Drick Boyd's Blog

The Destruction of Public Education and the Conservative Agenda

2012-01-28T17:52:00.001-05:00

For some time now, I have suspected that the Conservative agenda involved the systematic dismantling and undermining of public education. Conservatives have repeatedly belittled public school teachers, fought the increase property taxes (which are the primary source of funding for most public school budgets), sought to pass bills calling for vouchers, and promoted the proliferation of charter schools, as their agenda for “reforming public education.” I have seen this is my children’s own suburban school district, in the Philadelphia public schools and in communities around the country. Taken together these actions sound the death knell of many public schools, especially in economically depressed communities. However, I doubt it will stop there; conservatives want to destroy publicly funded education in all its forms.

Recent actions by Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett have done nothing to dissuade me from this perspective; in fact he all but publicly proposed that for two communities in Pennsylvania. In my last blog posting, I decried the action of the governor denying funding for the Chester-Upland school district that had run out of money mid-year. The governor refused to provide relief claiming the school had “mismanaged” its funds. Chester-Upland has been under the oversight of the state government for several years, so if there was mismanagement it was in his own government as before he was governor he was the Attorney General.

Fortunately, a federal judge ordered Gov. Corbett to provide the $3.2 million necessary for the Chester-Upland district to complete its school year; this isn’t sufficient but it gives the district some more time However, the governor has already submitted a bill to the PA legislature that will effectively dissolve the school district, disband the teacher’s contracts and turn the remaining schools over to charters. He has proposed a similar plan for the community of Duquesne City in Western PA. Moreover, he proposes lower payments to schools that Chester student would apply to, thus making a lesser incentive for schools to attract or admit Chester students. The bill is so bad that even some of the Governor’s Republican allies are rejecting the bill. Fortunately, others are proposing their own bills, but it is clear that while the Governor continues to protect his corporate friends from any more taxes, he openly and disdainfully ignores the needs of the poorest citizens and their children in place like Chester. Because of the governor’s budget slashing other districts like Philadelphia also face further cutbacks even after slashing $600 million for their budget last summer, which led to larger class sizes, fewer teachers and the elimination of many academic support programs.

In 1962 Michael Harrington published his classic book on American poverty, The Other America, in which he exposed to the world the travesty of desperate poverty in a land of such wealth and opportunity. Harrington’s book so moved President Lyndon Johnson that is was believed to be a major influence in his efforts to create The Great Society programs that addressed poverty at levels never before seen. It is these same Great Society and War on Poverty programs that conservatives have consistently criticized and systematically dismantled over the last 50+ years. That is probably why Harrington’s book continues to be published and re-issued, and why now 50 years later because of hard-hearted conservatives like Corbett, it is still very relevant. This is not to say all conservatives are hard-hearted (there have been so-called compassionate conservatives like George W. Bush who disagreed with liberal policies but did not totally turn their back on the needs of the poor and offered their own solutions), but the brand of conservatism currently being practiced by leaders like Gov. Corbett, and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker shows no compassion nor concern for those who still suffer in the Other America.

While many of us don’t need to worry about our kids and their schools because they haven’t gotten to the point of Chester, we should take note what is happening. We need to see the trends, and recognize that while states are required to provide all students a quality public education, conservatives blatantly disregard that mandate in communities in most need and with the least resources. At the same time schools are being de-funded prisons are being built at a record pace in states like Pennsylvania. Research shows that there is a clear correlation between youth violence and low quality education. When it comes to building a school to prison pipeline, conservatives like Tom Corbett are showing us the way it is done with impunity.

Balancing the Budget on the Backs of the Poor: Chester-Upland School District

2012-01-12T12:25:00.000-05:00

While the fiscal conservatives say that we must “tighten our belts” and “everyone must sacrifice,” the recent news that the Chester-Upland(PA) school district has run out of money and can no longer operate their schools is yet another example that the ones who sacrifice are those with the least to give up. (For those not familiar with PA, Chester is one of the poorest cities in the state, and is located 10 miles south of Philadelphia. Its school district depends heavily on state funds because more than 50% of the residents of Chester live below the poverty line.)The state of Pennsylvania is mandated by law to provide quality public education to all children in the state. Yet since becoming governor a year ago, Tom Corbett, has slashed spending on services to the poor, decreased the amount of money the state provides to low income school districts, refused to raise taxes on wealthy individuals and companies, and advocated vouchers so that money would be taken away from public schools. When Chester officials asked the state to intervene, the governor said “no” blaming them for “mismanagement” - yet another example of “blaming the victim”; believe me, no one is getting rich in Chester except Harrah’s Casino and PPL Park the home of the Philadelphia Union soccer team.

When folks want to know what the Occupy Wall Street movement is about when it says the 1% are profiting off the 99%, Chester-Upland School district is exhibit A. While the governor and his Republican colleagues talk about “balancing the budget”, yet protecting their wealthy and corporate supporters, the poor of Chester and elsewhere suffer.

John Rawls, political philosopher whose work set the framework for the Great Society programs of the 60’s and 70’s, said that a society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable. The moral vision that moved leaders on both sides of the political spectrum to set up social safety net for the poor and disabled caused them to see that the wealthiest society in the world could not allow any of its citizens to go uncared for. The callous disregard for basic needs such as health care, housing and education that began in the 1980’s under President Reagan and has increased to the present shows not only a social callousness but a loss of moral vision. That a state governor can disregard his legal mandate to provide education to the children of Chester, while refusing to levy taxes on gas companies reaping millions in Pennsylvania, only shows how far we have fallen.

Conservatives often like to bemoan the moral decline in our country, and in certain instances I share their concerns, but as Jesus said they need to take the log out of their own eyes before they seek to remove the speck in another’s eye. The judgment falls hard on those leaders who would forsake and deny their moral and legal mandates to care for the needs of the poor, and then have the gall to defend their view by blaming the victims and calling for a “balanced budget.”

If you are a PA resident I urge you to write your state representatives and call upon them to provide funding so that the children of Chester Upland can receive the quality education they are guaranteed by law to receive.

Christmas and Gratitude

2011-12-24T08:32:00.000-05:00

Every Thanksgiving, I take time to list all the people, events and other things in my life from the previous year, for which I am grateful. This allows me to enter into Advent with a sense of gratitude and hope for the year to come. As in past years I conducted my personal Thanksgiving ritual. However, with the polarization in Congress, the strong clear message of the Occupy Movement that our economic system is fundamentally flawed, the ongoing “head in the sand” attitude of both parties unwilling to address the needs of 12 million undocumented immigrants living in our country, the ongoing threat of gun violence, and the desperate needs for reform in urban public schools, not to mention my own ongoing health struggles, I have found it hard to be thankful.

Yet today, as I approach the celebration of the birth of Jesus, I am reminded that gratitude is a choice not a consequence. I am reminded that each day I can choose to be thankful for the blessings and the challenges in my life. Even though I do not always live up to the values I espouse, I am drawn to a vision of the world articulated in Mary’s Magnificat and rehearsed every Christmas:

God has performed mighty deeds with his arm

               And has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts
               God has brought down rulers from their thrones
               But has lifted up the humble
               God has filled the hungry with good things
               But has sent the rich away empty. (Luke 1.51-53)

No, the vision of a “great reversal” of power and fortune that Mary puts forth is not fulfilled in our time, nor in any time. Yet it is the promise and hope that my faith in Christ gives me and makes me realize who and whose I am in the great scheme of time and history.

So despite my frustrations social, political and personal, I choose this day to be grateful for Life, for friends, for a sense of purpose, and for fellow strugglers like so many of you who read this blog, who like me live into the vision of the world Mary saw with the birth of her son. May we continue to work for a safer, more just, more humane world, even as we give thanks for the lives we have today.

Yes, Freedom Can Be Expensive

2011-12-03T08:44:00.000-05:00

Now that the Occupy Philly protesters have been removed from Dilworth Plaza surrounding City Hall, the city has estimated that the 8 week occupation cost the city $1,052,000, mostly in police overtime. While this number is accurate, its prominence in the media (such as the Philadelphia Inquirer and the major news channels) has shown how skewed the reporting has been. While the media seemed quick to report any isolated incidents of violence or criminal behavior, and focus on arrests such as the sit down at the Comcast Building or the demonstration outside the police station, they have given precious little space to investigating and analyzing the claims that the occupiers have been highlighting, such as the huge tax breaks that major corporations like Comcast have been given by the city. How much money has this corporate giveback cost the residents of the city? Not a word from the media on that.

As city officials have been quick to note the struggles to balance the city budget is part of the struggle of the 99% the occupiers claim to represent. Overall, I think the city officials, especially Police Commissioner Ramsay and Mayor Nutter, did their best to remain open to the concerns and demands of the occupiers. The reason they were removed was so that a multimillion renovation providing hundreds of jobs for local residents could go forward. That fact itself caused a split in the occupiers, between some who wanted to remain, and others who felt that the promise of jobs (a major concern of the Occupy movement) required them to move off the Dilworth Plaza sight.

The Occupy Philly activists have pledged to continue to bring forth their message. I hope they do. However, unless the media chooses to report on the real substance of the movement, we may not get to hear their message

A Priest, an Economist and An Occupier Went into a Bar….

2011-11-20T19:54:00.000-05:00

What do a 15^th century priest, a deceased British economist, and the Occupy Wall Street Movement have in common? This question came to me as I reflected on a sermon by Chris Hershberger Esh this past Sunday at West Philadelphia Mennonite Fellowship (WPMF). Using passages from Ezekiel 34 and Matthew 25 as his texts, Chris spoke about the significance of Occupy Wall Street, and its local affiliate, Occupy Philly, for Christians concerned about social justice. The two Biblical passages mentioned above both reflect a concern about the rich and the poor, and the powerful and the powerless in society, and unequivocally show that God is on the side of the poor, the powerless and the oppressed. Chris contended, rightly I think, that the Occupy Wall Street movement had accomplished two things in its short-lived two month existence. First, the movement has changed the national conversation about the economy from talking about bringing down the debt to talking about the vast and gross inequities of wealth in this country, and indeed around the world. With its now familiar refrain “we are the 99%,” the movement has caused political leaders, as well as ordinary citizens, to consider why it is so many people are experiencing not only a loss of jobs, but a loss of real income, while an extremely small minority, the 1%, have experienced the greatest rise in wealth in recent history. The Occupy Movement has forced us to ask what is it about an economic system that lavishly rewards the few at the expense of the many.

However, it was the second point Chris made that has prompted this reflection. Responding to the ongoing question in the media, “What do the Occupiers want?” Chris said that there is no simple solution that will cause the occupiers to pack up their tents and go home. Referring to the Occupy encampment on Dilworth plaza surrounding Philadelphia’s City Hall, Chris shared how the occupiers have welcomed homeless people to join their encampment and have provided them with support, food and solidarity in a way that they can’t find in a shelter. Chris himself works as an outreach worker for a local homeless shelter, and has said that the numbers in their shelter are down because so many of their normal clients have chosen to join the occupiers rather than come in the shelter. He pointed out that in their encampments the occupiers are seeking to model the kind of society they envision, a society where the haves and have-nots can reside together in community. Furthermore, the Occupy movement has given the homeless a platform and a voice to demonstrate that the society must also listen to them in their struggle for survival. Such an arrangement is not easy to maintain, given the fact that many homeless people suffer other psychic wounds such as addiction, mental illness and personal trauma. Further, as a recent John Stewart report on the occupiers at New York’s Zucotti Park showed, even among the occupiers normal resentments and even class distinctions have developed. However, instead of ignoring or rationalizing these issues, the occupiers have sought to welcome all as fellow human beings worthy of dignity as well provision for their basic human needs.

All of this brings me to the 15^th century priest and the British economist. Menno Simons, from whom the Mennonite church takes its name, was a Roman Catholic priest who came in contact with a splinter group of Christians known as the Anabaptists. Menno became convinced of the power of their claims and ended up being one of their most prolific spokesmen and writers. One of the many distinctive insights that the Anabaptists have offered the Christian church has been the notion that when Jesus talked about the Reign (or Kingdom) of God being among us, he wasn’t talking about some far off pie-in-the-sky promise to keep desperate people focused on heaven so they wouldn’t think about their despicable living conditions. Anabaptists, including Menno, believed that Jesus was talking about the power of God to change human reality now, and that as Christians we are called to live as much as possible according to the dictates of Jesus, particularly those dictates outlined in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). We are to live now as God desire all people to live in heaven. We are to live out the challenge embedded in the Lord ’s Prayer to follow God’s will “on earth as it is in heaven.” As I listened to Chris describe how the Occupy Wall Street movement was seeking to model the kind of society they envision, I could not help but think of this central Anabaptist conviction. While not in any way a religious or spiritual movement, the Occupy Wall Street movement is calling all of us, and especially people of faith, to consider that God may calling us to a new level of awareness and commitment to live out the values of God’s reign here and now.

In a different time and place, the British economist E.F. Schumacher wrote a simple but profound book in 1973 entitled Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. Schumacher demonstrates how macroeconomic thinking with its focus on quantitative measures, such as GNP, GDP and corporate bottom lines, tells only a portion of the story of a community’s or a nation’s economic health. As he points out, just because a nation may be cumulatively wealthy on paper, that does not mean that said wealth is equitably distributed or enjoyed by all members of that community or nation. Schumacher argues that economists need also to consider qualitative measures of economic health, such as environmental health, the quality of community relationships and the appropriate use of technology, thereby paying attention to indicators that measure quality of life rather than simply a cumulative number.

Schumacher also persuasively argued for a regional and local approach to economic development that takes into account skills, needs, and resources that are locally available. He argues not only for a more de-centralized distribution of economic power, but also a more environmentally friendly approach to economic activity. In a time (the 1970’s) when the raging economic debate was between capitalism vs. communism, Schumacher argued for a third way of economics, which today is still kept alive by the New Economics Institute, which regularly presents living models of Schumacher’s third way of economic thinking. Were he alive today Schumacher would point to the Occupy Wall Street decentralized democratic decision-making as a model of equitable and compassionate living.

Bill Moyer (not be confused with Bill Moyers, the NPR journalist), a longtime community activist and author on the nature of social movements, noted that often the ideas that spark social movements lie in seed form for years before they emerge in a full-fledged social movement agenda. In many ways the Occupy Wall St. Movement is the culmination of struggle, emotions, and seminal ideas that have been around for a long time. While politicians and media types like to characterize the Occupy movement as a the result of angry radicals who are just a momentary phenomenon, in reality it is an expression of many ideas and concerns that have existed in various forms for a long time. Whether or not Occupy Wall Street survives the latest series of attempts to remove them from public spaces, the hopes, dreams and ideas it expresses continue to gain momentum and take shape because they give voice to thoughts, concerns and frustrations that have been around for decades if not centuries.

What if Zaccheus was a Wall Street Banker?

2011-10-29T08:28:00.000-05:00

Readers of the New Testament are well acquainted with the story in Luke 19 of Zaccheus the tax collector who made a radical change in his life after an encounter with Jesus. For those not familiar with the story, let me give a brief summary. Zaccheus was short, irascible man in the employ of the Roman governing authorities as a tax-collector. Think Danny DeVito with a tunic. One day Jesus was passing with his entourage through Jericho where Zaccheus lived. Since he was short, Zaccheus had to climb a tree to get a look at the itinerant rabbi who was causing such a stir as he passed through town. When Jesus came by the tree, he noticed Zaccheus and invited himself to the man’s house. Zaccheus scampered down from his viewing stand and according the gospel writer, Luke, “he welcomed him gladly.” Now, there is no record of what transpired as Jesus and Zaccheus met for lunch, but when they emerged Zaccheus pledged to give away half of his wealth to the poor, and pay back four times over to anyone whom he had cheated. In response Jesus said “Today, salvation has come to this house.”

Given the current chant of the Occupy Movement against the “1%” of wealthy Americans who control 40-60% of the nation’s wealth (depending on which economist you are reading), I couldn’t help but wonder: What if Zaccheus lived today and was a Wall Street Banker, a Corporate CEO, or a Congressperson receiving donations from lobbyists, special corporate interests and wealthy donors? How would this story play out today?

There are both significant similarities and differences between Zaccheus and today’s “1%.” Like some of the 1%, Zaccheus was disproportionately wealthy and gained his wealth legally, even if unethically. For instance 1st century Palestinian tax collectors were allowed by law to extort their clients and keep the difference, just like bankers could legally offer funky mortgages and high risk investment options without full disclosure to their clients, or like CEO’s could give themselves huge bonuses with government bailout money. Like his 1% counterparts, Zaccheus would have considered himself entitled and not needing to concern himself with the impact of his actions and policies on those desperately struggling to survive and make ends meet. The political and economic system supported him in his actions, and he could honestly say that it was his right (by the law of the land) to do what he did and have what he possessed.

However, there are also significant differences. Unlike his 1% counterparts, Zaccheus did not really control the policies and purse strings of the national economy. In his society Zaccheus served at the behest of the Roman government and with the willful ignorance of the Jewish elite. At any point he could be stripped of his privileges and thrown into poverty. Secondly, tax collectors were universally despised by the people of their society, rich and poor, and so there was no way that Zaccheus would ever get a Jewish Businessman Award at a national prayer breakfast. No one would extol his virtues as a deep man of faith who also happened to be lavishly wealthy.

These distinctions make the response of Zaccheus to Jesus all the more significant. When Zaccheus decided to give half of his wealth way to the poor and pay back any one he had extorted four times over, he was committing occupational and class suicide. He was not only divesting his wealth, he was closing the door on ever attaining that level of economic security again. He was inherently challenging and exposing the exploitative Roman-Jewish elite political and economic system for what it was as a whistleblower who would forever be vilified by those who had allowed him to get his wealth. Furthermore, he did so with no assurance that the poor people whom he had cheated would welcome him with open arms or trust him. Let’s face it, he had screwed them over big time, and such actions are difficult to forget and even harder to forgive. So to do what Zaccheus did involved great sacrifice and tremendous personal risk.

So when I hear the Wall Street and corporate CEO types justify their big bonuses by saying that otherwise they “could not attract talent” I find that reasoning pretty self-serving. When I hear leaders in Congress go on and on as to why we can’t let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire, because it will somehow restrict creation of jobs, I find their excuses pretty flimsy. When I recall that a few years ago the Supreme Court ruled that when it comes to political contributions, corporations are just like individuals and therefore should not be limited in the amount financial influence they can have over the decisions of Congress, I think “who are you kidding?” When I go to OpenSecrets.org and see how much money both Democrats and Republicans receive from lobbyists and corporate PACs, I know that the interests of the common person are way down on their list of priorities despite their rhetoric. When I hear business leaders argue that we can’t place too many regulations on the actions of business and how it’s really unions not egregious corporate practices that are causing the recession in our country and world, I am not buying it.

What I am doing is waiting for a Zaccheus to blow the cover off the whole scam called the American capitalistic system and expose it for what it is. I appreciate the likes of Warren Buffet and others wealthy Americans who admit that they should pay higher taxes during these recessionary times. I also appreciate wealthy folks like George Soros who contribute their millions to progressive causes. However, I waiting for a wealthy insider like Zaccheus who not only gives his money away but also shows by his words and actions that the whole damned (I use this word quite deliberately) system is corrupt and needs to be radically restructured. Then salvation, liberation and justice will come to the house of America.

The Questions Raised by the Occupy Movement

2011-10-23T15:54:00.000-05:00

Like many of you I have been watching, reading and listening to the news about the Occupy Wall Street movement that is sweeping the country and indeed the world. Despite the attempts of critics to characterize the “occupiers” as leftist radicals, at least in the Philadelphia area there are grandmothers, housewives and regular folks lending their voice and support to those hardy souls camping out night after night around City Hall. Similar demonstrations have been cropping up in suburban and rural communities across Pennsylvania. Just as I saw when I visited Madison, WI this past spring, this movement is more mainstream than most leaders and commentators want to admit. People of all classes, colors and backgrounds are tired of the growing disparity between the few (the 1%) on the backs of the majority (the 99%).

One criticism of the Occupy Movement put forth by the pundits is that they have no clear agenda. The Tea Party folks have latched onto the notion of less government and lower taxes. However, the Occupy movement has set it sights on something broader and thus less clearly identifiable: the carnivorous corporate culture that allowed corporations, banks, lobbyists, and financial institutions like Goldman Sachs to make bundles of money legally but unethically with little more than a slap on the hand by the government. This corporate elite has spread the myth that more taxes will inhibit job growth, and yet after years of the so-called Bush Tax Cuts (which Obama signed into extension), we have had the worst recession since the Great Depression and jobs have been lost and not gained by this policy. People have finally seen through the fallacy of those myths, and are calling Corporate America and Wall Street to account. The problem is that it’s easier to march on City Hall or the White House than it is the disparate entity known as Corporate America. However, that doesn’t mean they don’t have an agenda.

Recently at a public forum, I asked Christian activist and author Shane Claiborne how he viewed the Occupy Movement, and he made what I felt was an astute observation. He said that for social movements to succeed they must have clear and concrete goals, and that the Occupy movement had not gotten there yet. However, he said he felt that the movement was raising important questions that we as a society need to consider. So I have been thinking about what some of those questions might be.

Chris Hedges in an article entitled “A Movement Too Big to Fail” beat me to it, and raised some questions I think are worth considering. Then I will add a few of my own. Hedges writes:

What kind of nation is it that spends far more to kill enemy combatants and Afghan and Iraqi civilians than it does to help its own citizens who live below the poverty line?

What kind of nation is it that permits corporations to hold sick children hostage while their parents frantically bankrupt themselves to save their sons and daughters?

What kind of nation is it that tosses its mentally ill onto urban heating grates?

What kind of nation is it that abandons its unemployed while it loots its treasury on behalf of speculators?

What kind of nation is it that ignores due process to torture and assassinate its own citizens?

What kind of nation is it that refuses to halt the destruction of the ecosystem by the fossil fuel industry, dooming our children and our children’s children?

Now for my questions:

What kind of nation routinely incarcerates its citizens of color and poverty with harsh snetences, while letting corporate raiders get off with paying a fine?

What kind of nation bankrupts and undermines its public school systems and then blames teachers and students for not "making the grade?"

How long will we allow our government leaders to be beholden to lobbyists and corporate interests simply because they can give bigger campaign contributions than we can?

How long will we allow our sense of well-being as a nation and as individuals to be defined by our bank accounts rather than a sense of equity, decency, and justice toward one another regardless of race, religious creed, or ethnicity?

Could it be that what is happening in the Occupy Movement is an expression true, grassroots democracy, and that what passes for democracy every 2 or 4 years is just a shadow of the real thing?

These are the kind of questions the Occupy Movement raises for me. These questions call for a radical change not only in our economic policies but our whole way of ordering and thinking about our society. The questions won’t go away just because some pundits think it’s not “realistic.” My sense is that this movement is for real and the questions it raises need to continue to be asked until we as a people start moving in a different direction. The reality is that the movement must come from the streets, because as 19^th century civil rights leader and abolitionist Frederick Douglass said the powerful never give up their power willingly, it must be taken from them.

Let’s just hope that power can be transferred without violence, that enough wealthy corporate leaders listen to folks like Warren Buffet, and say the jig is up. Those who are the top tier 1-2% must pay their dues, and must give up some of their power and privilege if all of us are to have a just and equitable society.

Could "Occupy Wall Street" Be a Sign of Things to Come?

