Who's on Trial? The Case of Rachel Jeantel

 

The trial of George Zimmerman is currently underway. For those unfamiliar with the case, volunteer neighborhood watchmen George Zimmerman has been charged with second-degree murder for fatally shooting unarmed, black Florida teen Trayvon Martin. At the time of the incidence (over one year ago), allegations of racially charged agression, racial profiling, and excessive use of force were all over the airwaves. Indeed, I shared my proverbial 2 cents in a Sept 2012 post on this very blog. This was big news that gripped the nation for weeks upon weeks, with pundits practically foaming at the mouth in their condemnation of Zimmerman, and in some case, the deceased Martin. And then we all forgot about it. Mind you, there have been many issues that have deserved focus: the November presidential elections, Sandy Hook, an increasingly vigilant and aggressive Mother Nature. I am not attempting to condemn America's amnesia. I understand where it comes from. That aside, the tragedy of the past has been brought to the present as American's turn their attention to the trial. But the question that I have no choice but to ask is "who is on trial exactly?" This question arose from my close viewing of the cross-examination between Rachel Jeantel, the young lady who was the last person to speak to Trayvon and the prosecution's star witness, and the Zimmerman defense team. At times, it is not entirely clear whether what I am watching is a murder trial, or a trial meant to assess Ms. Jeantel's intelligence. Further, there have also been comments on what appears to be complete apathy on Jeantel’s part as well as Jeantel’s appearance and body weight. Though I understand the tactic of discrediting a witness for the sake of winning a legal battle, I would like to point out how the treatment of Ms. Jeantel by some members of the media, the trial attorneys, and 'informed citizens' is highly problematic and illustrates the perpetual separate worlds that individuals seem to be living in and perceiving. The purpose of this post is to first, identify the problem, and second, offer a plea to more informed thinking about people who are different.

           

As I watched the interrogation of Rachel Jeantel, Trayvon’s childhood friend and supposed girlfriend, I must admit that I squirmed quite a bit. It was uncomfortable to watch to say the least. At times, Rachel was incoherent, defiant, and lacked the overall decorum expected in a court of law. Her story was difficult to follow, and her responses to the defense team’s questions were often lacking in substance and depth. What I picked up on the most, however, was Ms. Jeantel’s aggressive nature. She came across hostile and defensive, a common reaction when an individual perceives threat. And can you blame her? Let’s consider a few things: Jeantel is a 19 year old high school senior who has been asked to testify on the death of her friend. She does not yet have a high school degree. She is receiving national attention for her role in the case (something that she has not asked for). I understand why she is on edge! She is in a highly stressful and threatening situation. I also watched as Ms. Jeantel’s demeanor became drastically different. During subsequent rounds of interrogation, she became much more subdued and almost apathetic. In sum, she was completely over the questioning. Upon seeing this, I was immediately transported back to my experience teaching in an inner city high school on the West Side of Chicago.

I was sitting in a classroom working with three black  9^th graders who were in need of remedial algebra lessons. Two of the students were eager to learn, responded well to my instruction, and displayed the intention to succeed. Whereas they jotted down notes, asked questions, and engaged with me and the material, the third student, a young girl of 15, sat in her chair staring straight ahead with her hands calmly folded on the top of her unopened notebook. Not wanting to make a scene, I assigned the compliant students a number of problems to work through, and called the young girl out into the tall to talk. My desire to not make a scene was all for naught, as she raised her voice and stated that “whatever I wanted to say to her, I can say in front of everyone.” I was taken aback, but I held my ground and insisted that she join me in the hallway. She knocked her books off the desk and charged out into the hall. During my talk with her, she leaned against the wall, sucking her thumb and rolling her eyes disrespectfully. When I had said my piece, and asked if she would at least try to work through 3 problems, she responded with a lackluster “yes sir”, walked back into the room, sat down, and started working on the problems with accompanying loud sighs, and comments of how algebra was a bunch of “bullshit” and how Mr. Wilkins was a “uppity Uncle Tom fag.” Though I was hurt and angered by this behavior, I did not blame this child. You see, this young girl grew up in a part of Chicago rife with gun and gang violence, drugs, and other forms of lawlessness. She and her four siblings were being raised by a single mother in a broken down house three blocks down from the high school. She has had to grow up fast. She is tough as nails. She stands up for herself and makes it known that she is not weak. This toughness manifests as anger, disrespect of authority figures, and/or outright noninterest in school and learning. But this omnipresent display of toughness masks other things. It masks fear and uncertainty. It masks the feelings associated with the knowledge that others see you as less than simply because of your social condition. It masks the reality that this world isn’t for you. Because I understood this, my approach to handling the student was different. I did not label her as lazy, unintelligent, bad/evil, or one who could not be saved. Instead, I saw her as a young girl who has been shaped by her circumstances: poverty, overcrowded classroom, racism, and violence. Her behavior is not inexcusable. But it is also not her fault.

