text:
Author Archives: Guest Authors
by Guest Authors | March 31, 2020 · 12:01 am
On Monday morning, the ACLU of Pennsylvania filed an emergency request to the state Supreme Court to order county courts to release vulnerable populations from city jails. Philadelphia activists amplified the call to action through an organized social distancing caravan targeted at key decisionmakers. These actions follow the first confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Philadelphia prisons and jails, which were reported last Friday.
For weeks, the ACLU, local activists, community organizations, the Defender Association of Philadelphia, and the Philadelphia District Attorney's office have been urging the release of vulnerable populations from conditions where social distancing is impossible. The First Judicial District (FJD) courts and Governor Wolf, however, still refuse to step up to inhibit the rapid and fatal spread of COVID-19. Two weeks into the alarm being raised on coronavirus in Philadelphia, the FJD has released minimal numbers of immunocompromised and elderly individuals, far fewer than the hundreds or thousands that have been released in other jurisdictions across the country and world. The courts have also rejected emergency release petitions based on public health concerns for those detained on probation or parole violations, barring many youth and adults who pose no threat to society from returning safely home.
Despite a foreboding history of communicable disease outbreaks inside detention centers, Governor Wolf has also declined to proactively save lives by closing inhumane facilities and exercising his gubernatorial powers of compassionate release. People awaiting immigration cases in York County Prison are on hunger strike to protest insufficient measures for their safety. The Berks County Immigration Detention Facility in Leesport, PA, one of the nation's three immigration detention centers for families seeking asylum, lost its state license to operate in 2016 due to dangerous conditions and ongoing human rights abuses of residents, including infants. Yet Governor Wolf's administration reiterated last week that they would not issue an emergency removal order unless there is a serious threat to public health inside the walls, an irony not lost on advocates and immigrant families currently fearing for their lives at the prospect of COVID-19 entering the unsanitary facility.
Jails and prisons as institutions pose a greater public safety risk than any individual they cage. This was true before the pandemic began and is an even more urgent truth as the virus enters jails, prisons, and detention centers. These overcrowded facilities lack access to soap, sinks, paper towels, and hand sanitizer and put both those who are incarcerated and those who enter these facilities for their work at risk, as recently seen on a large scale in New York City's infamous Rikers Island Jail. The FJD and Governor Wolf could immediately reduce overcrowding and mitigate this risk without any threat to public safety. Governor Wolf could enact massive compassionate release with just the stroke of a pen, which would free any elderly or immunocompromised person at increased risk for contracting and dying from the disease. He could also order the release of community members detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) who are held for no crime other than lacking documentation while they otherwise contribute robustly to our communities. The FJD could supplement these efforts by releasing all those charged on low-level offenses from county jails and discontinuing arbitrary bail amounts. There's no good justification for wealth-based detention in general and it is particularly indefensible during a pandemic. The courts and the governor also have the power to extend compassionate release to individuals who are up for parole review, individuals within six months of their release date, pregnant individuals, and youth in county and state detention facilities – many of whom are medically vulnerable and in conditions violating the federal ban on solitary confinement of youth because of facilities' attempts to follow social distancing.
Community members are anxious to welcome children, parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, grandchildren, grandparents, partners, and friends home, people they have often traveled thousands of miles and spent thousands of dollars in travel expenses and private prison phone company bills to stay connected to during the months, years, or decades of their incarceration. Precautionary measures for COVID-19 now forbid most visits to jails and prisons. Most facilities have not replaced those visits with video conferencing alternatives or lowered costs per phone call minutes to talk with lawyers and families. This strains already obstacle-ridden bonds between those behind barbed wire and those in the outside world. If and when our loved ones are connected to the basic resources and support systems they need to survive, they are less likely to commit crime and more likely to contribute positively to society when they come home, as so many returning citizens do. In the midst of this deadly pandemic, allowing them to sustain those bonds through early release also grants them access to health-sustaining resources and the ability to social distance, preventative measures mandated by the governor himself to ward off and slow the spread of the novel coronavirus.
Governor Wolf and the FJD must take immediate action before they risk condoning hundreds if not thousands of preventable deaths in the state. Government inaction on continued overcrowding of carceral facilities has already resulted in chaos and deaths in places such as Italy and Colombia. Our city and state have an opportunity to instead follow the example of neighboring states, to embrace humanity and public health common sense in mitigating the disastrous effects mass incarceration will lend to COVID-19's rapid spread.
About the Author: Hannah Prativa Spielberg is currently pursuing a Master of Social Work at the University of Pennsylvania. She worked for four years as a social service advocate for the Defender Association of Philadelphia. Hannah is inspired by the leadership and love-based activism of community members and friends who have experienced life from the inside of prisons, jails, and detention facilities, who moved her to write this piece.
Hannah recommends following @YASP2, @aclupa, @powerinterfaith, @DecarceratePA, @Closethecreek, @Phillybailout, @phillybailfund, @mediamobilizing, @BBworkers, @BLMPhilly, @LILACPhilly, @JustLeadersUSA, @AmistadLaw, and/or @reclaimphila for updates and ways to get involved in the fight.
Filed under Health Care and Medicine, Poverty and the Justice System
Tagged as compassionate release, COVID-19, detention centers, First Judicial District, Governor Wolf, jails, Pennsylvania, prisons, public health, public safety
by Guest Authors | October 18, 2018 · 1:27 pm
by Yvonne Slosarski and Nathan Luecking
To all the leftist organizers out there: How many times have you been called "negative"? How often have those in power accused you of being "divisive"?
If your organizing experience is anything like ours, you may be nodding your head in agreement. It's mid-October of an election year, which means that left-leaning candidates all over the country are facing accusations of "negativity." In DC, our city, Elissa Silverman – one of the most left-leaning representatives in DC government – was called "the most divisive politician in the city" by her developer-backed opponents.
As volunteers for Emily Gasoi's campaign for DC State Board of Education in Ward 1, we are often accused of "going negative" by Gasoi's opponents. Given our research, professional, and organizing experiences, we recognize this tactic for what it is – an attempt to squash legitimate disagreement.
The accusation of "negativity" or "divisiveness" tends to function in three main ways.
1) It minimizes legitimate dissent to the status quo.
The call for "civility" has historically tended to silence people who dissent from the status quo. What counts as "civil" tends to support the existing power structure and celebrate what our political morality demands that we condemn.
In DC's Ward 1, the call for "positivity" is similarly being used to shut down challengers to corporate education reform.
Gasoi's opponent, Jason Andrean, is a Capital One Executive for Government Contracting. He also was a board member of Democrats for Education Reform (DFER), a market-based education reform organization started by hedge-fund managers. DFER advocates against teachers' unions and for high-stakes testing and charter schools as the primary ways forward in education. Gasoi's opponent also chairs the board of Achievement Prep, a high-stakes-testing charter school in DC that has been cited for excessive punitive measures, poor educational outcomes, and high teacher turnover.
Gasoi is running for the Ward 1 seat, in part, to challenge the corporate education reform model of DFER. She knows that the finance industry has too much power in education policy and that market approaches have re-segregated schools, lessened "deep learning" for minoritized students, and denied power to the people closest to classrooms – teachers, families, and students.
But corporate education reform is the status quo in DC, so pointing out Andrean's connections to DFER and the banking industry – and his lack of education experience – is considered an "attack" by his campaign, which wrote the following in a recent email:
Throughout this race, one of my opponents has attacked my motives and has suggested that only someone with a doctorate deserves to represent the families of Ward One. She's even gone so far as to attack my supporters and those who believe that ALL voices have value as we work to fix what's broken in our public education system.
Aside from inaccurately portraying Gasoi's claims, this email suggests that there is no room for criticizing corporate education reform. But how can we be "positive" about it when the stakes are so high for our students?
2) It obscures meaningful differences.
Organizations and candidates have meaningful differences in priorities and experiences. In a neoliberal environment, "positivity" rhetoric draws on an empty notion of individual equality to suggest that all experiences are somehow the same.