2011-10-02T18:10:00.002-05:00

Early on Sunday morning, the New York Times reported that 700 protesters of the group "Occupy Wall Street" had been arrested attempting to cross the Brooklyn Bridge to Lower Manhattan where there have been a week of demonstrations in New York's financial sector. While they characterize themselves as a "leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders, and political persuasions;" they indicate "we are the 99%" referring to the 99% of Americans who have lost economic ground at the expense of the 1% of Americans (roughly those who earn $650,000 or more) who have gained significantly during the "great crash" of 2008. While the movement has been centered in New York, it has spread to to other cities like Chicago, Boston and Philadelphia.

Back in early March I went to Madison, WI and took part in the protests around the state capitol in response to Gov. Scott Walker's desire to suspend all bargaining rights for unions employed by the state. 50,000 people from all walks of life peacefully stormed the capitol, even occupying the rotunda for several days. It was inspiring as I heard filmmaker Michael Moore(producer of the 2009 doumentary "Capitalism: A Love Story"). Moore had shown up unexpectedly and shared that from his perspective the budget problem in Madison, Washington and elsewhere was not a shortage probelm but a distribution problem. That's the same issue in New York.

As I have added my voice (on this blog and elsewhere) to the rising chorus of protest of the suffering of the many at the neglect of the few, I have wondered when will people hit the streets in frustration and anger. The protests thus far have been nonviolent, but as I watched to video of the confrontation between police and protesters on the Brooklyn Bridge, I could see the possibility of violence erupting.

Celebrities like actress Susan Sarandon and philosopher/social critic Cornel West have joined the protests, which has enabled it to get some press. The movement is still young and at least in Philadelphia still trying to get organized. I must say I don't know how a "leaderless movement" sustains itself, but I share their convictions and concerns.

Scholars who study social movements, sense that like the Arab Spring in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria and Yemen, this is not a movement that will go away. Hopefully, it will not result in repressive violence we have seen in some places, but it has the feel of the Civil Rights and Vietnam War movements. The injustice has become increasingly clear, and the arrogance of those who would defend current financial policies has been palpable while unemployment continues to soar and even those who are employed continue to lose ground.

Last Sunday, I joined over 2000 people in Tindley Temple United Methodist Church, calling on city leaders to work decisively int eh creation of jobs for the thousands of unemployed and underemployed Philadelphians. We call ourselves POWER (Philadelphians Organized for Witness Empowerment and Rebuilding). Our gathering did not confront the police like Occupy Wall Street, but our sentiments are the same. We've had enough of the sell-outs, givebacks and lame excuses for cutting essential services while not raising taxes on the wealthy. We are tried of the political rhetoric from our elected officials and want some concerted actions. We will no longer let corporate leaders hid behind their lobbyists and PAC money; they too must be held accountable.

I only hope and pray that this movement will grow and be a sign of things to come whereby the powerbrokers and dealmakers in state capitols like Madison and Harrisburg, inWashington, on Wall Street and in corporate boardrooms around the country will begin to recognize that while we 99% allowed this charade go on for too long, now their time of reckoning has come.

If This is Class Warfare, Who Started the War?

2011-09-22T17:36:00.000-05:00

Republican Congressional leaders John Boehner and Mitch MConnell have criticized President Obama’s proposal to raise taxes on people earning over $1 million per year and called it “class warfare.” The comment would be laughable, if the Republican leaders had not convinced themselves that they really believed millionaires were under siege. It would be laughable that stalwart defenders of free market capitalism are now calling upon a Marxist concept to defend the right of the wealthy not to bear their share of the burden for balancing the nation’s budget. However, it’s not laughable because these guys are serious, and they want us to buy their garbage.

Last week the U.S. Census reported that in 2010 the percentage of people in the United States living under the poverty line rose to 15.1%, the highest rate since 1983 when it was 15.3%. That number rose .8% from 2009 to 2010. Put another way a Northeastern University study estimated that 37% (more than 1 in 3) young families were living in poverty. That’s a family of four living under $22,314. At such a low arbitrary level that means millions more Americans currently live at a level that does not enable them to make ends meet for basic needs. As is always the case, these figures are much higher for African Americans (27% under the poverty line) and Hispanics (26% under the poverty line).

But that’s not the whole story because get this: at the same time more people were losing their homes and jobs and slipping into poverty, the wealthiest 1% of the population (those earning more than $620,00/year in 2008 dollars) increased their income by an average of 7.3% from 2009 to 2010. This group also had an average tax cut of $97,000! Over the last decade the average income of this top 1% group quadrupled from $347,000 to $1.3 million. (This data came from the Coalition for Human Needs -www.cfn.org )

Simple math doesn’t lie – while the masses at the bottom lost money, the top 1% were gaining money. How did that happen? Class Warfare.

However, it didn’t happen last week when Obama announced his jobs and tax plan, it started 30 years ago under President Reagan who espoused “supply side economics” and substantially cut the taxes of the wealthy with the idea that the riches at the top would trickle down to the masses in the form of jobs and benefits (interestingly the last big rise in poverty came during that time). Reagan also went after the unions, particularly the Air Controllers, and framed the issue that the working people wanting better wages – they were the problem; and so unions have continually gotten weaker ever since.

Then along came the first President Bush and Pres. Clinton who pushed through the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which made it easier for companies to go to Mexico in search of cheaper labor and less restrictive regulations about workers’ safety and environmental standards. Not only did NAFTA undercut the right of people to advocate for living wages, but it created all sorts of problems for Mexicans which has led to the mass migration north across the border in search of jobs, even if they come under threat of arrest and deportation.

Then came the second President Bush, who pushed through tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans in the promise that these tax cuts would create jobs. Oops – how is that jobs program coming? O yea we are up to 1983 levels of poverty and unemployment.

Then when Obama proposed universal health care the lobbyists and corporate interest groups flooded the congress with “influence” (read: lots of campaign money), so that the bill that passed (and they still criticize) was gutted of its most powerful provisions for health care for the needy.

At the same time the stock market crashed and the banks “too big to fail” almost did. People lost their homes to funky mortgages, and Presidents Bush and Obama bailed them out so they could help those folks restructure the mortgages, right? Oh no, the banks gave their top execs those bonuses they had been so long denied for the great job they had done managing their and our money. At the same time along Goldman Sachs and their ilk were making bundles on our suffering and theirs.

Then in 2010, Republican governors like Scott Walker (WI), Tom Corbett (PA) and Chris Christie (NJ) (as well as many others) supported by ultra-right wing wealthy backers like the Koch brothers began slashing state budgets in the name of “fiscal responsibility). Interestingly they still couldn’t tax the rich or the corporations; they just cut public school budgets and social services for the poor and working class.

The really sad thing, is not only did both Republican and Democratic leaders systematically bilk the middle and working classes and pad the pockets of the wealthiest 5% of the population, but they got millions of middle class folks to think this problem was all due to “big government” “socialists and liberals" and “illegal immigrants.” So the Tea Party folks are marching and chanting for policies that literally will slash their incomes and undermine their financial security.

So Obama finally gets the courage to tax the rich, and Boehner and McConnell want to call it “class warfare?” Come on guys our “hope and change” President has finally had enough and he is calling your bluff. The war has been going on for a long time, and we are just getting around fighting back. And I hope we will. I hope we will take to the streets like the people of Cairo and Madison, Wisconsin, and say enough is enough.

Employers if you want a tax break – create jobs. Rich folks, don’t hide behind the line “it will hurt small business;” we can create tax credits for small business employers. Provide support and incentives for green jobs and local businesses to flourish. Stop giving tax breaks to the Exxons of the world, and let the rich folks man up like Warren Buffett, and say, you know, $97,000 in tax cuts, that’s not needed. Let them show that they care about the financial state of the country. Let them show they want to part of the solution to the debt crisis. Let them bear their part of the financial burden.

Class warfare – yea it’s been going on for 30 years. Let’s just keep in mind who started the war.

A Beginning and New Era for a Troubled School

2011-09-09T06:22:00.000-05:00

On Tuesday, September 6 I attended the opening ceremonies for the new West Philadelphia High School (WPHS), best known to most folks as the alma materof actor-singer Will Smith. However, the school has had long and, more recently, a troubled history characterized by violence, revolving door leadership, and persistently low test scores. At the same time it has been nationally recognized for its innovative Auto Mechanics academy, and the Urban Leadership academy, which involves students in addressing local community issues such as vacant lots and abandoned buildings. Despite these positives the public image of WPHS has been persistently negative. However, as one who has met students and teachers, I have come to know it as place where committed teachers and students have struggled to provide a quality education amidst of environment of political rancor and declining resources.

For the past four years I have been part of the West Philadelphia Community Partners (WPCP), a collection of parents, community members and other interested persons advocating and working to assure that the students of WPHS get the quality education they need and deserve. While the opening ceremonies featured political luminaries such as Mayor Michael Nutter, Councilwoman Jamie Blackwell State Senator Vincent Hughes, and acting superintendent Leo Nunnery, the real heroes were the students, alumni, parents and community members of WPCP who had labored for years to get the new state of the art school built.

The Community Partners came together nearly ten years ago when then-superintendent Paul Vallas announced plans to construct of new school buildings throughout the city, including WPHS. Through the organizing efforts of the Philadelphia Student Union and support from the Philadelphia Education Fund, WPCP met monthly to propose plans for a small school model for the new school that would have 3-4 smaller learning communities in the large building. We proposed a particular architectural design to fit this proposal in consultation with Concordia LLC, an architectural firms specializing in innovative school design. Along with several others I attended a meeting with then-Superintendent Arlene Ackerman to advocate for our design and the small schools approach. When Dr. Ackerman announced that WPHS would be part of her Promise Academy program, the WPCP advocated for a partnership with John Hopkins University. While in the end all of the specific suggestions and proposals put forth by the WPCP were rejected, we continued to be a voice of the community advocating on behalf of students and parents for quality urban education.

I joined WPCP about four years ago after reading about several highly publicized incidents of violence between students and teachers. While I do not live in the community, I am a member of West Philadelphia Mennonite Fellowship, which meets just a few blocks from the school. As a representative of our church, I helped organize a breakfast of local faith community leaders in support of the WPCP’s efforts. I offered my expertise and input when necessary, but mostly I simply “showed up” in what some have called a “ministry of presence.” Currently, I am a member of the School Advisory Council, a group of community people who work closely with the new principal, Mary Dean, to keep the lines of communication between the school and the community open.

At the opening ceremonies I sat next to a woman whose 11^th grade son was transferring from a private school to West Philadelphia High School She sounded so proud as she told me that he had joined the football team and was excited to be in a new state-of-the-art school building. As the students filed into the gym with their new uniforms and took their places in the bleachers, she beamed with joy. In that gym there was a feeling of hope and sense that a new chapter in the 100 year old school’s history was about to begin. I felt privileged and excited to be part of the process that helped put a glow on that mother’s face. I continue to serve in this way seeking to come alongside those folks so long denied privileges I can too easily take for granted (like a quality public education) by joining with them in seeking the justice they deserve.

The Gun Industry - Making Bundles of Money at Our Expense

2011-09-03T17:16:00.000-05:00

I continue my discussion of the church's response to the gun violence movement by now looking at the gun industry. Simply stated the gun manufacturing industry has avested interest in selling as many firearms as possible, regardless of the social costs due to firearm injuries and deaths. Guns are big business and this section I try to illustrate just how extensive this business is

Gun Manufacturers

It is tempting for many people concerned about gun violence to attribute the grim statistics on gun-related violence solely to the social and psychological conditions. However, there is entire industry of gun manufacturers and gun dealers whose financial success depends on a continually expanding market of gun dealers and gun users. Additionally, there are numerous trade journals and the media outlets that are integral to the promotion of the gun industry. Thus, this huge economic force contributing to gun violence also must be examined if one is to fully appreciate the magnitude of the challenge facing gun violence prevention forces. Diaz (1999) describes the firearms industry, including the manufacturers, distributers, dealers, and promoters, as “a little money making machine” (p. 85).

While often the gun industry seeks to defend itself against gun control advocates by talking about constitutional rights and the preservation of basic American values, essentially the gun industry is in business to make money. As Diaz (1999) writes: “The ultimate fact is that the gun industry is simply a business and nothing more." It is neither a national trust nor a repository of American values. … [People who make, sell or import guns] are businessmen. They are in the game because they want to make money and as much of it as possible” (p.3). Yet, unlike industries such as the auto or pharmaceutical industries, the firearms industry is relatively unregulated and operates without accountability and public scrutiny.

Gun manufacturing has been operating in the United States since 1836 when Samuel Colt won a U.S. patent for his Colt revolver (Diaz, 1999). Hoovers.com (2011) reports that currently there are approximately 300 gun manufacturers operating in the U.S. who earn a combined profit of $5 billion. Additionally, there are a number of foreign-based companies that sell firearms in the lucrative U.S. market and include some of the more well-known and profitable companies, such as Smith & Wesson (England), Beretta (Italy), Browning (Japan) and Glock (Austria). However, the distinction gets blurred because foreign based companies set up U.S. subsidiaries to get around import restrictions. Moreover, gaining information on these companies is difficult because all but one major gun manufacturer – Sturm, Ruger & Company – are privately owned, and conceal information that is required of publicly traded corporations (Diaz, 1999).

Like all industries the gun industry has had cycles of success and downturn. The most recent upturn for the gun industry occurred in the 1980’s when gun executives recognized that the market for hunting rifles was in decline, that the legal gun market was saturated, and that few new markets were opening up. To address this declining trend, the gun industry began introducing handguns to the market, and promoting various “innovations” that increased the accuracy and firepower of handguns. Playing on the theme of fear and the need for self-defense, the gun industry promoted the idea of guns for one’s safety, and began propagating the idea that gun ownership was a constitutional right. The rise of the survivalist and militia movements in the 1980’s coincided with the introduction of assault rifles into gun marketplace. Thus, what had previously been focused on hunting and sport shooting increasingly became focused on producing and marketing guns whose primary purpose was to inflict injury on other human beings. At the same time these same kinds of guns began appearing on the lists produced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) as those weapons most frequently used in crimes (Diaz, 1999).

Gun Dealers

Working closely in concert with the manufacturers are the dealers who sell the guns. Diaz (1999) writes: “The retail sale of firearms in the United States is for all intents and purposes unregulated” (p. 36). Anyone who is 21, has a place of business and does not have a criminal record can receive a federal license (under the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968) to import and sell guns (BATFE, 2011). State regulations vary widely from state to state, but the vast majority of states (with a few notable exceptions such as New Jersey, Massachusetts, and New York) impose only minor additional restrictions. In order to purchase a gun in most states, a potential buyer simply needs to fill out an application and go through a cursory background check that only takes a few minutes. However, many sellers and buyers of guns can skirt even these minimal restrictions by doing business at public gun shows where most if not all of these restrictions are not applied (Diaz, 1999). Moreover, a majority of states allow ordinary citizens to carry concealed weapons in public and the recent trend has been toward increasingly permissive laws in this area (LCAV, 2008).

While all gun dealers are required by ATF to keep and provide records of sale, these data do not reveal the extensive illegal gun market being fed by the process of straw purchasing. Straw purchasing occurs when someone buys guns, usually in bulk on behalf of someone who has a criminal record and cannot pass the minimum requirements for a criminal background check. The straw purchaser buys the guns legally and then turns them over (usually for a small fee) to the street dealer and the guns become untraceable. If a gun is used in a crime and traced back to the straw purchaser, he or she can simply say the gun was lost or stolen, and there are not further legal ramifications. (Bascunan & Pearce, 2007 ). Gun dealers can easily see what is going on when a person buys multiple guns, but can hide behind the cloak of legality, saying the buyer who entered his or her store bought the guns legally. As one former straw purchaser confided to a reporter, he could often visit gun shops a couple times a week buying multiple guns. Some gun dealers would even contact him when they had a new shipment of handguns (Thompson, 2010). Thus, for some gun dealers (but certainly not all) the illegal gun market has become another reliable stream of revenue.

Sources:

Bascunan, R. & Pearce, C. (2007). Enter the Babylon system: Unpacking gun culture from Samuel Colt to 50 Cent. Toronto: Random House Canada.

Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Fireams and Explosives (BATFE) (2011). Frequently asked questions: General questions. Retrieved on January 25, 2011 at http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/general.html

Diaz, T. (1999).Making a Killing: the Business of Guns in America. New York: the New Press.

Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV) (2008). Carrying concealed weapons. Regulating Guns in America: An evaluation and comparative analysis of Federal, State and selected local gun laws. January 25, 2011 at http://www.lcav.org/content/carrying_concealed_weapons.pdf

Hurricance Arlene

2011-08-26T19:43:00.000-05:00

Amidst tremors from an earthquake on Tuesday and the impending hurricane this weekend, Philadelphia's schools experienced another shock wave when now-former superintendent Arlene Ackerman went on the offensive against those who forced her out of her position with a $950,000 buy out. While I was never a huge Arlene Ackerman fan, I had great respect for her as an educator. Her Vision 2014 plan and her attempt to help struggle schools through her Renaissance Academy program was a move in the right direction. West Philadelphia High School, the school with which I am most familiar, has been designated a Promise Academy this coming year and along with a dynamic new principal, a brand new state of the art building and an infusion of funds, the school was slated to get the kind of support services common in more affluent districts and a huge help to the students of this school. Now some of those support services have been cut back due to state budget cuts, but still the school continues to move in the right direction. I give Dr. Ackerman much of the credit for that happening.

Dr.Ackerman was quoted several times as saying "I'm an educator.I'm not a politician." Having attended a community meeting with her and watched her in action. I would amend her saying: she is an educator, but not a leader. She did not know how to work collaboratively with people; she chose to make arbitrary and one-side decisions. She asked for community input, but never seriously considered it. And when it came to working with political leaders to advocate for the school budget, she embarrassed the mayor and refused to communicate on even the most basic level with people she needed and wanted as allies. In this sense she was her own worst enemy.

After she had been released and given a $950,000 severance package, she not only had the gall to take the money, but then she went on the radio and blamed politicians, the SRC and her staff for her failures, never once taking responsibility for her own actions. She even urged parents to pull their students out of the school district, the district of which she was the chief executive officer! Given the generosity of the school district and some anonymous donors, given her so-called concern for students, and given her own failures as a leader, I would have hoped for more humility and personal responsibility and a little less spite. Effective leaders know that no matter what happens ultimately they must take responsibility for the organizations they lead. It is okay to call out people at certain points, but always it must be done with the pointing the finger at oneself too. Sometimes leaders know when to keep their mouth shut; that obviously is not a skill she ever cultivated.

What is most sad is that Arlene Ackerman not only shows no remorse, but at least publicly shows little insight into the dynamics of her own demise. Yes, Philly is a political town. Yes, it is a tough place to be a leader. Yes, the challenge of turning around a struggling urban school district is great. She should have known that going into her job three years ago. Apparently she leaves with no greater insight than when she came in, and instead leaves like a storm seeking destruction along the way.

Though Arlene Ackerman made some positive contributions to the educational system in this city, in the end we are much better off without her. Now we must pick up the pieces and try to move on. Hopefully, we as a community, and our political and educational leaders can show more reflective insight and humility than the woman they just fired. As an educational visionary she was a reasonable choice for superintendent, but as a leader she was a disaster.

The Social and Family Causes of Gun Violence

2011-08-19T16:00:00.000-05:00

I continue with looking Faith-based responses to gun violence. In this section I discuss the underlying causes of the gun violence issue in the United States.

When one examines the causes of gun violence, one must think of the issue on at least four levels. First, we must acknowledge there are any number of social and familial issues that predispose a person to respond to his/her environment in an overtly violent manner. Second, there are institutions, in this case the gun manufacturing industry, whose vested interest lies in selling as many firearms as possible, and other institutions, such as the media that routinely glorifies violence in films, TV shows, videogames and the like. Third, there is an economic and political system that can either restrict or permit the proliferation of handguns in local communities. Finally, there is a culture of violence that propagates the linkage between firearms, freedom, individual rights patriotism, manhood, and sometimes even religion. While for purposes of discussion, one can delineate each of these levels, in reality they are deeply intertwined.

I begin by talking about the social and family related causes. In the coming weeks, I will address the other areas.

More than a social problem, injuries and deaths due to gun-related incidents are a public health concern that has reached epidemic proportions. While the media and public image of gun violence tends to focus on urban youths of color, the statistics portray a more diverse picture. And while the gun lobby seeks to persuade the public that we are safer with lax gun laws, the data tells a much different story.

According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) approximately 50,000 people in the U.S. die each year due to violence related injuries. Approximately 2/3 of these die by suicide and 36% die by homicide (CDC, 2011). In a 2007 study of data on violent deaths from 16 states, researchers noted that of a reported 167,319 deaths, 56.6% were suicide, 28% were homicides, 14% were of undetermined intent, and 7% were due to accidents. Homicide is the second overall leading cause of death for persons ages 15-24, the third leading cause of persons ages 10-14, and the leading cause of African Americans in those age categories (ages 10-24) (CDC, 2008b).

Among the suicides, 51% of victims used a firearm to kill themselves. Males were three times more likely than females to commit suicide and whites more likely than non-whites to commit suicide. Adolescents were about half as likely to commit suicide as adult over the age of 30 (Karch, Dahlberg & Patel, 2010).

The data for homicides shows a similar pattern with some notable exceptions. Most victims of homicide (53%) were 18 years old or younger, and roughly a third (34.4%) of the victims were reportedly a friend or family member (this number could be much higher since 41% of the cases the relationship was unknown) while only 9.2% were reported to be a stranger or a rival. Males were 3.6 times more likely to be homicide victims than females. Non-Hispanic blacks were 52% of the homicides followed by Asians (10.5%) and Hispanics (7.25). Two-thirds of all homicides were committed with firearms, with men using guns 72% of the time (Karch, Dahlberg & Patel, 2010).

In the case of suicide, the majority of victims were either depressed and/or experiencing mental health problems. However, mental illness was not a major factor in homicides. Overwhelmingly homicides were precipitated by a crime or occurred while a crime was in progress. Over a third (37.5%) involved some sort of personal conflict, and 20% of homicides involved intimate partner violence ((Karch, Dahlberg & Patel, 2010).

The picture that emerges from this data is that the availability of guns is a significant risk factor for both homicide and suicide, and contrary to what pro-gun advocates believe, only a tiny percentage of guns are used against strangers, such as unknown intruders. In the overwhelming number of cases the victims of gun violence are personally known to their assailant (Hepburn & Hemenway, 2004). Whites tend to commit more suicides while non-whites are more likely to commit homicide, but both use firearms a majority of the time. In both cases men are more likely than women to use guns in a violent injury. Younger people die by homicide, while older adults tend to violent deaths at their own hands. However, in both suicides and homicides the overwhelming method of injury is by firearms, and in the case of homicide those firearms are used most frequently used against a victim who has a close relationship with their killer. The perpetrators are either contending with serious mental health issues, or are involved in a lifestyle that is inherently dangerous or life-threatening.

Because of the magnitude of the violence particularly among young people, the CDC considers interpersonal violence to be a matter of public health. The risk factors contributing to violence include poverty, access to firearms, substance abuse, dysfunctional family life, difficulty in school, and being either a witness or victim of interpersonal. Prothrow-Stith (2008) and her colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health suggest that these factors do not act in isolation but lead to a complex of causes that have the overall effect of decreasing the social capital of families living in economically depressed areas, thus decreasing neighbor-to-neighbor trust, and creating an environment of fear and suspicion leading to violence.

When speaking of violence in urban communities, one must see that in poor communities people deal with a multiplicity of factors both in their families and personal lives related to poverty. In attempt to cope with the stress, young people resort to either high risk lifestyles (related to drugs and crime) or feel pressured by their peers. They attend schools that offer substandard education and often are centers of violence themselves, and come from homes and neighborhoods where conflict is handled in a violent matter. Firearms, both legally and illegally owned, are plentiful. Such an environment can be a formula for the proliferation of violence and often is. These statistics do not consider do not account for those young people who are injured and seek medical care for violence related injuries, which can lead to lasting physical disabilities as well as emotional scars, not to mention the economic cost of addressing these injuries (CDC, 2008a).