 

This is how I view Rachel Jeantel: A young woman shaped by her circumstance. A young woman who was raised in a household where Haitian was the primary language and where the language of the streets is the only ‘English’ you need. A girl who, largely because of social forces larger than herself, finds it difficult to read and do well in school. And most importantly to this situation, a young woman who lost a friend and must testify on behalf of the prosecution. I view Rachel Jeantel as someone who is trying to hide the fear and pain associated with the loss of Trayvon Martin, all while simultaneously trying to appear strong in a wholly novel context. I view Ms. Jeantel as a young girl who is trying to survive in a strange world. It is this view that has caused me to become quite outraged at some of the comments circulating on social media, news, and internet video sites.

“Yes she's way beyond stupid, she definately is retarded.”

 

“SOME PEOPLE AINT GOT NO TRAINING....I MEAN SOMEBODY COULD OF TRAINED HER HOW TO CARRY YOURSELF IN COURT..SMH.”

 

“Dude she doesn't know what half those words mean. Bitch is about as dumb as they come.”

 

“Is it legal to be this stupid and be allowed to roam free?”

“Shouldn't she be in a home or something?”

“lol this beast has a two-digit IQ, I swear.”
 
“Dumb fat bitch 19 n 2nd year of hs who should believe this dumb whore”
 
“nigs gonna nig !  zimmerman saved the US paying for a welfarer who would have ended up in prison costing taxes, got treycoon good the oily cadaver”
 
“Damn, is that a baby walrus around her neck!!!”
 
“Is that a goiter?”

 

 

The quotes attack Ms. Jeantel as a person. Individuals refer to her as being ‘retarded,’ possessing a low IQ, and undeserving of being a contributing member of society. Additionally, there is a gendered nature to the assault on her as she is referred to as both a ‘bitch’ and a ‘whore.’ Finally, comments on her appearance abound (beast; comments about her weight). In sum, this young woman, who has been asked to speak to the court regarding her knowledge of the fatal shooting of Mr. Martin, is being attacked without mercy by a general public who seem to have very little sympathy for her. Mind you, these are but a few of the hateful comments out there.

It is worth pointing out that the negative comments being directed toward Rachel are not solely being stated by whites. Blacks have also been critical of her. But there is a difference: Rachel Jeantel has been critiqued by blacks in that she is seen as a bad ‘representative of the race’ (more on this later as I intend to write a post on the issue of black on black critique). The point is, the separate worlds that I referred to in the introduction of this essay are not divided cross race. Rather, they are divided cross the ability to empathize. Simply put, there are some who see Rachel Jeantel as a lazy, unintelligent, ‘whore’ who is just too dumb to contribute to the case. Others see her as one who is a product of her environment and view her behavior as dependent on the situation (said people are not suffering from the fundamental attribution error).  I am a member of the latter group.

 

 Ultimately, it is okay to critique Jeantel’s testimony as incoherent and inconsistent. It was. But instead of blaming her for the language and understanding gap, why not place blame on the social forces that have led to said gap? Perhaps it is because the general public lacks the ability to see the world through a sociological lens. That is to say, we are unable to walk in the shoes of another or see them as products of the environment. Instead of taking the time to bash Ms. Jeantel, why don’t we take the opportunity to bash a broken education system? Why don’t we focus our anger on the ineffective family policies meant to help families living in the worse social conditions? More importantly, why don’t we zoom in on the issue that originated this whole mess: the racial profiling of a young man by an unqualified neighborhood watchmen which ended with the young man’s death? Just a suggestion.

 

To conclude, when I see someone like Rachel Jeantel, I am reminded of my sisters, some of my cousins, and other loved ones. I think of them taking the stand after bearing witness to some tragedy and of the backlash they may receive just because of their perceived unintelligence, body shape/size, race, and/or gender. I see the world through the eyes of a brother of two young black women, one who became pregnant at the age of 15, lost a baby after raising her for only 9 months, and has been struggling with school and authority figures ever since. I see the world through the eyes of a son to a teen mother who was a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, and who has been doing the best she can to raise her four children and one grandson. I see the world as a future father who will do anything to protect my daughters, should I be blessed to have them. Finally, I see the world as a sociologist, one who understands the power of social forces and context and how they can shape individuals. Fortunately, I am not the only one who sees the world this way. For every nasty thing said about Rachel Jeantel, there is a comment that comes to her defense, or calls out the people making the inexcusable and hateful remarks. I invite you, dear reader, to follow this case. I also challenge you to see the world differently. It’s okay to live in a separate world from others. In fact, choosing the academic route has removed me from the ‘real world’ in a way. But living in an alternate reality need not mean that you are ignorant to the social realities of others. And it surely need not mean that you cannot understand where your fellow man or woman is coming from.
 
