residents and workers (like immigration or public transportation).  And they are really important issues.

Quality schools and sustainable development are the big issues that shape our city.  But our daily interactions with city workers shape our quality of life. This issue is what is missing from our discussions about the next mayor.  We've all had interactions or run-ins with police officers, school staff, planning department personnel, or ISD inspectors that were made unpleasant because of the bad attitude of the city worker or because of rules that make no sense.

To be clear, I believe most of the workers in our city are good people.  Some of them are trying to do their job with too few resources (a shout out to Graffiti Busters).  Some of them simply need better guidance or leadership.

But there seems to be something about working for the City of Boston that allows poor service and/or bad attitudes to go unchecked.  I've heard some complain that the problem is the union rules.  Or that people have been there too long.  Or the history of patronage hiring. 

Image source: http://tripleespressoshots.blogspot.com/2010_04_01_archive.html

 To be honest, I don't care what the problem is. I just want it changed. 

I want a system put in place that ensures that residents, no matter who they are, where they live, or what language they speak in their dreams, are treated with dignity and respect.  City rules and regulations need to be enforced.  But you don't have to be a jerk about it.  And you certainly shouldn't be a prejudiced ass in a city that is majority non-white.

It was that parking enforcement guy's bad luck to pick a fight with an over-educated person who isn't afraid to use social media and has neighbors willing to help.  But my brown skinned neighbor shouldn't be belittled by school staff for not speaking English very well.  And my low-educated white neighbor who doesn't know how to tweet about a twat making his life miserable shouldn't have to suffer this either. 

Image: "Digital Divide" from http://www.flickr.com/photos/schnaars/2586457836/

City workers should treat everyone in my neighborhood the same as the folks who live in the mayor's neighborhood, where ever that may be.

So, my challenge to the mayoral candidates and the next mayor: what are you going to do to ensure that our interactions with city workers and officials is constructive and respectful?  What are you going to do to prevent the kind of interaction I had today?

I was not afraid nor was I alone

I haven't written in a while.  Sorry.  I've been busy.  Got a job and everything.

But I felt that I needed to say something about the request to Boston area residents to shelter in place while police looked for the second person responsible for the Marathon bombings.  I want to make one thing very clear: 

I was not afraid for my own safety at all during the day.  I was anxious about the safety of my friends who live in Watertown.  I was concerned about my neighbors who may have needed food for their children (we've all waited until the last minute to go grocery shopping - so don't judge).  But never once was I afraid that someone was going to hurt me. 

I understand that some folks really were afraid.  Forgive me if I sound unsympathetic when I say, I am really sorry for that but I felt surrounded by friends and neighbors the whole day. 

Like the majority of my neighbors, I stayed in my home.  Mainly because I was glued to the computer but also because I didn't want to be that jerk who accidentally needed emergency services when they were needed elsewhere.  Never once during the day did I feel like I was alone.  I can thank social media for that.

My friends who live in Watertown regularly posted something to Facebook or Twitter.  I thank them for relieving our anxiety about their safety, which admittedly grew as the day went on.  

My friends and neighbors on Facebook and Twitter made regular updates, posted their thoughts, concerns, fears, and some LOLcat pictures.  There were conversations.  We kept each other in check.  We calmly but forcefully addressed the occasional burst of hate speech on our feeds.  Several neighbors started organizing a community Peace Potluck to be held once this was all over (and it was held the very next day).

I really do live in a wonderful neighborhood and city.  Even when we couldn't get together, we came together as one community.  Let us continue to be one community in real life.

Oversimplifying simple problems

It's a truism amongst most social scientists, at least thoughtful ones, that most social problems defy simple solutions. There is often a complex relationship between history, economics, law, culture, politics, geography, and social psychology that results in the social challenges of any time period. Because of that, no single solution is ever enough to really "solve" the problem. This does not stop everyone who has found their hammer (or at least has a book to promote) from bringing it out with every alleged nail they see. Richard Florida seems to be one of those people.

Florida recently wrote in The Atlantic Cities about the geography of class. His own Martin Prosperity Institute at the University of Toronto produced a report that shows which metropolitan areas in the US have larger service industries. As we all know, service jobs are the lowest paid in the country. People who work in these industries tend to be the most economically vulnerable. According to Florida, the solution to being underpaid is to work harder and more creatively.

The service class is both the largest (60 million workers) and the least paid of America’s three major social classes. The only way to improve its members’ prospects is to upgrade the work they perform—to make it more creative and hence more productive and remunerative. As I have written, that is the key task of a jobs strategy today, as well as being required to spur the demand required for broader economic recovery.

Sigh. Deep breath.

First, service workers include everyone from home health care workers to the people who sell popcorn at the movie theater. They are the janitorial staff at my university and the person who checks me out at the grocery store. My tailor. The guy who delivers my newspaper. The wait staff at my local pub. Florida explicitly acknowledges the diversity of jobs included in this industry in the first paragraph. Does he really believe that the home health aide who cared for my father-in-law in his last days at home before his Alzheimer's made it too dangerous for him to be there was "unproductive"? Does he really believe that my friend who is a housekeeper at a 5-star hotel here in Boston does not have to come up creative solutions for some of the bizarre requests that people of the apparently creative class impose on them?

Second, Florida's "solution" completely ignores the race and gender context of remuneraton. Service jobs have historically been filled by women and ethnic non-whites. Both of these have historically been paid less for their work (and continue to be paid less than men or whites). These two realities are related. You cannot ignore the history of systemic oppression of entire groups of people when talking about that oppression.