As staggering as these statistics are, for many U.S. citizens gun-related violence seems a way of life that is intrinsic to human nature. However, a cursory review of data from other developed nations reveals that the immense toll of life due to gun violence is a uniquely U.S. problem. For instance one study based on data from the United Nations reported that the U.S. had 15.22 deaths per 100,000 persons, whereas the rate in France was 6.35, Canada was 4.78, Norway was 4.39, Denmark was 2.6 and Germany was 1.57. Not only did the rate in the U.S. outstrip all European countries, but also countries such as Zimbabwe (4.75), Cost Rica (3.32), Philippines (9.46) and Northern Ireland (6.82) (Krug, Powell and Dahlberg, 1998). Thus while the epidemic of gun-related violence seems unmanageable, one must recognize that gun violence is a uniquely American problem and that based on the experiences of other countries, the high rate of gun violence is not inevitable

Sources:

Center for Disease Control (CDC) (2008a). Understanding youth violence: Fact Sheet. Atlanta, GA: Center for Disease Control & Prevention.

CDC (2008b). Youth violence: Facts at a glance. Atlanta: Center for Disease Control & Prevention.

CDC (2011). Violence Prevention: National Violent Death Reporting System. Retrieved January 21, 2011 at http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/NVDRS/index.html

Hepburn, L. & Hemenway, D. (2004). Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal 9, 4-17-40.

Karch, D., Dahlberg, L. & Patel, N. (2010). Surveillance for violent death – national violent death reporting system, 16 states, 2007. Surveillance Summaries, 59 (SS04), 1-50. Retrieved January 21, 2011 at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5904a1.htm

Krug, E., Powell, K, & Dahlberg, L. (1998). Firearm-related deaths in the United States and 35 other high and upper middle income countries. International Journal of Epidemiology 27, 214-221.

Prothrow-Stith, D., Stuart, S., & Wright, L. (2008, September, 26). Violence prevention: A public health mandate. Presentation at Eastern University, Philadelphia, PA.

Gun Violence as a Spiritual Issue

2011-08-10T20:23:00.000-05:00

During my recent sabbatical I researched and wrote a paper on Faith Based Responses to Gun Violence. In this research I studied the gun industry, the media, the NRA, the culture of guns and the way in which faith communities can and should respond. Over the next several weeks, I want to share the fruits of my research in hopes that a greater awareness of the hideous and twisted nature of the gun industry and the havoc it wreaks may move us to more concerted action. In light of the violent flash mobs in Philadelphia and elsewhere, and the riots in London, not to mention the random gun violence plaguing our streets, this discussion and the need for action is as urgent as ever.
In this first segment, I set out my case (that will be developed further) that at its heart the struggle over gun policy in this country is a deeply spiritual issue.

On January 8, 2011 Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and several other people were shot by a lone gunman during a political town meeting in a Tucson, AZ shopping mall. The next day I posted a blog advocating for stricter laws on the sale and carrying of guns. In response to that blog a friend of mine who lives and works with young people in the Kensington section of North Philadelphia sent me a link a brief news article recounting a shooting in midday outside a local store (WPVI, 2011). My friend made no comment, but his point was clear. Even as the nation responded in shock and horror at what had happened to Rep. Giffords, literally thousands of shootings go unnoticed in urban communities all across the nation.

While much of the discussion following the Giffords incident focused on the polarizing political rhetoric which may have influenced the shooter, Jared Loughner, few Democrats and no Republicans dared to speak up for greater regulations on the sale of handguns. As Dick Polman noted: “The [gun] issue is off the national agenda because Democrats have been rendered mute by their terror of the gun lobby” (Polman, 2011).

The confusing response to the Tucson shootings highlights a continuing paradox in the ongoing debate on the place of firearms in American life. Numerous academic studies have documented that the proliferation of firearms increases the likelihood of those guns being used against innocent. National groups like the Brady Campaign for Gun Violence Prevention, and the Mayors Against Illegal Guns have sought to inform the public about the linkage between lax gun laws and death and injury by firearms. High profile shootings have occurred in surprising places like Columbine High School, Virginia Tech and Tucson. Even so polls show that the public remains deeply divided on the issue and the gun lobby continues to make advances in easing access to guns from local ordinances up to the Supreme Court.

Why is there an apparent disconnect between vigorous efforts to limit regulations on handgun sales and the voluminous data showing the danger the presence of firearms presents citizens? Why do gun violence prevention groups have continued difficulty convincing the American public and political leaders of the need to pass laws limiting and regulating the sale of handguns? How have the pro-gun advocates been so successful at dividing the American public on this life and death issue?

The answers to these questions lie in the effective way in which the gun industry and its promoters have tapped into basic American values and created a polarizing climate of fear and distrust whenever efforts are made to regulate the sale and usage of guns. While gun-related violence continues to afflict communities across the country, the gun industry uses effective marketing strategies and image manipulation to obfuscate the issue and continues to record substantial profits and exercise significant political influence.

Viewed through the lens of faith, the struggle over gun policy in this country is a deeply spiritual issue, reflecting what the apostle Paul called a battle against “principalities and powers" (Ephesians 6.12; Romans 8. 38). Even so the institutional church has been largely silent and inactive on this issue. However, Christians and people of other faith traditions have begun to challenge the gun industry, realizing they are uniquely equipped and called to work for common sense laws and policies regarding the sale and use of firearms.

Subsequent segments in this blog will attempt to show how this is true, and how Christians and other people of faith, can make a difference.

Sources:

Polman, D (2011, January 16). Talk about civility is fine, but where are the new calls for gun control? Philadelphia Inquirer, Section C, p. 1,6.July 5, 2010 at http://citypaper.net/print-article.php?aid-22345

WPVI-TV (2011, January 10). Three wounded by gunfire in Kensington. Retrieved 1/21/11 at http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/crime&id=7889799

Moving from They to We: Being Allies With Those Who Are Oppressed

2011-08-06T15:15:00.001-05:00

"If you have come here to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you have come because your liberation is bound up in mine, then let us work together."

I recently attended my 40^th high school reunion. I saw and talked with people I literally had not seen in 40 years. It was a rich and wonderful experience that I will cherish for a long time. As is generally the case at reunions, most of the conversation consisted in catching up on the details of people’s lives: Where do you live? What kind of work do you do? Married? Kids? However, in a few cases the conversations became more personal and substantive.

I grew up in a wealthy suburb of Minneapolis, and so not surprisingly many of my former classmates had gone into business or professional work and had become quite wealthy themselves in the process. Yet, I was struck by the number of people who spoke of using their position and wealth to benefit the “less fortunate.” One friend had retired in his early 50’s after a lucrative legal career and now is supporting a number of non-profits. Others left their careers to actually work for non-profits. Another left business to go into ministry. One person had started a non-profit even as she continued her work. I heard of others who had turned their business surplus into foundations giving money or things such as clothing or furniture to needy people. These were sincere, good-hearted faith-driven people who were trying to live out their convictions amidst their significant financial success.

As I listened there was a question that kept stirring within me as folks talked about their efforts to help “the poor.” There was something in the language that troubled me; it was all about what we are doing for them. There was an inherent divide between we who have and they who do not. I left those conversations pondering how to move from talking about they to we? In other words how do we breakdown the dichotomy that creates givers and receivers, haves and have-nots.

An unidentified Australian aboriginal activist was once quoted as saying: “If you have come here to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you have come because your liberation is bound up in mine, then let us work together.” What the poor and oppressed of the world need is not charity, but justice. They don’t need missionaries and do-gooders, they need allies.

Recently at the Pedagogy and Theater of the Oppressed Conference, I heard Dr. Omi Osun Joni L. Jones, director of the Center for African American Studies at the University of Texas speak about “Seven Rules for Allies of the Oppressed”. I paraphrase them here for our consideration with my comments in brackets.

1. Allies know it is not enough to be liberal; we must be radical enough to want to work to change the system. [As long as we seek to “help” others while maintaining our power and privilege, we perpetuate a capitalist system that has historically marginalized women, people of color, immigrants, and gays/lesbians. Charity is not enough, we need systemic change.]

2. Be loud and crazy. [When women, people of color, or poor people speak out they are considered “hysterical,” ”threatening”, and “out of control.” Our position and privilege allows us the freedom to be loud and possibly heard.]

3. Do not tell an oppressed person to be patient. [The poor and oppressed are always told to “wait,” but as Frederick Douglas said over 150 years ago, the powerful do not give up power willingly, it must be taken from them.]

4. Recognize that racism, sexism and homophobia are structural. [The disparities that exist along racial, gender and orientation lines are built into the system, that’s why the system must be radically changed.]

5. When called out about your racism, sexism, homophobia or other –isms, don’t cower in embarrassment, cry, try to cover, or accuse the other person of being unfair. Instead be grateful they took the time and had the courage to expose you. [This is a hard one for folks of privilege, but so true; I speak from experience as one who has been called out more than once.]

6. Support alternative possibilities. [The rationale and strategies that created oppression will not resolve it; we need new paradigms.]

7. Don’t work to make the world better for the oppressed. Instead work to create a world that we would want to live in with all others - a world that provides equality, dignity, humanity and justice for all people.

This week we saw the Congress and President pass legislation that further requires the poor of our country to go without so the wealthy and corporations can bear no burden. As people of faith and conscience, we should be considering whose side are we on.

Will we continue to perpetuate a system that benefits the few at the expense of the many?

Will we continue to perpetuate the myth that our system is fair and just, or will we choose to be allies with those that suffer?

Will we perpetuate the we-they divide, or will we see that our liberation is inextricably bound up with those who suffer poverty, discrimination, and oppression in our world?

Gratitude for Borders Books

2011-07-28T14:33:00.000-05:00

I was sad to hear the announcement last week about the closing of all Borders Bookstores. I can’t say that in recent years I was a major supporter of Borders; like most Americans, I tend to get my books through the various outlets available online. Yet Borders will always hold a special place in my heart because at a critical period in my life the local Borders in Bryn Mawr (PA) was a place of refuge, refreshment, and transformation for me, and for that I will always be grateful.

In 1997 I left my 16 year career as a Baptist pastor. While the reasons are many and complex, one of the things that drove me out of the pastoral ministry was that in many ways being a pastor was killing my spirit. Many church-going folks believe that it’s easy for clergy to be Christians because in essence being a Christian is their job, and they think clergy don’t have to deal with the stresses, pressures, temptations and complexity of life in the “real world.” Many people perceive of clergy as living in some sort of bubble that somehow insulates them from the struggles other people endure.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead of a bubble the clergy role had become for me a prison that was inhibiting my growth and development as a person. My congregations had certain expectations as to what I was to believe and how I was to carry on my life. While this is to be expected of any leader, increasingly I had begun to find myself asking theological, ethical and personal questions that did not fit the expectations people had of me. There were certain spiritual and social questions I was raising in the pulpit that caused people concern. In fact for me the faith became increasingly more about questions than answers or “truths,” and many people found this discomfiting. Since Baptist congregations elect their pastors, I increasingly knew that voicing the questions with which I was wrestling could result in vocational suicide.

So in 1997 I walked away from the pastorate without a plan and with nary a clue as to what was next. The week after I resigned, Cynthia and I took our family on a trip to Disneyworld we had planned months before. When we returned I set about the task of figuring out what to do with the next phase of my life. While I sent out resumes and networked, I also did a bunch of odd jobs and even did some supply preaching.

Eventually, I applied to the Bryn Mawr Borders Bookstore. The interview was interesting in that while the store manager did not doubt my qualifications, he openly questioned whether I would proselytize on the job and if I would be able to sell certain kinds of books. I was able to assure him that I was not an undercover fundamentalist seeking to take over his store and got the job.

I have often told people that if I could have afforded to do so, I would have loved to have stayed working at Borders as a regular full-time job. The atmosphere was laid back and fun. We could wear shorts and t-shirts to work as long as they were clean (in contrast to our competitor Barnes and Noble that required employees to wear button down shirts and long pants). We got a $30 “book fund” each month with which we could buy anything in the store. My kids raided the CD s after my first month. At night when things would get a little slow, we employees would engage in fascinating conversations. Most of us were book lovers, and enjoyed exploring and exchanging a wide range of ideas and issues.

What I enjoyed most, however, were the people who came in the store. I was often in charge of the children’s and young adult section and so often kids would come with their summer reading lists, or parents would come looking for books to interest their children in reading. Folks planning a vacation would often go to the travel section, pull out all the guides on their chosen destination, take notes, and leave the books in stacks for us to re-shelve at the end of the day. One time a young woman came in looking for a book for her father who had recently been diagnosed with cancer. When we found her book for him, and asked “What about you?” For the next 20 minutes I listened to her share her own grief, and eventually was able to find a book for her as well. We even had an elderly gentleman who came into the store everyday with his cup of coffee, pulled the day’s newspaper off the shelf, and when he was done put it back on the shelf, never having purchased a thing. The Bryn Mawr store was more than a store for many people; it was a community and a welcoming space.

One of the benefits was also that when business was slow, you could pull a book off the shelf and read. One day I pulled Care of the Soul by Thomas More. That book helped me reframe my spiritual and personal struggles in a way that opened new horizons I hadn’t seen or considered before. I am still living into the vision that book gave me.

After about two months of work, I eventually was hired by Eastern University to work in the adult education program. I have continued to grow and develop since that time, but I seriously wonder if that could have happened as it did, were it not for that brief time I spend working at Borders. For years after that, I returned to the store, even though I seldom bought anything. I have watched it change, and the last time I was there a couple months ago I could see it was a mere shadow of the place I had worked at 14 years earlier. I was not surprised to hear of its bankruptcy and eventual closing. The book industry has gone thru a revolution and Borders did not change fast enough, and so goes the way of record players, dial telephones, eight-track cassettes, and VHS recorders. Borders had a good run, but its time ran out.

In the Bible one of the words for time is the Greek word Kairos. Kairos is a word that describes time not in terms of minutes, hours, days and months, but rather in terms a quality or essence. Kairos is that kind of time we talk about when we fall in love, when we have a once in a life time experience, or when we have an “aha” moment. Kairos is often those times in our lives that change us and set us off in a new direction. My two months working for Borders was that kind of Kairos time, and for that I will always be grateful.

Thank you Borders for what you did for me. I will miss you, and will always be grateful.

The Christian Movement's Wrong Turn

2011-07-19T22:16:00.000-05:00

In the year 312 C.E, the Christian movement made a wrong turn from which it has never recovered. In that year the Emperor Constantine was crossing the Milvian Bridge over the Tiber River into Rome in a battle that would lead to his becoming the emperor of the Roman Empire. While on the bridge Constantine reported seeing a cross in the sky beneath the Latin words “In Hoc Signo Vinces” which meant “In this sign, conquer.” Constantine took this sign as a vision from God and ordered all his soldiers to put crosses on their shields, and they ended up decisively winning the battle. Until that time, the Christian movement had been a small struggling sect separate but related to Judaism and held no prominent place in Roman society. However, after Constantine’s vision and conversion, Christianity became the religion of the empire, and this struggling sect inhabited and embraced the seat of power.

This story is poignantly recorded in James Carroll’s Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews. Part history, part autobiography, this book recounts how this shift in social position led to the Christian church’s degradation, persecution and oppression of the Jewish people for 1700 years culminating in the horror known as the Holocaust, Adolph Hitler’s “final solution” to eradicate the Jewish faith and Jewish people from the face of the earth. While Carroll does not contend that the Church caused the Holocaust, he makes a compelling case for showing how the Church, particularly the Roman Catholic Church, taught beliefs and values, and carried out actions over many centuries that set the stage for Hitler’s atrocity to occur. While Carroll focuses his attention primarily on the Catholic Church, many of the same accusations could be made of Protestants as well.

Not only did Constantine’s conversion lead to the persecution of the Jews, but that mindset of a triumphalist Christian mindset over the centuries has led to Crusades, inquisitions, wars, pogroms, genocide and a view of religion that is arrogant, controlling and divorced from the teachings of love, faith and justice it supposedly promotes. Most troubling for me is that fact that the cross, the symbol of ultimate self-sacrifice and love, has become for many non-Christian people, especially Jews and Moslems, a sign of violence, persecution and war.

Given that history, one wonders how any self-respecting person could choose to be a Christian. One understands why devout atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris call for the abolition of religion. As I read Carroll’s book, I wondered how he could still affirm his Roman Catholicism, even as he admitted that given what he now knows his Christian conscience “can never be a peace.”

While I am a product and indirect beneficiary of this history, like Carroll I find it sickening and repulsive. And like Carroll, I want to say that my faith in Christ stands against power as defined by politics, economics, and military might. My faith cannot affirm a church structure and polity built on hierarchy and a lack of respect for the dignity of people be they Jewish or African, a woman or a gay person. My view of faith cannot abide a triumphalist Christianity professed in hymns that have words like “Onward Christian soldiers marching as to war, with the cross of Jesus going on before.”

The faith I profess, and the view of Jesus I see in the New Testament is of a man who grew up among an oppressed people and proclaimed a God who stood with those considered marginal, oppressed and less than human. The faith I profess lies in a God who calls his followers to be those “who come not to be served, but to serve and give [one’s] life for many.” The faith I profess seeks justice for the oppressed, equity for the powerless, and dignity for all regardless of their race or creed.

I don’t know who or what Constantine heard or saw on the Milvian Bridge, but I do know that the wholesale acceptance of that “affirmation” of Christianity by the most powerful person in the world at the time led the Christian movement away from the core values and beliefs that had shaped the movement for the previous 300 years. Christian leaders at that time made a huge blunder thinking that the emperors blessing was somehow God’s will. We have been paying the price ever since.

This is not to say that nothing good has come out of the church since 312, but it is to say that in many ways we lost our compass as a people, that we sold our soul for worldly power, and that we have drifted from our core values ever since. This does also does not mean we avoid engaging the pressing issues of our day, but rather that we do so from a prophetic, critical stance, willing always to ask the hard and difficult questions, regardless of the cost. We don’t seek “failure” or martyrdom, but our calling is to frame issues from the perspective of the Reign of God, which in no way can be equated with reign of Constantine or the Tea Party or Obama or Wall Street or Microsoft.

In 312 we took a wrong turn, and we need to find our way back home.

Hungover by "Hangover"

2011-06-20T17:11:00.000-05:00

I don’t know what possessed me. It may have been that I was alone on a Father’s Day afternoon, and I wasn’t interested in the U.S. Open. Perhaps it was because I had earned enough points at my local theater to get a free ticket, so there was no cost involved. I had seen a couple interviews with the actor Bradley Cooper, who I have liked in other movies I have seen him in. I enjoyed watching Ed Helms in "The Office." Whatever the reason, I went to see the movie “Hangover, Part II,” and it was a BIG MISTAKE.

"Hangover" (Part I) had gotten rave reviews and “Part II” was supposed to be even funnier. I will spare you the details and simply say it was racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic and glorified Cocaine use all in the name of having a good time. It’s not that I am a prude, but the story line was disgusting and the characters were despicable. I almost walked out, but I stayed because I could not believe it could continue to be as depraved as it was; I was wrong – it got worse.

I know there are many people for whom the alcohol and drug-induced story line is a daily reality. I know there are men who go whoring every night. I know there is a seedy side of life I will never know with drugs, guns and sexual promiscuity. What I could not fathom was how the producer, director and actors of this film could lower themselves to create this film and call it comedy. Had this been real life, everyone involved would be locked up. I should be locked up for going to see it!

The grime from this film will stay with me for some time to come. In any case, I would not recommend this movie at all. Needless to say, I will not be renting “Hangover, Part I.”

Needed: A New Way of Thinking

2011-06-13T16:20:00.000-05:00

Geodesic Dome (Buckminster Fuller)

The other day I went for my annual physical. A few days later the doctor called me to tell me that all my tests looked good, and that in fact my cholesterol and blood pressure had gone down. As the doctor knew, for the past several months I had been struggling with asthma, andeven the day I saw him I was experiencing shortness of breath. So I said to him: “Well, if my tests are so great, why do I feel so lousy?” I thought to myself, my health can’t be found in the numbers indicated by blood tests; he is looking at the wrong indicators.

It seems to me the same thing could be said about how we look at our economic health as a nation: we are looking at the wrong indicators.

Like many concerned persons I have been paying close attention to the debates taking place at both the federal and state (in my case, PA) level regarding government budgets. I have taken time to read perspectives on all sides of the debate. I’ve also written all my representatives and the governor about my concern that balancing budgets by reducing essential services to low income people and students while not raising taxes on corporations and wealthy persons was fundamentally unjust. In two cases I received full letters back: from Rep. Bill Adolph, ranking Republican on the PA State House appropriations Committee; and Sen. Pat Toomey, U.S. Senator, also a Republican. In both cases it is as if we were talking past one another; I was saying we can’t take money from the poor and the young, they were saying we don’t have enough money so we have to make cuts.

In response to my suggestion to raise taxes on the wealthy, Rep. Adolph said it was unconstitutional in PA, which I found interesting – by law we can’t tax the wealthy more. I wonder who pushed for that law. Hmmm!

Senator Toomey wrote:

“I understand your support for government assistance to those in need. Such assistance programs can be very important for lower income Pennsylvanians, and I value your input. Assistance programs aside, I believe that Congress also must advance policies that help spur economic growth, put more people to work, and generate prosperity for all Americans.” [Reading between the lines Toomey is giving justification for why he opposes any new taxes on the wealthy and corporations, a position on which he has taken a strong public stand.]

These two responses indicate that the game is rigged to protect the interests of the wealthy by “law” and by an imperative called “creating jobs.” Moreover, both are justifications are based on catch phrases like economic necessity, putting people back to work, and balancing the budget. Now I don’t mean to suggest that those phrases have no meaning, but they are not getting to the root issue. At best they are a smoke screen.

Ever since Ronald Reagan was president, political decision-makers both Democrat and Republican have operated under the assumption that as business goes, so goes the nation. In that 30-year period manufacturing jobs have left the country in droves as businesses took them elsewhere. The businesses have flourished, and their shareholders (until 2008) made a bundle, but workers were left scrambling. Moreover, the Congress passed laws like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that made it easier for companies to move their operations outside the U.S. where labor, environmental and safety standards are less stringent. Meanwhile a relatively small elite (1-2%) have gotten incredibly wealthy, even getting the government to bail out their banks and companies while millions of people lost their pensions, savings and homes.

What we need is a new way of thinking of economics, in the words of Fritz Schumacher “economics as if people really mattered.” Thirty years of top down, supply side economics that assumes that the wealthy will create jobs when we take less of their money has only gotten us is greater disparity.

Now I am not saying that we necessarily should tax the rich, what I am saying is that we are looking at the wrong measures. If you want to build a secure future, why not invest in the best public education system you can and provide access to college to as many students as possible, so that new ideas and new energies can create new opportunities? Why not make sure there is adequate health care, and that drug companies and HMOs can’t gouge customers even as they deny the most needy the care they deserve? Why not create housing options and public transportation that provides social and economic access to people regardless of their station in life? Why not develop an energy policy that funds and encourages renewable energy resources, while at the same time encouraign us and enabling us to simplify our lifestyles? What if our “bottom line” was the true indicators of social health rather some arbitrary number like an unemployment rate or a Dow Jones number?