Returning to Ward 1, Andrean wrote the following in a Medium piece about his candidacy:
Since embarking on this journey my opponent, Ms. Gasoi, has made it her mission to lambast my character and discredit my education experience — which she deems inferior to her own. I don't come to this race with an Ed.D. in education policy or having spent time as a classroom teacher, but like the majority of families that look like mine, I want my lived experience to be valued and represented on the State Board of Education. My opponent often tells others that I'm a 'banker with no education experience' when out on the campaign trail. The reality is that we all have an 'education experience' and that's why I'm running for the SBOE… [O]ur leaders should reject the notion that there's only one type of representative we should be electing to serve our kids and families.
When Andrean writes, "we all have an 'education experience,'" he minimizes a very important difference between him and Gasoi. Unlike him, Gasoi has devoted her entire professional life to public education. That's part of why her priorities, unlike his, are aligned with what's best for students in DC.
3) It takes the conflict out of politics, to ensure that the powerful win.
Civility rhetoric presumes a shared interest between groups that—structurally—are in conflict. Where one group is up because another is down, we must bring conflict into the forefront, and those in power may label such disruption "negative."
In the Ward 1 School Board race, Andrean and his supporters have consistently shied away from his policy priorities, instead uplifting their "positivity." For example, his campaign tweeted:
I'm proud to have a campaign team that's committed to running a positive race, one reflective of the ideals we'd hope our school system embraces. Whatever the outcome of this race, I'm committed to supporting our SBOE rep and those that come up short. It's what our kids deserve. pic.twitter.com/iGRSdlIxnC
— Jason Andrean for DC State Board of Education (@JasonAndrean) October 12, 2018
Instead of debating policy priorities, he hails himself as the "positive" candidate, thus shutting down debate over consequential policies. As Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau argued, the status quo is always just one version of the world and conflict is an inherent part of "the political." Forced positivity cuts off debate over decisions that matter. And with no real conflict, the powerful—who often benefit from inertia—win.
Of course, quashing legitimate and consequential debate is a serious problem for people trying to choose a candidate between options. Are you supposed to choose a representative based on how abstractly positive they are? What if they gut public services with a smile on their face?
This rhetoric of "positivity" seriously obscures the real-life consequences of policies that should legitimately be challenged.
Andrean, who has been the Chairman of the Board at Achievement Prep Public Charter School in Ward 8 of Washington, DC since 2016, has a troubling track record. Under his leadership, Achievement Prep has fostered a culture of punitive discipline, favored behavior management over classroom instruction, and responded inadequately to teacher concerns. DC voters who care about student outcomes and emotional well-being need to know this history.
In a 2018 Qualitative Site Review of Achievement Prep's Elementary Campus, the DC Public Charter School Board observers noted that "Academic expectations and rigor were low across the campus. Class time was mostly devoted to managing behavior to keep students safe and compliant." As the rest of DC moves towards a trauma-informed approach to discipline focused on restorative practices, Achievement Prep continues to embrace an archaic, punitive, zero-tolerance approach to behavior management. This is evidenced by Achievement Prep's suspension rate, which is twice that of the city average. In addition, student consequences are imposed with little consistency and vary between students. The site survey reported:
Students screamed and called one another hurtful names and hit each other without consequence, while other students engaged in the same behavior received consequences inconsistently…In one observation an adult dragged a student by the hand out of the classroom when he went into crisis.
There was also a highly publicized incident in which a six-year-old girl suffered a concussion after a substitute from a privately contracted company dragged her across the floor.
In another incident in the spring of 2018, an Achievement Prep teacher was sexually assaulted by a visitor on school property. In response, school leadership put the teacher on involuntary unpaid leave for the remainder of the year. The teacher effectively lost nearly $3,000 in wages. While Achievement Prep staff organized, demanding safer working conditions, Achievement Prep leadership has not responded to this call for increased safety requirements. The lack of concern Achievement Prep leadership has shown may reflect why, of the 51 reviews posted by former employees on glassdoor.com, only 6% recommend working at the school. (Note that teacher working conditions and student success are linked, as evidenced by this study in the American Journal of Education.)
glassdoor.com reviews of Achievement Prep
Given these issues at Achievement Prep, it's not surprising that concerns about student discipline, teacher recruitment, and management led to the rejection of Andrean's 2015 application for a different charter school. Similar concerns drive our opposition to his candidacy and to corporate education reform more generally, and it would be irresponsible not to the tell the truth about his record. When we know the potential consequences of his winning the election, "keeping it positive" would be the lowest of lows.
Yvonne Slosarski has a Ph.D. in Rhetoric & Political Culture. She is an organizer and researcher on movements for economic justice, a Humanities professor, and the associate director of an honors program at the University of Maryland.
Nathan Luecking is a School Social Worker in the District of Columbia. He is a school mental health advocate and sits on a city-wide Coordinating Council for school mental health.
Filed under 2018 Elections, Philosophy, US Political System
Tagged as Achievement Prep, civility, DC State Board of Education, ed reform, Emily Gasoi, Jason Andrean, rhetoric
by Guest Authors | October 1, 2018 · 5:44 pm
Dear Councilman Grosso,
We've met before. I worked at a bar in Chinatown that you used to frequent. We only spoke a few times, but I remember feeling proud to have you as our guest because you had a reputation for being an ally – an advocate for women and for the LGBTQ community. I'm writing to you today to ask you to be an ally to vulnerable workers in Washington, D.C. by supporting Initiative 77, which will raise the wages of tipped employees and help stabilize a flawed system.
The restaurant industry in Washington has afforded me many opportunities as both a bartender and manager. I have a deep respect for my service industry peers, and when my colleagues came out against 77, I voted "no" alongside them. In retrospect, the pressure in the industry was substantial to oppose, and then to repeal. Yet when the voters of D.C. popularly supported 77, I began to realize that our conversation about the initiative had been imbalanced. We had not heard from bartenders who supported 77 and, perhaps most importantly, we had not heard from many of the most vulnerable members of our industry.
In support of these vulnerable workers, I testified against the repeal of 77 after most of the Council had left for the night, dashing from work after last call at 1:00 a.m. and returning to close the bar after my testimony. While I waited my turn, I heard the fears of my colleagues who work in some of the city's most renowned restaurants. They testified that 77 would catalyze the decline of our vibrant restaurant industry. Many fears reminded me of those I heard when other voices lobbied against paid sick days. Meanwhile, so many whose fears are realized on a daily basis went unheard that night. Once more, I will try to speak for them, as one of them.
I have felt the volatility of subsisting on tips. At that Chinatown bar, our staff sometimes missed a week's income when bad weather drove everyone away. More recently, while pursuing my graduate degree, I worked daylight hours, which cut my income to a fraction of what it had been. While I earned meager tips off a handful of guests, I meticulously cleaned and prepped the bar for the busy night ahead. The system allowed my hard work to go unpaid.
I believe that Initiative 77 is a step toward professionalizing this industry and giving all tipped workers the stability and respect that they deserve. This is a bill meant to help the most vulnerable in our industry. It is for women who smile through degrading treatment because we need a tip. It is for underpaid immigrants who toil tirelessly to keep things running, often doing double the work for half the pay. It is for the welfare of our residents who are not chosen to work in the city's highest-grossing restaurants.
I have seen enormous, unjustified disparities in pay. As a manager, I've seen the books. I've seen what restaurants spend on turnover, and I've witnessed the revenue lost from an undervalued and sometimes uninspired workforce. I also know that rising expenses are absorbed through small increases in food and beverage prices. The industry will shift to accommodate a higher base wage.
The Council has repeatedly asked these vulnerable workers to show themselves. It has asked why they have not spoken more loudly. Councilman Grosso, as an ally, I believe you know better. These groups are more dependent on good relationships with management and staff than they are on any city law. And they already voted once. I am asking you to stand for them. I am asking you do what's right.
Supporting 77 is a way for you to stand for the rights of all tipped workers across our city. With your support of 77, you're not choosing between restaurants and workers; you're choosing to create a more just and equitable system for all.
Aubrey DeBoer
Aubrey DeBoer is a bartender and restaurant manager in Washington, DC with nearly 10 years of industry experience. She has been a Ward 5 resident for the past eight years.