~KJSW

How the Teacher's Union can Learn From Mayor Emanuel

The nation’s eyes are on my hometown.  Unfortunately, this attention is not due to Chicago’s awesomeness, but rather its inability to do anything ‘quietly.’  I am, of course referring to the Chicago Teacher’s Union’s strike that is now on day 5.  I am generally supportive of unions and I also support the right to strike.  That being said, there is a real problem with 350,000 students out of school in a city that already has enormous educational challenges (i.e. countering a high dropout rate and getting students up to standard on reading and math).  Parents are scrambling to make new arrangements for childcare, no easy task if you are a low income, single mother who is counting on schools being open to care for her kid/s.  This blog post is not to condemn one side or the other.  I honestly believe that there is blame to go around.  Instead, I want to present what appears to be one of the biggest challenges facing the Chicago Teachers Union with regards to public support and sympathy: branding.

The media has been quite successful at vilifying teacher unions.  Movies such as Waiting for Superman have presented teachers as lazy, selfish and overpaid, doing everything in their power to get more money while not investing more time into making sure their students do well.  Education reform appears to be moving forward, but is being stymied by teachers who are satisfied by the status quo.  This is, of course, what the media wants you to believe.  Is this true? Of course not! I’ve had the honor of working with some amazing Chicago Public School teachers and I know of the issues that are forefront in this strike. But I know of this due to personal experience.  What about those who do not know of teacher’s troubles.  Their opinions are influenced mainly by media outlets (I’ll concede that media coverage of the strike has been moderately balanced).  But at this point, I believe that the Emanuel administration has a better message.  Their message has centered on the student.  The mayor’s talking point has always been about getting the students back in school.  Karen Lewis speaks of fairness and an acceptable contract.  She needs to frame her arguments around the student.  This will make the strike more effective because it will cast attention from what teachers are getting (and not getting) and center more on what the students need in order to learn and be successful in school.  Further, if the union branded themselves more as pro student as opposed to pro teacher, the vilification of said unions would be nearly impossible.  Bottom line, with the strike going on, no one wins.  And as for who loses the most, it is most definitely the children of Chicago.

Now I don’t want to be an alarmist.  It seems that Emanuel will eventually cave, given majority support for the strike (47% for and 39% opposed as reported by a recent Chicago Sun Times poll).  However, the fact that the mayor would even attempt to flex his muscles at the teachers union points to his belief that the brand of the union is damaged.  If teachers want to be able to demand their fair contracts without having to worry about strong opposition, they need to make it clear that their demands are good for everyone, but mostly the kids that they are teaching.   If the union took a page from Emanuel’s book, and were focused entirely on how their demands will benefit students, support for unions would be near universal.  In an educational system that is so broken, every education expert will be needed to fix it.  And when it comes to experts, no one is more qualified than the teacher.

~KJSW

Why the Nittany Lion Football Program Should Not Endure the Death Penalty

It should come to no surprise to those who know me well that I will not be attending Penn State because of my love of sports.  Indeed, my choice of graduate program is based on academic ranking, productivity in research and of course, funding.  Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy the occasional game of volleyball and Quidditch, but on the whole, sports just aren’t my thing.  With this in mind, my staunch defense of the Penn State football program makes very little sense on the surface.  Nevertheless, I do defend the program and I oppose the NCAA’s ‘Death Penalty.’ 

My defense is based on one central idea: suspending the football program extends the punishment to a large number of innocents most of whom are far removed from the actions of Jerry Sandusky and the school administrators who failed to do their job.  After analyzing this idea, it should become clear that the ‘Death Penalty’ may be a well intended yet largely flawed punishment that should be replaced with a targeted punishment limited to those at fault. 

In the case of Penn State, the Death Penalty inevitably punishes those who have had nothing to do with the series of unfortunate actions performed by Jerry Sandusky.  After punishing the actors involved in the tragedy, any subsequent punishment extends well beyond the people involved and targets innocent players, students and community members.  The most obvious example of the collateral damage caused by the suspension of the Penn State football program is the large number of players who will find themselves unable to play football.  At a university such as Penn State, college football is often a springboard to a career in the NFL.  Without the ability to play, these students’ futures are essentially jeopardized.  But the repercussions of a football suspension are more even more far reaching.  Indeed, a suspension would impact the community and students who have, at best, loose ties to the Nittany Lion football program.

