I have somewhat of a unique perspective on public education in Rhode Island. Like many others, I spent 13 years as a consumer in RI public schools under the impression that the instruction and curriculum that was provided to me was pretty much the standard in all districts. I remember very well that education was valued in my household and that it was assumed that both children would eventually land in and graduate from a four year college. I attended Coventry High School and believed, as most of my classmates did, that we were attending a reasonably "good" school. One piece of evidence to support this belief was that we were surrounded nearly exclusively by white students. We had definitely internalized the notion that white students in suburban schools had a near monopoly on academic achievement in Rhode Island. Schools in urban areas were burdened with high concentrations of "minority" students who were either unwilling or unable to perform academically thus diluting the overall quality of instruction that was available. We had a two pronged defense against this.... First, we had a clever system of "leveling" that limited our contact with the chronic underachievers. While this group was made up exclusively by whites, we had the feeling that they probably resembled the students in urban schools in every respect except for skin color. Secondly, we had segregation on our side. I have come to be a strong critic of educational segregation but I unconsciously and probably rightly viewed this as an advantage during my high school years. We perceived ourselves as deservedly being among the educational "haves" in the state by virtue of the fact that we had earned our access to a quality education. We did our work. We got good grades. Students in urban districts had the same opportunities but wasted them with chronic absenteeism and drug use. With the insight of hindsight and a more developed capacity for critical thinking, I now recognize how uninformed and shortsighted we were. Especially in the area of drug use. I am now fully confident that my affinity for intoxicating substances between the years 1993 and 1996 would have trumped most students in Providence or Central Falls and....I was unquestionably a light user in my school.
The perception on the part of whites that they are they are the beneficiaries of our segregated public education system is the primary reason why we have made next to no progress in integrating schools. Derrick Bell rightly argued that white folks only support change when there are clear, tangible benefits associated with it. One of the key elements to our belief that we were entitled to the superior education that we were receiving was that we had earned it while students in lesser schools had not. We had been taught and bought into the notion that we were the product of the educational choices that we had made....nothing else. We believed that the educational segregation that we "benefited" from was simply the product of where people chose to live and there was little that could or needed to be done about it. It was just a few years after I graduated from high school that the foundations of these assumptions started to erode....information is a dangerous thing.
Most people do not have the opportunity to spend as much time in as many public schools as I do. Between the months of September and March, I make upwards of 30 visits to Rhode Island high schools. I also read in the area of 1000 college applications from this same group of students annually. It is in this process that one realizes the degree to which the notion of a "culture of poverty" is absurd. High School seniors in our urban schools are generally no less committed to academic achievement than the Coventry High School students that I spent 4 blissful years with. What we had that they don't is an established framework to achieving these goals. We had greater access to pre-k education that really plays a critical role in determining how and at what pace a student progresses in the academic years that follow. The Anyon article was eyeopening for two important reasons. First, it confirmed
POST INTERRUPTED BY READING GUIDES!!! I WILL FINISH THIS THOUGHT TONIGHT.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Friday, September 23, 2011
The Hot Dogs are Different Upstairs
While reviewing our course requirements and taking an inventory of the things that I had either not done or not done well, I realized that I very nearly missed an excellent opportunity to put together a great diary post. On Monday of last week I had the opportunity to watch the afternoon Red Sox game in the State Street Pavilion luxury boxes at Fenway Park. The picture to the right is one taken from my seat of a David Ortiz base hit in the fourth inning of the game. As you can clearly see, these seats provide an exceptional vantage point to watch a baseball game. While these seats are not the most expensive available at Fenway, the $170 face value is high ensure that most fans will never see a game there. The State Street boxes and the $309 per ticket EMC club allow the wealthiest of fans the opportunity to enjoy the game without the risk of any physical contact with the people who live in the bleachers ($12-$18 per ticket) Exclusivity is a very important selling point in these seating areas. Many are corporately owned and used for the purpose of wooing wealthy clients- a task which is made infinitely more difficult in the presence of "bleacher creatures" who have a industry-wide reputation for unseemly behavior at the park. In fact, the "creatures" at Yankee Stadium have just regained their right to drink beer during the games!
The exclusivity of such seats is displayed prominently their advertizing. A brief perusal of State Street Pavilion page shows how prominently this "exclusivity" is displayed in their promotional efforts. "Members" are provided with an "upscale dining experience" with a menu that includes a carving station (beef when I was there), a "raw bar", fresh local produce and (my personal favorite) Chef James' "pasta of the day". There was also a $40 buffet, a wide variety of "top shelf" liquors and an even wider variety of craft beers. The purchase of any of these a fore mentioned items, which would earn you a well deserved ass kicking in the bleachers, puts a strain on the wallet but, more importantly, distinguishes you from those who are watching the game "below" you.