Which gets to the final point. If you are going to offer a simple solution to being underpaid, by what logic to you go straight to "let's change the work" rather than "let's change the pay"? Service industry jobs are low wage jobs because employers pay them low wages. It has nothing to do with how difficult or creative the work is. It has everything to do with how we, as a society, treat those "others" who just happen to make our lives easier. If we want to ensure the economic stability and resilience of my neighbors who clean the airplanes and push the wheelchairs at Logan Airport, then perhaps we should insist that they be paid something close to a living wage and be treated like human beings.

With this article, Florida missed out on an opportunity to discuss the root of economic vulnerability. The jobs themselves are not the problem. The problem is that society, or at least the part of society that has money and power, does not value certain kinds of workers. I'm not sure how much more creative the job of security guard at my dentist's office building needs to be. But I do believe that Florida could have done more to engage his own creative faculties when he was thinking through the problem of concentrated vulnerability.

My views on the morphology of family

On the event of our anniversary, I posted the following message to Facebook:

Today, we celebrate many many years of commitment, three-quarters of which include the legally binding contract called marriage. We honor our love for each other every single day. But today, we give thanks for the legal protections afforded to us by the government for making this legal contract with each other. We hope that one day soon, our friends who live in states whose government continues to discriminate against them will one day also be able to share in those legal benefits.

In response, a friend asked me whether I feel that people who engage in polyamorous relationships, but are prevented from getting married are being discriminated against.  He extended the question to GSA couples who are prevented from being legally married in some places.  It's a completely legitimate question.  I started to respond in Facebook, but decided that it needed a longer and more thoughtful response than Facebook provides.  Here is my response:

I have been blessed to have met a lot of people who live in all kinds of relationships.  I have met happily married people whose marriages were arranged and did not know each other until weeks before their marriage.  I have met one person who lives in, and have read a little bit about, polyamorous marriages.  I also know and love people of a variety of sexual and gender identities, many of whom are in committed relationships, some of whom are married, and many who are unable to be married or have their legal marriage recognized by the state they live in.

What I've learned is that I cannot say that the structure of their intimate and family relationship is fundamentally wrong.  Especially when I see so many examples of heterosexual couples who mistreat, abuse, and disrespect their partners and their families.   How can I say a same sex relationship, a polygamous relationship, or even an arranged marriage is inherently wrong when there are so many examples of loving, supportive, and devoted relationships in exactly those kinds of family structures.  These folks have taught me that there are many ways of being and many ways of loving that are based on mutual respect and devotion. 

For me, there are two issues here.  First, there is the issue of dignity and abuse.  There is a long history of subjugation within and through marriage.  You have to look no further than the bible for examples of this.  We find oppression and degradation (especially of women) in both monogamous and polygamous relationships.  As such, it strikes me that abuse is not confined to a particular family morphology.  Rather, history (and reading today's newspapers) shows us that patriarchy and the structure of power between social and gender groups is what creates oppression.  If dignity can be found in arranged marriages, same-sex and opposite-sex marriages, then it is entirely possible that people (again, most especially women) can live dignified lives even in polygamous relationships.

The second, and more important issue, is the legal one.  To me, this issue is about the law, and by extension the relationship between the state (i.e. the government) and its citizens.  I am not concerned about what any particular faith community believes or practices and would not support requiring faith communities to perform religious rituals that are contrary to their belief system.

My concern is the extension of legal protections and privileges to people who choose to engage in the legal contract that we call marriage.  There are hundreds of benefits and protections that are afforded to people who are legally married that people who are not allowed to be legally married are denied.  Again, my primary concern is the ability of people to be able to live lives of dignity and respect.  By not extending the access to legal recognition of a relationship between consenting adults, the government is discriminating against those people without any rational relationship to a legitimate government interest.

However, the question that is really at the heart of my friend's inquiry is would I support extending legal recognition of polygamy.  I would have to say at this point, I just might.  Since my primary concern is the ability of people to live in loving, devoted, dignified relationships of their choosing, I can't say that I have an a priori objection to any particular family structure.

However, I will also concede that I don't really know whether I would support the legalization of polygamy yet because I don't know that we have in place the social and legal structures to manage what is a more complex family structure.  We barely have the legal capacity to handle definitions of family that extend beyond one or two degrees.  Two cousins living together do not constitute a "family" in many jurisdictions, which is contrary to how many non-white or lower income cultures view family.  The obsession with maintaining the "nuclear family" as the only legally acceptable family structure makes dealing with potential conflicts within polygamous families a legal minefield.

What do you do if one wife asserts she has been abused and the others either have not or do not agree there has been abuse?  How do you handle divorce settlements, especially in community property states?  Do all spouses have to agree to an adoption?  Or to give permission for one spouse to travel with a minor child overseas?  Who has decision-making power in the event of medical emergency and death?  Does one mother have the same legal rights over the biological child of co-wife?

None of these are insurmountable. But they require that we as a society engage respectfully with communities who do live in polyamorous relationships.  It may require that we look to cultures that accept polygamy for guidance - something U.S. Americans are loathe to do.  But if we can find a way to distinguish between abusive relationships from loving, devoted ones, then perhaps we can accept this is a family structure.

I can't say I've met people who meet the criteria for GSA, at least not to my knowledge.  I haven't read much about it but I suspect that this may become an issue that will have to be addressed legally in places where known genetic relation prevents legal marriage.  With the increase in the use of anonymous sperm and egg donors, the probability of such relationships occurring may increase.  Again, I suspect that I would not object to allowing these couples to marry.  If there is no indication of abuse, if they live healthy, supportive, loving lives, that is their business and not mine.