Color blindness vs. opportunity

Martin Luther King Memorial, Washington DC

Those of us who remember, albeit vaguely, the era of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., can perhaps be forgiven for wishing the whole racial equality thing settled, so we can move on to some other crisis, like poverty or world peace. One has only one attention span, after all. However, race refuses to settle, refuses to consign racism to a bygone and unlamented era, refuses to quit the stage of American politics.

Dr. Evelyn Carter, from evelynrcarter.com

A lot of that has to do with how deeply wired race is to our ways of interpreting the world, says Dr. Evelyn Carter, a social psychologist with the diversity consulting firm Paradigm Strategy Inc. Race is part of the way we categorize people we meet, pre-consciously, so before our enlightened ideals have a chance to kick in our impressions of others are "auto-populated" with racial ideas, often of the rather unenlightened sort.

Dr. Carter spoke on Martin Luther King Jr Day in Cedar Rapids, in a morning celebration at Coe College and in the evening at St. Paul's United Methodist Church. (In between the two she ran a workshop at the public library.) Both talks were on the inadequacy of color-blindness as an ideal for navigating the world. She recognized the allure of color-blindness: people want to be seen as individuals not as stereotypes, and interracial conersations about race are inevitably stressful and exhausting. Whites don't want to say the wrong things, and blacks don't want to make themselves a target. So it's easier to avoid the subject.

Other studies show whites tend to over-focus on the progress made in race relations since the 1950s, which, while considerable, still falls far short of the equal opportunity the country promises. In 2016 median family wealth for whites was $171,000; for blacks it was $17,600 (Besette 2019). The disparate situations mean a world of difference in terms of access to health care, housing, travel, educational opportunities and internships, not to mention much greater vulnerability to any life setback. Not surprisingly, as a consequence, young African-Americans and Latinos are much more likely to live in poverty, drop out of school, and be unemployed (Besette 2019).

Dr. Carter speaking at St. Paul's UMC

Dr. Carter argued color-blindness stifles conversation about what's going on in the world, thereby inhibiting remedial action, and keeps us frm being good neighbors. At St. Paul's she addressed the parable of the Good Samaritan in the Christian gospel of Luke, arguing that Jesus's concept of neighbor does not necessarily mean someone like us with similar experiences and attitudes, but anyone in whom we can recognize common humanity. "How would you want to experience the world?" she asked. "How would you want to be treated, to be shown mercy?" Dr. King's 1963 speech in Washington, she said, did not advocate for a color-blind society--a common interpretation of the "content of their character" passage--but a "beloved community" involving a variety of gifts.

She concluded both talks by commending "frank conversations about race" as the only way to overcome the racial divide and begin to achieve some semblance of King's dream. She proclaimed herself an optimist, believing that these conversations can and will happen. She recommends:

• "Lean into the awkwardness." White people in particular should stop trying to prove their sympathy-likability ("peformance orientation") and try to learn as much as they can from the other person.
• "Remember that relationship can go a long way." The more time you spend with someone the more trust you build.
• Conversation can clarify what needs to be done (referencing Luke 10:37, Jesus said to him, 'Go and do likewise.')

Her wisdom and optimism are important antidotes to a racial scene in America that can seem intractable to the sympathetic white, not to mention downright dangerous to the black or Latinx.

Johnson STEAM Academy choir sang some lively tributes to Dr. King

Ana M. Clymer, Cultural Equity Statewide Coordinator,
accepting the Percy and Lileah Harris "Who is My Neighbor" Award
(Fun fact: The Harrises were Dr. Carter's grandparents)

SEE ALSO:

Camille Busette, "Our Day of Reckoning," Brookings, 12 January 2019
Alison Gowans, "MLK Day Speaker, Granddaughter of Percy and Lileah Harris, Encourages Hard Conversations," Cedar Rapids Gazette, 20 January 2019
LAST YEAR'S POST: "Acting for Inclusion in a Fearful World," 16 January 2018 (also 2017 2015)

Condition of the State 2019

(Source: Wikimedia.org under Creative Commons license)

Here's what we know about Iowa in 2019: Of its roughly 54,000 square miles, roughly 50,000 of them contain places that are losing population and wealth, and are voting Republican. Republicans have had unified control of state government since 2016 after holding the governor's office and state House since 2010. They renewed control in 2018 despite a Democratic wave nationwide. The Statehouse is pretty much an "office of rural affairs," with urban Democrats at the margins.