The prices in these seating areas probably serve as a sufficient bulwark against the possible encroachment of the masses below (I bought a round of beer as a thank you to my neighbor who acquired the tickets- 3 domestic beers- $26.88) but the Red Sox err on the side of caution and make it a real pain in the ass to get to these seats. On three occasions between the exclusive entrance to the seats on Yawkey Way and the Pavillion Club bar I had to produce a ticket verifying that I was not an imposter. When in our seats, we were very politely approached by a "member" inquiring how we managed to be sitting where we were. This man was extremely friendly and polite but his message was clear- this is a protected area- we are glad to have you but.... The "club" concept is important to consider in this case. Clubs are defined by their exclusivity and ability to define their membership based on a set of desired characteristics. The August National Golf Club exemplifies this protected exclusivity as well as any such organization. Its membership list is "exclusively" male, "exclusively" rich, and almost "exclusively" white. (First African American member in 1990) Membership at Augusta is by invitation only and limited to approximately 300 of the most powerful and wealthy men around.
This price tags for access to exclusive clubs are effective in limiting access nearly exclusively to wealthy whites but a possibly more important limiting factor is access to the social capital that is often linked with considerable wealth but not limited to the wealthy. This explains my ability to enjoy a Red Sox game in an area where I was unquestionably the poorest person in a 1000 seat radius. This was also not the first time that I had watched a professional sporting event in a luxury box. I have also watched a Celtics playoff game in a center-court luxury box that with tickets owned by the owner of a Rhode Island liquor distribution company. My social capital at this stage in life far exceeds my economic capital and this has afforded me opportunities that are largely unavailable to those who lack access to networks of wealthy and powerful individuals. I think one of the interesting elements of social capital is that it isn't something that is extremely visible. Wealth is often made visible through the conspicuous consumption of the wealthy in the form of expensive cars and luxurious homes. I drive a Hyundai Elantra and live in a 988 square foot ranch house that would fit comfortably into a single room in the houses of most of those who who shared my State Street Pavilion experience with. What I have is a store of social capital that has afforded me opportunities to share some experiences typically not available to those who share my social/economic "class". My education and affiliation with a college has provided me with access to established networks of graduates who have "made it" and have assumed positions of power. This access is unearned and is directly related to my having certain advantages associated with the color of my skin. I will trace that link in a later post as this one is reaching a length that will likely keep most people from actually reading it.
The title of this post refers to the fact that the hot dogs sold in the luxury boxes at Fenway Park are entirely different from those that are carted around on the shoulders of vendors in the seats below. In my opinion, the bleacher dogs are vastly superior. One win for the bleacher creatures!
This price tags for access to exclusive clubs are effective in limiting access nearly exclusively to wealthy whites but a possibly more important limiting factor is access to the social capital that is often linked with considerable wealth but not limited to the wealthy. This explains my ability to enjoy a Red Sox game in an area where I was unquestionably the poorest person in a 1000 seat radius. This was also not the first time that I had watched a professional sporting event in a luxury box. I have also watched a Celtics playoff game in a center-court luxury box that with tickets owned by the owner of a Rhode Island liquor distribution company. My social capital at this stage in life far exceeds my economic capital and this has afforded me opportunities that are largely unavailable to those who lack access to networks of wealthy and powerful individuals. I think one of the interesting elements of social capital is that it isn't something that is extremely visible. Wealth is often made visible through the conspicuous consumption of the wealthy in the form of expensive cars and luxurious homes. I drive a Hyundai Elantra and live in a 988 square foot ranch house that would fit comfortably into a single room in the houses of most of those who who shared my State Street Pavilion experience with. What I have is a store of social capital that has afforded me opportunities to share some experiences typically not available to those who share my social/economic "class". My education and affiliation with a college has provided me with access to established networks of graduates who have "made it" and have assumed positions of power. This access is unearned and is directly related to my having certain advantages associated with the color of my skin. I will trace that link in a later post as this one is reaching a length that will likely keep most people from actually reading it.
The title of this post refers to the fact that the hot dogs sold in the luxury boxes at Fenway Park are entirely different from those that are carted around on the shoulders of vendors in the seats below. In my opinion, the bleacher dogs are vastly superior. One win for the bleacher creatures!