It might mean we make different choices based on different values. We might have to cut back on our war efforts around the world, and tell the Lockheeds, Boeings, Halliburtons and the like that make their living on instruments of war that they need to get into a more life-giving business. Maybe it means we don’t give the oil companies tax breaks and kick backs, but instead say that your product, while presently necessary, is toxic and you need to come up with carbon-neutral ways to create energy if you are going to stay in business. Maybe we say to U.S. companies that after a certain point there is no foreign tax credit, and that in fact your abiity to sell products will be limited by the number of jobs you have removed from the country. Maybe will also say to the shareholders of those companies that your “bottom line” can no longer be solely the share price, but also must include the degree to which both employees and local communities are treated with justice.

Stephen Covey says “the way we see the problem is the problem.” My contention is that we are not looking at the problem correctly; we need new ways of thinking. Buckminister Fuller wrote: “You never change anything by fighting existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” We have entered a new era; our ways of thinking are not working and we need to build a new model.”

The new ideas are already here. Economists are beginning to leave the old capitalism-socialism polarity and think in terms of “new economics.” Urban planners are developing more humane ways to build cities that are sustainable and livable. Urban farmers are growing crops on vacant lots, and rural farmers are using irrigation, composting and organic methods that produce food without destroying the earth. Engineers have developed ways to create, store and distribute energy at a fraction of the current cost financially and environmentally. The ideas are there, but the will is not because the special interests are protecting their fortunes in the name of “economic necessity” and “balancing the budget.” All one has to do is to think about how quickly money was found to bail out the “banks too big to fail” and how freely the money flows when the patriotic winds of war get stirred up. Then think about how these same decision-makers just can’t figure out how to find enough resources to adequately fund public schools, provide adequate health care, and work for a safe and clean environment.

The problem is not in the lack of funds; rather it is in our way of thinking - that is what has to change.

Bill O'Reilly, Racism and White People

2011-05-14T12:05:00.002-05:00

On Easter Sunday President Obama and his family attended church at Shiloh Baptist Church, an historic African American church in Washington, D.C. The pastor of Shiloh Baptist is Dr. Wallace Smith, who along with his pastoral duties is a faculty member and past president of Palmer Theological Seminary, the seminary connected to Eastern University where I also work. Now whenever the President does anything, it is news, but Bill O’Reilly of Fox News went overboard in seeking to attack Obama; he charged that Wallace Smith was a race baiting pastor in the vein of Rev. Jermeiah Wright, and that Obama exercised poor judgment in worshipping there.You remember that Rev. Wright, Obama’s pastor when he lived in Chicago, made strong statements about the nature of racism in the United States that offended the sensibilities of many in the media. Frankly, I thought Rev. Wright was right on point and said so at the time. Nevertheless then candidate Obama was criticized for associating with Rev. Wright and ended up making an historic speech in Philadelphia on his views on racism and the need for racial reconciliation in America. However O’Reilly made in an effort to raise questions about Obama’s judgment and character took issue with Dr. Smith’s perspective on race in America and so called him “Jeremiah Wright Junior” (which was obviously not meant to be a compliment, but probably was!).

Now O’Reilly’s charge that Wallace Smith was somehow fomenting racial division and the assumptions that led him to make that charge are so outrageous and ludicrous that my first inclination is to simply ignore them (in fact because I rarely watch Fox News I did not know of it until nearly three weeks after the incident). However, in reality O’Reilly and Fox News have such a wide following among political conservatives, one can not simply pass him off as a quack. But more to the point, even though many might object to O’Reilly’s perspective (and in fact in that same show he had a fellow journalist who disagreed with his assessment), the assumptions behind O’Reilly’s statements are ones that are held by many white Americans, including many people of liberal persuasion. For that reason O’Reilly’s statements bear closer examination.

You may see and hear O’Reilly’s statement here. I encourage you to watch the clip at least 2-3 times to become familiar with his statements and move beyond your immediate emotional reaction so as to be able to take a more reasoned and analytical view of what is going on here. There are so many points one could make, space does not allow me to make them all, but let me highlight just a few.

The charge that Dr. Smith is racist is based on a short clip from a lecture he delivered at Palmer Seminary in 2010 on the topic of racism. In the clip he is talking about Jim Crow (i.e. segregation) practices. His point is that while Jim Crow is technically illegal today, it has become sophisticated and mainstreamed. As Smith artistically put it, Jim Crow has “dressed up in a three piece suit” and has become institutionalized not only in public policy but also media outlets such as Fox News. It is this last statement that O’Reilly takes offense at.

O’Reilly begins by calling Dr. Smith a “race activist,” which I find to be a curious term; I’m not sure what exactly it means. O’Reilly is not going for semantic clarity here, he is putting together two politically charged terms (at least for conservatives): “race” and “activist.” The term “race activist” is meant to convey the same kind of fear that “liberal” or “socialist” or “communist” conveys. It is meant to suggest that Dr. Smith is seeking to make white people feel guilty by talking about race and racism, and therefore is being inflammatory and dangerous.

I am part of a group called New Conversations on Race and Ethnicity (NewCORE) of which Dr. Smith is the co-chair and founder. NewCORE’s mission is to facilitate conversations between groups (particularly faith communities) that are predominantly black and predominantly white. On Martin Luther King Day, I participated in a series of inter-racial conversations that NewCORE organized. The purpose of groups like New CORE is not to propagate white guilt, but rather to raise awareness and understanding across racial and ethnic lines. Now for whites one of the first consequences of greater awareness is often a feeling of guilt. As one who has facilitated and participated in such conversations many times, I have come to see that for most whites, including myself, guilt about race is often just beneath the surface. But the goal of raising awareness is not to cause racial division but to create understanding. So if that is what a race activist does, then I am one too.

O’Reilly then says he is insulted and that in all his years at Fox News he has never met anyone who is racist. Like many whites (and in fact many people of color), O’Reilly thinks of racism only in individualistic terms, that a “racist” is a person who uses the n-word and is overtly hostile to people of other races. So in effect what O’Reilly is saying is that he hasn’t met anybody at Fox who goes around using racist language. However racist language and behavior is only the tip of the racism iceberg. What Wallace Smith refers to in the clip O’Reilly airs is institutionalized racism, that is policies, practices and perspectives, which have become normative and socially acceptable yet in their effect consistently treat people of color in a deleterious way. So while O’Reilly or the head of a government agency may not go around spouting racial slurs, the effect of their actions still can have a racist effect.

What makes institutionalized racism so hideous is that fact that it can be accepted as normative. So for instance, as state governments across the country cut their education budgets, poorer urban and rural school districts are taking the biggest hits. Those districts tend to overwhelmingly serve students of color. Those students of color just happen to live in the communities that most often have fewer libraries, city services, grocery stores and clean parks. And it just so happens that the people in those communities happen to be more unemployed and have less adequate healthcare insurance, if they have it at all. And if they do work, it is not in their community but a community far away from where they live. Moreover, it turns out that the young men in these communities are more likely to commit crimes and go to jail creating what Michelle Alexander has called “The New Jim Crow.”

Now did anyone at any point along this chain of causation say “we’re going to stick it to those n-----s.” Not necessarily, but the negative effect of those policies is disproportionately impacts people of color. In fact in his piece O’Reilly refers to U.S. culture as “race-neutral,” which given the history of race relations in this country seems ludicrous, but beyond that is negated by the impact of policies such as I just described.

As long as white people like O’Reilly only see racism in strictly individualistic and personal terms, they miss the larger issue of how our society is structured in such a way that gives white people like me and Bill O’Reilly privileges and advantages most black and Latino people can not assume. I am not profiled because of my race. I am not denied an interview because of my race. Real estate values don’t go down when I move into a neighborhood. When I make a public mistake, people don’t say I am a discredit to my race. Moreover, I don’t even have to be reminded everyday that I am white, except perhaps when I am in a social situation where I am a racial minority --- which by the way is what people of color face everyday in this society. I don’t have to hear people tell me that I am a “good white person” and so “articulate” for a person of my race.

If the kinds of policies and practices that impact communities of color every day were effecting predominantly white communities, O’Reilly would be crying “foul” and “racist,” but because white communities have been disproportionately protected from such effects, O’Reilly thinks people like Dr. Wallace Smith are “race-baiting” and stirring up trouble for simply pointing the disparities out.

While there is so much more that one could say in response to O’Reilly statements, I will leave it at that. What is so disgusting is that his ignorance is willful. He is not only uninformed, he chooses to be uninformed by choosing not to consider the words of an accomplished scholar and man of integrity such as Dr. Wallace Smith. Instead O'Reilly dismisses Smith because his feelings are hurt and he further twists those feelings into an attack on a president whose views he doesn’t like. While those of us who are white would like to distance ourselves from O’Reilly, I think it is important for us to consider and grapple with the ways in which we may think and respond like him. Moreover, we should use this incident as a way of deepening our understanding of how deeply embedded racism is in our society.

In the words of Shakespeare, O’Reilly “protesteth too much” and in fact proves the very point he seeks to criticize.

[Pictures courtesy of Google Images]

Resurrection: Neither Fast Nor Fair

2011-04-23T08:18:00.000-05:00

For the last six months or so, I have been struggling with asthma. I woke up on a Sunday morning with a severe shortness of breath, which the next day was diagnosed as “mild persistent asthma.” I was given various medicines, which created a variety of side effects in other parts of my body, such as weakness, tingling, and sleeplessness. Moreover, the shortness of breath seemed to come and go at unexpected times, not lending itself to a clear cause-effect diagnosis. Along with the asthma, acute anxiety has sometimes surfaced, as either a cause or an effect of the asthma or both – I’m not sure. Just when I would think I was getting my health and emotions “under control,” something would happen to send me in a tailspin of anxiety and breathlessness again. I don’t know from day to day if I will feel better or worse, so that now I approach each new morning wondering how I will feel, and how much energy and breath I will have that day.

Before this struggle began, I was a person who felt like his life was in control. I had my health and when I faced a health challenge, I was usually able to muster the strength or resolve to “get through it” and feel better again. That strategy no longer works. As a result, at times this whole experience has done a number on my self-esteem and self-confidence, but it also has brought me a new appreciation of the grace that awaits one each day. I no longer struggle like I did back in November; the medicines I take seem to be keeping me in balance and I have a sense of normalcy again, but I certainly don’t take my health for granted like I did before.

As I have reflected on the one year anniversary of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and followed the efforts in Japan to respond to the tsunami and earthquake that occurred in that country, I have been reminded that it is not just my life, but all of life that is beyond our control. Like I did with my health, we can delude ourselves into thinking that we have things in hand, but in fact all of life is flux and change, and we don’t have a stop or reset button to bring things back to zero. Sometimes we must just ride the wave and see where it takes us.

As I have gone through my experience I have sustained myself with the thought that in the Spring I will feel better. Somehow the cycle from winter to spring mirrors our journey from pain through struggle to hope, from losing control to surrender to acceptance. That passage from Winter to Spring is also reflected in the passage through Lent, to Holy Week and to Easter.

Recently, I came a cross a poem by Mary Bernard that compares the passage from winter to spring to Resurrection. One message of this poem is that the passage to Spring does not erase or forget the struggle of Winter, just as the Resurrection of Jesus did not remove the scars of the cross from his body. That is why Jesus could say to Thomas, “Put your hands in the holes in my hands and side” (John 20.25). Though resurrected, Jesus still bore the marks of his suffering. That juxtaposition and paradox is instructive for us. Even as we enjoy grace, hope, life and love, those things come at a price that we bear and carry around with us.

In her poem, Mary Bernard describes the paradox of Resurrection (using the image of winter to spring) this way:

Long before this winter’s snow

I dreamt of this day’s sunny glow

For some fast way to get around

Its hurt and cold. I’ve found

If I had looked at what was there,

That things don’t follow fast or fair

That life goes on, and times do change

And grass does grow despite life’s pain.

Resurrection comes neither fast nor fair, but it comes. And as grass springs from the rock of suffering, so hope comes through the struggle. May those who struggle find strength and hope in this realization.

Taxes and Power

2011-04-20T07:24:00.000-05:00

What do Warren Buffet, Alan Greenspan, Barack Obama and my father, a life long Republican, have in common? Normally this is a group that would have little they could agree on politically or economically. However, they all agree that in order to balance the national budget, one thing: we mus raise the taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Now they might quibble about the percentages and what areas of the budget should be cut, but all agree that the tax rate must be progressive and that those who earn more should pay more literally and proportionately in taxes. And all of them would probably pay higher taxes if such a decision was made.

When you are facing trillions of dollars in debt, one doesn’t have to be a genius to know the way you close the gap is to cut expenses and raise revenue. So why are the Republicans in Congress and Republicans in statehouses across the country, including my own state of Pennsylvania, so adamant about not raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations while making major cuts in education, health care, and social services for the poor? Why can they insist that teachers and other public employees must pay more for their benefits –what they call “their fair share” - (essentially cutting their income by making them pay more for those benefits), but not ask those who earn over $250,000 a year to pay more – i.e. their fair share? Why can they propose to make the middle class and poor go without, and yet allow the gap between haves and have-nots get wider and wider?

The argument goes that the by holding down taxes on the wealthy, this will spur economic growth by encouraging the wealthy and corporations to create jobs. The evidence has not born that out. We are currently in the worst recession since the 1930’s and the banks and the corporations have been show to be corrupt and predatory in their practices toward the middle class and homeowners, and yet Republicans in Congress refuse to turn the screws on those who have lined their pockets with PAC and lobbyist money.

Nearly 20 years ago investigative reporters Donald Bartlett and James Steele predicted the vanishing of the middle class because of the two tier tax structure that allows the wealthy and corporations to pay far less than their fair share in taxes. They have revisited that study and their predictions proven to be true. Their study entitled What Went Wrong indicates that the corporate tax rate has declined from 49% in the 1950’s to 26% in 2010. But that doesn’t tell the whole story because after deductions, credits and other tax write-offs some of the largest corporations like GE and Exxon pay no U.S. taxes. This is not some liberal political rhetoric, but rather information reported on their corporate statements to the SEC. Which means that the “small businesses” the Republicans keep saying they are trying to protect are probably paying a lot more than 26% so the big boys and the wealthy can get a “free card.”

It does no good to cry “foul” or talk about ethics or equity in this situation. Change will not come about by appealing to values or discussing different worldviews. This is simply an issue of power – who has the power to call the shots. In Plato’s Republic Book I, Socrates encounters a young man named Thrasymachus whose idea of justice is that the wealthiest and most powerful men make the rules and whatever they say goes. In his mind that is justice. Thrasymachus is not concerned about being fair to the masses, he just wants to get in the seat of power so he can make the rules bend toward his self-interest. Socrates (unsuccessfully) tries to show him that such a short sighted approach will destroy the city of Athens. That doesn’t matter to Thrasymachus because all he cares about is building his little kingdom.

We used to think that such things only happened in despotic nations ruled by wealthy strongmen surrounded by military power. Rulers like Amin (Uganda), Duvalier (Haiti) and Marcos (Philippines) bankrupted their countries and oppressed their poor masses, even as they amassed obscenely high concentrations of wealth. Well, add the United States to that list, as our political leaders, at the behest of the wealthy and the corporations, head us down that path. Amin, Duvalier, and Marcos were all overthrown by people’s revolutions, in Amin’s case violently. We are heading toward a point where nothing less than a revolution will bring sanity back to the way we distribute the wealth in this country. As Bartlett and Steele point out right now a significant mass of Americans have bought the line that “taxes” is a dirty word like “communism,” and continue to support policies that are not in their best interest. However, we are moving to ward what educator Paulo Freire calls an “untested feasibility” of needing a dramatic revolution not of morals or worldview, but of power.

Do we really want to go there?

A Pacifist Response to Libya

2011-03-30T11:24:00.001-05:00

Monday night (March 28) Pres. Obama addressed the nation explaining his reasons for ordering military action to enforce a “No Fly Zone” in Libya. Essentially, he said that (1) he wanted to prevent the slaughter of innocent Libyan citizens by Libyan government forces and (2) that taking that action was in “our national interest.” While he did not spell out what those interests were, it’s pretty certain that a major factor in the decision had to do with the fact that Libya pumps out a lot of oil.

A few days earlier I was indirectly challenged by two people (a close friend who is clearly states he is not a pacifist, and a former student who is considering joining the Navy) to offer a pacifist response to the current situation in Libya; so here it is.

The root of the word “pacifism” is the Latin word “pace” or peace. In Biblical Hebrew the word for peace is “shalom,” which is a robust word not only meaning the absence of conflict, but also the restoration of people to each other and to the creation. Shalom is celebrated in the passage from Isaiah where the prophet writes:

The wolf will live with the lamb

The leopard will lied dies with the goat

The calf and the lion and the yearling together

And a little child will lead them (Isaiah 11.6)

Shalom is a picture of former adversaries living in harmony and trust, devoid of hatred or fear. As a pacifist I yearn for and work toward this vision of the world, realizing we might not get there fully, but we can get closer than we currently are.

Sam Keen, philosopher and author of Fire in the Belly, comes close to my position on war when he writes: “It would be Utopian to wish that men should no longer kill one another … But a much sounder Utopia is that which insists that murder no longer be legitimized” (p. 114). Applied to Libya it means, yes it may have been necessary to send war planes to bomb military sites and advancing armies in Libya in order to save lives, but let’s not try to legitimize or glorify the fact that we had to do it. The foot soldiers in Qadaffi’s army are as blindly “innocent” as the citizens who they threatened and the rebels fighting against Qaddafi. In war there are no winners.

More importantly we need to look at how we got in a position where it was “necessary” for us to invade Libya. Qaddafi has been in power for 40 years. A little less than 40 years ago in the mid-1970’s the United States faced an oil shortage which caused us to ration gas and wait in long lines to fuel our cars. Then-President Jimmy Carter implored the nation to turn down their thermostats, wear sweaters, drive fuel efficient cars and generally change our lifestyles. We didn’t listen, ridiculed Carter, started driving SUVs, chewed up more and more farmland for suburban neighborhoods and generally ignored the early warning the 1970’s gas crisis gave us. Since then we have had the hostage crises in Iran, two Iraq wars, a war in Afghanistan, ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine, various crises in Lebanon, Egypt, and other Middle Eastern countries; and now Libya. Moreover, Colonel Qaddafi didn’t become a tyrant 10 days ago; he’s been a tyrant for 40 years; President Obama admitted as much the other night. So what is the common denominator connecting all of these events over the last 40 years? Our dependence on oil. President Carter was right then and is still right today.

I have no objection to a standing military that helps earthquake victims in Haiti or ferries victims of Hurricane Katrina to safety, or is currently helping the Japanese people cope with their recent earthquake. I don’t even object to the military trying to stop innocent slaughter in places like Bosnia in the 1990’s or Libya today. But when we must continually turn to military solutions, let us see these incursions for what they are: a tragic failure of we who are the wealthy of the world to curb our voracious lifestyles. This invasion would not have been "necessary" were it not for the oil. Qaddafi would have been a minor desert warlord were it not for the oil. He would not have been tacitly supported as the world looked the other way, had we been working to change our lifestyles so that we were not so oil-dependent.

In 1945, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German pastor forsook his pacifist stance to take part in a plot to kill Adolf Hitler. The plot failed, Bonhoeffer was imprisoned, and was executed for his crime days before the Germans surrendered to the Allies. However as theologian Walter Wink notes Bonhoeffer never considered his participation in the plot a “justifiable action” but rather a sin, and he threw himself on the mercy of God for what he had done. At the time he saw no other option, but he never sought to justify it.

President Obama and the NATO forces are to be commended for the limited role our military has played in the Libyan situation. However, seen in the larger context of our voracious consumptive American lifestyle, and the “interests” we protect to maintain that lifestyle can not be justified. Our continual dependence on carbon based fuels to support our lifestyle continues to lead to wars, destroys the environment, drains resources for addressing desperate needs in our own country, and makes all the world’s people vulnerable to tyrants whose land happens to be sitting over an oil well.

Libya should cause us to heed the call Pres. Carter gave us nearly 40 years ago. The world can not afford us; we can not afford ourselves. A world beyond war, a taste of shalom, can only happen as we not only stop tyrants like Colonel Qadaffi, but also look at ourselves, and ask how are we willing to change so that war does not become necessary to protect our “interests?”

Fairness in Taxation Bill

2011-03-26T06:38:00.001-05:00

Rep Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) has introduced the Fairness in Taxation bill, which seeks to have the wealthy pay their share in addressing the current budget problem. What follows is a letter to my Congressman, Rep Pat Meehan, asking him to support this proposed bill. I share it as an example others might want to send to their Representatives. As I suggest in my letter, why must the budget be balanced on the backs of the poor and the wealthy get off scott free?

Dear Rep Meehan,

I am writing to ask that you support the Fairness in Taxation Act that has been introduced by Rep. Jan Schakowlsy of Illinois. While you have supported the effort to present a balanced budget, your efforts thus far have focused on cutting funds designated for health care, education, and other social programs. At the same time you have opposed any efforts to increase revenues through targeted tax hikes on the wealthiest American. In essence that strategy is asking the most socially and economically vulnerable citizens to make sacrifices to balance the federal budget, while not asking the wealthiest Americans to do the same.

The Fairness in Taxation Act would correct this injustice and inequity by asking wealthy Americans to pay their fair share. The bill would establish new tax brackets for incomes starting at $1 million up to a $1 billion bracket. The new brackets would be:

$1-10 million: 45%
$10-20 million: 46%
$20-100 million: 47%
$100 million to $1 billion: 48%
$1 billion and over: 49%

The bill would also tax capital gains and dividend income as ordinary income for those taxpayers with income over $1 million. If enacted in 2011, the Fairness in Taxation Act would raise more than $78 billion.

While I know support of this bill would ask you to break with your Republican party colleagues, I believe that you know in your heart that this is fair and just. The terrible debt we are facing right now is largely due to the government’s efforts to compensate for the mistakes and misdeeds of the large financial institutions in this country. They received a bailout that both Pres. Bush and Pres. Obama supported, as did both parties. Now you seek to correct the deficit that has resulted. As the Scriptures say: Those to whom much is given, much is required. This should apply to tax laws as well.

Please support this bill and allow fairness to rule our economic judgments, not the PAC money or lobbyist pressures. Poor people have no lobbyists. People like you and me must be their advocates. Please have the courage to support The Fairness in Taxation Act.

Sincerely,

Drick Boyd

Barack Obama, Guns and People of Faith

2011-03-16T19:27:00.000-05:00

This past week Pres. Barack Obama delivered a speech in Arizona in which he proposed that the National Instant Criminal Background Check System be strengthened so as to deny known felons the opportunity to purchase guns. Groups like Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Ceasefire Pennsylvania came out praising the president for calling for this legislation. The irony is that the law already exists; it is just that some states and local jurisdictions don’t abide by the law and faithfully provide the data that is needed. The problem is not the lack of law, but the lack of enforcement. You can bet that those states that have loose gun control laws are also those states that don’t cooperate with this federal law either. Apparently, for the gun lobby any law that might restrict the right of someone, even someone with a history of violent crime, is too much “regulation.”

If there was any doubt about how far the gun lobby will go to fight any and all gun regulations, following his speech, Pres. Obama invited leaders of the NRA to meet with members of his Justice Department to discuss gun legislation they could agree on. NRA Executive VP Wayne LaPierre rejected the invitation saying that Obama was only using a “political maneuver” designed to “take away our Second Amendment rights.” However, as Obama pointed out in his speech, his administration has expanded the rights of gun owners, and he now supports the Supreme Court’s specious interpretation of the Second Amendment. Moreover he waited two years before filling the directorship of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), and did not extend the assault weapons ban. Barack has been the best friend the NRA has ever had, Republican or Democrat. However, as far as La Pierre and the NRA is concerned, any gun law apparently is a bad law, even though they apparently have Obama eating out of their hands.