So, I'll say with my best Ross Perot voice, "it doesn't take a rocket scientist" to imagine the Governor and legislature putting their best efforts and resources into resuscitating Iowa's struggling small towns, rural areas and small industrial cities. In earlier posts (cited below) I've cited recommendations from researchers on how to do this: support universities, welcome immigration, develop public-private partnerships, small business incubators, improve digital skills, subsidize extension of broadband access, and in desperate cases relocation assistance, a rural housing initiative, and better funding for state agencies (Smith 2018, Hendrickson Muro and Galston 2018, Menner 2018, Florida 2017).

However, what we've seen since 2016 is little-to-no progress on any of these economic initiatives, and a whole lot of crowd-pleasing and tax-cutting. Besides the biggest tax cut in the state's history last year, which will only help the situation if supply-side economics miraculously starts to work, we've seen annual bills restricting abortion--including last year's "fetal heartbeat" bill--as well as de-funding Planned Parenthood, barring sanctuary cities, loosening gun control, ending collective bargaining for public employees, blocking minimum wage increases in urban counties, and cutting the state budget.

This year, according to the Gazette's daily previews, top legislative priorities include holding the line on spending while expanding gun rights, cutting property taxes, legalizing sports gambling, and making the judicial selection process less merit-based and more partisan. How any of this helps the people who are hurting, wherever they are, I can't see, unless they draw some comfort from pissing off liberals.

Gov. Kim Reynolds (R-Iowa), from governor.iowa.gov

Governor Kim Reynolds's second Condition of the State address Tuesday was civil and positive, in the tradition of this address, but rather small potatoes. That may be as good as it gets, given the priority placed on cutting taxes. She began with an extended section celebrating Iowa's residents and legislative achievements (see above), then announced "the future is now" while discussing various initiatives (some state, some private) to prepare students and workers for the new economy. (Later in the speech, a post-prison initiative got the highest praise possible: "And it's run without! government! funding!") There was also an extended discussion of mental health policy, signaling that is going to be higher on the agenda than previously thought, though much of the work ahead involves undoing the damage the state did earlier in the decade.

She ignored all of the ideological red meat on the legislature's table, which was polite, but left me wondering how much of her address actually related to the legislative session just underway.

The Governor nodded at the need for rural economic development, in the usual ways. Virtual connectivity was hailed as the key to retaining young people and keeping rural communities vital, and she's asking for $20 million, so I'll give her that. Second on the list was expanded rural housing tax credits. Oh, and we'll now have an actual office of rural affairs, to be called the Center for Rural Revitalization. She was more personal last year when she said "When I go home, I hear the disappointment and I feel the frustration when another storefront closes." But the hesitation to commit much in the way of state resources to addressing deep-seated local issues is the same. At least we can send them texts when we pass another gun rights bill!


SEE ALSO
"Election 2018 and What Happens Next," 20 November 2018
"What is the Future of Iowa's Small Towns," 3 July 2018 [includes a fair amount of economic data on urban/suburban vs. rural Iowa]
"Condition of the State 2018," 10 January 2018

Eventually, we're going to have to figure out immigration

Swiped from wbur.org

President Trump made his first-ever speech to the nation from the Oval Office last night, trying to justify why the need for a 1000-foot-long wall across our border with Mexico is so excruciating that it is worth a government shutdown to force Congress to accede. With a robotic delivery and flagrantly misleading "information," he probably didn't convince anyone, but he might have managed to reassure the true believers he's still with them. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer were barely more energized as they tried to convey their party's stance as rooted in common sense and fairness, albeit with very little in the way of detail.

I was missing a lively, young, technically-literate Democrat who could, with a few props, explain how electronic surveillance worked better to solve all of the problems attendant to illegal immigration. That would have provided a contrast to our President in so many ways. But, alas, that didn't happen in this universe. And where is the vision? Where is the equivalent of Martin Luther King's 1963 dream of interracial community?