Filed under Business, Gender Issues, Labor, Poverty and the Justice System
Tagged as David Grosso, DC, DC Council, Initiative 77, minimum wage, repeal vote, tipped minimum wage
by Guest Authors | May 31, 2017 · 10:43 pm
Tom Block, an artist and author of five published books, believes art is a vehicle for human rights activism; he connects 13th-century ideals of "legislative prophecy" with the present, looking for a moral center in politics, the economy, and social interactions. In this post, Block (who you can follow on Twitter at @tomblock06 and learn more about at http://www.tomblock.com/) draws lessons from a 150-year-old book about the problems with and how to improve America's economic system.
Tom Block
Let's forget about Trump for a moment.
After all, as fun and exciting and different as his presidency is proving to be, he will not – in the end – change the course of human events. Even less so, of the economic pressures that aggrieve and threaten to crush us. Where Trump is a pimple on the butt of American history, our ongoing economic anarchy is a blistering, cancerous abscess affecting the fate of all of people.
I picked up a book the other day which threw the greed, inequality, lawlessness, and inhumanity of our Western capitalist system into stark relief. And given that this series of essays was written more than 150 years ago, at the infancy of the Industrial Revolution, I found it both prescient and deeply disturbing.
It diagnosed the creeping illness of the economic system of mid-19th century England, which so closely parallels our own, in 21st-century America. The only difference being that the ability for "economical science" (as the author called it) to wreak havoc on society and individuals has grown exponentially, keeping time with our frantic technological progress.
More than that, however, the slim pamphlet provides a potential palliative for this social illness.
I'm talking about an 1860 series of four essays, "Unto this Last," by writer and philosopher John Ruskin. Ruskin set out to show how economic health concerns far more than the acquisition of "all useful and agreeable objects which possess exchangeable value" (Ruskin quoting John Stuart Mill). He laid out quite clearly that true economical well-being involves evaluating the totality of society, not just the amount of gold distributed among the fewest number of people (as seemed to define – and continues to delineate – the true state of "wealthy" nations). In his view, "just or economical exchange…is simply [that wherein there is] advantage on both sides [and] whatever advantage there is on either side…should be thoroughly known to all concerned. All attempt at concealment implies some practice of the opposite." He also chafed at the idea that people with different interests (for instance, labor versus capital, or client versus producer, etc.) must "necessarily regard each other with hostility, and use violence or cunning to obtain the advantage."
Obviously, this kind of transparency and fairness runs directly contrary to what is considered "sound" business practice. As many current chairmen of publicly held corporations would surely note, their obligation is to their shareholders, not to consumers, to the health of the environment or nation, or even their own workers. Isn't the idea of having an economic exchange which is of "advantage on both sides" not only absurd, but antithetical to good business practice?
It's a zero sum game, man! There are winners and losers in life – and we want to be on the side of the winners!
This dynamic of greed and self-justification stretches back to the beginnings of capitalism, often dated by historians to fourteenth-century England. As Ruskin argued, those in power "never professed, nor profess, to take advantages of a general nature into consideration." Instead, they believe they are simply experts at "the science of getting rich…Every man of business knows by experience how money is made, and how it is lost," they'd argue.
Ruskin has an easy reply to this line of reasoning – one that all progressives should keep handy when arguing economic theory with the smarmy and self-certain advocates of economic anarchy ("deregulate the banks!" "deregulate the corporations!" "eviscerate environmental protections!" "never, ever raise the minimum wage!," etc.):
The circulation of wealth in a nation resembles that of the blood in the natural body. There is one quickness of the current which comes of cheerful emotion or wholesome exercise; and another which comes of shame or of fever. There is a flush of the body which is full of warmth and life; and another which will pass into putrefaction.
As diseased local determination of the blood involves depression of the general health of the system, all morbid local action of riches will be found ultimately to involve a weakening of the resources of the body politic.
And so it is: as the inequality of wealth accretes (as it certainly has since the presidency of Ronald Reagan, he whose name graces an airport, a federal building and perhaps, some day, the dime), the health of the nation, as well as the environment upon which the nation sits and depends, weakens. And so too, if we can judge by the growing anti-science, anti-truth legions collecting in our public square, does the mental acumen of the polis.
So what is one to do?
One of the hallmarks of my belief in activist social theories is that they be applicable, and lead to quantifiable, positive social change. We must move beyond simply expressing opposition to current political and social energies, to devising specific manners of combatting them. We must develop, as Hannah Arendt called them, "clumsy theories" – theories which can actually be implemented.
Ruskin's ideas show a way forward in the realm of the 21st-century global economy. And although I believe he would support a universal basic income, universal health care and access to housing for all, he states no such thing, and certainly is no proponent of communism or socialism.
I feel it is his acceptance of capitalism as the economic structure which makes his ideas more powerful. He is not going against what most people in our society (and certainly the older monied class, though not always today's youth) accept as the "best" way for the economy to work. Rather, he is tweaking, infiltrating and massaging it to make it work for a far greater portion of the population. And in the best of cases, for the entire society.
Ruskin reconsidered the manner in which we think about the most basic aspects of a healthy society. For instance, he noted: "The vital question, for individual and for nation, is, never 'how much do they make?' but 'to what purpose do they spend?'" Today, 21st-century "educated consumers" – all of those purchasing organic and fair-trade goods, buying local and at farmer's markets, examining labels to make certain they weren't made in far-away sweatshops, staying away from Walmart, Target and other multi-national corporations while paying a little bit extra to support the locally owned store or individual market – are living by Ruskin's code.
Doing so does cost a little bit more, and given that reality and many workers' low pay, we also need to think in terms of another movement gathering steam, one that Ruskin would heartily endorse: the Fight for $15. For Ruskin made it very clear that the price of labor should not be set by the anarchy of the marketplace and desperation of the worker. A fair and living wage should be paid to all, he argued:
The abstract idea, then, of just or due wages, as respects the laborer, is that they will consist in a sum of money which will at any time procure for him at least as much labor as he has given, rather more than less. And this equity or justice of payment is, observe, wholly independent of any reference to the number of men who are willing to do the work.
This idea of "procuring at least as much labor as he has given" translates into an equitable exchange in which workers are paid what they're truly worth, not what business owners say they are. We definitely see this idea in force now, as over the past couple of years, the ideal of a $15/hour minimum wage has been gathering steam. Low-wage earners in many cities and states can now take home pay more in line with their time expenditure, and thus have greater purchasing power.
Finally, we need to follow Ruskin's lead and center honesty in our economic thinking. Currently, the idea of "honesty" in commerce runs contrary to our economic model. Our economy is built on lying to consumers, usually obliquely through advertising messaging, but sometimes through overbilling, frank misstating of a product's benefits, and outright fraud, such as Wells Fargo Bank's practice of opening expensive bank accounts without informing people of their fees. But it doesn't have to be that way; as Ruskin said:
The acquisition of [true] wealth is finally possible only under certain moral conditions of society, of which quite the first was a belief in the existence and even, for practical purposes, in the attainability of honesty…There is no Wealth but Life. Life, including all its powers of love, of joy, and of admiration. That country is the richest which nourishes the greatest number of noble and happy human beings; that man is richest who, having perfected the functions of his own life to the utmost, has also the widest helpful influence, both personal, and by means of his possessions, over the lives of others.
Ruskin's ideas are hardly revolutionary. He does not advocate for the cessation of wealth accrual, or the destruction of the capitalist system. He only advocates for ramming a moral lodestar into the center of the system. There would still be labor and capital – but capital would treat labor with humanity, kindness, fairness and honesty. Money could still be won, but it would no longer be the "god" it has risen to in our pagan economic system; it would be simply a byproduct of hard work and good ideas, not malfeasance, cleverness and trickery. And when gobs of money were won, the "winner" would treat all the laborers in their orbit with fairness and honesty, as well as do their best to protect the values of respect, health and morality.
Unto this Last thus holds much wisdom for today's progressive economic and social thinker. The kind of tweaks, infiltrations, and moral compass Ruskin proposes – if advocated by enough people through specific legislative, legal and economic proposals – might actually begin to create the kind of practical utopia he envisioned. Many such ideas – a universal basic income, access to higher education for all, health care as a human right, etc. – are already percolating in our society. In some cases, like a living wage, social pressure has driven legislative action and these ideas are actually beginning to be implemented through legislation.
Now we just need more of that!
Filed under Business
Tagged as capitalism, economic theory, economy, morality, Ruskin
by Guest Authors | January 31, 2017 · 7:42 am
David Tigabu is a producer and writer based in Washington, DC. In this post, he explores how and why the white American evangelical movement rejects core Christian teachings and embraces Donald Trump.
