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.

The Trouble With Being Gay and Gray

Medical advances and increased understanding of the social determinants of health have contributed to what social scientists refer to as the “Graying of America.”  Simply put, Americans are living longer, healthier lives.  Recent U.S. Census data places the number of older adults aged 65 and older at 40 million or roughly 14% of the total U.S. population.  Additionally, as reported by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, there are currently 3 million gay and lesbian older adults living in America, and this number is expected to double by 2030.  Older adults are faced with various challenges from mobility issues to cognitive declines.  Fortunately, formal and informal caregivers are investing much time and energy into caring for the elderly.  Though many older adults are receiving much support from these caregivers, I argue that the LGBTQ population is not receiving the support they need.  Indeed, our LGBTQ elders face unique challenges that need to be addressed.  Only then can we ensure that our older community members are living healthy, fulfilling lives up until the very end.  In this article, I will list 2 challenges that I consider to be understated and yet I find to be of particular importance.  I will then conclude with possible steps that we as a community can take to face these challenges.

Problem 1) Aging in a Youth Oriented Culture

Citizens of the United States value youth.  Aging in such a youth oriented culture places pressure on older adults to look as young and beautiful as possible.  In other words, people are expected to ‘age gracefully’ (this is especially true for women, but men also face pressures).  Though most older adults experience this societal pressure to look young and beautiful, there is reason to believe that the LGBTQ culture may perpetuate this pressure.  With this pressure comes a desire to hold on to our youthful appearance for as long as possible.  When we are unable to, we experience stress, depressive symptoms, even suicide ideation. Despite the fact that the U.S. values youth, many younger adults hold respect and reverence for their elders.  Research has shown that this reverence may not be as prevalent in the LGBTQ subculture relative to mainstream culture.  This is not due to a lack of concern per se.  Rather, it is due to the invisibility of LGBTQ older adults.  Stigma and fear have led many ‘out’ gay and lesbians back into the closet as they age. A part of this fear is due to a belief that they have no more purpose in a culture where youth is emphasized.  In his 1985 book, Quiet Fire: Memoirs of Older Gay Men, Keith Vacha concludes that stereotypes held by younger gay and lesbians contribute to this thought that older gay men and lesbians just wink out of existence.  Because of their invisibility, older gay and lesbian women lose the potential to serve are mentors and role models, and thus, become disengaged from the very community that they helped build and sustain.  My point is not to criticize the community for its focus on youth.  It is understandable that our community focuses on youth seeing how many members of our community have died from AIDS and therefore did not live long lives.  But we must not be caught up with the past.  Many gay and lesbian members of our community have lived to a ripe old age and we need to acknowledge them. 

Problem 2)Caregiving: Family of Choice v. Family of Origin

In terms of caregiving, LGBTQ older adults face numerous challenges.  Formal caregivers such as nurses, physicians and social workers may not be adequately trained to properly care for older gays, lesbians and transgendered individuals in terms of their psychosocial wellbeing and quality of life.  Further, informal caregiving, defined as care given by untrained individuals (i.e. daughter, spouse, partner) is also an issue for the older LGBTQ population.  Sociologists who research sexual minorities distinguish between families of origin (our biological kin) with families of choice (friends, partners, spouses). As noted by Kristina Hash, a social gerontologist, older gay and lesbians are far more likely to receive care from families of choice due to severing of ties with the family (recall, these individuals identified as gay and lesbian in a time when homosexuality was viewed as a mental disease and the prevalence of familial disownment was much higher than it is today).  The strain on caregivers is great.  Investing so much time and energy into caring for an older adult limits the time caregivers invest on themselves.  This leads to a deterioration of their own health. Despite this strain experienced, caregivers receive much support from outside institutions.  However, the sad truth is that these organizations are more likely to help biological kin and spouses than friends and partners. Further, certain rights (hospital visitations and medical orders) are reserved for family and spouses.  Because marriage is still outlawed in most states, partners and significant others caring for an older adult loved one find that they are unable to serve to their full capacities as advocates for their loved one’s health and well being. 

Though I have only detailed 2 unique challenges, there are several more including physical and mental health inequalities, vestigial stigma, ageism compounded by homophobia, loneliness, and sexual health issues.  As challenging as these problems are, we can make a difference. 

Solution 1) In terms of our focus on youth, we can value the young and the beautiful but we don’t have to do this at the expense of our elders.  These brave men and women experienced the Stonewall Riots, the pathologization of homosexuality, and fought tirelessly for the rights that we enjoy today.  I encourage you to reach out.  Seek out older members of our community and befriend them.  Let them mentor you.  Their wisdom and experience is highly valuable. They deserve our respect and our acknowledgement.  Though they are invisible, it is only because we are not letting ourselves see them.