Recently, I made a presentation on the gun lobby at a conference. In the context of that presentation, I referred to a comment made by James Carville, Bill Clinton’s political advisor in the 1990’s. In 1993 then Pres. Clinton signed the Brady Bill, establishing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (that Obama says we now must enforce), and pushed through the Assault Weapons Ban (which Obama let expire). In the 1994 midterm elections, the Democrats took a beating at the polls much like they did this past year. Carville attributed that defeat in part to Clinton’s support of these two significant pieces of gun control legislation. Ever since that time Democrats have been running scared of the NRA and the gun lobby, backing away from any efforts to enact common sense gun legislation such as requiring more extensive background checks that would include things such as mental health records, and repealing the Tiahrt Amendment a bill that exempts the BATF from releasing data on the gun shops that are the source of the most guns used in crime. By his tepid call to ask states to follow the laws that already exist, Obama and his Democratic cohorts continue in their timid inaction on gun legislation. (To read the full story see Dennis Henigan's book, Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths That Paralyze American Gun Policy).

What the Obama and the rest of the Democrats fail to grasp is that any policy of conciliation with the ultra conservatives is fruitless. For the conservatives is no compromise, only hard ball. The gun lobby is not satisfied with the status quo, they are pushing hard for legislation that would allow guns to be carried onto college campuses and on public transportation, and laws that would release the ban on all efforts to regulate the sale of guns of any size or firepower. Only by being as hard nosed and persistent as the gun lobby can those of us who seek to limit the sale of handguns (whose only purpose is to kill and injure other people), hope to see significant changes need in gun control legislation to be enacted.

Comedian John Stewart has often made fun of the Democrats for being “wimps” on the issues they say are important to them. They have no spine to speak up for strong legislation whether it deals with health care or gun legislation. The truth be told, some of these “wimpish” Democrats are probably as much in the pocket of the gun lobby as their conservative counterparts. Ironically, Gabrielle Giffords was one of those pro-gun Democrats; look where it got her.

In my presentation, I argued that the only effective response to the insane gun-mania and power of the gun industry and gun lobby is a grass roots movement. Christians and other faith groups can and must play a part in developing that movement. Just as the gun lobby speaks of the values that support the right to own and use a gun, so too people of faith deal in the realm of values, but only those that speak to the need for peace and harmony among people. While we may not have the money the gun lobby can throw around ($2.1 million int he 2010 elections alone), we can galvanize people to act with their voice and their vote. This is why grassroots, faith based groups like Heeding God’s Call are essential to the gun violence prevention movement. If we wait for our political leaders to act, even our supposed progressive president, we will be waiting a very long time.

Madison and Why Unions Matter

2011-03-07T18:26:00.000-05:00

I have never been particularly strongly for or against unions. I knew that they had played an important role in creating a more humane workplace – 40 hour work week, child labor laws, work safety standards, Social Security, work benefits, and so on - but just had not considered why a strong union presence in the economy was so important today. I was also aware of some of the ways unions had abused their power in the mid-twentieth century by excluding racial minorities in the early. I also remembered that the Teamsters had been used by California growers as thugs trying to intimidate the Farmworkers in the 1960’s and 1970’s. So I knew unions served a purpose, but I also knew they were not made up of angels.

Then the Miracle of Madison occurred, when Wisconsin governor Scott Walker not only sought to reduce the benefits paid to public employee unions, but also wanted to take away their bargaining rights to advocate for themselves. Scott Walker found out that his "mandate" was not as strong as he had imagined. The people have stood up to the governor for three weeks now, and the power of their movement grows each week. As I said in my last blog posting, to take away people’s bargaining rights is to rob them of the very tools of democracy.

These events have gotten me thinking about what happens when unions aren't allowed to operate. I have been reminded of how union jobs in places like Philadelphia were moved to the South and then to Mexico. Now in the Maquiladora area around Juarez, Mexico (just across the river from El Paso, TX), people work for $5-15/day in unsanitary and unsafe conditions for major corporations trying to escape having to pay living wages and benefits, and other work-related items that we in this country take for granted. There are no unions in Juarez and the conditions are not only horrible, they are patently inhumane. All in the name of profit and capitalism.

This past weekend I was in Madison, WI and marched around the capital with school teachers, firefighters, Teamsters, grandmothers, elementary school kids, and representatives from just about every other slice of humanity currently living in Wisconsin. I happened to be there when filmmaker Michael Moore showed up and delivered an incredible speech putting the Madison conflict in the context of a larger class war. His Major point was that Wisconsin, like the United States is not broke; it’s just that a very few millionaires and billionaires are awash in money, while the rest of the population can’t pay their mortgages, are taking pay cuts, and being told that their benefits are being cut. The problem is not a lack of money, but a need for redistribution of the wealth in this nation.

You can watch Moore’s speech here or read it here. He was clear, uncompromising and to the point.

What is happening in Madison is only the tip of the iceberg. As Moore and other speakers said that day, this is only the beginning of a long struggle to return some sanity and balance to economic power in this country (and I would add around the world). The scenario being played out in Wisconsin is being repeated in Ohio, Indiana and probably many other states. Unions will play a vital role in this struggle, not only in offering support (groups like the Teamsters, firefighters and police were not affected by the governor’s proposals but have been visibly present in solidarity), but also in their vast experience in bringing folks together to stand up to the corporate and political leaders who would seek to steal their right to self-determination and silence the voice of everyday folks.

I see now why unions matter and expect that I will learn much more in the months and years ahead.

Cairo, Madison and the Nature of Grassroots Democracy

2011-02-24T17:48:00.002-05:00

Tunisia … Cairo … Jordan … Iran… Bahrain … and now Madison, Wisconsin. Something is happening around the globe in this age of instant telecommunication – there is an outbreak of democracy the likes of which have not been seen in a long time. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker won last November’s election by 52% to 46%, got his party’s majority in both houses and so felt he had a “mandate” to do whatever he liked to balance his state’s budget, but he overplayed his hand when he sought to take away the bargaining rights of unionized state workers. In so doing he sought to eliminate the rights of state employees to have a voice in determining their own economic future. The people reacted strong and loud. What was at stake is the meaning of democracy, as Lincoln said, government of, for and by the people.

Walker stands in a long line of leaders going back to the Founding Fathers and even Plato, the author democracy, who only believed in a limited kind of democracy. Their view of democracy says: “We’ll give you a chance to vote every 2, 4, or 6 years from a limited list of candidates that we will provide you. Then we’ll open up the doors to folks with money – namely the wealthy and the corporations – to finance this electoral show, a winner will be announced, and you good people just trust us until the next election.” However, something changed. First, the Tea Party folks said – wait a minute, we have a voice that needs to be heard. Now while I realize that some of the Tea Party moves were orchestrated by conservative corporate interests and big media, and I don’t agree with much of their politics, there were lots of normal folks who just were not willing to sit back and wait for two more years. Now finally, the progressive grassroots has awakened and the message that is coming out of Madison is “we want a seat at the table too; we will not be rendered voiceless and powerless.”

The Bradley Foundation, the major supporter of Scott Walker’s gubernatorial campaign states that its mission in part is “committed to preserving and defending the tradition of free representative government and private enterprise that has enabled the American nation and, in a larger sense, the entire Western world to flourish intellectually and economically.” They go onto say that what that commitment means is to “support limited, competent government; a dynamic marketplace for economic, intellectual, and cultural activity; and a vigorous defense, at home and abroad, of American ideas and institutions.” Sounds well and good, so why support an effort to take away one of those rights, the right to advocate for oneself and one’s interests? Could it be those vaunted “American ideas” are only applicable to the select few who have the money and power to influence decision makers?

The Koch brothers, other major funders of Walker’s campaign and major donors to the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, are not interested in what works for the average person, but rather removing all restrictions and guidelines to those who seek economic gains in the name of unbridled capitalism. Why else would Walker opt not to tax the wealthy or the corporations but instead demand the union give back benefits, and give up bargaining rights? The Koch brothers want democracy in the sense that limits the benefits to them and others of their ilk.

The response to this kind of doublespeak and hypocrisy is long overdue. The challenge to the ever-widening gap between the haves and have-nots in this country has been slowly emerging. The poor have completely dropped out of the conversation, but now the assault has come on the middle and working class folks, and they are better organized than the poor. The middle class working folks are earning less and being asked to give up more, while the wealthy and the corporations continue to get favored status. Something had to give … maybe it has started to do so.

The challenge going forward is not simply to protest on capitol steps or march on Washington, but rather to build a kind of process where folks gather to discuss issues and concerns in coffee shops, town hall meetings, Facebook pages and blogs. It will require that progressives to talk with Tea Party folks and the working poor interact with CEOs, where shouting and chants can be transformed to listening and true dialogue. Sounds ideal but the folks with the power – the corporate leaders, the wealthy political donors, the huge lobbying organizations – are not going to be easily persuaded to let go of their privileged positions in the shadows and come out for an honest, open forum. There is still much work to be done do to force them into the light, before these conversations can happen. The issue is not about Republicans or Democrats, because both parties are active players in the rigged game. It goes beyond the choices we have been publicly presented to those who are pulling the strings from behind. For in the end the real enemy of grassroots democracy are not the political front men like Scott Walker, but the economic interests he and most politicians serve. Revealing and challenging that enemy will require research, analysis and dogged perseverance.

Just as countries such as Egypt must build an entirely new political infrastructure, so too we in the United States are only at the beginning of building a new understanding of what democracy means and how it works. This view of democracy is radically different than what has been practiced recently in this country. It is radical because it takes the onus out of the state houses and into the communities. It is radical because it challenges us to be informed and active. It is radical because it challenges the economic policies and structures that have benefited the few at the expense of the many, and to which most Americans have become all too accustomed, and to which they have resigned themselves.

Frankly, I don’t know what to expect in the months and years ahead. I hold a cautious optimism that people can wake from their blind political stupor, and let the Scott Walkers of the country, and even more so those funding his campaign, know that the game has changed, and that democracy as we have known it is in fact becoming more democratic.

Process and Promise at West Philadelphia High School

2011-02-13T06:45:00.001-05:00

We tend to think dictatorships only exist in places like Tunisia and Egypt, and when the masses rise up and force the dictators out, we consider that to be a good thing. Well, there is a dictatorship in Philadelphia that is facing an uprising of its own, and as far as I am concerned, it is about time. I am referring to the Philadelphia School District (PSD) and series of community responses to the Superintendent’s newest round of proposed reforms.

On Monday, February 7 I attended a public meeting at West Philadelphia High School (WPHS), which had just been designated a“Promise Academy” by PSD Superintendent Arlene Ackerman the week before. Two members from the district gave a brief presentation and then the floor was open for questions and feedback. The Promise Academy program is a series of reforms designed to improve the quality of education in failing schools. The reforms include a longer school day, more enrichment program, uniforms, Saturday school and a summer program. The key to success is the hiring of a new principal with a “proven track record of turning around failing schools” and the requirement that all teachers re-apply for their positions in the school with only a maximum of 50% being hired back for the next year. The goal is to “change the culture of the school” and to create an atmosphere of achievement and success.

Sounds great – who can challenge such a plan? No one at the meeting denied that WPHS is a school in trouble that fails to adequately educate its students. Nonetheless, many challenges were raised to the proposal not about the desire to improve the school, but over the way PSD has disregarded the input of the West Philadelphia High School community for several years. The objections were not over the promise of a renewed school, but over the way the decision-making process was handled.

A year ago the Superintendent had announced that WPHS would become a Renaissance Academy, one of four versions of PSD’s reforms. The difference is that in the Renaissance Academy the school is paired with an outside provider, whereas the Promise Academy was run directly out of the district office. Both models have the same essential goal: turnaround a failing school. A year ago the school had a popular principal, Saliyah Cruz, who had led the school through a dramatic culture change. Discipline issues had dramatically decreased, a restorative practices model of discipline had been instituted, and 9^th grade test scores and attendance had begun to show marked improvement. Students and teachers expressed great hopefulness for the future of the school as it looked move into a new building in 2011. John Hopkins University had consulted with the school and University of Pennsylvania was actively involved in the school. John Hopkins had applied to be the Renaissance partner. So the local community group of which I was a part, the WPHS Community Partners, recommended that WPHS be partnered with Johns Hopkins. This request was ecohed by a School Advisory Council made of up parents and community members. Despite her calls for community input, Superintendent Ackerman went directly against the community desires; the principal and 40% of the teachers were transferred from the school and John Hopkins’ application was rejected. A caretaker principal was installed ( the first of three this year) and the school unraveled, violent incidents increased and morale plummeted.

This year when the idea of the school becoming a Promise Academy was proposed, the School Advisory Council, the local community group for the school again asked to be a Renaissance Academy (that is being paired with an outside provider), and again despite the request for community input, that input was ignored. These were the issues being raised by the group that Monday night. Three-quarters of the comments had to do with process, and the districts continued dictatorial ways. Parents wanted assurance that there would be a commitment to real change. Community members raised questions about PSD’s commitment to working with the community and parents, given their actions in the past. Several folks raised concern about the fact that after a 40% teacher turnover last year, why did there have to be a 50% turnover this year. Others wondered where this miracle-working “turnaround principal” was going to be found and whether the community group would have any input in selecting that person (the answer was “no”).

While the meeting was civil, there was a great deal of frustration. Thus, it was not surprising that at 1 pm the following Friday (Feb 11) approximately 100 students walked out of school in protest of the fact that their concerns were not being addressed or even respected. Moreover, they objected to the fact that there was an atmosphere of repression in the school for teachers and students who spoke out against the process. All the while thousands of people were protesting in Egypt about a repressive dictator and demanding that their voices be heard.

I would have thought that this experience was unique to WPHS given its unique history with the district, until I read that a very similar reaction was being voiced in South Philadelphia, where the Audenried High School was being told they were to become part of a “Promise Neighborhood Partnership” (following the model of the Harlem Children’s Zone developed by Geoffrey Canada and promoted by the Obama administration). From the reports the crowd reaction was much more vitriolic than at WPHS and police had to be brought into restore order. Parent, students and community members were asking for data on why their school was being taken over and saying that there had been no opportunity for their concerns to be heard. So apparently the process was similar as to that in West Philly.

In a time when urban schools are failing to provide an adequate education, there is no question that change must come. However, so often school officials want to find a quick fix. The Promise Academy promises an infusion of resources, but in a time when PSD must trim its budget by $400-500 million, how long will this infusion of resources last? In a time when a Republican governor favors school vouchers over equalizing the playing field between urban and suburban school districts, how long until the money for the Promise Academy is diverted? In an environment where parents and community members are asked to give input, and then that input is categorically ignored and when a principal was initiating genuine cultural reform and then was removed, when committed teachers who have chosen to work in a difficult environment are told they are not measuring up, and when students must contend with a revolving door of principals and teachers, isn’t it just possible that Superintendent Ackerman should listen to their concerns, and truly engage the community in the process?

There is no doubt that Superintendent Ackerman is a reformer facing a difficult job of transforming a troubled school system in a time of acrimony and declining resources. However, as educator Paulo Freire warned in his classic work, The Pedagogy of the Oppressed, that if they do not honestly work in solidarity with the oppressed and marginalized people they are seeking to help, they will become as dictatorial and oppressive as the leaders they sought to replace. Authentic social change comes when reformist leaders work honestly with the oppressed, rather than simply seeking to do things to and for them, and then expecting them to go along. Promises are not enough; following an appropriate process bring meaningful and lasting change.

The mild “uprisings” in West Philadelphia and South Philadelphia are a sign that people in those communities care about education and their kids and they want an authentic seat at the table. They don’t want to be pawns in quick fixes or faddish educational ideas. More than anyone, they know that the future of precious lives are at stake, because those lives are either theirs (students) or the lives of people about whom they deeply care (parents and community members). While the uprisings don’t need to lead to the ouster of a leader as in Egypt, but they are a sign that PSD can’t just make promises of some miracle transformation, they need to involve the people they claim to serve in the process of leading that transformation.

*** Photos used permission of the Notebook (www.notebook.org))

Letter to My Congressman re: Health Care

2011-02-12T13:32:00.000-05:00

NOTE: I received an email from my new Republican representative, Patrick Meehan, about his support of his party's efforts to repeal the Health Care Reform bill passed last year under the guidance of Pres. Obama. His rationale was basically that the bill as it stands is too costly, directs "unfunded mandates," to the states and was passed through "closed door" deals (welcome to Washington Congressman! As if your party never did anything like that!) - the same tired arguments that have been all along

What follows is my email response. I share it as an example of how we need to keep the pressure on to maintain the modest gains that have been made in the last two years in providing justice for the poor in our midst.

------------------------------------------

Rep Meehan,

I received your message regarding your participation in the effort to repeal the current health care reform bill. I am writing to strongly urge you NOT TO CONTINUE SEEKING REPEAL of the bill. Nearly 50,000 people are without adequate health care insurance in this country, and the actions of those seeking repeal is both cruel and misguided. The bill as passed did not go far enough in providing the necessary supports to the needy and controls on the health insurance companies. If there are ways to improve the current bill by tightening controls and easing access, then work on those. However, to simply reject the bill because of costs is duplicitous and hypocritical, when your party has (1) refused to tax wealthiest Americans and (2) refused to curb military spending (in this instance you share responsibility with the Democrats). It is neither prudent nor just to cut services to the most vulnerable Americans, when you refuse to do it to those who are most economically secure. Such actions only show you are beholden to the corporate powers and you fail to think outside of the "lockstep" directives of your party. Your role as a representative is not to oppose the president in order to score political points, but rather to serve the needs of the people, no matter what your political bosses tell you do.

Rep Sestak who preceded you was no "flaming liberal" (no matter how your party tried to portray him), but he laced his politics with compassion. This is something I hope and expect that you will continue.

Sincerely,

Darrell Boyd
Broomall, PA

Imagination and Gun Violence Prevention

2011-01-29T09:51:00.001-05:00

Over the past couple weeks I have been researching the gun industry in preparation for a workshop I will be doing in March on faith-based approaches to gun violence prevention. Through my research I keep bumping up against two realities in the ongoing debate between advocates of gun rights and advocates of gun control. First, I am deeply impressed with the ability of gun rights advocates to frame issue in terms that resonate deeply with a significant percentage of the American people. All one needs to do is go the website of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and click on one of their many videos and you will hear a heartfelt appeal for protecting the rights of individuals to have and use guns that taps into the American values of freedom, patriotism, individualism, and family. Whether one agrees with the NRA not, one has to be impressed with how they present and package their message.

Second, I have been equally impressed with the number of studies from such places as Harvard University, John Hopkins University, University of Pennsylvania, and University of California-Davis that have put forth compelling evidence that the proliferation of firearms in American society leads to an increasing number of deaths by those firearms. One thing that is startling to most casual observers is that the number of suicides by guns significantly outstrips the number of homicides by guns, and that the presence of a gun in a home is significantly more likely to be used against the gun owner’s friends and loved ones than an outside intruder. So there is compelling and overwhelming evidence that one way to reduce the number of gun-related deaths is to reduce the availability of gun is our society.

These two realities have brought me face to face with the dilemma for those of us who would like to limit the presence of guns in our society, and thereby reduce the number of gun-related injuries and death: the argument will not be one by more facts, figures, and logical arguments because the other side is not convinced by research, but by something much deeper in their psyche. While the society as a whole is divided over how much gun control is the right amount, generally speaking those who advocate for gun rights are far more motivated and passionate than those who think the laws might have to change. Because of the recent shootings in Tucson, the debate has heated up again, but if the pattern of the past repeats itself, pretty soon gun violence will go back to being a non-issue for most Americans, especially those who say there ought to be tighter restrictions. We who are working to change the laws need a mechanism to convince folks that this is an issue worth fighting for, because the other side is primed and ready to respond.

While logic and research are vitally important if we are to make wise decisions as a society, they will not win the day; we need to appeal to the cultural values that move and drive folks. Moreover our objective should not be so much to change the minds of the true believers on the gun rights side, but rather to motivate those who think the laws ought to change to put the issue on their front burner rather than the back burner. The key is to appeal to people’s sense of imagination and to tap into values that run deep in their spirits. In his book, The Hopeful Imagination, Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann (referring to philosopher Paul Ricouer) says “people are changed not by ethical urging, but by a transformed imagination” (p. 24). What Brueggemann and Ricouer say to those of us in the gun violence prevention movement is that we have to go deeper than facts and logic and tap into the deep recesses of what makes people human.

This is why I think the faith community, in particular the Christian community, is vital to the efforts to reduce the number of guns on our streets and in our homes because as people of faith we deal in symbols and the deep things of the spirit. We tap into the deep recesses of the human soul by singing songs, telling stories, and saying prayers. We share food and life together in a way that shapes and forms who we are as people. Stuart Murray,speaking about the Anabaptist Christian tradition of which I am a part says our churches need to “nurture unconventional reflexes and free our imaginations to explore creative possibilities” in dealing with issues of violence and conflict (Naked Anabaptist, p.132).

When I think of the history of the Civil Rights movement, I see this capacity to “nurture unconventional reflexes” and “free people’s imaginations” at work. How else would people walk in to fire hoses, refrain from resorting to violence and walk hundreds of miles for the dream of equality? What Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders did was touch something deep in the soul of many people, black and white, so much so that they were willing to go up against the huge wall of Jim Crow segregation. Ultimately what won the day was something that resonated deeply with most Americans. That’s why the “I Have A Dream Speech” can still stir us 48 years after it was first spoken.

As I continue to explore this issue, I am encouraged that there are many people of deep faith, who likewise have taken on the gun violence issue in creative ways. I will share just one. Recently, I talked with a young woman, a victim of gun violence herself, who is organizing a campaign to go into urban communities, and telling her story and calling people to look at other ways of dealing with issues of violence and to put away the guns. She plans to start in the community where she grew up in and then go to other places. She hopes to mobilize young people and local organizations to work together to reduce the violence in their communities. I have no doubt she will be successful in her work because she can speak to the fears, doubts and hopelessness that often lead people to succumb to a life of violence. She is driven by her experience and by her faith in God that a different way of life is possible.

My hope is to come across many more folks like this woman, who can speak to the deep parts of people’s lives, whose imaginations have been set free by their faith in God, and who have been nurtured to respond in way counter to the culture of fear and violence that has so deeply gripped us as a nation and a people. My hope is that the efforts of which I am a part can draw on the creativity of people in such a way that something is touched in them, and compels them to take a stand for gun violence prevention. I know that is what grabbed me. I knew all the arguments and some of the relevant facts, but it was man’s story about the death of his brother that got me moving. I have no doubt that we can turn the tide of this debate, but I now realize more studies and compelling logic will not by themselves move folks to action. We need to find ways to tap into people’s imagination and move them in the place within that lies beyond words.

Remembering and Learning From the Ugliness of Our Past

2011-01-15T10:18:00.000-05:00

Each January we are invited to remember the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. This weekend many folks will be engaged in service projects, special worship services and cultural events. This year I will be participating on the “Conversation of Kings: From Dream to Sacrifice Toward a More Perfect Union” sponsored by the New Conversations on Race and Ethnicity (NewCORE) in Philadelphia being held at Girard College (9 am) and South Philadelphia High School (1 pm). If you are around, come join us.