            An economic study commissioned by Penn State for the 2008-2009 school year indicates that Penn State’s football programs brought in approximately $70.2 million to the State with 70% of that revenue benefiting Centre County (State College area) directly.  If the $70.2 figure is typical of the revenue brought in by the football program during an academic year, then we are looking at a total cost of $70+ million to the school and community for shutting down the football program. In light of a stagnant economy, any additional costs to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Centre County in particular could lead to macroeconomic problems namely a potential spike in unemployment. A report issued by Tripp Umbach, a consulting and economic analysis firm based in Pittsburg indicates that the football program contributed both directly and indirectly to the creation of 1,731 jobs in Centre County. Not to mention the fact that football season draws thousands upon thousands of visitors to Happy Valley. With the large volume of visitors virtually eliminated as a result of the suspension of the football program, restaurants, hotels and other local businesses would find themselves losing a great deal of business. 

The economic impact is not just local. The previously mentioned Tripp Umbach report shows that Penn State is the largest contributor to Pennsylvania’s economy with an annual economic impact of over $17 billion.  Further, the report indicates that Penn State supports 67,000 + jobs in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  Of course, not all of this impact is a direct consequence of the football program, that is to say, Penn State has other avenues of revenue generation.  However, an annual analysis for the finances of college athletics conducted by USA Today Sports indicates that Penn State has one of the few athletic departments that is self-sustained (in fact, it profits each year).  The revenue generated by the football program is the primary reasons the athletic department is in the black.  Without the football program, the university will have to allocate money from its budget to make up for losses to its athletic department or else cut other sports to keep the athletic department financially independent; money that could go to support other academic departments. In extreme cases, whole academic departments may be cut due to a lack of financial resources.  In sum, the punishment could diffuse to students who entered Penn State purely for academic reasons, forcing them to decide on a different major because their academic interests can no longer be supported by the university.

Supporters of the Death Penalty as a suitable punishment to Penn State’s football program argue that one year suspension will not irreparably damage the local economy and assert that it will teach powerful sports programs that they are not above reproach or punishment.  I happen to disagree on both counts.  A stagnant economy means that any length of time of loss profits and decreases in business revenue will have large impacts on families who have NOTHING to do with the football scandal. As for teaching powerful sports programs that they can be punished, we should punish those who are in positions of power and not the institution itself.  Institutions are not beings and are therefore exempt from the label of good or evil.  Instead, it is the administrators of these institutions whose actions must be judged and punished.  Joe Paterno resigned in disgrace and has had his statue taken down.  Jerry Sandusky has been convicted and will spend the rest of his life in prison.  High ranking university administrators including the former university president are facing indictments.  What else do we want?  I understand that some are out for blood, but we must be smart in the use of our outrage.  Punish those responsible and no one else.

~KJSW

He Has Evolved! Obama's Endorsement of Marriage Equality

          The May 9^th 2012 interview with ABC’s Robin Roberts will go down in history as just one more example of how transformative President Barack Obama has been, particularly with regards to LGBT rights.  In some ways, President Obama’s endorsement of marriage equality is the capstone achievement, or rather, a clear declaration of his pro-LGBT rights agenda.  Despite the extraordinary symbolic significance Obama’s endorsement has for the LGBT community and Civil Rights more broadly, it is important to analyze any real policy implications Obama’s endorsement has.  Further, it is important to discuss any political impact Obama’s endorsement will have, positive or negative, particularly in key swing States such as Ohio and North Carolina.    As I will argue in this post, though President Obama’s position has been made crystal clear regarding his support for marriage equality, the political gains or losses of said endorsement will prove to be inconsequential at best.  As Mitt Romney so ‘eloquently’ stated in a recent speech: “It’s still the economy, and we’re not stupid.”

            First and foremost, though I am an avid supporter of the President, I would be remiss to not mention that this endorsement was probably not something that President Obama was eager to announce.  Let’s be clear, the only reason that President Obama publicly announced his support for marriage equality is because of VP Biden’s interview on Meet the Press.  If Obama had continued his ‘evolution’ on the issue, he risked damaging his brand, especially since his campaign is attempting to paint Romney as a panderer and flip-flop who will stop at nothing to get a vote.  That being said, it is the timing of the endorsement and not the endorsement itself that is surprising to many.  No one in their right mind would believe that President Obama, through his policy, has not done more for the LGBT community than any other President in history.  Whether it was his order to the Justice Department to no longer uphold the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) or his repeal of the discriminatory Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy, no one would argue that the President is not for LGBT rights.  The reason this endorsement is so big is not so much that it makes President Obama’s position on marriage equality unequivocal  (one only looks at his policies to see where he stands), but rather the perceived risk his endorsement has on his reelection prospects given what is expected to be a very close election.

