In Racially Charged Political Climate, Fairfax County’s Light Touch on Hate Crimes

Vandals caused $60,000 worth of damage to a mosque under construction in the Washington, D.C. suburb of Chantilly, VA but the Fairfax County Police Department doesn’t think it was a hate crime.

They can’t be serious. Amid all the vitriolic speech occurring in the media and on the campaign trail, how could FCPD officials have possibly thought this was a sound conclusion? 

The Fairfax County website defines bias crimes as “Any unlawful action committed against a person or their property because of his or her race, religious conviction, ethnic or national origin, disability, or sexual orientation.” The website further states that “locations of events (i.e.: cultural/religious centers)” are an indicator that a “crime is bias motivated.”

Did I miss something?

If this is an indication of how Fairfax County is going to handle hate crimes during the 2012 election cycle, Fairfax County residents are in real trouble. It is practically guaranteed that this election will stoke unprecedented levels of hate crimes from people who see the re-election of a black man as president as an assault on their core values. But law enforcement officials who look the other way when hate crimes are committed are assaulting the core values of most Americans.

The racially-charged atmosphere can’t be denied. We have all been privy to both explicit and “coded” hate speech and vitriol in our national media and from elected officials, candidates and broadcasters. There have been many examples of blatant hate speech. In October of 2010 Rush Limbaugh said, “But there is no equality. You cannot guarantee that any two people will end up the same and you can’t legislate it, and you can’t make it happen … [S]ome people are born victims, some people are just born to be slaves.” In an article in The Hill this past Monday, Fox News’ contributor Juan Williams noted:

Race is always a trigger in politics, but now a third of the nation are people of color — and their numbers are growing. With those minorities solidly in the Democratic camp and behind the first black president, the scene is set for a bonanza of racial politics.

The language of GOP racial politics is heavy on euphemisms that allow the speaker to deny any responsibility for the racial content of his message. The code words in this game are “entitlement society” — as used by Mitt Romney — and “poor work ethic” and “food stamp president” — as used by Newt Gingrich. References to a lack of respect for the “Founding Fathers” and the “Constitution” also make certain ears perk up by demonizing anyone supposedly threatening core “old-fashioned American values.”

The code also extends to attacks on legal immigrants, always carefully lumped in with illegal immigrants, as people seeking “amnesty” and taking jobs from Americans.

Just as advertisers rely on spots and endorsements to drive sales, hate speech promotes real world effects, including hate crimes. Advertisers are so confident their advertisements will generate sales, they are willing to pay $3.5 million for a 30-second spot in the Super Bowl. Speech, especially nationally-disseminated speech by syndicated talk show hosts with high ratings and politicians on the campaign trail, can be expected to have the same effect on human behavior. In fact, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, 1,002 hate groups including neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Confederates, racist skinheads, black separates, border vigilantes and others have cropped up around the nation. Forty-one such hate groups have established themselves in Virginia and the District of Columbia.

It’s up to local officials to take hate crimes seriously. This recent episode in Fairfax County is a poor example of responsible governance. 

FCC Denies MMTC XM Sirius Petition

Remember when the Sirius-XM merger was approved back in 2008? Part of the deal was that Sirius XM would lease 8% of its channels to “diverse” content programmers.  The FCC thought this was a great idea, but required Sirius XM to ignore race as a factor in determining who should get to program the channels. 

The Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC) petitioned the FCC to reconsider its approval of the merger, saying that the FCC didn’t give enough consideration to new entrants without “extensive partnerships” with Sirius XM; didn’t exhaust its consideration of every non-racial category available (such as language and tribal relationships); and that the effect of the order would have too much of an adverse impact on diversity in subsequent mergers.

The FCC rejected MMTC’s petition today and pointed to the specific language in the original order approving the merger that had already addressed all of MMTC’s issues.  Even though MMTC’s petition was denied, this is still a victory for MMTC and media diversity in general because there can never seem to be enough clarity on the record. The FCC’s explicit statement that it covered all the bases establishes a clearer precedent for diversity conditions in future media mergers.

Tim Wise on the Tangible Effects of Subtle Racism

Most—if not all—courts would deem the racial effects that Tim Wise describes as being too attenuated.  But they are the very effects that constitute the modern racism we tolerate. 

There are other ignored linkages.  The other day, a friend of mine, who is African-American, told me that upon dropping her daughter off at school, a white administrator told the daughter that her hair is “just like a doll’s hair.”  It would be as much of a stretch for me to conclude that this administrator said this with any racial animus, as it was for Tim to conclude that the officer was engaged in racial profiling in the situation he describes.  Still the mother called her husband from her car to discuss the indignity and, so distracted, was pulled over for running a red light.