President Trump's immigration policy is so awful almost any alternative would be better, rather like every direction is south when you're at the North Pole. (The same could be said for his environmental policy.) Listening to wall advocates, you immediately wonder if they understand how the 21st century actually works, or if this is all about symbolic expression of--what? Hatred of Mexicans? Leaving one's mark in a sort-of permanent way? Add in the gratuitously cruel handling of refugees, including what amounted to kidnapping their children, and the utter unpreparedness of ICE and the Department of Homeland Security for implementing any of these policies, and you're left with the conclusion that the entire policy is fueled by malice. Ignorance, malice, and lack of resources--no wonder Pelosi and Schumer felt confident in asserting they could do it better.

Eventually, though, we're going to have to get specific. We're actually at a rather quiet phase of the immigration cycle, or would be were it not for President Trump's knack for creating chaos out of order. Overall immigration levels have recovered from the financial crisis era, but remain below long-term averages. The best estimates of undocumented persons as well as undocumented workers in the United States have them at their lowest levels in over a decade. Moreover, a sizable proportion of both groups have been in the U.S. more than 10 years; fewer are newly-arrived (Krogstad, Passel and Cohn 2018; for data on Mexican border apprehensions, see Ramon 2018). It's surely possible to imagine both economic and political pressures getting more intense. Nicholas Kristof calls 2018 "the best year in human history" because of worldwide progress against poverty, lack of access to education and premature death. May that progress continue! but if there are reversals that will increase the number of people in developing nations willing to take the risks involved in getting to America. And what of refugees, who the President has denigrated and horribly mistreated? As climate change accelerates, and basic resources become scarce in more places, the resulting instability and violence will produce refugee flows that will make those of the last few years seem like a Sunday in the park. Are we ready for that?

Immigration is one way to counteract a declinig birth rate. Or not
(Source: Frey 2018. Used without permission)

I don't think we are ready at all, other than majorities of Americans disapprove of Trump's approach. We need a coherent, predictable immigration policy that takes account of all legitimate interests in the policy debate. That means admitting all those needed for labor supply, as well as providing an avenue for refugees with a well-founded fear of persecution. It should provide security against dangerous people, drugs &c. but also to regulate the entry of immigrants--and not just those entering across one particular physical border--to some nationally-agreed upon level. It should provide clear, manageable paths to permanent and temporary residence. It should take account of those who have been in the country so long they have become part of the national fabric, such that chasing them out would do more harm than good. The resources necessary for enforcement, naturalization and managing the flow of temporary workers should not be difficult to get. Whatever the associations with the name, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is a much better name for this operation than the too-narrowly-focused Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

It goes without saying that this policy should be thoroughly debated in Congress, for however long it takes, as was the case with the landmark Immigration Acts of 1965 and 1986. It should not result from the President holding the government hostage until he gets what he thinks he wants.

It also goes without saying that opposition to immigration that is racially-based--viz. the President's frequent characterizations of Mexicans and "shithole countries"--should be recognized and called out for the racism it is.

The alternative to immigration laws that relate closely to the realities on the ground is, I suppose, the default option of continuing to muddle through as we have for decades. This policy has evolved in a way that's clearly adaptive to various realities, which means it's working after a fashion, despite its incoherence.  Current policy also distributes its costs unfairly to Border Patrol officers, who put their lives on the line for laws the country isn't committed to, and to undocumented laborers, who are too vulnerable to resist economic exploitation. It also creates space for unscrupulous politicians to exploit racial fears and resentments.

A country that celebrates community in all its diversity needs to have a frank conversation about immigration. For the forseeable future, it's up to Democrats to take the lead on that.

Transcripts of the President's speech and the Democrats' response are here.

Three questions for places in the New Year

Cedar Rapids winter overflow shelter
(swiped from cbs2iowa.com)

1. Can we do better by our mentally ill and addicted citizens? People living on the streets are a constant of urban places, even in smaller cities like Cedar Rapids. Of the cities where I spent time, Seattle seems to have the most aggressive street people, including one fellow downtown known for periodically shouting at no one in particular, "Excuse me, sir? SIR? SIR? FUUUCK!" There have been reports of urinating in front of stores, and following other people for blocks. No wonder Seattle's mayor called homelessness "an emergency" a few years ago (Treatment Advocacy Center 2016). But variations of these phenomena are found everywhere. In New York City last month, a police officer was attacked by three homeless men.