 Though I acknowledge the political risk in a sitting President announcing his support for marriage equality, given the fact that this election will be largely decided based on economic policies, I disagree with the notion that Obama’s support of same-sex marriage will have a huge impact on his potential for reelection.  Indeed, I am critical of the President for his faulty political calculus and his refusal to publicly endorse marriage equality earlier due to fears of alienating his base.  Now, there was a time when such an endorsement would be a death stroke for Obama’s reelection bid (think of 2004 when Kerry loss Ohio primarily due to anti-gay voters rushing out to the polls as a result of homophobia), but again, given the importance of the economy, his support is a non-issue to most voters.  If anything, it energizes young people and LGBT members who felt slightly disappointed by his lack of declaration of support. 

So why are pundits so quick to say that Obama’s endorsement may cost him votes in key States?  For one, Virginia and North Carolina, which Obama carried in 2008, are still not highly keen on the idea of same sex marriage (NC just passed an amendment banning same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships).  Further, as previously mentioned, support for gay rights may have contributed greatly to John Kerry losing Ohio in 2004, which Obama now desperately needs to win in 2012.  Another reason why individuals perceive Obama’s public endorsement as risky is the belief that it will alienate Black voters, who have historically held conservative positions with regards to homosexuality.  However, I would argue that Obama’s position does not carry the political baggage that it did for the Democrats in 2004.  In a recent poll, Americans rated the issue of marriage equality as being the 18^th most important issue in this upcoming election.  Number one? Jobs and the economy. With regards to the wedge between Blacks and the LGBT population, since 2009, the demographic group that has increased their support for same sex marriage the most was African Americans.  Finally, rarely are there single-issue voters.  Those who are staunchly anti-gay were not likely to vote for Obama in the first place (social conservatives).  So to sum up this point, Obama will not be hurt (and may be marginally helped) by his endorsement of marriage equality.  No doubt, this will be a close election, but gay marriage will not be a deciding factor.  We have 6 months until the election.  It is safe to say that it will most likely not be an issue widely discussed on election day.  Then again, if the GOP choose to make this an issue, they will lose. Despite my reluctance to believe this will be a major issue in the coming election, it may positively influence voter turnout for Obama supporters.

As Democratic strategist Krystal Ball stated, often times we jump on the political ramifications that politicians’ statements may have, and not truly appreciate the gravity and historic nature of said statements.  President Obama’s public endorsement of marriage equality is important, historically significant and long overdue. He is the first sitting President to publicly endorse marriage equality. If there has been any doubt that our President does not support Civil Rights for all, let them now be officially squashed.  This is a big day for all of Americans.  As Mayor Bloomberg stated: “No American President has ever supported a major expansion of Civil Rights that has not ultimately been adopted by the American people- and I have no doubt that this will be no exception.”  Mr. Mayor, truer words were never spoken.

~KJSW

Let's Talk About Race

Though Trayvon Martin’s death occurred February 26^th, a great deal of media attention has been placed on the tragedy as of late.  Recordings of the phone call Zimmerman,  Trayvon’s killer, made to the police dispatcher were recently released, and they shed new light on a phenomenon that will perhaps never go away: racism in America.   We like to think that we live in a post-racial America, that we are ‘color blind’ and see others as human beings and fellow American citizens.  Anyone who disagrees with this view is called a ‘race-baiter’ or accused of playing the ‘race card.’  Indeed, there have been times when I have chosen to not express my opinions regarding some social issue or conflict simply because I fear that I will be seen as just another black man blaming sins of the past on the situation of the present.  But in light of such blatant racially motivated violence toward a teenager walking down the street of a gated community with Skittles and an iced tea, I have decided to remove the muzzle of fear and speak out about the rampant racism that impacts our society.