David Tigabu
In the wake of the 2016 presidential cycle, readers have been treated to a barrage of think pieces focused on factors that led to the November outcome. Seemingly every publication worth its salt has featured an analysis zeroed in on one demographic in particular—the white working class. This has set off a debate, particularly within the Left, on issues of race and class, how they intersect, and the complex dynamic that is identity. However, the spotlight on the white working class has also overshadowed a much-needed look at a more decisively Trumpian constituency—white evangelicals.
Exit polls reveal that just over 80 percent of white evangelical voters pulled the lever for Donald Trump. 80 percent. Trump cheerleader and neo-nazi rag Breitbart gleefully celebrated this occurrence, pointing out that the President received more votes from this faction than any Republican presidential candidate since 2000. To put it more starkly, this means that shameless Bible thumper George W. Bush received fewer votes from this group than a guy who says his favorite book in the Bible is "Two Corinthians."
So how did this happen? How could white evangelicals vote for a candidate who mocks the disabled, promises to ban adherents of an entire religion from entering the country (a promise he is already acting upon), brags about not "giving unto caesar," and speaks of groping women by their vagina? How could family values dogmatists and reputed practitioners of morality support the thrice-married candidate with a penchant for lies and a bloated sense of vanity? The answer can be found in two basic truths about white evangelical Christianity—its current state of decline, and its moral and political commitment to maintaining white American hegemony.
The first revelation can be found in the institution's demographic problem. Simply put, Christianity ain't the only game in town anymore. According to the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), in 1974, sixty-three percent of Americans identified as protestant, but by 2014, that percentage had fallen to forty-three percent. Most of this religious decline has been concentrated in white protestant communities. In that same PRRI study, 51 percent of Americans identified as white protestants in 1993, but that number dropped to 32 percent over roughly two decades. Black and Hispanic religious identification has held steady during the same period.
A quick scan of the white protestant blogosphere reflects deep anxiety over this predicament. Attempting to address this issue, a subculture of think-pieces, denominational meetings and conferences have sprouted, devoted primarily to understanding why young people are leaving the church. Some younger protestant groups point to conservative stances on social issues taken by church leaders, while the evangelical wing maintains that the exodus stems from what they perceive to be an increasingly liberal church. Where there is consensus, however, is the idea that the church is currently in a state of crisis.
Former Republican and rigorous evangelical Michelle Bachman echoed this sentiment during an interview on Christian Broadcasting Network's (CBN) program Brody File, claiming that she believed "without a shadow of a doubt this is the last election. This is it. This is the last election."
Trump cleverly tapped into this conviction while appearing on the same CBN show. "I think it's going to be the last election that the Republicans can win. If we don't win this election, you'll never see another Republican and you'll have a whole different church structure. You'll have a whole different Supreme Court structure," he said. The group with the most fatalistic view of American cultural change are white evangelical Protestants, three quarters of whom (74 percent) say that American culture has changed for the worse since 1950.
It's within this context that voting for Trump came to be an act of desperation, a last gasp of sorts. For many white evangelicals, the 2016 election represented a last-ditch effort at preserving a way of life that seemed to be coming to an end. "It's a math problem of demographics and a changing United States," Bachmann pointed out. This was in many ways an attempt to cling on to some notion of Christian America
Interestingly enough, today's concept of a Christian America is a relatively recent development in American political life. Contrary to conventional wisdom, its history does not go back to the country's founding, and it did not come out of debates over abortion and school prayer. As Kevin Kruse points out in One Nation Under God, the modern evangelical Right was actually formed out of opposition to the New Deal, a series of major public investment initiatives put forward by President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s.
These policies were developed to address the Great Depression that had hit the country only several years prior, and through programs like the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and the creation of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), provided millions of people with employment, retirement income, and housing assistance. To be sure, these programs were far from perfect. For instance, the exclusion of African Americans from many of these wealth building programs played a major role in the racial wealth gap that we see today.
However, a different kind of opposition emerged, one that did not take issue with exclusionary elements of the New Deal as much as they found its programs too generous. Fearing the immense popularity of the New Deal and a nation they thought was heading towards socialism, groups like the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) attempted to undermine public support for Roosevelt's legislation and the broader virus of "collectivism." Understanding the clout that ministers had, NAM leaders began pushing preachers and religious influencers like James Fifield and Billy Graham, ministers that could peddle a brand of theology more palatable to the interests of big business. Over the ensuing decades, these leaders pushed ideas like the synonymy between Christianity and capitalism, God's preoccupation with the salvation of the individual, and the broader notion of a Christian America. Once capitalism and individualism were situated under the Christian banner, the fusion of religion and state could be rendered complete.
Issues like abortion, public prayer, gay marriage, and school vouchers would eventually join Christian Libertarianism in shaping white evangelical politics, becoming the most potent political force in the country over the last 40 years. The focus on these issues is ostensibly Bible-based, as Ben Carson and many other evangelicals often like to point out.
Which is all well and good, provided one doesn't pick up a Bible and read what's in it. The Sermon on the Mount, perhaps Christianity's fundamental ethical decree, makes no mention of homosexuality or abortion, issues that most certainly existed at the time. The passage contains no celebration of entrepreneurship or family values. What is found, however, is a concern for the poor, an embrace of pacifism, a condemnation of judging others, and a rebuke of false prophets masquerading as true teachers. What's also found is a repudiation of public prayer in which Jesus commands that people "not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others," a point that does not fit too squarely with school prayer advocates.
Both testaments emphasize a commitment to social justice and liberation, ideals that are nowhere to be found in the white evangelical ethos. Concern for the indigent, the sick, and the immigrant are a constant theme throughout the Old Testament, especially in the prophetic books like Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel. In Luke 4:18, Jesus says "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free."
While it may be tempting (read: easier on the conscience) to believe that Jesus was speaking directly to the need to develop more first-century Jewish philanthropic institutions, a more honest reading of that passage indicates that Jesus cared about systems that oppress marginalized people. Yet seeking to confront such systems in an effort to create a more just world is jettisoned by the white evangelical in the name of personal responsibility. These problems are better left to charity. The issue at hand, to paraphrase U2 singer Bono, is that many white evangelicals are more interested in modes of charity than the presence of justice.
At the end of the day, what's happened in evangelical America is simple: the language and iconography of Christianity has been co-opted to serve a set of narrow political interests, none of which have anything to do with Christianity. The outcome of such a project is the transformation of a social revolutionary murdered by the state into an abstract proponent of American imperialism, greed, patriarchy, and bigotry.
In her book All About Love, feminist bell hooks refers to this dynamic when she writes: "Fundamentalists, be they Christian, Muslim, or any faith, shape and interpret religious thought to make it conform to and legitimize a conservative status quo." The fundamental truth about the white American evangelical movement is that its real ethical commitment lies more towards its white American prefix than its evangelical appendage. Donald Trump, with a Republican Congress behind him, is now set on destroying an already meager U.S. social safety net and facilitating environmental disaster, and already appears to be signaling violence towards the country's most vulnerable communities, all with major support from this particular group.
It's up to all of us who give a damn about living in a world not governed by white supremacy, corporate rule, theocracy, and environmental destruction to expose these false prophets for who they really are, and how far removed they are from the truly radical message of Christianity.
Filed under Race and Religion
Tagged as Bible, Christianity, Donald Trump, evangelical, intersectionality, The New Deal
by Guest Authors | November 21, 2016 · 8:00 am
Bigotry and Disenfranchisement: Making Sense of Trump Supporters' Motivations
Like many other people, Jesse Soza has spent a lot of time thinking about what might have motivated Donald Trump's supporters to vote for him. Soza, a former classroom teacher, discusses the complementary nature of bigotry-based and economic explanations in this post.
Jesse Soza
"We must learn to regard people less in the light of what they do or omit to do, and more in the light of what they suffer." – Dietrich Boenhoeffer
In the past couple of weeks, the American public has been flooded with a variety of attempts at rationalizing Donald Trump's unlikely victory over Hillary Clinton. What has struck me is that in almost every piece that I have read, explanations tend to fall into one of two categories. On one side, explanations revolve around the extreme racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and Islamophobia that Trump was able to bring out of his supporters. On the other side, various pieces point to Trump's ability to speak to a large population of Americans who are experiencing high levels of social, political, and/or economic disenfranchisement.