For me the Martin Luther King holiday is a day to remember the history of racism and to reflect on my efforts to overcome the effects of that racism in our nation and in my own personal life. For that reason I was particularly intrigued by a recent column by Leonard Pitts, Jr, “Don’t Let Others Define Us.” In this article Pitts writes of a trip he once took to Auschwitz, the Nazi prison camp where thousands of Jews were killed during World War II. During his time there, he was surprised to learn that Israeli school groups regularly visit the site to continually remind the next generations of the genocide that killed six million of their fellow Jews. Pitts wrote that he was “impressed with the way Jews have institutionalized Holocaust education.” By contrast he says that generally speaking African Americans tend to distance themselves from their past of suffering. He quotes one woman who witnessed a lynching in 1930, and who refused to talk about it with anyone and countered by saying “Why bring it up. It’s not helping anything. People don’t want to hear it.”

The point that Pitts makes is that if a people does not work hard to remember their history and allow it to shape and guide their actions in the present, others who have a vested interest in sanitizing the ugliness of their past will do it for them. I think this tendency to sanitize the ugliness of history is powerfully at work in our remembrance of Martin Luther King, Jr. This is true not only of African Americans, but also most certainly among White Americans as well. These days people like to quote a few choice lines from the “I Have A Dream” speech without focusing on King’s advocacy for the poor, his opposition to militarism, and his continual battle with local governments to change laws that treated African Americans as less than human. We forget that the FBI spied on him and spread lies about him, and that only when the brutality of racism was dragged onto the world stage did the Federal government begin acting to change discriminatory laws and practices that had been institutionalized for centuries. We forget that King and his followers were beaten and regarded as communist subversives, and that King himself was assassinated as he was participating in a strike by underpaid garbage workers in Memphis.

We also forget that while there was virulent minority of whites who participated in violent acts of racial hatred and intimidation, and a activist minority of whites who publicly allied themselves with the Civil Rights Movement, there was a much larger percentage of whites who sat on the side and did nothing. King’s famous “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” written while he was in jail was written to this “silent majority. While in jail King had being criticized by “white moderates” for not being patient and creating a social disturbance. They said that he should be patient and trust that prayer and time would bring about racial reconciliation. King responded at length to these charges and said that such an attitude was exactly why the racial injustices were allowed to continue. Of those who sat on the sidelines and preached patience, King wrote the following:

“I have reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice, who prefers a negative peace, which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.”

What King was saying then, still resonates today, that in matters of equality and social justice, there can be no fence sitters. To step aside and to not act is to reinforce the unjust status quo.

I would hope that on this Martin Luther King, Jr. day that both African Americans and White Americans would take time to reflect on the ugliness of our racist past, not so whites can feel shame and guilt and African Americans can feel anger and disgust, but so we can learn from, and hopefully not repeat, the same actions today. When I listen to how the immigration debate is framed, or why the Dream Act has not been passed, or how my fellow citizens treat Muslim-American with disgust and suspicion, I fear we have not learned from the past. The actions, words and rationalizations for our anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim attitudes are hauntingly similar to the actions, words and rationalizations used to deny basic civil rights to African Americans 60 years ago.

Leonard Pitts, Jr. asks his fellow African-Americans to remember their past and teach it to the next generation. I would ask White Americans to do the same. Just as a doctor can not provide a healing solution without uncovering the underlying disease, so too we can never reach King’s dream of racial justice and reconciliation without continually coming to grips with the racist past that brought us to this moment, and hinder our efforts to overcome the racial brokenness that afflicts us.

*** For those in the Philadelphia area, one place one might start to come to grips with that past is the Lest We Forget Black Holocaust Museum of Slavery in the Port Richmond section of the city. This private museum was put together by the descendants of former slaves and graphically illustrates what slavery, Jim Crow and institutional racism was and still is, and how history lives on in our interactions today as whites and people of color. I have taken several student groups there, and it has had a powerful effect on everyone.

Blowin in the Wind

2011-01-09T21:14:00.001-05:00

Many people who came of age in the 1960’s remember the Bob Dylan song, “Blowin in the Wind,” which asked a series of questions that probed the ethos of that age. Today as I read of the shooting deaths of nine people in Tucson, AZ and the serious injury to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the words of the third verse of that song seemed particularly pertinent:

How many times must a man look up, before he can see the sky?

How many ears must one man have,

before he can hear people cry?

How many deaths will it take till he knows

that too many people have died?

The answer my friend is blowin in the wind;

the answer is blowin in the wind.

Not a day goes when we don’t hear of another senseless death due to proliferation of guns. Tragically and ironically, one of the people killed in the Tucson murders was U.S. District Judge John Roll, who had recently ruled against more stringent background checks on gun purchasers. The man who committed these latest murders had put up YouTube videos indicating his mental and emotional imbalance, and his disgust for politicians. Rep Giffords herself had boasted during last fall’s campaign that she packed a gun and knew how to use it. Ironically, the same model gun was used to shoot her in the head. While our government spends billions of dollars to protect us from outside terrorists, and more billions to keep out immigrants, it is the people who we pass on the street or the mall everyday who represent the greatest threat to our safety.

Not long ago, a friend of mine had a gun pulled on her at a gas station because a woman thought she my friend had cut her off. Fortunately, no one was hurt, but it was yet another example of the danger we face from total strangers, or in some case neighbors, and even loved ones wielding guns in a moment of rage or at the end of their emotional rope.

Now I am sure the pro-gun lobby and the NRA are spinning their tired response that it is not guns that kill people but people who kill people. However, as this and every other senseless killing indicates, it is people with guns that kill people. Therefore we must have laws and policies that carefully and regularly monitors those have been granted the right carry a gun. The U.S. is the only developed country in the world that allows such lax laws when it comes to the management and control of firearms. As Bob Dylan asks: How many deaths will it take till we know that too many people have died, and that one way to address that question is to put common sense controls and background checks on those people who desire to own and use guns, especially guns designed solely for killing people.

The answer my friends is blowin in the wind, but it need not. The answer is right there is front of us, if we pressure our legislators to require stronger background checks on all gun purchases, and that we regularly monitor those who have been granted the right to carry a handgun (whose only purpose is to shoot people), and to determine if they have a legitimate need for such a firearm.

How many tears must be shed, before we can hear people’s cries? How many deaths will it take till we know that too many people died? How many Columbines, Virginia Techs and Tucsons will it take. The answer is there…. if we only bother to listen.

One Solitary Life

2010-12-21T18:02:00.001-05:00

As we celebrate Christmas, I want to share a Christmas poem that always seems to speak to me about the power of the life and message of Jesus. Merry Christmas

ONE SOLITARY LIFE

He was born in an obscure village
The child of a peasant woman
He grew up in another obscure village
Where he worked in a carpenter shop
Until he was thirty

He never wrote a book
He never held an office
He never went to college
He never visited a big city
He never travelled more than two hundred miles
From the place where he was born
He did none of the things
Usually associated with greatness
He had no credentials but himself

He was only thirty three

His friends ran away
One of them denied him
He was turned over to his enemies
And went through the mockery of a trial
He was nailed to a cross between two thieves
While dying, his executioners gambled for his clothing
The only property he had on earth

When he was dead
He was laid in a borrowed grave
Through the pity of a friend

Nineteen centuries have come and gone
And today Jesus is the central figure of the human race
And the leader of mankind's progress
All the armies that have ever marched
All the navies that have ever sailed
All the parliaments that have ever sat
All the kings that ever reigned put together
Have not affected the life of mankind on earth
As powerfully as that one solitary life

Dr James Allan © 1926.

The Honor, Privilege and Joy of Teaching

2010-12-16T21:29:00.000-05:00

Two days ago (Dec 14), my semester of teaching officially ended when I turned in the grades for my fall classes. I am sure there are varying degrees of joy and sadness among my students for the grades earned. However, for me the evaluating of final projects and determining the grades for my students is not only an evaluation of them, but also a time when I evaluate myself as a teacher.

When I was in my doctoral program, I had a professor who shared his philosophy of teaching, which I have since adopted for myself. At the beginning of the course, like my former prof, I always say: Here is my philosophy of teaching. I set high standards for your work and learning; my job as a teacher is to help you reach those standards. So when a course is completed, I find myself asking how well did I do in part in the teacher-learner exchange? How well did I motivate my students to learn? How well did I provide them the opportunities to grow not only in the subject area, but also as persons who think critically and creatively, and care deeply about the suffering in the world? Did they leave my class better informed, and were they stretched and challenged in appropriate ways? Where did I fail them? Where could I have communicated more clearly? Most importantly, were they able to come away from my course have gained what they needed to gain, and learn what they wanted to learn?

When I tell people I am a college professor, the next question is usually “What do you teach?” I always stumble over that question, because the real question for me is not what I teach but who . When I start a class I want to know: who are these men and women sitting before? What experiences, skills, and areas of knowledge do they bring? What do they need and want to learn in my class? How can we together create a learning community that enables all of us to achieve our goals? While I wonder about them, I also wonder about myself; I wonder: what do I need from them, and how will they teach me and stretch me? You see, for me teaching is really about a relationship, a mutually beneficial relationship through which knowledge and understanding in mediated. At the end of each class, I find that I have grown; have been stretched and challenged; and have had my mind opened to new ideas and new visions of what could be.

Because teaching is so personal and relational for me, I always go through a period of grieving at the end of a semester. That is where I am now. I am grieving the things I didn’t do that I should have done to enrich the learning experience. I am grieving those students who did not seem to grasp or appreciate the material, and wondering if and how I let them down. I am grieving the loss of those brilliant students whose ideas and zeal for learning made me feel like the best teacher ever. Most importantly, am grieving the fact that I will not again have this special opportunity with this particular group of people. Now granted, I will have some of the same students in another class, but each course, and each group of students is special; and I grieve that I will not have that experience with that group again.

I am fortunate these days to teach graduate students, who are highly motivated, incredibly intelligent, wildly creative, genuinely compassionate, and intensely committed to social justice. There is hardly a week that goes by that I don’t tell someone how fortunate I am to teach the students I have. However, I have also taught students at the undergraduate and associate level, and have even mentored fellow faculty. Certainly, there are students and groups that frustrate me, push me to my limits, and keep me humble. However, with most groups of students I feel profoundly grateful for having had the opportunity to enter their lives and interact with them in ways that challenge and transform both them and me.

So tonight as I reflect on another semester that has ended, I feel some sadness of what has just past and will not come again, but I also am grateful for having a job that gives me such a profound sense of meaning and joy. I am honored, blessed and privileged to have people who call me their teacher.

Mad as Hell at Plutocracy

2010-12-04T12:56:00.000-05:00

At different times in this blog, I have referred to the US government as a plutocracy (rule by the wealthy) rather a democracy (rule by the people). Exhibit A of this reality is the current debate in Congress over whether or not to extend the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans (those earning over $250,000) while also haggling as to whether or not to continue unemployment benefits to the long term unemployed. On the one hand proponents of extending the cuts say we must continue the tax cuts (thus foregoing something like $70 billion in potential revenue), while on the other hand they are saying the government cannot afford to continue to support the unemployed. The audacity of this position is so outrageous that Warren Buffett, one of the wealthiest men in the world, and a group from Boston called Wealth for the Common Good have called for the tax cuts to be allowed to expire on December 31, 2010. Even these 400 wealthy Americans are saying the Republicans’ position on these issues is out of bounds!

The efforts of Buffett and his wealthy colleagues aside, this current Congressional debate illustrates how far we have strayed from what Abraham Lincoln referred to as a government “for the people, by the people and of the people.” However, this is not a new problem. When the U.S. Constitution was originally ratified in 1787, only white men who owned land were allowed to vote. From the beginning, our country has operated on the principle that the wealthy would rule on behalf of the masses, a kind of benevolent oligarchy. Over time the right to vote was extended to all white men, then men of color, (14^th Amendment, 1868) and then eventually women (19^th Amendment, 1920). Even so the original notion that governing was for the few and not the many has persisted throughout US history. So it is no wonder that today only those with great personal wealth (e.g. Meg Whitman, Ross Perot, Mitt Romney) or those with access to money (everyone else who can find a lobby or a PAC or special interest to finance them), can afford to run for election.

What is the effect of this trend toward plutocracy? The greatest inequity between the haves and the have-nots in the last 30 years. According to Nicholas Kristof in 1976 the wealthiest one percent of Americans earned 9 percent of the nation’s income; today that number is 24%. In 1980 the CEOs of America’s largest companies earned 42 times the average worker; today that ration is 531 to 1 – an increase of over 1200 percent! Moreover, the incomes of the highest earners in the U.S. (those earning over $50 million a year) increased fivefold between 2008 and 2009 in the height of the recession.

This increasing disparity has not come by accident. Two noted political scientists, Jacob Hacker of Yale, and Paul Pierson of Cal-Berkley, have studied this trend and documented their findings in a new book, Winner Take All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer – and Turned Its back on the Middle Class. Contrary to popular belief, these scholars have concluded that this increasing disparity between the haves and have-nots is not primarily a result of either technology or globalization, but rather due to a pattern of U.S. government policy changes that have continually favored the wealthiest 5-10% of the population.

So for instance, earlier this year The Supreme Court ruled in the “Citizens United"case that the government can not place any limits on the amount of money corporations can give to political campaigns. In 2009 when the Health Care Reform bill was being debated, according to Open Secret.org, the health care lobby spent a combined $545 million is influencing legislation – the highest in its history. And now we find the Congress embroiled in a debate that appears to pit the tax cuts for the wealthy against benefits for the unemployed. According to Hacker and Pierson such a pattern is not something that has just occurred in the last year, but has increasingly developed over the last 30 years (if you do the math that means since Ronald Reagan became president and shifted the tide in that direction).

As much as I appreciate the beneficence of people like Warren Buffett, and the philanthropy of wealthy Americans like Bill Gates, I don’t think the policy change will come from the top. The rich will not have a massive conversion to equity economics. Don’t get me wrong, I am not bashing wealthy Americans; I come from that stock and literally some of my friends and family are in this group. However, as Frederick Douglass said over 150 years ago “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will” (1857). Change will only happen when folks get together and demand a redistribution of the wealth: the poor, the working class, the unemployed, the white, the black, the Hispanic, the Asian, the native American – all those who have been shortchanged in the process of wealth redistribution over the last 30 years.

I was fortunate to have come of age during the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam War. I participated in the Clamshell Alliance that stopped the construction of an additional nuclear power plan in Seabrook, New Hampshire. I have participated in many other actions since those early days with more modest success. I have seen what can happen when people get organized, get focused and get busy demanding that justice be done. I am not sure where or how such a movement will emerge, but there are rumblings all over the place. I felt that rumbling in a big way at the U.S. Social Forum last summer in Detroit, where 15,000 activists gathered to envision a more democratic future.

I am reminded of the famous line from the 1976 movie Network, where newscaster Howard Beale urged his listeners to go to their windows and shout: I AM MAD AS HELL AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANY MORE !” Plutocracy must go, true democracy, a democracy of the grassroots, must come. Folks must get together and demand equity and justice for all. This cruel foolishness must end before the whole system collapses, and more suffer than already are.

Thanksgiving

2010-11-23T14:20:00.000-05:00

Several years ago I started a personal Thanksgiving tradition that I have continued for all the years since. It had been a particularly stressful year, and I was reading Paul's letter to the Philippians where he wrote these words

Do not be anxious about anything but in everything by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving,
present your requests to God... whatever is true,
                                                whatever is noble,
                                                whatever is right,
                                                whatever is pure,
                                                whatever is lovely,
                                                whatever is admirable
                                                 if anything is excellent or worthy of praise,
                                                 think about such things. (Philippians 4. 6, 8)
After reading those words, I just started listing all the things from the previous year that I had to be thankful for, that in some way met the criteria that Paul outlined in his letter. When I got done I had three pages, two columns filled with names, events, and other things in my life that I was thankful for.

Since then, every Thanksgiving I continued this practice, and each year, I amazed at all have to put on my list, regardless if in my mind it was "good" year, or a "bad" year. So I have learned that there are many blessings.

So take time to give thanks - you may be surprised how much will be on your list!

Sacrifice

2010-11-19T07:00:00.001-05:00

This past week Staff Sgt. Salvatore Giunta received the Medal of Honor, the military’s highest honor for bravery and self-sacrifice. When his unit in the Afghan mountains came under enemy attack, Sgt. Giunta ran into the face of enemy fire to save his fellow soldiers; he not only saved his comrades but lived to tell of it. Regardless of what one thinks of the war, Sgt. Giunta’s courageous and self-sacrifical actions are worthy of the honor he received. Most Medals of Honor are awarded post-humously, so the fact that he lived to received it in person is nothing short of miraculous.

Understandably Sgt. Giunta has received a lot of press leading up to his receipt of this honor. However, it is not only Sgt. Giunta who has made sacrifices. Politicians and media personalities regularly note the sacrifice that the men and women of the military, as well as their families, make (as the phrase goes) “to preserve our freedom” as Americans. In this blog I have regularly questioned whether or not that sacrifice is misdirected; but questions about the war aside, there is no doubt that these young men and women make a tremendous sacrifice in the work they do.

So it is all the more troubling to me that the spirit of sacrifice that is so highly honored in our military personnel seems to get lost when we look on the domestic front. Many people in our nation are going through difficult times. People are losing their homes, 50 million people have no health coverage, and 9-17% of Americans (depending on how you count) are out of work; times are hard for many. Yet when it comes to those of us who are doing relatively well to make sacrifices on behalf of those who are not, we pull back.

Republicans campaigned and won on a platform that included a commitment to repeal the recent health care reform bill. Just this week Republicans blocked an attempt to extend unemployment benefits to the long term unemployed. In my own state of Pennsylvania, the new Republican governor has vowed to cut back on social services. Across the country rural and urban school districts are vastly under-funded compared to their suburban counterparts. Yet, fiscal conservatives are vowing to allow the tax cuts to wealthiest Americans (those who make over $250,000 per/year) to remain in place, all the while saying the decisions to make cuts in the area of human services need to be done because we can’t afford them. We can “afford” to give corporations and wealthy people tax loopholes and tax breaks, but we can’t provide health care, or unemployment benefits? What’s wrong with this picture?

Where is the praise for the spirit of sacrifice now?

Years ago I wrote a song, which had this line:

“The people outside say they gotta have, but no one wants to give.”

It seems that line has come true in 2010.

As I have watched friends and loved ones struggle to find a job, or get by without health care; and as I have advocated for equitable schools, and walked in neighborhoods where nearly 50% of the able bodied and willing workers can’t find jobs, I am appalled at the selfishness of our middle and upper middle class populace. I am one of them. Do I want to pay higher taxes; of course not, but I will if it helps someone else. Do I want some of my services redistributed to others? If it means all will be a little better off, then why not?

I grew up in the generation who was inspired by the words of John F. Kennedy who said: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country.” Kennedy called us to service and sacrifice for others. Out of his efforts came the Peace Corps and VISTA programs. As a people we need to hear and respond to those words again by a willingness to take on a spirit of sacrifice on behalf of others in our midst.

Times are hard – yes they are, but a spirit of sacrifice among those of us who have enough could go a long way toward making life less difficult for the millions in need all around us.

Howard Thurman, Ronald Takaki and the 2010 Elections

2010-11-05T09:57:00.000-05:00

Like many people I have been pondering the meaning of Tuesday’s election results. It so happened that during the final stages of this election season, I was reading Howard Thurman’s The Luminous Darkness: A Personal Interpretation of the Anatomy of Segregation and the Ground of Hope. I also was reading the reflections of students to Ronald Takaki’s A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America. Both of these books provide me a unique lens through which to look at the supposed dramatic political turn that took place last Tuesday.

Howard Thurman came of age in the segregated South in Daytona, Florida. While he wrote The Luminous Darkness in 1965, his reflections reach back decades earlier to his childhood. He came to realize that in the eyes of whites in his community he was regarded as a non-being, whose thoughts, needs and desires were only important to the extent that they affected the white community. So, early on in life he developed a hatred for white people even though he and his whole family were devout Baptists. He came to regard whites as existing outside of his moral universe, so that his Christian ethic of love did not apply to whites. Likewise, he recognized that to the whites across town, he and his people were also beyond their Christian ethic, and so well meaning, supposedly ethical people carried on without regarding the needs, fears or being-ness of the other. The large difference between whites and blacks during segregation was that anytime whites wanted to exercise their power over against the black community, culture and law allowed them to do so freely. So for instance, most black children in Daytona never went to school beyond the 7^th grade because the white power structure decided no more school beyond 7^th grade was needed for blacks. Thurman himself was forced to leave home at an early age in order to go to high school as there were only 2-3 black high schools in the entire state of Florida.

Ronald Takaki wrote A Different Mirror in 1992 and then revised it in 2008. He meticulously recounts the histories of non-European ethnic groups who either resided in North America or immigrated to the United States. His history records the oppression, violence and indignities that these groups experienced at the hands of the European colonizers. Starting with the near genocide of Native Americans and the enslavement of Africans, he goes on to talk about the histories of the Irish, Russian Jews, Chinese, Japanese and Mexicans. In every case, exploitation of these groups was justified for economic reasons, and blessed by the Church with a sense of Divine Providence and Manifest Destiny. What comes thru Takaki’s history is that the United States achieved its current greatness by treating and regarding many people groups as subhuman. This country would not have achieved its economic strength were it not for the free labor of the African slaves, the annexation of Mexican territory, the appropriation of Native American sacred lands, and the exploitation of Irish, Chinese and Japanese labor. Takaki does not recount this history with an ax to grind, but rather to bring to light the fact that the American story is a multicultural, multiethnic story, and not simply the story of enlightened Europeans claiming a new land. He concludes his book by asking whether we will continue to resist and deny our multicultural heritage, or will we move into the future embracing the multicultural society that we are. While at one level we are aware of this history and these questions, Takaki brings them front and center in a well-researched compelling narrative.

So what do Thurman and Takaki have to do with the election?

The rallying cry of many of the conservatives, who won election last Tuesday, was to “take America back.” People are worried about jobs, taxes, and the threat of terrorists. Simultaneous to the election was a vitriolic debate as to whether Muslims should build n cultural center a few blocks from Ground Zero in New York City. Furthermore, President Obama introduced an immigration reform bill that responded to the ongoing debate about Arizona’s restrictive immigration law. Moreover, the current economic recession has pushed more people into poverty than has been seen in decades. As this election proceeded the people under question were treated as non-beings: Muslims, undocumented immigrants, children of immigrants denied citizenship though raised in this country, and the people living near or below the poverty line. Their needs and concerns did not get any notice or play; they did not matter. Furthermore, these groups of people are not part of the America that conservatives are “taking back” and yet they ARE part of the American fabric. The Conservatives and Tea Party-ers placed a strong emphasis on personal freedom, but little to no words about community and living together amongst our differences. Thurman’s words about how blacks in the segregated South were regarded could easily apply to the current attitude of many Americans toward Muslims, immigrants and the poor. Yet these folks are here, they are part of us, and yet we think and act with no regard to their presence; and we do so to our own moral degradation and spiritual demise.

The United States of the next decades will be increasingly multicultural. By 2040 demographers expect that Hispanics will make up nearly 30% of the US population, and whites will be less than 50%. Nearly every people group on the globe in some way finds representation in our nation. The United States of 2010 is not the European-based nation that was founded in 1787. We are a collection of many voices, languages, cultures and perspectives. To try and ignore that or overpower that with rhetoric of “taking America back” is to piss into the wind; it will only come back on us.

In many ways the hope that inspired Barack Obama’s election two years ago was an attempt to embrace this multicultural future. Tuesday’s election in many ways was a step back from that embrace. I suspect that this back and forth will continue for decades to come, as we come to grips with the inevitable change in our national identity.

We can not treat vast numbers of people as non-beings forever. Muslims are part of the American fabric and must be given the same respect as any other religious group, no matter how threatening some radical elements of their religion are? (And remember Timothy McVeigh and David Koresh espoused forms of Christianity; do we deny Christians rights because of them?).