One plausible if somewhat-dated estimate had the homeless population with severe mental illness at 325,000 (Treatment Advocacy Center 2016).  Homelessness comes in many forms, and much of it is driven by issues of supply and affordability. People living on the streets are often mentally ill or addicted to substances (which are not mutually exclusive categories). Nationally, estimates range around a third of homeless who are severely mentally ill, though local studies have found higher proportions (Baldwin 2016). (People who are homeless for economic reasons tend to be less visible to the general public, and probably to researchers, too.) Their situation has been exacerbated for decades by deinstitutionalization and closing of psychiatric hospitals, driven by state budgets as well as idealism.

While institutionalization is not the solution for everyone, neither is it compassionate to allow people to drift and struggle, facing perils of crime, weather and eating food from dumpsters. Can we improve access to addiction treatment and antipsychotic drugs? Provide better transitional living situations? Support more research into causes and cures? Meanwhile, we rely on short-term heroic solutions like shelters, or try to law the problem away by making sleeping on the streets a crime.

Downtown Washington, Iowa

2. Is there potential for economic development in small towns and rural areas? This is a question we've visited before, but with the imminent reconvening of Iowa's office of rural affairs (a.k.a. the state legislature) it's worth looking at what might be done for underperforming areas besides tickling their feelings of resentment with culture wars bills.

A recent Brookings study argued that small towns and rural areas might do best by cooperating with nearby small cities (Arnosti and Liu 2018). If our economic future is going to be anchored by digital and knowledge-based skills, policies to revive extractive industries like mining should be recognized for the false promises they are; instead, "rural America's best bet might be to support economic growth in urban centers, including micropolitan areas, and strengthen linkages between urban and rural communities." Successful metros can and do subsidize projects elsewhere in the state; successful metros near rural areas improve access to jobs and capital for rural residents while retaining social connections; and some of those taking advantage of nearby opportunities will return to their hometowns (the "boomerang" effect). Richard Florida (2018) notes that not all rural counties are suffering population and job loss, though the examples he cites--a Tesla factory in Storey County, Nevada; an expanded casino in Love County, Oklahoma; and an expanded retirement community in Sumter County, Florida--smack of smokestack-chasing and so may be limited in their instructive utility.

Arnosti and Liu approvingly quote Bloomberg columnist Noah Smith, who argues, "In order to compete with the big cities, rural America needs fewer factory towns of 5,000 people and more small university cities of 50,000." They argue states should (1)  empower communities' and regions' capacity to chart their futures; (2) prioritize local job creation over recruitment of firms like Tesla or OCI NV; (3) strengthen post-secondary education; and (4) seek to close regional disparities. There's a lot there to choose from; we'll see if Governor Reynolds or the Iowa legislature pursues any of it, or sticks to the ever-popular culture wars.

(Photo by Tela Chhe, from flicker.com via minneapolis2040.com)

3. Can Minneapolis 2040 [a] work? [b] serve as a model for other cities? In December 2018, the Minneapolis City Council passed a new comprehensive plan. Most notable among its many topics, the plan calls for policy changes that could conceivably have an earth-shaking impact on housing supply and affordability by allowing duplexes, triplexes and apartments in a vast area of the city where they are not currently permitted (Schuetz 2018, Sisson 2018). If it plays out as hoped, the increased density will produce substantial improvement in the city's environmental footprint, better community connections, an opportunity for all those people who say they want to live in walkable communities actually to do that, and more fiscally-sustainable infrastructure. As Strong Towns Tweeted: Minneapolis 2040 will undoubtedly have a huge impact on economic justice and the affordable housing landscape. But allowing neighborhoods to adapt and grow incrementally will have an even bigger impact on something more fundamental: pure finance. 

Other cities, starting next door with St. Paul, are looking at what Minneapolis has done and are preparing to ask their doctors if Density might be right for them. But there remains much work to be done to turn this legislative miracle into on-the-ground reality.


Anyone who follows politics knows that the fight doesn't stop with enactment; it just rolls across the street to a new bar. The zoning code will need to be changed to incorporate the new goals i.e. to make them legal. As in any place facing housing issues, landowners and developers will need to be assured there's profit to be made in these kinds of projects. And specific projects are sure to be protested by affected neighbors (Schuetz 2018). On the other hand, new Mayor Jacob Frey chose to spend his political capital on passing this, and it did pass, and that alone represents an intriguing new page in this story.