As each side continues to attempt to validate its case as a way to legitimize or delegitimize Trump's victory, it has become clear that rational discussion between these groups has reached an impasse. Due to the incredible amounts of emotion tied to this issue, it is not a surprise to see each side making its argument with little to no consideration of the middle ground. The fact that each side has dug in behind its respective strawman argument means that the critical dialogue necessary to begin repairs to American society is unlikely to occur. Such dialogue can only begin when each side is willing to believe that there is some validation in the other's stance.
With that in mind, the following is my attempt to validate both explanations for how America has reached this point, and to explain how they're connected. Others, typically in the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party, have made similar points about the links between bigotry and a political and economic system that has left millions of Americans behind. But as I believe a failure to call out bigotry is the most glaring problem in this debate, my focus will be on the undeniable role it has played in this election.
A Historical Commonality
Throughout the course of history, racism, homophobia, sexism, xenophobia, etc. and social, economic, and/or political disenfranchisement have been inexorably linked. Over and over again, we see that humans find scapegoats when times get tough, and those scapegoats have often been vulnerable groups within a population. Think about what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany, the Tutsis in Rwanda, or the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. Acts of violence towards these groups provided perpetrators with a sense of regaining control and power where there had previously been none or the belief of losing it. Such acts did not actually improve the situation of the disenfranchised, but given their relative lack of persecution, some may have felt better off. The fact that this cause-effect relationship between social hardship and the targeting of vulnerable groups is so prevalent throughout history necessitates a critical examination of current events in America to see if there are similarities. (Spoiler Alert: There are.)
If social and mainstream media's statement of economically and politically disenfranchised groups is true (which it undeniably is), we must acknowledge what that means at a deeper level: If conservative America considers themselves disenfranchised, they almost assuredly harbor deep anger, resentment and frustration. Whether this anger stems from economic difficulties, political disenfranchisement, or a more deep-seated resentment of the move away from conservative White values (likely a combination of all three for most Trump supporters), it is now clear that there was a powder keg of emotional turmoil hidden within conservative America.
I will admit, at the beginning of this election, that I, like many others, was woefully unaware of the degree to which people were angry with the system. Did I see frustration? Yes. But did I truly know that so many Americans had such deep feelings of alienation? No. The results of the election have shown that the magnitude of anger and frustration residing within many Americans was significantly higher than many of us predicted. How did so many people miss it?
I think such large numbers of people failed to predict the level of anger residing in conservative America because, until recently, that anger had no guided direction. Without a unified bearing, such feelings were hidden behind a veil of superficial civility and tolerance. Sure, we'd see random acts of violence and injustice from hyper-racist groups or individuals, but never did we believe that America's problems with race, religion, sexual orientation and gender would become a national crisis. Shame on us. We became numb to the signs, and thus somewhat indifferent, to the potential for something much bigger and far more dangerous as a result of what was seeded within our nation. Because we failed to fully realize how strongly conservative America believed that they were losing their nation economically, politically, and socially, no major attempts were made to address the ticking time bomb of anger and resentment that stayed more or less under the radar as these Americans waited for someone who might empathize with their plight and give them direction.
Enter Donald Trump
One of the most common criticisms of Trump is that he never really explained how he was going to actually do anything he was promising. But I now believe that appealing to logic in terms of political action was never what he intended to do. Where I used to chalk up his lack of logic to incompetence, I now have to believe that it was his game plan. Trump's talent resided in his ability to elicit emotional responses. Early on, he recognized the anger and frustration that was bubbling in the hearts of many Americans (both Democrats and Republicans) and knew that if he could tap into that, he'd get all the support he needed. The question was how he would do it.
Through his speeches, actions and promises, he stoked the emotional fires of those who felt they had been pushed aside by the economy, government and the rest of American society. In doing this, Trump knew that he could win the hearts of his constituency. He provided the age-old answer to "who/what is to blame," thus giving all their anger and resentment direction and solidifying his status as "the answer."
That, by itself, wouldn't have necessarily been a bad thing, as almost all strong leaders find some way to tap into the passion of their people and give that passion direction. However, in a reprehensible move, Trump, like so many despots of the past, chose to use fearmongering as the way to achieve this end. He successfully created and fostered the notion that there were enemies among us, implying that if we were to defeat these enemies, America would be great again. Trump's 21st-century answer to America's plight was to dehumanize Mexicans, Muslims, Black people, LGBTQ individuals, Jews, and women, painting immigrants in particular as the source of our woes. Historically speaking, when humans are labeled as impediments to progress, the corresponding social response sets a very dangerous precedent. It is frightening to think about what America is already flirting with, especially considering that Trump and his values have not yet officially taken office.
Trump's bigotry and lust for power have played a primary role in stoking the anger and resentment that has been brewing in conservative America. Furthermore, he knowingly chose to funnel that anger towards vulnerable people. For that, Trump must be held accountable. We must acknowledge that the surge in overt bigotry America is currently experiencing is a direct effect of how Trump chose to run his campaign. Instead of calling for unity and working together as we overhaul a system that has disenfranchised many Americans (regardless of party affiliation), Trump chose to create and lead a modern day witch hunt. And like so many people in the past, a significant portion of downtrodden, resentful and angry Americans have attached themselves to a charismatic leader who is selling the idea that ultra-nationalistic bigotry will be the answer to their anguish.
Yes, Donald Trump spoke to the groups of people who felt that the economy and government weren't on their side. Yes, he did unexpectedly well because his message was one of reforming a broken system. But we must remember how he framed his message of change. The change he promised was undeniably tied to racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia, those hateful –isms (and –obias) that have acted as foundations of this country since it was established. He stoked the fires of bigotry and anger without regard for the consequences of his actions simply because he knew that it would draw people to him. For too many Americans, he galvanized the idea that there are people within this country who deserve ire and intolerance. His campaign has not only emboldened individuals to practice injustice towards others, it has legitimized such behavior as a patriotic means of "making America great again."
Donald Trump is dangerous. While I doubt he'll be able to do even half of what he promised (though you should take that with a grain of salt, as I had similar doubts about him becoming president), the real danger lies in his capability to foster feelings of hatred and bigotry within a distressed conservative America while disguising such acts as patriotic. As a leader, he will continue to divide the American people and feed into the false notion that acts of injustice and dehumanization will lead to a better, more recognizable home for disenfranchised Americans. Due to his position, charisma and the fact that so many Americans are desperately looking for an answer to their perceived troubles, people will believe him.
Donald Trump has, without question, made it to the White House by painting both our fellow Americans and fellow human beings as what is wrong with America. In doing so, he has effectively made them targets for discrimination, oppression and dehumanization. Furthermore, the nature of his campaign has played a primary role in giving tacit approval for Americans to oppress each other.
We must acknowledge the reality that Donald Trump has and will continue to encourage acts of injustice. To deny that or mask it with a neutral stance would be ignorance at its worst. Whether we see new discriminatory policies or other citizens who have bought into Trump's misguided message that bigotry is the right course for America, we must get outraged and intervene. We cannot stand idly by if the rights and humanity of others are in jeopardy.
We also have an obligation to try to understand why so many people voted for Trump. Though the common idea that such a decision was made not because of racism, sexism, or other forms of bigotry but in spite of them may strain credulity for some of us, we must consider that possibility and the possibility that, even in cases in which an –ism was the primary driver of a Trump vote, that -ism is deeply connected to a system that isn't working. We can continue to straw man our respective arguments by oversimplifying answers or we, as a unified American society, can try to reach out in an attempt to acknowledge and appreciate the deep-seated pain and anguish that are currently feeding American anger and resentment.
The task before us is immense, possibly necessitating one of the largest social movements in American history. It is made more difficult by the fact that we have a charismatic individual coming into office who knows how to harness, incite and utilize social anger to his advantage. Still, acknowledging these things means we may have a fighting chance of pushing back against the tide. We know what the problem is: Anger stemming from pain. The solution: Love, compassion and understanding.