Scholars who study racism and race relations are pretty much agreed on the idea that race relations are significantly different than in the past.  However, experts in race stop short of stating that racial relations have gotten better.  In fact, I would argue that, on the whole, racial relations have stayed the same or gotten slightly worse.  I base this argument on the ubiquity of a new, insidious form of racism that is subtle and often time easily swept aside by individuals with power as simple paranoia or sensitivity.  Overt racism, the racism of slavery and the Jim Crowe South, is a thing of the past.  Lynching, public beatings, unrestrained and unhidden hatred of racial and ethnic minorities has been replaced with covert racism, represented by more institutional oppression and white superiority masked as ‘equal opportunity’ and narratives of ‘pulling oneself up by their bootstraps.’  This covert racism is arguably more damaging than overt racism simply because it is so difficult to prove, at least to those who have made up their mind that race no longer matters.  No one alive today can rationally deny the immorality of cutting out a black man’s tongue for whistling at a white woman, but it is not so hard to deny that President Obama, who has been shown blatant signs of disrespect that no other U.S. President has experienced (Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” comment; Gov. Jan Brewer pointing her finger at the President’s face saying that she felt “threatened”), has received such negative animosity because he happens to be a black man in a white man’s world.  Similarly, it is not too hard to deny that the reason why there are so many blacks in poverty is because of long standing barriers preventing blacks from accumulating wealth and moving up on the socioeconomic ladder.  Instead, it must be because blacks don’t work hard enough and that their success and failure can only be blamed on themselves.  It’s easy to deny institutional and covert racism because there is no smoking gun.  There are no mutilated bodies or cross burnings.  There is simply a group of individuals who are forced to play by rules not meant to benefit them without complaint, and for those who do cry foul, they are viewed as weak and accused of playing the victim.  They refuse to let go of the past and embrace the future of a post-racial world.  When there is a smoking gun, a black corpse, we are reminded of the racism and hate that exists in our world.

I hope by now the distinction between overt and covert racism is clear.  Further, I hope that I have successfully argued that covert racism is more damaging to our society than overt racism.  At least with overt racism, we could have a conversation about racial inequality without being seen as playing the race card.  Returning to the murder of Trayvon Martin, this act of violence will no doubt be argued by Zimmerman’s attorney as not being racially motivated and that Zimmerman was simply exercising his right to use lethal force when threatened (as is law in the Great State of Florida).  I assert that Zimmerman was exercising a needless reaffirmation of power and control that was ingrained in him by living in a society that has taught us to view a black man as a threat.  Jonathan Capeheart said it best when he wrote that black men must carry the “burden of suspicion.” That is to say, blacks are subconsciously seen as a threat and the burden is on them to prove otherwise.

I would like to end with some personal anecdotes and feelings that I have held for a very long time.  Feelings that I am just starting to express as I become more aware of the world I live in.  There are times when I look at even my closest white friends and wonder what they think of me.  I wonder if they harbor any hate, feelings of superiority or are in any way threatened by me.  Worse still, I wonder if they don’t see my color and just assume that they can relate to all that I am going through, I wonder if they deny that I have to often work harder than they do just to achieve as much as they do as a result of institutional barriers meant to oppress people of color.   These thoughts come from my experiences: hearing that my sister’s boyfriend is constantly stopped by the police of an affluent, predominantly white suburb simply for ‘acting suspect.’  Seeing whites clutch their purses and bags closer when walking by a black man.  Hearing white frat guys talk about how great the sex with black girls is.  Being told by my mother that no matter how successful I am in this world, there will be some who see me as inferior simply because of the color of my skin.  This is my reality.  I could have easily been Trayvon, walking home from the store and killed simply because the color of my skin invoked suspicion.  Until we as a society are honest with race and racism, and until we can actively reflect on our prejudices, and until we can walk in the shoes of others and attempt to understand their experiences, we will never be post-racial.  Indeed, the covert racism that is so widespread will continue to slowly weaken the fabric of our society like a erosive acid, eating through our collective humanity.

As of now, no legal action has been taken against Mr. Zimmerman.  Despite being told by police not to follow Trayvon, he did anyway.  He then shot and killed Trayvon while the youth was yelling for help.  Florida police did not take him into custody, and did not follow up with drug or alcohol tests.  In sum, a black youth is dead, and nothing has been done by law enforcement.  I BET that if I white youth were shot, someone would be in jail.  I encourage you to research the Trayvon Martin murder case.  Speak up on social media.  To those with a voice comes power.