Solution 2) This change must come at the societal level.  Though we cannot rewrite laws overnight and overhaul the currently busted policies that deny our community our basic, human rights, we can provide support to organizations that have made it their mission to support older LGBTQ adults and their caregivers.  I implore you to visit the website of SAGE: Services and Advocacy for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered Elders at http://www.sageusa.org/.  Learn about their organization and consider helping out. 

In sum, our community faces several challenges.  And though we are facing those challenges head on, we can be doing more for our LGBTQ elders.  They helped to build our present.  Let’s help build their future.

~KJSW

Komen Controversy and the War on Women

The power of social media cannot be denied.  Nor is it deniable that the pervasiveness of social media power is incredible.  This fact was first seen during the protests against PIPA and SOPA, which, quite literally, caused several Congressional supporters to renege on their promise to support the controversial legislation.  And, I am pleased to announce that public outcry, which came mainly via social media outlets, has led to the Komen Foundation restoring their grants that funded breast cancer screening procedures for Planned Parenthood.  The purpose of this post is to address two key questions: 1. Though the funding has been restored, we must ask ourselves: why was funding denied in the first place? 2. Is there an underlying and insidious agenda behind the actions that led to the denial of funding? 

First, what led Komen, the first and arguably the most successful breast cancer awareness and prevention foundation, to cut off funding for breast cancer screenings when surely such action is the antithesis of their mission?  I do not believe that Komen’s decision was based on malice or some type of competition with Planned Parenthood.  Instead, I believe that Komen’s decision was influenced by politics, as usual (and to be more specific, Right Wing Politics).

It all started when the Komen foundation hired Karen Handel, former gubernatorial candidate for the state of Georgia and an adamant pro-lifer, as a vice president for policy. This was an interesting choice of hire seeing how Komen prided itself on being a non-partisan non-profit that was fully committed to their mission.  Why then did they hire someone who, not only speaks out constantly against abortion, but also one who has expressed animosity against Planned Parenthood which has served as a Komen’s partner for years?  Surely Nancy Brinker and the other directors of Komen anticipated some type of drama.  Sure enough, shortly after Ms. Handel was hired, the powers that be at Komen began questioning whether or not they should affiliate themselves with an organization that provides abortion. 

Now, Komen couldn’t come out and just say that they were pulling funding because of any anti-abortion ideology.  Instead, they came up with a brilliant excuse.  The organization made the decision that they can no longer provide grants to any organization that is under Congressional or legal investigation. The interesting thing to note is that, of all of the organizations that Komen provides some type of funding to, only Planned Parenthood fit the criteria of their new policy.  Consequently, funding was stripped from Planned Parenthood.  Now I hate being accused of seeing things when they are not there, or flipping out about issues that turn out to be completely coincidental.  However, the timeline cannot be overlooked.  Karen Handel (a woman with a deep opposition to Planned Parenthood) is hired and then the emergence of this policy regarding denying funding to organizations under investigation (which only impacts Planned Parenthood)? Sounds fishy.  To sum up this point, I believe there is evidence for the claim that pressure from Right Wing politicians influenced the decision the defund Planned Parenthood.

Secondly, is there an underlying and insidious agenda behind the actions that led to the denial of funding? Yes.  I believe there is.  What the Komen Foundation controversy shows us is that a war is currently occuring.  This war has not been waged against any foreign enemy, but rather with a group that makes up a little more than half of our population. I am referring, of course, to the war on women that has been waged by social conservative extremists.  Fighting to outlaw abortion is not the only tool in the social conservatives’ arsenal.  They also seek to suppress female sexuality and expression, guilt trip young women and lead them to believe that they are ultimately at fault when they conceive children out of wedlock, and not so secretly criticize women who reject the tradition of staying home with the children while daddy brings home the bacon.  Though I am not implying that the Komen foundation intended to harm any women through their actions, they nevertheless served as a useful pawn in further denigrating women throughout the country.  To conclude, the underlying agenda behind the actions that led to the Komen controversy is a war on women.

I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the Komen’s apology and their refunding of Planned Parenthood.  This is great news, undoubtedly, but I believe that there will be continued backlash against the Komen foundation.  Though I, like many others, am upset at Komen for sinking so low and allowing political pressures to compromise their efforts at providing much needed female health care services, and I am also forgiving.  I also urge others to not hold this action against Komen.  They are an organization that has, and will continue to, provide excellent services and research meant to alleviate and prevent the pain and damages caused by breast cancer.  They made a mistake, and then they reversed their decision due to public outcry.  This is how democracy works.  Komen made their apology and I accept it.  I hope that you all accept it as well.  After all, there is too much at stake.  As long as there is a woman out there who is in need of health care services, we do not have the luxury of being unforgiving of those who have made it their mission to provide hope to those who have none.

~KJSW