Filed under 2016 Election, Business, Race and Religion
Tagged as bigotry, disenfranchisement, Donald Trump, economic anxiety, homophobia, Islamophobia, racism, sexism, xenophobia
by Guest Authors | October 11, 2016 · 6:15 am
Voting: Which Method Is Right for You?
Jenny Wolochow studied Philosophy and Religious Studies at Stanford University (MA '11), taught elementary school in California through Teach for America, and now works as a Product Marketing Manager for Partners at Coursera. She is passionate about civic engagement and explains why in this post, which also touts voting by mail and links to a great guide she developed to help California voters navigate this year's ballot. Views expressed here are her own.
Jenny Wolochow
I know some of you are disenchanted with American politics – especially this year. But the craziness of this presidential election shouldn't stop you from participating in our democracy.
Voting is a right that not everyone has, and our ancestors fought hard to earn us that right. It's a chance to have our voices heard – and it can make a difference. For those reasons, it's an important responsibility for us to take advantage of that opportunity and to use it well and wisely.
Outside of just the presidential election, there are many local candidates who deserve your attention. In fact, one could argue that state and local races matter considerably more than federal ones. If you live in 35 states, specific policy issues will be on the ballot and should also be on your radar. I live in one of those states and have created a ballot guide to help my fellow Californians navigate this year's voluminous and confusing set of propositions. The guide includes information on the San Francisco ballot measures as well.
Knowing your options for how to vote (i.e., by what method you should vote) is also important. Most states have three voting methods: (1) in person on election day, (2) in person early, or (3) by mail. You can use the resources at vote.org to check with your local elections office to see the available methods and key deadlines this year.
My recommendation: If you want to get the biggest return on investment for your vote, you can get the same "benefit" with a very low "cost" by choosing to vote by mail. As I've learned firsthand from being a native Oregonian (voting by mail is the default for everyone in the state), voting by mail has three important advantages over in-person voting:
1) It's convenient. When you vote by mail, you can vote whenever you have time; you don't have to worry about your schedule. Traveling out of town on election day? No problem. Too busy at work to get time off for voting in person? No big deal. Not sure where your polling place is? Doesn't matter. You don't even have to fill out the ballot all at once; you can space it out and fill in parts of it whenever you have the time. You can choose to return your completed vote-by-mail ballot either in person or by mail to a county elections office. Just remember that your ballot must be turned in before the polls close on election day.
2) It helps you make thoughtful, informed choices. When you get your ballot in advance, you have plenty of time to review it, consider your options, and research issues.
3) It's more private than in-person voting. You decide when and where to fill out a vote-by-mail ballot and put it in a sealed envelope, instead of having to carry your ballot around in a public place with a thin divider.
Voting is not perfect. Our democratic system is not perfect. But there are still good reasons to participate in it, and it's often easier and more productive to vote than many people think.
Filed under 2016 Election, US Political System
Tagged as California ballot, cheat sheet, propositions, vote by mail, voting
by Guest Authors | October 4, 2016 · 6:00 am
Teacher Satisfaction: Education's Failure to Retain Quality Educators
Jesse Soza, Ed.D., was a classroom teacher for twelve years but chose to leave after experiencing high levels of frustration and burnout. He now researches and consults with schools and districts about teacher satisfaction, which, as he describes in this post, is intimately related to working conditions for educators.
A Conceptual Misunderstanding of Teacher Satisfaction
As the 2016 – 2017 school year gets under way, one of the goals many school districts will undoubtedly have will be the retention of quality teachers. While the objective of keeping talented and skilled employees would (and should) be a best practice of any self-respecting organization, education in particular has had a difficult time succeeding in this arena. With a standing attrition rate hovering around forty percent for teachers in the first five years of service, losing high numbers of educators has become a norm for the American system. Furthermore, as a result of an almost fatalistic acceptance of this norm, a dangerous notion has emerged that teaching can be approached as a "transient profession," implying that sustained commitment to students, colleagues and the work itself is an unnecessary trait for teachers. As high turnover rates limit teacher quality and incur high monetary costs for districts, there is little doubt that this combination is devastating for education. Districts and schools are desperate to do whatever they can to keep quality teachers.
It is not surprising, then, that there is a lot of conversation around the idea of teacher satisfaction. Districts know that happy teachers are far more likely to remain teaching than those who are experiencing dissatisfaction. Thus, significant time, effort and expenses have been marshaled in an attempt to provide incentives that might lure teachers to the profession and, more importantly, keep them teaching. Example incentives include signing bonuses, financially supplemented graduate degrees earned during the first years of teaching and/or job security in the form of extremely quick tenure (this is merely the tip of the iceberg in terms of what districts may be willing to offer). On the surface, these common-practice incentives appear desirable. One could reasonably assume that a teacher who is able to attain them should have a noticeable increase in satisfaction and thus be more likely to stay committed to teaching.
Yet data seems clear that these and other incentives have not had the desired effect of increasing retention. No matter what teachers are being offered, overall levels of satisfaction have failed to increase and the result has been a continual hemorrhaging of young, talented teachers (not to mention the high levels of burnout experienced by veteran teachers).
After studying teacher burnout and attrition and interviewing teachers across numerous sites and systems about their feelings around what it means to be an educator in the current system, I have come to an important conclusion about teacher satisfaction: What satisfaction actually is and how it is generated is not well understood within the educational community. As long as satisfaction remains ambiguous or ethereal, attempts at building and implementing meaningful action to address satisfaction will continue to be ineffective. Therefore, the primary issue at hand becomes turning the nebulous concept of teacher satisfaction into something more accessible, and thus workable, for those who seek to engage it.
Defining Satisfaction
What makes satisfaction such an interesting phenomenon is that, while people experience it in a variety of situations on a daily basis, they often encounter difficulty in placing precise parameters around what exactly is going on. The overall concept, however, is fairly simple: Satisfaction is the resultant feeling that occurs when an internal desire or expectation is either fulfilled or denied (to a degree) by conditions of reality; the more fully reality fulfills an expectation, the greater the satisfaction one feels. When reality denies actualization of an internal expectation, dissatisfaction occurs. Levels of satisfaction are thus constantly generated as desires or expectations interplay with people's experiences. However, what makes satisfaction difficult to analyze and measure is the sheer number of variables that influence it. Indeed, the devil is in the details. In the case of education, understanding teacher satisfaction requires insight into how the desires and expectations of teachers are interplaying with the conditions that make up their work environment.
The Desire to "Make a Difference" Versus the Reality of Teacher Work Environments
The vast majority of teachers enter the profession with the intent of "making a difference" in students' social, emotional and academic lives. While the specific details of how that is carried out will vary from teacher to teacher, the expectation and desire to "make a difference" assuredly sits at the core of teachers' passion and drive. Teacher satisfaction, then, must be considered a measure of how well a teacher is able to actualize those expectations and desires. The more they are allowed to work towards "making a difference," the more likely teachers are to find satisfaction. However, if they perceive that they are unable to do so, dissatisfaction is likely to set in.
Unfortunately, teachers all too often find their expectations and desires of "making a difference" at odds with the current conditions of teacher work environments. These environments, heavily influenced by well-intentioned but deeply flawed reforms such as No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, emphasize prescription and rigidity to meet metrics, requiring teachers to adopt pedagogy, methods and values that are not their own. Teacher autonomy, creativity and expertise (qualities normally attributed to professionals) have been sacrificed for formulaic, teacher-proof methods that mandate curriculum, instructional delivery systems and behavior management procedures, among other things. Reform meant to improve the system has actually created an educational culture that actively works to deskill teaching, although few would describe it as such. The institution defined by teachers carrying out the act of teaching is, in fact, becoming increasingly adept at stripping its workforce of its ability to do so. Fueled by what often seems like distrust and a lack of respect for teachers and their craft, various forces within society continue to deny teachers the ability to practice their vocation and, as a result, the opportunity to fulfill the expectations and desires that constitute their passion, drive and expertise.
When working conditions strip from teachers the ability to actualize the expectations that make up their passion and drive, they become alienated from the job and, because of the personal nature of teaching, themselves. Combined with teaching's abysmal compensation and poor social status, it should not be difficult to imagine why attrition and burnout rates remain high (and will continue to be so in the future). Instead of honoring teachers as passionate, driven experts, the current trend is to view them as high-level technicians, merely carrying out dictums that have been passed down to them. The more teachers are forced to adopt the educational values, purpose, methods and strategies set forth by others, the more separated they become from their own values, purpose, methods and strategies.