Whether there was racial intent behind the administrator’s comment or not, merely having to consider this question led to a distracted driving scenario in which the mother was pulled over.  Thankfully, the officer did not issue a ticket.  But these isolated incidents highlight the same pathology that leads to the health effects Tim Wise illustrates (health outcomes), legal grey areas (disproportionate incarceration rates), children of color being subjected to discipline in school more often than white children (achievement gaps), and any number of other disparities.

Can Community Colleges Change the Way We Think About Talent?

Believe it or not, some high school graduates not bound for four-year colleges still want to pursue higher education.  But our system of higher education has other plans in mind for these students.  In the United States, if you don’t attend a four-year college immediately after high school, you essentially become red meat for employers seeking low-wage workers (if you’re fortunate enough to find a job at all) or for-profit colleges whose duty is to the bottom line, whether or not they meet the unique needs of each student.   In too many cases, community colleges have become either a choice of last resort or a choice that has lost so much credibility that many students no longer consider it an option.  Why attend community college for two years, if you can “get the training you need for a job with a future in as little a nine months,” as Everest College heralds on its website?

Raising the standards of community colleges would raise standards across-the-board by forcing for-profits to compete by providing student-centered learning, providing four-year colleges with a more diverse pool of quality applicants seeking additional education beyond the Associates degree, and raising the standards of the American workforce.  In a nation in which people of color are expected to make up more than 50% of the population by 2050, it is critically important to reform higher education in a way that teaches students of varying learning styles the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) skills they will need to compete in a global economy. 

This will require us to shift the way we think about the potential of workers beyond the age of seventeen. By some accounts, age eighty is the new sixty-five for retirement.  Paradoxically, American workers internalize the message that their abilities are written in stone and what they have accomplished from age 0 to 17 will irreversibly determine the next 63 years of their working lives.  This myth provides justification to plutocrats, but is holding the rest of the country back.  It also flies in the face of a growing body of research suggesting that IQs are not fixed at birth, but can be improved with education.

On December 16, the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies convened a roundtable discussion among education policy stakeholders for a results-driven dialogue to improve community colleges’ ability to educate the next generation of American innovators.  In the keynote, Federal Communications Commission Commissioner Mignon Clyburn urged participants to empathize with individuals who have the potential to excel but not the opportunities. Thomas Kalil, Deputy Director for Policy in the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the White House, stressed President Obama’s goal to move America from the middle to the top of the pack of the world’s most innovative countries.   To do this, the White House has partnered with Change the Equation, the National Academy Foundation, and Skills for America’s Future to improve high schools and community colleges and strengthen ties between community colleges and employers.  The White House has also produced an inventory of STEM programs nationwide through the post-doctoral level.  According to Kalil, over $1 billion of federal investments in STEM are allocated to broaden participation by underrepresented groups.  Kalil acknowledged the critical importance of improving STEM education in early grades, but also said that retaining STEM students by reducing class sizes is important to keep students interested and engaged in STEM. A book entitled “Rising Above the Gathering Storm” summarizes other efforts to improve American competitiveness.

The nation’s challenge to improve STEM education is multifaceted and will not be overcome without significant effort from a variety of stakeholders.  Living conditions play a major role in academic achievement. Thus, any approach to reducing achievement gaps must address the circumstances of poverty and the circumstances of working while attending school.  Several roundtable participants raised other important issues that must not be overlooked.  Ajenai Clemmons, Policy Director of the National Black Caucus of State Legislators and a roundtable participant, urged policy makers to include local elected officials in the discussion. Quentin Lawson, Executive Director of the National Alliance of Black School Educators, another roundtable participant, expressed the need to develop better ways to develop STEM instructors, especially STEM instructors from underrepresented backgrounds.  Linda Rosen of Change the Equation raised the issue that many elementary school teachers think of themselves as generalists, rather than science and mathematics teachers.  John Horrigan, Vice President of Policy Research at TechNet, said that data needs to be made available to the research community in order to understand where the “outliers” are that have been successful and develop initiatives to apply what works.

These issues only skim the surface of the many problems that need to be addressed before we accomplish true STEM reform.  It is only through a persistent and interdisciplinary effort that it will be achieved.  Accordingly, the Joint Center announced the formation of a task force to make specific recommendations to improve STEM education.  This effort must be results-oriented rather than simply another Washington discussion in which people drink coffee, eat cookies and go home.  The future of American innovation depends on creating a culture of lifelong learning that makes fewer reductionist assumptions about students’ intrinsic abilities.

One Occupy Protester Changes the Live News Model

This brilliant young man is going to use quadrocopters to shoot overhead footage of OWS protests.  While traditional news copters can be restricted, any altitude at 400 feet or below is not restricted, FAA airspace. Both the quadrocopters and the smartphones are wireless technologies.  In the context of social engagement to address disparities that minorities are disproportionately affected by, this is far from being second class citizenship. 