Friday, September 16, 2011
The Importance of Class Analysis
In his effort to provide historical context for the economic and social calamity in New Orleans following Katrina, Christopher Morris also provided some pretty solid reasoning for engaging in critical class analysis. Morris explained that the physical origins of natural disasters such as Katrina are generally beyond human control. Catastrophic "acts of God" like hurricanes, earthquakes and tornadoes are not simply random events that occur without explanation but are the products of geologic and atmospheric conditions that humans are starting to understand and, in some instances, being able to predict. This understanding of such phenomena, which has saved countless lives, is the product of careful and thorough scientific study, observation, and experimentation. It stands to reason that applying similar scrutiny and rigorous investigation to the origins or social class and inequality might yield a similar depth of understanding that would improve lives...if not save them.
Class analysis and the study of the origins of social and economic inequality in the United States is only a worthwhile venture if it leads to substantive change in the way we do things. With this in mind, class analysis provides a rationale for policy reform that requires sympathetic ears among those in the position to make and execute laws in this country. Unfortunately, US legislators perceive themselves as the "losers" in reform agenda that results in the more equitable distribution of social capital and political power. Understanding "power" as a defining element of "class" is key a useful class analysis and probably critical to exposing the power framework that allows the "rich to get richer and keeps the poor....well, poor. Historical context is essential to this process.
The Lavelle and Feagin article does a solid job of presenting the historical evolution of the relationship between race and class in Louisiana and its impact on the federal and local response to Katrina. They argue convincingly that separating race and class really makes no sense when the situation is viewed in proper historical context. In Louisiana, as is the case with much of the US, the current class structure would not exist without a long history of oppression of racial minorities by politically and economically powerful whites. Understanding the history of how "whiteness" became a valued commodity in the United States and how it is used to gain and protect accumulations of social and cultural capital is key to contemporary class analysis. Hurricane Katrina forced Americans to engage in a critical class analysis (albeit briefly and without much enthusiasm) but was really just an symptom of a larger disease that was just too disruptive to ignore. Lavelle and Feagin argue that persistent racism is the root cause of the class inequities that were forced into the spotlight during the weeks, months and years following Katrina. Their assertion that racial discrimination facilitated by the disproportionate political and economic power of white elites created the institutional structures that fix class makes a lot of sense. Understandably, white elites have a great deal to gain by denying the racist foundations of class inequality. Minimizing the role of race in the critical class analysis obscures the root cause of inequity thereby providing white economic elites with a kind of "plausible deniability" when pressed with accusations of racism. The authors reference a comment by Barbara Bush that many of the evacuated poor were living better in shelters than they had before the storm. Lavelle and Feagin argue that this comment was indicative of white elites being "out of touch" with poor/minority populations- and I agree entirely. What I think is subtly implied by the former First Lady is that these Black folks should be appreciative of the accommodations that the state and federal government have provided for them. By removing race from the discourse on class, folks like the Bush family can deny culpability by connecting class inequity with its "real" root causes of poor education and bad personal life decisions.
This line of reasoning is comforting to whites of nearly every economic position. The technique and rhetoric are nearly always the same. One begins by professing his "colorblindness" and in a show of solidarity quotes King's "I Have a Dream" speech. After this proclamation it is now possible to ignore the fact that the class distinctions that exist between "us" and "them" are created by a system of oppression built by folks who were keenly aware of "color" and used it to carve a well protected niche in American society for themselves. "Colorblindness" is an interesting element of a discussion on class in American society. It is an essential tool in a "post-racial" America that allows for us to distance ourselves from the transgressions of our ancestors. The racialized slavery that Lavelle and Feagin identified as a root cause of the social inequities in 21st century Louisiana could not have persisted as long as it did in the United States without the presence of a broadly accepted systemic racism. In 2011 America, Jim Crow has ceded power to a more sophisticated and less visible "colorblind" entity who is subtly carrying on his work.