This cultural invasion within education marginalizes teachers and undermines opportunities for them to find satisfaction. In a somewhat ironic twist, the passion and drive that keeps teachers in the classroom in spite of poor compensation, long hours, lack of resources, etc. is the same passion and drive that education is actively stripping from them. Without this passion and drive, there is no reason for an individual to commit to such a maligned profession, which explains the problems our system is experiencing today.
When writing about workers laboring in conditions where they cannot find meaning and purpose, Karl Marx noted, "[the worker] does not fulfil [sic] himself in his work but denies himself, has a feeling of misery rather than well-being, does not develop freely his mental and physical energies but is physically exhausted and mentally debased." This, unfortunately, accurately describes the current state of the American educational system and its relationship with its teachers. Education, as a human endeavor, cannot continue to operate in a way that dehumanizes those who work within it. Indeed, teacher satisfaction will only be realized in systems where teachers' expectations, desires, passion and expertise are truly respected and honored.
Tagged as attrition, happiness, satisfaction, teacher quality, teachers, working conditions
by Guest Authors | August 22, 2016 · 11:12 pm
War in the Name of God: Christianity Is No Less Addicted Than Any Other Religion
Tom Block is an author, artist, and activist whose book, A Fatal Addiction: War in the Name of God, explores the relationships between religion, spirituality and institutional violence. In this post, Block (who you can follow on Twitter at @tomblock06 and learn more about at www.tomblock.com) summarizes some of the book's core themes to debunk the notion that Islam is uniquely violent.
In a recent op-ed in the New York Times, Gary Gutting (a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame) argued concerning what some call "radical Islamic terrorism:"
Islam has not yet tamed, to the extent that Christianity has, the danger implicit in any religion that claims to be God's own truth. To put it bluntly, Islam as a whole has not made the concessions to secular values that Christianity has.
This Western-centric, racist and arrogant attitude from the spiritually "advanced" Christian religion toward the unreformed and medieval Islamic one is all too typical. As I write this, Christian nations (mostly our own) rain bombs down from drones onto weddings, schools and other secular places and events in Islamic lands. The difference between our bombs and their bombs, however, is (according to the narrative) massive: we drop our payloads in the name of peace and with a great sadness that they force us to, while they joyfully blow themselves up in evil acts of anarchy and murder.
At least Christian killers value their own lives!
One needn't dig too deeply into the American story, or psyche, to discover specific examples of our country's Orwellian "war is peace" paradigm, all tightly supported by the loving vessel of American Christianity.
Christian language and imagery are explicit in the American call to arms. America's wars have almost always been – and continue to be – spiritual/religious affairs in which young men and women are called to sacrifice themselves for the Christian God. As was noted in an article in Newsweek:
In America, God and war have a particular kinship: evoking God in the midst of mass killing is inspirational…Divine sanction has been used to give meaning to the Constitution's promise of equality, as well as to license genocide…This impulse to blend God and war owes much to the American temperament: Americans have always feared one (today, nine out of ten call themselves believers) and loved the other (the United States has fought in dozens of armed conflicts in the nation's two-and-a-third centuries). Not a few old warriors have admitted to thrilling to the words of "Onward Christian Soldiers."
If you're not convinced that this defines a current American attitude, consider the United States' response to "Islamic terrorism" (the American existential threat du jour). "In the weeks after the September [11, 2001] attacks," Pulitzer-Prize-winning journalist Christopher Hedges observed, "communities gathered for vigils and worship services. The enterprise of the state became imbued with a religious aura…The state, and the institutions of state, became for many, the center of worship."
On the first anniversary of the attacks, seven months before the 2003 incursion into Iraq, President Bush said: "Our cause is even larger than our country. Ours is the course of human dignity, freedom guided by conscience grounded by peace. This ideal of America is the hope of all mankind." As the British newspaper The Guardian reported:
George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Nabil Shaath, Palestinian foreign minister said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did. And then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq." And I did.'"
Bush's politics of war were always framed for the public in a religious manner. As Anglican Priest Jeremy Young noted, for example, Bush suggested in his 2003 State of the Union address "that America is Christ and that its role is to save the world." However, it is true that Bush hasn't been president for nearly a decade, so it might be argued that now, finally, America has moved past the conflation of Jesus's will and our military incursions.
Would that it were so. President Obama, winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, has continued the starry-eyed vision of an American Christ of the sword. Professor Robert H. Nelson, writing for the mainstream PBS website, notes that Obama, too, has infused religious imagery into his speeches. And Obama has buttressed this faith with bombs. According to Politifact, by the spring of 2016, Obama had ordered 500 drone strikes in Somalia, Pakistan and Yemen (as opposed to 60 by President Bush); 1000 drone strikes in Afghanistan in 2014 alone; and a smattering of others in Syria, Libya, Iraq and other far-off, generally Muslim locales. The Huffington Post noted that "nearly 90% of people killed in recent drone strikes were not the target," allowing Obama's scattershot Christian murders to be assured of killing Muslims, though rarely the "correct" ones. Far from shying away from these actions, our Christian leader has bragged about it: "There isn't a president who's taken more terrorists off the field than me, over the last seven and a half years," he puffed in an interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace in April 2016.
None of that is to say that American Christians are in any way different or worse than contemporary practitioners of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, or even Buddhism. It is simply the case that Christianity is no better, no more evolved, no more peaceful than any of the world's religions – all of which (even Buddhism) are steeped within a tradition of sacred violence, and are currently involved in wars of choice in the name of God. (While I am well aware that many will balk at the idea that Buddhism, too, is as bloodthirsty as the other world's religions – gasp! – Buddhist practitioner Brian Daizen Victoria notes in his book Zen at War that "warfare and killing are described as manifestations of Buddhist compassion" and Buddhists are, in fact, committing violence today.) All faiths utilize war-like language and imagery to describe matters of the spirit and exhort followers to religious catharsis through violence. Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer stated in his book, Is Religion Killing Us: "Religiously justified violence is first and foremost a problem of 'sacred' texts and not a problem of misinterpretation of those texts." Since virtually all major religions have embedded within them violent images of God, people can selectively recall these texts and extract from them divine support for war, creating the foundation for what Nelson-Pallmeyer terms the "violence of God tradition."
One central reason that contemporary leaders have such a willing audience when representing war as religiously sanctioned – and, in many cases, even a spiritual obligation – is the extensive history of uniting physical war and the spiritual path within the sacred teachings of virtually all creeds. Though much of the religious language was undoubtedly meant as metaphor, the human mind runs quickly downhill to the literal, leaving reams of imagery and injunctions for leaders to utilize when discussing military campaigns within the secular culture, and influencing the minds of potential warriors.
American politicians, the media and even mainstream entertainers – like those of all other cultures and religions – do everything in their power to play up the similarities between the religious path and war, all for the poorly obscured purpose of exploiting human pawns to protect their own earthly power or to just simply make a buck (e.g., Boeing, General Electric, Northrup Grumman et al.). Perhaps, to some extent, they might even believe their own words, especially if they themselves have fought in a war and come out more or less whole. In this case they will be forced to trust in the lie of a mystical war, if only to help justify the horrors they themselves witnessed and perpetrated.
We need only examine the words of a man considered an American hero, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), to understand how war language explicitly borrows from the religious and even mystical lexicon. Here's how he eulogized a soldier fallen in Afghanistan:
He loved his country, and the values that make us exceptional among nations, and good…Love and honor oblige us. We are obliged to value our blessings, and to pay our debts to those who sacrificed to secure them for us. They are blood debts…The loss of every fallen soldier should hurt us lest we ever forget the terrible costs of war, and the sublime love of those who sacrifice everything on our behalf.
Note how the very real horrors of war are euphemistically referred to in the language of mysticism: "sublime love," "obligation," "good causes," "moral purpose, "save the innocent," "peace" and "sacrifice." This presentation persuades the general population to bypass the intent of their religious teachings, concentrating instead on its sometimes-grisly content.