The thousands of people seeking to cross our borders despite walls, dogs, and border patrols reflect horrendous living conditions in their home communities, in large part created by the abuse of U.S. business in their home countries. We can call these immigrants “illegal” but the border is an arbitrary line we have allowed corporations to cross without taking responsibility for the impact of their actions. While we may not be able to absorb all who want to come here, we can not ignore the reasons they leave their homes. It is not that the US is so welcoming, but because the conditions at home are so unlivable.

Finally, the political rhetoric has got to incorporate the millions of people in this country who are living on the edge of existence. We complain about 9.7% unemployment, but I know communities in Philadelphia where the figure is over 50%. Urban and rural public schools are under-funded and thus turning out a generation of children who can not function effectively as U.S. citizens. With few other options many of these young people turn to the underground economy, which often includes drugs and violence. While residents of suburban areas may not want their taxes to go up, just a few miles from their homes are people who are going hungry, living without heat in the winter, and seeking just to survive. Despite our denials, such people can not remain outside our moral universe of concern forever, and so at some point they must show up on our political radar screen.

Howard Thurman and Ronald Takaki remind us that to deny people groups’ full participation in the American community is to do so at our own peril. The America that was is not the America that is, and certainly not the America that will be. For many middle and upper class whites in this country that is a frightening thought, but it need not be. The beauty of the American story is that despite our resistance to include the “other” we have continually done so. What we can learn from history is that such inclusion strengthens and enriches us, rather than depletes us.

Not long ago I wrote in my journal: “I envision a society and a world, where my wealth does not come at the expense of the poor and my race does not give me privilege, where I can just be ‘people’ with others.” I continue to do what I can to bring these issues to light, not because I am some bleeding heart liberal, but because I am convinced that we can do better as a nation, and that we can live up to our nation’s founding principles that all people are endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that no person should be denied the basic dignities granted to us as human beings created by a gracious God.

Some Midterm Election Thoughts

2010-10-28T19:28:00.000-05:00

Like many people I will be glad when next Tuesday, November 2 comes just so I won’t have to watch all the annoying, disinforming political ads and won’t be getting the robo-calls for this or that candidate. However, as we come to these midterm elections I do have a few random thoughts.

The anti-Washington Rhetoric

Have you noticed how many candidates are “campaigning against Washington?” It strikes me as very strange that there are so many people working so hard to get to a place they are so critical of. In this scenario Republicans have the edge, but if Washington is such a terrible place, why are they spending so much time, energy and money to get there? I realize that this is just a marketing strategy, but the people who advise candidates need to get more creative. I am sure there is a significant percentage of voters who will go along with the anti-Washington rhetoric, but really candidates, could you please come up with some sort of clear idea of what you will do when you go to Washington because 2 or 4 or 6 years from now, someone will be calling you a "Washington insider."

The Myth of the Political “Race”

Nearly every night for the last 3 months or more, we have been hearing about how the respective candidates are doing in their “race’ against each other. Emails tout that one is pulling ahead or closing the gap. If I didn’t know any better, one would think that the candidates were involved in some sort of cross-country marathon. The fact is on November 2, we show up, we vote, the count is taken and the winner is announced. It’s a singular event in a singular day, not a marathon (except for those of us listening to the reports).

The myth of “the race” is created by the media to bring drama to an otherwise singular event. It keeps them from using their news time to actually give us information on the candidates’ experience, their past actions and their stated positions. Instead of giving us information that can help us evaluate the ads that barrage us, they report on the ads themselves – how nasty they were and how much they cost. They run endless polls trying to determine who is voting, and what they are finding is that a huge percentage don’t know or aren’t telling. When they day comes, they will vote.

There is no “race” – that’s another media create illusion. Instead of getting us caught up in a mythical drama, how about taking time each night to share the fruits of an analysis and investigation of where candidates stand, and what they have done in the past; the drama will be in informed voters voting intelligently rather than emotionally.

My Thoughts on the Democrats

The other evening I received a call from the Democratic party (not for my specific candidate) but the party as a whole. Two years ago I gave money to Obama’s campaign and they wanted to know if I could help them out again. When I declined, the caller asked “Is it for political reasons?” and I replied “No, I am still voting Democrat.” The call quickly ended, but afterwards I wish I had said more.

This is what I wished I had said (and will, if some poor unsuspecting volunteer from the DNC calls me again.).

“I am voting Democrat not because I am so enamored with the Democratic party; in fact I am profoundly disappointed. With a 60% majority in the Senate, a significant majority in the House, and a President with progressive ideas, the Democrats blew it. They could not pass a Health Care bill that really provided coverage for the most vulnerable; could not bring significant reform to the way Wall Street operates; wimped out when the President proposed to raise taxes on the wealthy Americans; and got us more deeply entrenched in a pointless, unwinnaable war in Afgahnistan. They were as easily persuaded my lobbyists’ money as their Republican counterparts, and when it came time to push thru some important legislation, time and time again, they had no spine. Many blame Obama for the sluggish economy, but I blame the bank and corporate executives who were able to get bail out money and gave themselves bonuses, while holding back on hiring folks and foreclosing homes; I blame the lobbyists from the insurance, bank and financial institutions who poured record numbers of dollars into the pockets of leaders on both sides of the aisle, so that they would shout and holler and do nothing to change the system as it is; and I blame the Democrats in Congress who did not back Obama when he tried to stand up to them. When Obama’s party needed him, they wimped out. They aren’t a party with any clear agenda or principles, they are simply a fund-raising machine.

“Now you, DNC, call me asking for money with all sorts of scary scenarios about what the Republicans will do. I am sincerely concerned about the polarity amongst our political leaders. I am concerned about the “take back America” language coming from political conservatives; that can only mean even worse times for the poor, the immigrant, the person of color, and the marginalized in our society. I am concerned about the mean-spirit I hear in the Tea Party rhetoric of God, guns and patriotism. Yes, I am scared, so I will vote.

“But give you money, so you can put attack ads that distort the record and do nothing to inform the public of what a candidate actually said, did or believes? Not going to happen.

“Go and make some significant campaign finance reform. Reverse the Supreme Court decision that made it possible for corporations to give as much in campaign contributions as they want, with no stipulations. Take the money you are raising to improve inner city schools, or provide housing for people losing their homes or making health care accessible to all or putting real gun-control legislation in place; instead of those annoying adsa. But to support the kind of disinforming drivel that I have been watching for that last several months?

No, I don’t think so – so have a nice day.”

Real Democracy

I have long ago taken a cynical perspective on electoral politics (I know its not that obvious!), but I still believe in democracy; not the game that goes on in Washington, but real people getting together at the grassroots community level to make decisions about the health and welfare of their community. As I have said before what goes on in “the halls of government” is not democracy, but plutocracy (the rule of the rich). In order to get and stay elected a person must have or have access to a lot of money. A man or woman with leadership abilities and great ideas, but no money, is unelectable. However, at the grassroots level people can come together to make a difference.

When I was living in southern Minnesota in the late 1980’s I participated in the caucus system where residents came together to discuss issues and vote for the primary candidate of their choice. Then representatives of that local group went to the regional meeting which did the same thing, and then went on to the state. Those meetings were filled with impassioned, substantive political debate and while we did not always get our way, we were informed and our voice was heard

I have worked with a church in West Philadelphia that helped organize its community and got the city to board up or tear down dozens of abandoned buildings, and is now in the process of negotiating to get affordable housing for the people of that community. When a young man was beaten up by police officer, they called the residents together and had the police and city come and hear their concerns. I have also sat with residents at a local high school debating and discussing what they want for their kids and how they want their school to be run; again this was meaningful, substantive democracy in action.

Regardless of what happens on November 2, the real democratic process will continue, and we will tolerate the games that go on among the plutocrats who like to think of themselves our leaders. I still believe in Barack Obama and his agenda. I share his community organizing spirit, but he needs help; so in the mean time I will put my energies into real democracy at the grassroots level.

White Anti-Racist Heroes

2010-10-10T15:49:00.000-05:00

Every fall semester, I teach a course entitled “Race and Ethnic Relations.” A major component of the course is studying the history of racism and ethnic discrimination beginning in medieval Europe to the present day, and examining how that history can both help us understand the current status of race and ethnic relations in North America, and then guide us in our exploration of the way forward toward a multi-cultural society where all racial/ethnic groups have an equally accepted and authentic voices. As the history of racism is reviewed, most white students and some students of color are not only shocked by the intentional oppression of African, Native Americans, Hispanics, Asians and other peoples of color, but also deeply distressed by the active complicity of Christian leaders in that oppression. Usually my white students are left with overwhelming feelings of guilt, despair and powerlessness in the face of the horrific historical facts.

A few weeks ago the class, which is primarily comprised of white and African-American students, came to that point of despair. The African American students have many heroes and heroines of the Civil Rights Movement after whom they can model their activism; figures such as Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, Septima Clark, Bernice Robinson, Rosa Parks and many more come to mind. However, the white students feel like they have no such models in their attempts to develop an anti-racist lifestyle. At that point I exhorted them to find white anti-racist heroes after whom they can model their lives. While the sacrifices of white anti-racists are great, they in no way approach the sacrifice of those people of color who challenged the white establishment. Even so white anti-racists models from the past can point the way forward whites who want to work alongside their counterparts in building a society free of racism.

What follows is my brief list of the anti-racist heroes who have served as an inspiration and guide for me as I work to contribute to the building of the Beloved (multiracial ) Community that Martin Luther King spoke about 50 years ago. May the examples of these folks serve to inform all whites that they too have anti-racist ancestry upon which they can draw.

Some White Anti-Racists from U.S. History

William Wilberforce – Member of British parliament whose tireless efforts eventually led to the abolition of the slave trade in England.

Elijah Lovejoy – abolitionist journalist killed in Alton, IL for his anti-slavery views.

Thaddeus Stevens –Congressman from Pennsylvania during the pre-Civil War era who argued tirelessly for the abolition of slavery.

John Woolman – Quaker farmer who in the 1700’s personally convinced 100’s of Quaker slave-owners to renounce slavery and set their slaves free. By 1787 when the United States became a nation, hardly any Quakers owned slaves thanks to John Woolman.

Levi Coffman – Quaker abolitionist in Ohio who supported the Underground Railroad.

John Rankin – Presbyterian minister in Ripley, Ohio who safely ushered hundreds of runaway slaves to freedom.

John Brown – avid abolitionist who sought to ignite a slave rebellion thru his raid on the US Arsenal at Harper’s Ferry.

AJ Muste, - labor organizer who was also active in the U.S. Civil Rights movement.

Myles Horton – founder of Highlander Research and Education Center in Tennessee, which was a meeting place for black and white civil rights workers in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

Clarence Jordan- founder of Koinonia, an intentional multi-racial community established in the 1940’s in South Georgia.

Jimmy Carter –former US President and tireless Civil Rights advocate.

Will Campbell – Southern writer, minister and activist who actively sought to befriend members of the KKK to change their minds and attitudes.

Alice and Sarah Grimke – early suffragettes and abolitionists in the pre and post Civil War era.

Susan B. Anthony – early advocate for both women’s and African-American rights.

Charles Finney – Baptist evangelist in the 1800’s whose evangelistic message always included a call to fight slavery; the founder of Oberlin College.

Dorothy Day – Co-founder of the Catholic Worker and advocate for the poor and oppressed.

Curtiss DeYoung – evangelical pastor/writer who has tirelessly advocated for racial reconciliation.

Chris Rice – long time member of Voice of Calvary (now at Duke University) who along with Spencer Perkins (until his death) lived in intentional inter-racial community and writes extensively on racial reconciliation.

May this list guide and inspire other white anti-racist to actively live into the hope and promise of a society where racism is not tolerated and diversity of all kinds is embraced.

Perhaps you who read my “hall of heroes” can add to the list.

Will the Elders Please Step Up

2010-10-03T18:36:00.000-05:00

This past week as part of the Urban Studies residency I had the opportunity to spend an intense week with a group of talented, highly motivated graduate students preparing to work in urban communities across North America. However, my most impressive encounter was not with a student but with a grandmother in West Philadelphia who spoke to some of my students about her ministry with young people in her community. This woman, who I will call Clara, moved into the neighborhood from her suburban home and decided that instead living in fear of the young people on her block, she would open her home to her grandson and his friends to teach them some basic life skills such as cooking and maintaining a home. Every week she repeats the act with a widening group of teenagers.

She sees her effort as a contribution to the quality of life in her neighborhood. On that same day my students (who were walking the neighborhood looking for positive signs of God’s activity in the community) met three other senior citizens who likewise had decided to reach out to the young people on their block. They also heard from a 51 year old father who every Friday night brings together 20 adolescents just to talk about the struggles in their lives. What we saw were elders who decided that instead of complaining about young people, they would step up to offer their services as elders, mentors and caregivers.

Contrast this with efforts by many elders to put distance from themselves and the younger generation. Not far from my suburban home, there is a gated community for people 55 and older; the homes start in the $350,000 and no children are allowed to reside in the community. Senior living communities dot the area. In this same area there is a taxpayer group again made up of the community’s older citizens who fight every effort by the school board to raise revenue for the schools, even though our district has the lowest tax rate in the county. So I find it quite striking that Clara and the others I met this week decided to open their lives to young people rather than shut them out. No doubt there are seniors like Clara in my community and elsewhere who reach out to young people in their own way, but unfortunately there are far too few.

While it is easy for those of us who are older to shake our heads at the lack of care and concern in the younger generation, what is needed is for many of us to step out like Clara and open their lives and their homes to them. We talk about the aimlessness of kids, but are we willing to serve as mentors, guides and friends to these young folks whose lives may be shattered? When parents can’t or won’t serve that role, where are the elders who are willing to step in and love kids in spite of their faults, attitudes and craziness?

Thank you Clara, for reminding all of us, that it is never too late, nor are we ever too old, to provide young folks with the guidance and love they so desperately crave.

The Don't Ask, Don't Tell Party

2010-09-23T20:16:00.001-05:00

The Republicans announced that sometime soon they will come out with their legislative agenda for the coming legislative term. I, along with a lot of other people, have come to refer to the Republicans as the “Party of NO” because up to now their strategy has been to filibuster and block any legislation, great or small, that is proposed by the Obama administration. If the president is for it, they’re “agin it.” Their most recent victories were to block debate on the Dream Act (a bill that would legalize children of undocumented immigrants who were brought to this country at a young age and have spent virtually their whole life in the US), and the army’s policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" (which would allow gays and lesbians in the military to be open about their sexuality and still serve in the military). Now granted both bills were tacked on to a military expenditure bill, which unfortunately was the only way proponents thought they could get debates on these issues. However, it is dreadfully sad that two bills deserving a hearing were denied even the possibility of debate.

Based on these latest ploys I have changed my designation of the Republicans from “The Party of No” to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Party” because their agenda and strategy has been to engage in a high level politics of denial. The reality of undocumented immigrant children and gays and lesbians serving in the military are NOT the figments of someone’s imagination, they are real people undergoing real suffering because of our legislators’ inability and unwillingness to face and deal with that reality. Apparently Republicans (and some Democrats) believe that as long as they don’t ask about some of the grave issues facing people in our nation, they won’t have to do anything about those issues. They are not only “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” on the gays and children of immigrants, but on a whole host of other issues as well.

They are “don’t ask, don’t tell” on health care, as they want to repeal the health care reform bill that was passed a year ago. Just don’t tell them that the 40,000 uninsured Americans that existed when the bill has passed has now reportedly risen to 50,000. They scream about Medicare and higher health care premiums for a relative few, while 50,000 people go with no health insurance at all. They aren’t asking and don’t want you tell them.

They are “don’t ask don’t tell” when it comes immigration. Don’t ask them to seriously consider why people are coming over the border because they might have to look at U.S. corporations that are exploiting the workers south of the border. Don’t’ ask the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who up until recently were for immigration reform because they saw the undocumented workers as a ready supply of cheap labor. Don’t ask them to compute how much money working immigrants give back to this country in terms of taxes and social security , the benefits of which they will not receive. They don’t want to face those facts. They aren’t asking and don’t want you tell them.

They are "don’t ask don’t tell" on climate change. Some don’t even think there is such a thing as global warming. So don’t’ ask them to look at the scientific data on the effects of global warming and the need for a radical reversal of our use of oil based products and coal based fuel to feed our carbon rich lifestyles. They don’t ask why oil companies get government subsidies while companies trying to develop alternative green energy sources must scrape with relatively little. They don’t ask the oil companies to pay their fair share instead of going off with record profits year after year, quarter after quarter. They aren’t asking and don’t want you tell them.

They are "don’t ask, don’t tell" on taxes too. They don’t want to hear about repealing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. They scream about how it will hurt small business persons (when in fact only three percent of all small businesses fall into this category). If they really cared about people paying their fair share, they could make changes in the law for the small business people. But no, they want to protect their wealthy friends because their wealthy friends fund their campaigns. (In this too I must say Democrats are no better than Republicans).

They don’t’ ask what must be done to hold banks accountable. They don’t ask about addressing the serious problems in public education. They don’t’ ask about the terrible waste of life and resources spent in meaningless wars overseas. They don’t’ ask about REALITY, but rather choose to operate in the politics of denial.

And the truly sad thing, is that we let them get away with these lies. In some cases we even support them because it personally benefits us, and we fail to ask the bigger questions about where this politics of denial is taking us as a people and as a global community.

When I watch what goes on in the House and the Senate, I wonder if the Republicans (and some Democrats) are really that blind that they don’t see the needs around them, or are they so callous they just don’t care. I am of the mind to tell them they are both blind and callous; but then they weren’t asking me, were they.

Taking Us Back to The Real Past

2010-09-18T18:30:00.000-05:00

One of the benefits of being a university professor is that often I get to pose questions to my students that I am asking myself. Unbeknown to them my students become my counselors to my personal queries. This fall I am teaching Race and Ethnic Relations, a course in which we look at the struggles around race and ethnic discrimination, the injustices that discrimination has created, and approaches to addressing those injustices. As you can imagine it is a course that is unfortunately always relevant and tends to leave us with more questions and answers.

The first assignment is to have my students read George Fredrickson’s Racism: A Short History. In the context of reading about the historical origins of racism, I ask my students this question: In what ways should the history of racism be incorporated into our culture’s dominant historical narrative? My conviction is that history not only tells us where a people has been, but helps us understand that people’s present identity as they try to shape our future. In this country the history of racial and ethnic discrimination is a history we pay lip service to, but a history from which we have not learned some important lessons. It is not that that the history we recite in our schools and in political speeches is untrue, but rather that it is just not the whole truth.

The importance of learning from our history seems quite relevant as conservative Republican and Tea Party candidates says they want to “take back” the country. As I have shared elsewhere in this blog, that statement always makes me want to ask: Take back from whom and to what end? So for a few paragraphs I would like to look back at a few key moments to see what they might teach us about where we are today.

I would start this retelling thousands of years ago, rather on or around 1492 as we usually learn in school. I would point us to a time when groupings of indigenous peoples inhabited the land we now call North America. Many of them lived lives of basic subsistence, close to the land, and in harmony with their surroundings. Those in the fertile Northeast grew maize and other crops, while those wandering the Great Plains followed the buffalo. There were the Cherokee, a federation of tribes whose form of governance would be reflected in the U.S. Constitution. Some of these indigenous groups were peace-loving while others were war-like. They had practices that seemed barbaric to European minds, but they had also had an ability ot live in harmony with their surroundings. Only when Europeans came with their insatiable need for “growth” and "progress” did the ground go barren and species of buffalo, wolves and other wildlife begin to disappear. As today we reap the consequences of this ecological neglect, grapple with the effects of global warming, and literally see our ecosystem seek to rediscover a balance with hurricanes, floods and other “natural disasters” we could learn something from how our Native American forbears learned to revere the land as they lived on it and off it.

I would then take us back to the 1620’s when the first African slaves were brought to this country in Jamestown, VA. I would recount the brutal way in which those slaves were treated and their families were arbitrarily split up, and I would have us recall their fierce resistance to this oppression. I would point out that resistance is a sign of the human spirit that will not allow itself to be silenced. I also would point out that the tremendous economic growth in the South and the North during the early centuries of U.S. history was achieved on the backs of that free slave labor. So when employers today seek to move their operations to places where they can pay employees $8/day and avoid safety and environmental regulations, as is the case many U.S. companies operating in Mexico, and when people on both sides of the border react with violence, resist border guards and break laws seeking to restrict their free movement into this country, I would remind our leaders that slavery didn’t work then and won't work now. Moreover I would remind us of the terrible legacy of pain and injustice slavery has left us, from which we have yet to fully recover, and I would ask: Do we really want to do this to ourselves again?

Then I would tell the stories or religious minorities and how they were treated and yet persevered. I would talk about the Know Nothing Party of the mid 1800’s that preached that all Roman Catholics should be driven from this country, and which spearheaded a violent repression of East European and Irish immigrants. I would also talk about Joseph Smith’s Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (more commonly known as the Mormons), and how they were driven from communities by Christian groups in upstate New York and Illinois, and migrated west until they found a place called Utah where they could be left alone. I would talk about their tight communities with a strong emphasis on family has produced great athletes, thinkers and leaders. Then, I would remind Mormons like Glen Beck and Mitt Romney (as well as Christian and Jewish groups who themselves at one time were persecuted) that seeking to denigrate and exclude Muslims from basic freedoms today is exactly as their ancestors were once unfairly treated. Like these earlier religious groups, Muslims seek a the freedom to worship and live out their religious convictions in harmony with their neighbors, and to deny that is to repeat the injustices of the past.

So I agree, let’s take back the country. Let’s take us back to learn from the past we have hidden from ourselves and from which we refuse to learn.

Let's not go back to some mythical past that never actually existed, but rather go back to the real past, Let's learn that how we are treated the poor, the slave, the immigrant, and the religious minority was a terrible injustice then, and is equally so today. If I was to incorporate the history of racial, ethnic, and religious discrimination into our dominant historical narrative, I would also tell it in such a way that those of us who are the benefactors of these atrocities would be so ashamed of that part of our past, that we would say "never again." I would want us to continue to honor the accomplishments, but also to reflect on the failures, and learn from both.

The past of Beck, Palin and their Tea Party conservatives is a myth, and a dangerous one at that, because it only serves to blind us from the atrocities we are creating in the name of some history that never existed.

That's a past I don't want to relive - so I say let's go back so we can learn from it.

Not Learning from History: American Attitudes Toward Islam

2010-09-07T15:04:00.000-05:00

For the past several weeks, the news has been filled with the debate over whether a proposed Islamic Cultural Center (inaccurately referred repeatedly to as a mosque) should be built near Ground Zero in New York. On top of that this week Pastor Terry Jones from Gainesville, Florida has planned a well publicized “Koran-burning Ceremony” to mark the 9^th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Moreover there have been other protests around the country in Tennessee and California also protesting the building of mosques. What is so troubling in these reports is the way in which grief, fear and ignorance have been exploited for personal and political gain.

Recently, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released a report on American attitudes regarding Islam as a religion and Muslims in general. Some of the insights from the report are revealing in their political implications, and what they suggest about US citizens in general. Overall the study revealed that Americans are divided on their favorable or unfavorable views of Islam (30% favorable, 38% unfavorable, 32% don’t know). However, that is only the tip of the iceberg. Consider these other findings

- While 51% believe that the New York mosque should not be built in its proposed location (compared to 34% who say it should be allowed to be built), 62% of those polled believed that Muslims should have the same rights to build houses of worship in local communities. [Does anyone else see a contradiction in these numbers?]

- 54% of Republicans have an unfavorable view of Islam, compared to 27% of Democrats.