~KJSW

It's 2012 Right?: Timelessness of Ignorance and Oppression

What year is it? 2012 correct?  I am pretty sure it’s 2012, but given the current discussion regarding contraception, sexuality and women’s rights, I have to double check.  Indeed, the present discourse is more reminiscent of the 1960 counter-culture and the sexual revolution with conservative reactionaries arguing that any and all cultural changes will inevitably destroy the very fabric of our society.  Now of course, these reactionaries make up a small minority of Americans, and the GOP, who have so valiantly championed the anti-contraception and anti-women’s right causes, realize this.  So, how do they justify taking such a controversial position on this matter?  That is to say, why, during an election year, are Republicans fighting against contraception which has near universal support among the U.S. populace? To say that this is risky political calculus would be the understatement of the century.  However, the way that this attack on women is being framed by the GOP seeks to cover up their true intentions i.e. suppressing the rights of women.  The Republican Party has decided to justify their radical campaign by disguising it as a fight for the right of religious objection and exemption to/from federal mandates designed to protect public health.  Fortunately, many individuals are able to see through this façade and recognize the GOP for what they are rapidly becoming: a party full of sexist, racist misinformed blowhards who would like to see us return to the ‘good ole days’ of Jim Crow and June Beaver. 

            Now there may be some of you who believe that my language is a bit, um, aggressive and that I am mischaracterizing the Republican Party.  Touché.  However, if one looks at the facts, they will find it difficult to agree with the GOP on this issue i.e. agree with the assumption that a) Pres. Obama’s contraception coverage mandate  constitutes an attack on religion and b) that this is not an attack on women’s health.

Let’s consider these facts which address subpoint A:

1.      Churches are exempt from this mandate. Period.

2.      Religiously affiliated institutions will not have to pay for contraception.

3.      Insurers will be required to reach out and provide the contraception to women free of charge.

In summation, religious institutions will have no role in directly providing contraceptive services to women thereby making their argument that Obama’s policy forces them to provide contraception and go against their religious and moral conscience void.

Now for the facts which address subpoint B:

1.      By opposing this policy, the GOP ensures that women will not have free access to preventative health care

2.      GOP continuously state that this policy is a ‘mandate’ not conceding that individual women can opt out. 

3.      Contraceptive resources serve a wide range of functions unrelated to pregnancy including the prevention of the development of ovarian cysts, the preservation of fertility by maintaining the functioning of female reproductive organs as well as the balancing of hormones and alleviation of migraines. 

So when we take these facts into account, it becomes clear that the GOP is opposed to providing equal healthcare to women.  It is true that perpetuating the belief that all contraception is good for is to prevent pregnancy and allow women to have wild and uncommitted sex makes for good talking points and rallies the base.  However, it is also true that it is grossly inaccurate and irresponsible.  The GOP leadership should have the courage to at least declare what this really is all about: a belief that women are second class citizens and should not have access to basic health care technologies.

I can go and on about this issue.  Whether I’m discussing the comment made by Santorum’s sponsor Foster Friess about how women should go back to placing aspirin between their knees as a cheap form of birth control, or the fact that the Congressional Hearings regarding this issue featured an expert panel of 9 men and only two women who were all invited by Republicans and, not surprisingly, shared similar views as the Republican hosts.  The fact of the matter is, the GOP is just plain wrong.  98% of Catholic women use contraception and 99% of all women use it.  This shouldn’t be an issue in 2012.  Which leads me to ask again: what year is it?

Is Family Decline Bad?: A Look at the Role of the Family in Modern Times

Given the fact that the family has historically been, and remains today, an institution that is perceived to be a vital part of society at large, it should not be surprising that many individuals are interested in the current status of families.  Scholars who have studied the family are still debating whether or not the family as an institution is declining or simply changing (Coontz, 1992; Popenoe, 1993).  Personally, I find that the sharp distinction between ‘change’ and ‘decline’ unnecessary.  If an institution is declining, is it not changing? I posit that the family is changing by declining, namely in its roles and responsibilities concerning socialization of children.  Further, I would argue that this decline in family function is not alarming or problematic and that it does not reflect a change in our culture’s value of familism.  Instead, the changes brought on by the decline are positive, and the shift in power from the family to other institutions may be good for children, whose wellbeing is used quite often used as a marker of the state of the family. Indeed, I will argue that families are still strong.  In order to see how the declines mentioned by Popenoe (1993) are not alarming or negative, it is necessary to focus, ultimately, on outcomes for children.  First, I will address how the changes in number of children born and the rising rates of marital dissolution are not indicative of family decline per se, and may be beneficial to the family unit. And finally, I will attempt to show that the shift in power from families to other institutions in the socialization of children was a necessary shift and does not undermine the institution of families. 