In any discussion of the movement of race out of a contemporary class analysis, it is important to note that the "colorblind" do not claim to be unable to distinguish between "races" but purport to possess a moral rectitude that allows them to judge individual on the "content of their character" rather than the color of their skin. Denying that one has benefited from any unearned gains associated with skin color is another prerequisite for enrollment in the caste of the colorblind. This allows for the practice of what Curtis Chan referred to as "modern racism" without the moral compromises that were required of previous generations of racists. Chan's critique of the assignment of "model minority" status to Asian Americans really illuminated many of the problems inherent in a class analysis that discounts race. By anointing Asian Americans with "model minority" status, a "colorblind" America has offered evidence that the American Dream is still alive and attainable if you simply do the "white thing". Chan affixes much of the blame for the perpetuation of the myth of the "model minority" on the modern media. This makes sense. With Asians serving as a shield against accusations that the American Dream is nearly exclusively attainable by whites, the white dominated media projects images of Asian "whizz kids" juxtaposed with the academic and economic failings of other minority groups. In doing so the achieve the ultimate end of creating hoards of consumers subscribing to the notion that African Americans and Hispanics are just too lazy and irresponsible to do the "white thing".
I always try to take positions that are a moderate as they possibly can be given the concrete information that is available. I am not one for skewering the white devil at every opportunity but I often find it hard not to... Realistic and fruitful discussions about class in America are impossible to have without considering the issue of race. White folks such as myself are sometimes going to suffer some collateral damage in the fray but it is essential to approach problems honestly if we are to move toward any meaningful policy reform related to class in this country. I buy Derrick Bell's theory that powerful whites will only support reform agendas if there is a clear/tangible benefit for them. With this in mind, we need to package reform efforts in such a way that the mutual benefits are so clearly obvious that opposition to such agendas could be perceived as nothing other than bigotry.
Class analysis and the study of the origins of social and economic inequality in the United States is only a worthwhile venture if it leads to substantive change in the way we do things. With this in mind, class analysis provides a rationale for policy reform that requires sympathetic ears among those in the position to make and execute laws in this country. Unfortunately, US legislators perceive themselves as the "losers" in reform agenda that results in the more equitable distribution of social capital and political power. Understanding "power" as a defining element of "class" is key a useful class analysis and probably critical to exposing the power framework that allows the "rich to get richer and keeps the poor....well, poor. Historical context is essential to this process.
The Lavelle and Feagin article does a solid job of presenting the historical evolution of the relationship between race and class in Louisiana and its impact on the federal and local response to Katrina. They argue convincingly that separating race and class really makes no sense when the situation is viewed in proper historical context. In Louisiana, as is the case with much of the US, the current class structure would not exist without a long history of oppression of racial minorities by politically and economically powerful whites. Understanding the history of how "whiteness" became a valued commodity in the United States and how it is used to gain and protect accumulations of social and cultural capital is key to contemporary class analysis. Hurricane Katrina forced Americans to engage in a critical class analysis (albeit briefly and without much enthusiasm) but was really just an symptom of a larger disease that was just too disruptive to ignore. Lavelle and Feagin argue that persistent racism is the root cause of the class inequities that were forced into the spotlight during the weeks, months and years following Katrina. Their assertion that racial discrimination facilitated by the disproportionate political and economic power of white elites created the institutional structures that fix class makes a lot of sense. Understandably, white elites have a great deal to gain by denying the racist foundations of class inequality. Minimizing the role of race in the critical class analysis obscures the root cause of inequity thereby providing white economic elites with a kind of "plausible deniability" when pressed with accusations of racism. The authors reference a comment by Barbara Bush that many of the evacuated poor were living better in shelters than they had before the storm. Lavelle and Feagin argue that this comment was indicative of white elites being "out of touch" with poor/minority populations- and I agree entirely. What I think is subtly implied by the former First Lady is that these Black folks should be appreciative of the accommodations that the state and federal government have provided for them. By removing race from the discourse on class, folks like the Bush family can deny culpability by connecting class inequity with its "real" root causes of poor education and bad personal life decisions.
This line of reasoning is comforting to whites of nearly every economic position. The technique and rhetoric are nearly always the same. One begins by professing his "colorblindness" and in a show of solidarity quotes King's "I Have a Dream" speech. After this proclamation it is now possible to ignore the fact that the class distinctions that exist between "us" and "them" are created by a system of oppression built by folks who were keenly aware of "color" and used it to carve a well protected niche in American society for themselves. "Colorblindness" is an interesting element of a discussion on class in American society. It is an essential tool in a "post-racial" America that allows for us to distance ourselves from the transgressions of our ancestors. The racialized slavery that Lavelle and Feagin identified as a root cause of the social inequities in 21st century Louisiana could not have persisted as long as it did in the United States without the presence of a broadly accepted systemic racism. In 2011 America, Jim Crow has ceded power to a more sophisticated and less visible "colorblind" entity who is subtly carrying on his work.