- The older a person is the more unfavorable that person is toward Islam.

- The less formal education a person has the more likely he is to have an unfavorable view of Islam.

While in no case do a majority of Democrats, college educated people or young adults have a favorable perspective on Islam, it is clearly evident that older, more conservative and less educated people tend to have the most unfavorable views of Islam. Additionally as the first bullet (above) indicates we profess freedom of religious expression, but don’t extend that freedom to Muslims.

However, the most telling chart came near the end of the report, where people were asked about how much they knew about Islam as a religion. Pew has asked this question several times over last decade, so the chart helped reveal how much Americans have chosen to learn over the last decade. In 2010 approximately 55% of Americans said they either knew little or nothing at all about Islam. What is striking is that in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks 61% of Americans said they knew little or nothing at all about Islam – only 5% difference.

What this tells me is that despite having been attacked by “Islamic extremists” nine years ago, we Americans have done little to understand the religion of those who attacked us. Moreover, we have not sought to understand the difference between a militant Muslim and a peace-loving adherent of the Islamic faith. To turn it around, it would be akin to not trying to understand the differences within Christianity between a Jim Jones or David Koresh on the one hand, and the Mennonites or Presbyterians on the other. I would not want my faith to be judged on the basis of militant extremists, but in fact that is exactly what we have done toward Muslims both in the US and abroad. What the Pew report makes clear is that a majority of people are reacting out of ignorance and fear, rather than understanding and a willingness to learn.

In part responsibility for this maladjustment needs to be placed at the feet of the media and certain politicians. Today I listened to an interview with Pastor Jones and wondered: Why are they even giving this whack job a hearing? Why treat him as if he is an appropriate representative of America or Christianity? Why not denounce him for the self-righteous hate-mongerer that he is? Politicians like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, and newscasters like Glen Beck and Shawn Hannity (FOX News) have used the NYC mosque debate as another way to slam Democrats and President Obama. I give credit to people like New York City Mayor Bloomberg and others for speaking out in favor of the mosque building going ahead as planned, but there are too few leaders willing to take a strong stand on principles that all Americans take for granted. This includes religious leaders.

As a Christian and an American, I am embarrassed and saddened by the current attitudes toward Muslims revealed in the report and in the news. This current scape-goating of Muslims is yet another example of the pattern of US history where Americans have repeatedly singled out certain groups of people to vent their fear and guilt in place of seeking understanding. US History is filled with examples of historical scapegoats from African slaves to Native Americans to Irish and East European Catholics to Latino farm workers to Chinese railroad workers to Japanese Americans to Jews to undocumented immigrants. What is equally sad is that some members of these previously denigrated groups now point the finger as Muslims.

Just as with slavery, the treatment of Native Americans, and the internment of Japanese- American during World War II, one day we will as a nation look back and shake our heads at our shameful behavior toward our fellow citizens who happen to practice Islam. One would hope we could learn from history, but as more than one sage has reflected, if we do not learn from the mistakes of history, we are doomed to repeat them; and so it seems we are repeating them once again.

The Anti- War Alternative in Afghanistan

2010-08-14T15:33:00.001-05:00

I was troubled and saddened to learn of the capture and murder of ten Christian medical aid workers on August 7 returning from providing eye care to rural Afghans; the Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack.

When I heard of the attack my first reaction was: I hope our leaders don’t use this as an excuse to “get tough” on the Taliban, and try to whip up support for increased military action in that country. Right now there are deliberations in Congress over whether to continue to fund the war, as President Obama has promised to do, or to begin to withdraw as a small number of Congresspersons are seeking to do. This attack just heightens the personal and political stakes of that debate.

In no way do I want to diminish the pain, grief and even anger that the friends and families of the deceased must feel. At the same time, a vengeful response would be diametrically opposed to the spirit and motivation of those who were killed. Tom Little, the eye doctor who headed up the team, had been working in Afghanistan for 30 years, which means he had been working there during the worst of the Taliban rule, and even the Russian war with Afghanistan (when ironically the US was actually supplying the Taliban with weapons that are now being turned on us!). Another victim, Glen Lapp, a Mennonite Central Committee worker on the team had been in the country over the last two years in the midst of the war. Other stories could be told of each of the victims. They died as they had lived – selflessly and sacrificially, a sign of shalom amidst death, chaos and violence.

Much has been made of the fact that they were innocent victims of this war; this is true. They were not there as combatants but as healers. Yet, they are not the only innocent victims of the war; thousands of Afghan citizens have been caught in the cross fire between NATO and Taliban troops and are simply referred to as “collateral damage.” Most experts agree that the killing of these innocent Afghans has been the Taliban’s best recruiting tool. To respond with vengeance as a way of gaining support for the war is to be no better than our enemy, and to play into their hands

I am in basic agreement with those who advocate that we must get out of this war. I did not and still do not support President Obama’s plan to increase our military presence there. I cringed during his State of the Union speech when he said we would spare no resources in support of our military efforts there. While Democrats and Republicans bicker about taxes and spending here at home, they are in basic agreement on Obama’s support of the Afghan war. Meanwhile our poverty at home increases, we bicker about health care reform, and Democrats and Republicans debate the best approach toward addressing the economic recession.

However, in my mind I hear Martin Luther King’s 1967 “Beyond Vietnam” speech in which he linked the suffering of the poor at home with the war in Vietnam; the resources we spend on war abroad only feed the poverty and devastation at home. Moreover, I think of so many in my generation directly or indirectly wounded by the Vietnam War. I worry for the twenty-somethings of today, who will be bearing the economic, social, and psychic scars of this war for decades, just as my generation lives with the after effects of the Vietnam War. Like the Vietnam War, the war in Afghanistan is un-winnable and has no redeeming purpose.

So I support the anti-war effort, and yet I don’t think we can just pull out and leave the Afghans to pick up the pieces; we have contributed to the chaos there, and have a moral obligation to do what we can to bring peace and healing to that divided nation. Brazilian educator Paulo Freire said that in calling for social and political change, people must engage in both denunciation and annunciation. Denunciation involves denouncing the status quo that needs to be changed, in this case our current military involvement in Afghanistan. Annunciation involves projecting a vision of a positive future as an alternative; that’s where I think we in the anti-war effort need to do some work. We know what we don’t want – the war – but the only alternative we offer is getting out, and leaving the Afghans in disarray.

Despite their tragic deaths, the ten aid workers represent the alternative we in the anti-war effort must present: a vision of people coming to provide assistance in quality of life. As Greg Mortenson, the author of Three Cups of Tea and Stones into Schools has shown, well meaning people can operate in war-torn places like Afghanistan if they operate in collaboration with the local people and offer resources and assistance that address the their basic needs. Tom Little, Glen Lapp, Greg Mortenson, and others represent a vision of a positive American presence in Afghanistan that could do more to bring peace to that land than all the weapons and soldiers will ever be able to accomplish.

At the end of Three Cups of Tea, Mortenson quotes a Muslim cleric who says that the enemy is not the Taliban, but rather ignorance, and that the building of schools in that country would do more to defeat the Taliban than the military intervention there. The enemy to be addressed in that poor and divided country are not the terrorist, but the poverty, the lack of health care, the lack of education, and other basic needs that serve as breeding grounds for terrorism. The vision we in the anti-war movement must cultivate is a vision of an Afghanistan that is healed and restored; a vision of empowering the Afghan people thru education, training and other basic services to rise out of their poverty and devastation. We need more not less people like those that were killed, who are willing to offer their services to those in need. If the military has a role, it is to protect and provide safe haven for those seeking help and those seeking to help.

If we truly want to end our military involvement in that war, this is the positive vision we must announce, even as we continue to denounce the war and its continuing devastation.

Is the "Race to the Top" Rigged?

2010-08-01T08:04:00.003-05:00

President Obama is to be commended for making the improvement of the nation’s public school system a national priority and for challenging states and school systems to completely re-think the way they deliver education through the program called Race to the Top. States are being invited to submit proposals for funds to engage in a process of major educational reform. State plans must address six priorities that range from early childhood education to providing resources for high risk and special needs students to recruiting and training high quality teachers.

However the recent announcement that Washington, DC superintendent Michelle Rhee fired 241 “low-performing” teachers after instituting her program called IMPACT. Rhee’s action raises the question if the emphasis on teacher performance indicates that the Race to the Top is rigged against the teachers. Whenever educational issues come up, the first target of critics is usually the teachers. So as the Washington Post reported, Rhee’s action is meant to “send a message” that teachers need to raise the quality of their performance. No doubt some teachers need to find another career, but others may be forced outto that career not because of lack of skill or commitment, but a lack of structure, resources and support.

Critics often complain that teachers are overpaid for “only 9 months of work” and aren’t held accountable. Over the past several years no one group of people so valuable to our society have been so maligned and misunderstood as teachers. Now put those teachers in an old building that looks like a prison, has poor ventilation, with 35 kids per class, 5-6 periods a day, not enough textbooks, and no aides. Then include in that class 5-6 kids who come from dysfunctional families, another 5-6 who have childcare responsibilities or are expected to contribute to the family income, don’t give those kids breakfast and then blame those teachers that test scores are not “meeting standards”. You will begin to understand what Michelle Rhee’s “low-performing” teachers are up against.

I offer three points of reference. First, my own children went through a suburban school system that was at best adequate. Every year the local paper published the salaries of all the teachers in the district, and complained about “rising property taxes,” which happened to be lowest in the county. Through their 13 years of schooling, my kids had some outstanding teachers, a few poor ones, and a majority of mediocre teachers. But these teachers had adequate technology, a decent library, and manageable class sizes. Most of the kids came from families that provided enough food and other necessities, so that the kids were not expected to contribute the family income. Most of those families had at least one college graduate, so that these kids grew up expecting to attend college. My kids and the vast majority of kids graduated on time and went to various post high school pursuits including college. Mediocre and even poor teachers get by in that system, because they were operating in a context that surrounded them with adequate resources, necessary support, and a college going culture.

Second I am a college teacher who has taught graduate students, first and second year undergrads, and adults returning to earn a college degree. One year I simultaneously taught students across that spectrum. With the graduate students who were intelligent, motivated and resourceful, I was “outstanding” – my students grew and learned tremendously - by their own evaluation. However at the same time I taught a group of students most of whom were first generation college students, and who often had major economic and family responsibilities outside of class. I also taught some adult students who had difficulty reading and others who could not write coherent paragraphs. I worked doubly hard and pulled out every creative idea out of teaching bag of tricks. I ended up failing half the students in the undergrad class, even though it was one of the most creative, draining and challenging teaching experiences of my career. Even more amazing is that some of the students I failed actually thanked me for the way I had respected them in that class. So which teacher should be evaluated – the teacher of grad students, the teacher of the adult students or the teacher who failed half his undergrad class?

Third, I am part of a community group that provides support to a large urban public high school, I sit on the board of an urban Mennonite high school and I have consulted with a new charter school. All three schools serve the same demographic of students: lower income, urban, mostly students of color. The urban high school sees only about 50% of its 9^th graders persist to graduation. The Mennonite high school has a 100% college acceptance rate of students, and the charter school is only one year into operation, so it is too soon to tell. However, what is common to all three schools is that they all have innovative and creative principals and a group of teachers who love kids. However the charter school and Mennonite high school have class sizes around 20, while the public high school averages 30-35. The charter school and Mennonite high school have local autonomy, while the public high school answers to the superintendent. Despite its low test scores, the public high school has seen phenomenal improvement in scores and morale, was on track to substantially improve the graduation rate. Justlooking at the scores the superintendent decided the principal needed to be re-assigned and her efforts halted. My prediction is that any momentum and hope she built with students and teachers will be undercut and the school’s performance will decline.

In these scenarios (my children’s school, my own classes, the three schools I compare) which teachers failed and who succeeded? Blaming teachers for a failed system is an easy explanation, but wholly inadequate. If I was teacher looking for a job, would I want to go into a system where the odds are stacked against me like the Philadelphia or DC school systems? Would I choose to operate in a system, where I am underpaid, and under-resourced, and yet expected to achieve progress on my kids test scores? Are the test scores even the proper measure of success? Or would I choose to go to an adequately resourced suburban district where even if I was mediocre, my kids would do okay? Or would I gravitate to a charter school or a private school, not subject to the whims of a politically vulnerable superintendent?

If we as a nation are truly concerned about public education, we need to stop laying all the blame on the teachers. The system as a whole is broken and creating a culture of fear and distrust distracts everyone’s attention, especially the teachers, from being willing to re-shape and re-form that broken system. What we need is a systemic approach to urban education like Geoffrey Canada’s Harlem Children Zone. Canada recognizes that there many factors outside the school building that affect learning inside the school building. While I don’t fully agree with Canada’s almost totally behavioristic methods, I do think he has recognized that the problem with urban public education is systemic and is seeking to address it that way. This is why cities across the nation are seeking to adopt and adapt his model to their situations.

I recently read the reflections of a 5th year teacher in the Philadelphia public school system. Half of all teachers quit by their fifth year, and this teacher had survived that threshold. Yet, just when she should be hitting her stride, she writes that one of the realities she lives with is that most days she drives home “feeling like a crappy teacher.” Moreover, as she looks out over the career ahead of her she wonders if she can sustain her career over a lifetime. I want that teacher to feel valued, supported, and excited about the work she will do, because those feelings will be conveyed to her students, and will influence her students’ performance. Creating a culture of fear and intimidation (as Michelle Rhee has done in DC) will not help this teacher feel any better about herself, her work or her students. She needs to be surrounded by a system that helps her get better at her craft, not that threatens her to get better or else.

The Race to the Top seems rigged against the teachers, and the ones who will suffer in the end will again be the students.

Engaged Spirituality

2010-07-25T06:31:00.001-05:00

Many years ago I began thinking that the classic forms of Christian spirituality that I had been taught in church and seminary just didn’t work for me. I came to faith in the evangelical tradition where a good Christian was supposed to have their daily “quiet time” of Bible study, prayer and reflection. I read all the books of Richard Foster and Dallas Willard on spiritual disciplines, and still consider Foster’s Celebration of Discipline as a critical book in my formation. I explored Roman Catholic wrters like Morton Kelsey, Brother Lawrence, Thomas Merton and Henri Nouwen. I read the classic Testament of Devotion by Quaker Thomas Kelly. I explored the charismatic movement and even dabbled in speaking in tongues for a few years. Yet, in the end something was missing.

The first seed was planted when I moved to Jersey City, NJ, a crowded poverty stricken city, where I realized that there was no place to find true and complete quiet in such a noisy, busy community. Moreover, I found that I was most spiritually alive when I was in the midst of people actively working on changing things that were causing suffering. It struck me that one did not have to retreat from the people and activity of one’s daily life to connect with God; God was there in the midst of it all. John 1 proclaims that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” God was not far off only to be experienced in some mystical transcendence, God was among us to be touched and experienced in the busyness of life. I had developed what theologians call an “incarnational theology.”

However, I did not actively think about these things much for many years. I tried to fit my spiritual discomfort into the classic disciplines of prayer, meditation, Bible reading and worship. Then a few years ago, I read through most of the writings of the Brazilian educator Paulo Freire. Freire is best known for his book The Pedagogy of the Oppressed, in which he outlines his philosophy education as a way of raising the consciousness of oppressed people in order to motivate them to change the social and economic order that keeps them poor. His critique of the “banking model of education” and the concepts conscientization and teaching as dialogue are now standard subjects in introductory education courses and presented as an alternative to traditional methods of teaching. No one author has shaped my own approach to teaching as much as Freire has.

However, as I read through his writings, I saw and sensed and underlying spirituality that sought to engage the world even as it sought to change it. A lifelong Roman Catholic, Freire was critical of the Roman Catholic Church in Brazil for its support of the ruling oligarchy. Moreover, he criticized the clergy’s promotion of what he called “magical thinking” among the poor; encouraging them not to question the status quo (that was literally killing them) but rather to look for God to provide for them in miraculous ways and to reward them for their faithfulness in the hereafter. Instead he called for the church to be prophetic and to work in solidarity with those being crushed by the ruling elite. Terms like love, salvation, hope, conversion, and the Word, fill his writings. I find it odd that while many authors mention his affinity with liberation theology, few of his biographers and interpreters have explored the underlying spirituality that drove and sustained him.

What I found in Freire was a Christian whose spirituality did not remove him from the pain and suffering of the world, but rather engaged him more fully in that pain and suffering. As he wrote one time, he “met Christ in the people.” This was a perspective with which I deeply resonated. For years I had noted that I felt God’s presence more fully in a political rally or demonstration, than I did in a worship service. Prayer seemed to make more sense as a way of expressing concern for other people and connecting with their struggle, than it did as a way of communicating with God. Jesus was less of a Savior on a pedestal, and more like a brother walking along side of me in the midst of the search for justice. Freire gave me a way of thinking about these aspects of the spiritual life that was not removed from the world, but rather fully engaged with it.

Just recently, I came across the book, Spirituality of Resistance by Roger Gottlieb. Gottlieb is an agnostic Jewish philosopher who teaches at Worcester (MA) Polytechnic Institute, and is actively involved in promoting awareness about the critical nature of global climate change and the environmental crisis. Like me, Gottlieb is seeking to find a way to connect with some sort of spiritual presence as a form of resistance to the poverty, disparity and environmental degradation being committed by governments, corporations and individuals. He writes “To find a peaceful heart…we need to live on this earth: fully conscious of what is happening on it, actively resisting that which we know to be evil or destructively ignorant.” (p. 13). In other words, we can’t go into our prayer closets or out in the woods to seek God or spiritual peace, and hope that God or technology will somehow save us from our own self-destructive ways. We must meet God while we we are engaged in the issues of life and seek and express our spirituality through lives of active resistance to the status quo and in solidarity with those seeking to create a more equitable and just world. While Gottlieb rejects traditional forms of religion (and at points is understandably critical of their contribution to the current social, economic and environmental crisis), he does not reject those who can find a way to engage this crisis through those means.

Gottlieb and Freire have renewed my interest in exploring what an engaged spirituality would look like in our time. I do not know at this point where that search might lead, but I am excited about the possibility of finding a way to be a spiritual person and yet fully immersed in the struggles of our time in a way that “seeks justice, loves mercy and walks humbly with our God.”

A Teachable Moment on the True Nature of Racism

2010-07-23T10:55:00.005-05:00

The recent accusation of racism that led to the firing, apology and offer of a new job to Shirley Sherrod is instructive of many things on several levels. For those who may have missed it, conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart took a statement of Shirley Sherrod out of context to make it look like she discriminated against a white farmer in her role as an official in the Agriculture Department. FOX News ran the story as an example of Obama administration racism against whites, Ms. Sherrod was fired, and the NAACP (to whom her speech as addressed) denounced her words; then the truth came out. Ms. Sherrod’s story was exactly the opposite and the white farmer in question said she was an invaluable help to him. The Obama administration apologized and offered Ms. Sherrod another job, which at this moment she has neither accepted nor rejected. To read more on this incident go to this link.

Putting aside the out and out character defamation of Mr. Breitbart, the opportunistic race-baiting of FOX and the knee-jerk ineptness of Obama’s Agriculture Department, let me add a thought on why even if Ms. Sherrod had done what she was accused of, it could not be considered racism.

It seems that many folks are so uptight about race in this country, that we are afraid to honestly look at the underlying issue of institutionalized, systemic racism in our nation. The election of a black President did not eradicate racism in this country, it only made it more confusing for many to discuss, and raised the level of fear among many whites. The election of a black president, like the changing demographics of the United States as a whole, has a lot of whites in this country scared. By the year 2042 most demographers predict that white people will comprise less than 50% of the population. Whites will still comprise the largest racial/ethnic group, but Hispanics will be over 30%, while African-Americans will comprise about 12-13% and Asian/Pacific Islanders 6-8%. English will be one of many languages spoken. “American” history will by necessity have a different slant, as the various peoples who make up our populace will include less people from European backgrounds and more from Africa, Asia and Latin America. For a group of people who have always had their culture, their history, and their way of thinking and speaking as the norm, this signals change, and change generates fear for many white folks.

Having said that, the systems that are in place (education, law enforcement, health care, etc) still overwhelmingly serve white citizens much more effectively than they serve citizens of color. Why do schools with predominantly Latino and Black students generally receive significantly less funding than white school districts? Why do areas where people of color live experience more crime and less security than white neighborhoods? Why does the health care system not serve people of color with the same effectiveness as it does white patients? Why do African-American drug offenders consistently receive harsher sentences than their white counterparts committing the same crimes? The answers to these and related questions are both simple and complex. The simple answer is that racial preference and bias is built into the very systems that inequitably serve different groups of people. The complex answer is trying to figure out a way to make those systems serve all people equitably.

When people look at the laws and policies on these issues, one sees that while they may seem “fair” on the surface, the results they generate create tremendous inequities. For instance, funding public school systems with property taxes seems “fair” and yet when one looks at the disparate results, one sees that that system creates schools with widely different levels of resources. State and Federal governments are now trying to compensate by funneling additional funding to underfunded districts, encouraging charter schools and offering vouchers, but these actions are band-aids on an oozing sore. What is needed is a totally revamped system of how education is funded and delivered in this country. The people working in this system may be sincere, dedicated, and personally non-biased when it comes to race, but the system they work in is irretrievably discriminatory against people of color, especially when they are also poor.

Now that doesn’t mean that there aren’t some white schools or communities that lose out, or that there aren’t white citizens who sometimes are discriminated against, but the overarching pattern favors one group over another. The laws, the policies, the structures and the institutions that have served whites very well over the long haul, do not serve their fellow citizens of color at the same level. That’s racism; and one sees the effects of that racism by looking at the results these systems produce. Like doctors we need to use the symptoms to diagnose the underlying problem. Simply treating symptoms does nothing to address the underlying disease.

Had Shirley Sherrod chosen not to help a white farmer because he was white, that would have been an act of prejudice. If she had consistently chosen not to serve white farmers at the same level she served black farmers, that might be a pattern of racism on her part. However, the Agriculture Department where she worked historically takes quite good care of white farmers, and therefore would not be institutionally racist.

People like Andrew Breitbart and the folks at FOX News use distortions to distract folks (especially scared white folks) away from the deep systemic issues that need to be addressed in this country. I suspect that there are smart people at FOX, so I can imagine (though I don’t know) that their distortions and character assassinations are a deliberate attempt to keep the systems that privilege whites over others intact. They use half-truths (which are really lies) and out of context statements (like Breitbart’s video) to paint a picture that makes whites feel like they need to fight to “take the country back,” when in fact the systems in this country continue to serve them just fine. Parading a black spokesman like Republican National Chairman Michael Steele in their reports confuses the unsuspecting and gives flimsy justification for those who seek to keep the systems as they are. When it seems opportune, they then throw in the non-sensical charge of “reverse racism,” which is what happened in Sherrod's case.

As a white person, I am not interested in developing a system that punishes whites; that is not in my interest. However, as a white person of faith who is concerned for justice, I am committed to creating a system that serves all people equally. Honesty compels me to recognize that as a white person I can take for granted many things that my friends of color cannot: from the schools their kids attend, to the way they are treated by the police and courts, to how often their trash gets picked up to the kind of health care they receive to how they are treated by the media to who knows what.

One lesson we need to take from this unfortunate incident is to take a look at what is actually going on in this country. The disparities mentioned above are widely cited. Can we wake up and see what is going on? Shirley Sherrod told her story to illustrate her personal growth in race relations, but at the very worst she might have been prejudiced against one white man (which she was not). On the other hand, all of us live within a network of systems that is inherently racist and must be significantly overhauled, if this “land of the free” is going to offer that freedom equally to all.