            In order to forward his argument that the family is experiencing dramatic decline, Popenoe (1993) points out that families are having less children.  I would argue that the decline in the number of children is not a reflection of a decline in the family as an institution.  Instead, I would argue that the decline in the number of children is, in some ways, strengthening families’ ability to provide for the few children they do have. I feel that one of the reasons women are having fewer children is due to an increase in female labor force participation.  Having to work and focus on careers could potentially force women to delay having children and have less children once they decide to reproduce.  Increased female labor force participation is a positive change and allows families to provide more for their children.  Consider for example data from the 2000 census which points out that the number of children in poverty fell from the 1990s till 2000.  This fall in poverty is linked to the increased number of two income families in which mothers are working and contributing to income (O’Hare, 2000).  If one is to use child wellbeing as an indicator of family strength, then one cannot deny that the decrease in the number of children is not a sign of a weakening family, and, instead strengthens the family in its ability to provide financial care to children. 

Instead of linking the decline in number of children in families to female labor force participation, Popenoe (1993) claims that the decline is due to an “unprecedented decrease in positive feelings toward parenthood and motherhood” (Popenoe, 1993, p. 530).  To support this claim, data is presented which shows that adults who felt that parenthood could fulfill major values they possessed fell from 58% to 44% between the years 1957 and 1976.  Further, Popenoe (1993) presents data fromt a poll conducted and reported by the New York Times.  In this poll, it was found that a lower number of women in 1983 than in 1970 reported motherhood and raising a family as the top things that they felt contributed to the enjoyment of being a woman.  These drops, though significant, do not, as Popenoe argues, reflect the rise of negative views on parenting.  Instead, I assert that this data merely shows that women are finding that there are more things in life that mark them as a woman.  Their careers, their friends and their leisure activities can be valued very highly.  This shift in value is not so much a marker of negative attitudes toward motherhood and is more indicative of more options for women rather than just staying in the home. 

            In terms of marital dissolution, it has been argued that the rising divorce rates place children in an unstable environment with adults moving in and out of their lives (Popenoe, 1993).  Indeed, research on child development has supported the idea that a lack of stability and single-parenthood can have adverse effects on the child (Evans, 2003).  Though this is the case, I would like to point out, firstly, that families in which married individuals feel that they are obligated to stay together for the child’s sake may be unhealthy environments, especially if the marriage becomes characterized by fights and arguments.  Secondly, as noted by Coontz (1992), though single-parenthood can occur following a divorce, 70% of women and men who have experienced divorce will eventually marry again.  Again, if we assess the strength of the family in terms of child wellbeing, children who are in families where there are marital tensions may suffer from significant stressors and may actually benefit from divorce.  Further, the high rate of remarrying eliminates the problems facing a single-parent in terms of raising children. 

            Though I believe that family decline cannot be assessed from the falling number of children born and the rising rates of marriage dissolution, I do believe that the family is declining in its role of socializing children.  However, I do not believe that this is a reflection of a shift in the importance our culture places on families’ role to socialize children.  Instead, I feel that the family decline in socializing children is normative, “a sign of the times,” so to speak, and does not pose significant challenges.  Children today are exposed to many cultural influences not present in the traditional family.  The emergence of new technologies like online networking sites and cell phones allows children to increase the time spent with friends and members outside the family.  Consequently, the family is not the only institution socializing the child.  Rather, friends and peers are contributing to child development.  Further, public schools, an institution that none would argue is inherently detrimental to child development, has taken over many of the socialization roles of the traditional families.  I argue that the transition of the child socializing role was a result of increased access to peers and the increasing importance of schools.  Yes, the family has declined in this role.  However, it is not negative.  I am not arguing that families have no influence on the socialization of their children (after all, a great deal of socialization, i.e. gender norms, is completed before a child is old enough to go to school).  The fact that peers and schools socialize children as well is more of the family sharing roles, not losing them.

            In sum, the American family is changing in that it is experiencing decline.  However, as we have seen, apparent indicators of family decline such as lower number of children born and rising divorce rates are misleading as they do not necessarily mark a family as weak or broken.  The family is declining in that it is no longer largely responsible for the socialization of children.  This decline, however, can be seen as normative and does not bring with it negative consequences for the institution of the family.  If we are to measure family decline by the wellbeing of children, we are forced to note that the family has declined in its socialization roles, but still remains a strong and valued part of society. 

References

Coontz, S. (1992). The way we never were: American families and the nostalgia trap.

            New York: Basic Books, 8-22.

Evans, G.W. (2003). A multimethodological analysis of cumulative risk and allostatic load

            among rural children. Developmental Psychology, 39, 924-933.

O’Hare, W.P. (2003). Trends in the well-being of America’s children. The American People.

            1-23.

Popenoe, D. (1993). American family decline, 1960-1990: A review and appraisal. Journal of

            Marriage and Family Studies, 55, 527-542.