[via Mashable]

“Occupy Wall Street broadcaster Tim Pool’s protest coverage, shot entirely on smartphones, has received more attention than most mainstream media. The reporter - who doesn’t identify with the term citizen journalist - is now devising ways mobile technology can provide unprecedented news coverage.

Pool rose to fame after his 21-hour live Ustream broadcast of the Nov. 15 raid on Zuccotti Park went viral on Twitter. His stream provided what large camera crews could not - an unfiltered take on the action as it unfolded. His footage was featured on Al Jazeera English, MSNBC and Time.com …”

http://on.mash.to/uc74PE

“Progressives?”: Race Baiting and the Digital Divide

“One of the surest signs of the Philistine is his reverence for the superior tastes of those who put him down.”

-Pauline Kael

What is to blame for digital age inequality?  The digital divide behind door number one?  Or the digital divide behind door number two?  These seem like silly questions.  That’s because they are.  But no matter what the reason is, some advocates always manage to find a way to insult the lifestyle choices of people of color.

Last week was a busy week for these folks.  On December 3^rd, The New York Times published an op-Ed by Susan Crawford, a long time net neutrality advocate, professor of law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of law, and former special assistant to President Obama on science, technology, and innovation policy.  Crawford wrote that smartphones—the devices that African-Americans and Latinos overwhelmingly prefer for accessing the internet—provide a “second class” tier of Internet service, as compared to the high-speed wired internet access that middle-class urbanites and suburbanites are able to enjoy via computers connected directly to the Internet.  In a blog post in Colorlines—a blog focusing on issues affecting minorities—Colorlines News Editor Jamilah King reiterated Crawford’s thesis, then went the extra mile of calling out the NAACP and National Urban League for taking funding from telecommunications companies like AT&T and Sprint.

The problem with Crawford and King’s approach is that they cast wireless broadband and smartphones in their worst possible light.  High-speed broadband and wireless broadband each have a distinct set of unique advantages over the other, making neither of them superior to the other in all respects.  If wireless were a substitute for high speed internet access, there would be no competition. 

This dichotomy is not a race issue.  I have not seen any minority groups make the argument that wireless broadband is a complete substitute for high speed internet.  I have heard them say that, in the absence of high speed internet, or where high speed internet is not affordable, wireless is a lifeline.  However, I have not seen any organizations say that we should forget about high speed Internet access for communities of color and focus exclusively on ensuring that communities of color have smartphones. So the idea that there is some grand conspiracy to “trick” minorities into using mobile devices instead of computers sounds specious to me.

High speed internet access is critical for exposing people of color to the culture of innovation from which they have largely been excluded.  In this context, wireless internet access is not a substitute for high speed internet access.  Nor is it a substitute for some of the uses that Crawford mentions in her article, such as writing resumes, using remote healthcare applications, or for earning a degree online (although the current success rate of online learning for minorities is dismal).  But the exclusionary culture of Silicon Valley is not something that mainstream media advocates have addressed.  If corporations are really “D.C.’s most truly bipartisan, non-ideological lobbying force, spreading their money around everywhere from the halls of Congress to the advocacy organizations that represent communities’ interests there,” as King asserts in her article, wouldn’t minority organizations have a more diverse funding base?  Why not attack the technology companies that don’t fund them?  Why not attack free market groups more often?  Why are minority-oriented groups such easy targets?

Mainstream media advocates pooh-pooh minorities’ use of smartphones, but at the same time we debate about why so few African-Americans are participating in the Occupy Wall Street Movement, even though African-Americans are among those racial and ethnic groups most affected by socioeconomic disparities.  “Protesters” are Time magazine’s Person of the Year.  Could anyone plausibly question whether the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street protests would have been as successful as they have been were it not for wireless broadband?

From the outset of the digital divide debate in 1995, the Department of Commerce’s National and Information Administration (NTIA) has expressed the need to evaluate more than just telephones to determine who are the “haves and have nots” when it comes information access and participation.  NTIA’s report stated, “While a standard telephone line can be an individual’s pathway to the riches of the Information Age, a personal computer and modem are rapidly becoming the keys to the vault.”  But in 1995, according to CTIA, the Wireless Industry trade association, there were just 33.8 million wireless subscribers in the U.S.  By 2009, that number had grown to 277.6 million.  Just as it was important to avoid allocating excessive resources toward universal telephone service as computers began to take hold, it is equally important to acknowledge that wireless offers a different value proposition vis-à-vis wireline broadband.

High-speed internet access and bandwidth are absolutely essential for supporting American innovation in Silicon Valley.  But commoditizing minorities to bolster that underlying argument is patently irresponsible.  There is no “new” digital divide—we are faced with the same digital divide that we have been faced with since at least 1940.  Wireless broadband has helped to close part of that gap, but we still have a long way to go.