In any discussion of the movement of race out of a contemporary class analysis, it is important to note that the "colorblind" do not claim to be unable to distinguish between "races" but purport to possess a moral rectitude that allows them to judge individual on the "content of their character" rather than the color of their skin. Denying that one has benefited from any unearned gains associated with skin color is another prerequisite for enrollment in the caste of the colorblind. This allows for the practice of what Curtis Chan referred to as "modern racism" without the moral compromises that were required of previous generations of racists. Chan's critique of the assignment of "model minority" status to Asian Americans really illuminated many of the problems inherent in a class analysis that discounts race. By anointing Asian Americans with "model minority" status, a "colorblind" America has offered evidence that the American Dream is still alive and attainable if you simply do the "white thing". Chan affixes much of the blame for the perpetuation of the myth of the "model minority" on the modern media. This makes sense. With Asians serving as a shield against accusations that the American Dream is nearly exclusively attainable by whites, the white dominated media projects images of Asian "whizz kids" juxtaposed with the academic and economic failings of other minority groups. In doing so the achieve the ultimate end of creating hoards of consumers subscribing to the notion that African Americans and Hispanics are just too lazy and irresponsible to do the "white thing".
I always try to take positions that are a moderate as they possibly can be given the concrete information that is available. I am not one for skewering the white devil at every opportunity but I often find it hard not to... Realistic and fruitful discussions about class in America are impossible to have without considering the issue of race. White folks such as myself are sometimes going to suffer some collateral damage in the fray but it is essential to approach problems honestly if we are to move toward any meaningful policy reform related to class in this country. I buy Derrick Bell's theory that powerful whites will only support reform agendas if there is a clear/tangible benefit for them. With this in mind, we need to package reform efforts in such a way that the mutual benefits are so clearly obvious that opposition to such agendas could be perceived as nothing other than bigotry.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Social Capital
"For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath" (Matthew 25:29)
Here is an interesting piece of current news that relates to our discussion of social capital....
Friday, September 9, 2011
Inequality Today/Media Post
After a long time pouring over internet articles and videos related to inequality in 2011 American society, I decided to share a video clip that covers both the assigned topic and addresses some of the issues in our readings for week 1. It is also absolutely hilarious. The Daily Show segment entitled "World of Class Warfare- The Poor's Free Ride is Over" depicts how conservative elements (Fox News) of the mainstream media assign much of the blame for the nation's economic and budgetary woes on its poorest citizens. This particular video focuses very heavily on Fox's stream of rhetoric depicting the poor as living reasonably well off of "our" tax dollars. The clips in the Daily Show video illustrate Gregory Mantsios' argument that the media depicts the poor as a drain on the nation's financial resources that are derived from the contributions of "us" productive citizens. Fox and other news outlets unquestionably contribute to the building of an "us" / "them" dichotomy in American society that makes so little practical sense.
The temptation to align oneself philosophically with those we perceive to be "like us" or those we would "like to be" makes sense. The belief in the "American Dream" drives some that have more in common culturally and economically with the poor than the rich to align themselves with the latter in the argument over how to fix the economy. When the news media distributes an image of the poor as a mass of unmotivated, jobless, freeloaders that goes largely uncontested, it is understandable that "we" prefer to be associated with those who contribute to the economy and create the jobs that the poor avoid doing.
An excellent illustration of this phenomenon occurred in my College Learning Strategies class last fall. One of my students who works in a local convenience store chain expressed his annoyance with the purchase decisions made by customers enrolled the state's Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP- formerly food stamps) This student was particularly annoyed by the fact that his tax dollars were funding what he perceived to be irresponsible purchases. His philosophy was similar to that espoused by Fox News that if you are receiving aid funded by the taxpayers then you damned well better use that money well! Ironically, this student had applied for the RIC Preparatory Enrollment Program which is designed exclusively for first-generation/ low income high school graduates. I pounced on this "teachable moment" and reminded him that (at that point in the semester) he had attended just 5 of our 9 class meetings and he was, therefore, failing a course which was being paid for, in part, by.....you guessed it......taxpayer funded federal and state grant money!
What was most striking about this situation was the fact that this student, who was unquestionably not wealthy and probably not, economically speaking, part of what he would have perceived to be a "middle class" would feel empowered to make judgement calls on how his customers spent their state aid. Perhaps the fact that he had crossed the barrier into the sphere of those in higher education led him to feel that he now had more in common with the responsible citizens who fund welfare than the unsavory folks that consume it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)