For those who waver, the dead soldier is held out as incontrovertible proof of the necessity and worth of the war. After all, how could one "force" the soldier to have died in vain, by questioning the worth of his action? The war becomes worthwhile because someone has died undertaking it, a reversal of the normal assignation of worth, which defines an action's merit before the risk is actually taken. In a horrifying example of the "sunk costs" theory, the more people that die for a cause, however mistaken, the more religiously valuable the action, no matter what the true human or economic price really is. Through the sacrifice of human souls for political ends, war becomes enmeshed with a true God experience.
Perhaps as dangerous as the ongoing conflation of spirituality and war are assertions like those from Gutting, who declares that American Christianity has "moved past" religiously sanctioning state violence. This blindness allows our country to engage in wars for our victims' own good – in much the same way that 12th-century Crusaders (a term used by George W. Bush in describing America's response to the attacks of 9/11/2001) or 15th-century Spanish Inquisitors did.
It's time for a dose of honesty: Christianity is in no manner more mature or less war-like than Islam or any other religion. To heal the illness of state-sponsored murder, we must first admit that.
Filed under Foreign Policy, Race and Religion
Tagged as America, Christianity, God, Islam, mysticism, spirituality, violence, war
by Guest Authors | August 1, 2016 · 6:00 am
Truth or Politics
Tom Block is an author, artist, and activist whose most recent book, Machiavelli in America, explores the influence of the 16th-century Italian political philosopher on America's politics. Machiavelli's impact is particularly apparent today, as Block explains in the post below. Block (who you can follow on Twitter at @tomblock06 and learn more about at www.tomblock.com) is also the founder of the Institute of Prophetic Activist Art in New York, where he works with artists and activists in building their social interventions along the lines of the activist theory he developed.
One of the greatest dangers to our democracy is the insignificant role that "truth" plays within our political discourse. The 16th-century Florentine political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli first enshrined the importance of lying within the political realm in his seminal treatise The Prince. As Diana Schaub (professor of political science at Loyola University Maryland) noted in "Machiavelli's Realism:" "Machiavelli deployed words as a weapon . . . Machiavelli, the supposed champion of the force of arms, was in fact a practitioner of verbal fraud and distortion."
Far from fading away over the ensuing centuries, Machiavelli's strategy has expanded to overwhelm our contemporary political discourse. And this dynamic, nurtured by the media and exploited by politicians, has helped lead in a direct line from the Florentine thinker to the viable presidential candidacy of Donald J. Trump.
Publisher and Founding Father Ben Franklin stated: "It is a principle among printers that when truth has fair play, it will always prevail over falsehood." But as Jim Rutenberg noted recently in the New York Times, "Mr. Trump's surrogates…regularly go on television to push the point of the day from a candidate who . . . has asserted more outright falsehoods than all the other candidates who ran for president this year combined."
While truth may well overmatch falsehoods in a forum where each has equal play, as Rutenberg notes, that is simply not the case currently in our political discourse. Truth is rarely utilized as the lodestar for public dialogue. Our journalists and pundits opt instead for simply repeating outright lies, reporting them as "news," or – in the best of cases – for a dubious objectivity, often representing little more than a midpoint between two opposing political or social opinions, regardless of these opinions' relationship to the truth. As was pointed out this July 18, 2016 in the New York Times, the press bears much responsibility for the unimportance of truth to our political discourse, and therefore the rise of Trump:
There's still a real chance that [Trump] might win. How is that possible? Part of the answer, I'd argue, is that voters don't fully appreciate his awfulness. And the reason is that too much of the news media still can't break with "bothsidesism" — the almost pathological determination to portray politicians and their programs as being equally good or equally bad, no matter how ludicrous that pretense becomes.
Ben Franklin must be spinning in his eternal resting place (Christ Church Burial Ground, Philadelphia).
The sad and frightening fact is that what is perceived by the public as "truth" often represents little more than a stew of popularly held (though often misinformed) attitudes. These arise as a reaction to polling data, Super PAC–fueled propaganda (the $3 billion in dark money sloshing around this election season), surrogates' meaningless blather on cable news programs, a narrow reading of history ("remember the good old days!"), the weight of tradition, and a basket of other impressions, none of which are forced by the press to relate in any meaningful way with the actuality of the matter.
It is certainly not difficult to see how politicians gleefully exploit this Machiavellian dynamic to "play" the media, spewing any garbage they think will help their cause, while suffering little (if at all) when their mistruth is uncovered. Since I started paying genuine attention to this gloomy aspect of American democracy, I have been astounded by the bald-faced lies used to win political elections, running from Lee Atwater's "Willie Horton" ads (Bush I v. Mike Dukakis in 1988) through Karl Rove's "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" lies (Bush II v. John Kerry) and continuing through Mitt Romney, whose team falsely claimed, among many examples, that President Obama doubled the deficit (it was actually slightly down in his first four years) and that "up to 20 million people [would] lose their insurance as Obamacare [went] into effect" (almost the opposite of what's actually happened).
Donald J. Trump has raised the bar of political falsehoods that perhaps all of us thought could go no higher. None have exploited the media's obsession with objectivity and false equivalency more successfully than the current Republican standard bearer. His ability to lie, lie, and lie again, and not be called out once and for all (through references in every single citation as "Lyin' Donald J. Trump," for instance) allowed him to vault over 16 Republican candidates and stand at the precipice of taking the reins of the most powerful nation in today's world.
As Machiavelli stated: "The great majority of humans are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are." The art of the lie is far more important to the leader than learning how to tell the truth.
Donald Trump follows Machiavelli's dictum with the same passion that the devoted practice their religions. An astounding 70% of Donald Trump's statements are mostly or completely false, according to PolitiFact, while only 15% are mostly or entirely true. And though now, finally, there is a growing chorus of media members gingerly stepping in to call a lie a lie, they also dutifully repeat the lie over and over again before refuting it. Through this repetition, the lie itself becomes embedded in the public consciousness, thus giving the many and absurdist propositions spewed from the latest Republican candidate for President a patina of reality. Journalists should lead every article about Trump with this fact: he is, as Bernie Sanders averred, a pathological liar. But unfortunately, despite the few truth-based journalists writing in alternative outlets like The Intercept or in the back pages of the Washington Post or New York Times, the media is central to the problem.
Journalists too often imagine their obligation to be simply reporting the "news" (whatever any partisan actor tells them), remaining indifferent to whether the statements have any relation to reality or truth. In the journalistic code of ethics, this impartiality represents the highest code of honor. As Sharon Bader noted in "The Media: Objectivity:"
Objectivity in journalism has nothing to do with seeking out the truth, except in so much as truth is a matter of accurately reporting what others have said. This contrasts with the concept of scientific objectivity where views are supposed to be verified with empirical evidence in a search for the truth. Ironically, journalistic objectivity discourages a search for evidence; the balancing of opinions often replaces journalistic investigation altogether.
Journalists such as Thom Hartmann, Glenn Greenwald, Rania Khalek, and other lesser known (to your average American, at least) writers do point out this problem, though they are always in a very slim minority. We find little succor in the mainstream media. Even such alleged "truth tellers" as the website PolitiFact, the Washington Post's soothsayer Glenn Kessler, and Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman (now a New York Times columnist) have a dubious relationship with the facts. As the editor of this blog has shown, all three of these sources have ignored evidence and/or gotten storylines completely wrong during this election cycle.
Without a genuine moral ombudsman to separate fact from fiction in our public square, all opinions – true or not – are simply viewed as offering differing "points of view." Katrina vanden Heuvel (publisher and part-owner of the magazine The Nation) noted in the Washington Post:
For too many journalists, calling out a Republican for lying requires criticizing a Democrat too, making for a media age where false equivalence — what Eric Alterman has called the mainstream media's "deepest ideological commitment" — is confused, again and again, with objectivity.
This quote comes from the last election (Romney v. Obama, 2012), though the situation has not gotten better, and perhaps has even worsened. As was noted in the aforementioned July 18, 2016 article from Krugman in the New York Times:
And in the last few days we've seen a spectacular demonstration of bothsidesism in action: an op-ed article from the incoming and outgoing heads of the White House Correspondents' Association, with the headline "Trump, Clinton both threaten free press." How so? Well, Mr. Trump has selectively banned news organizations he considers hostile; he has also . . . attacked both those organizations and individual reporters, and refused to condemn supporters who, for example, have harassed reporters with anti-Semitic insults.
Meanwhile, while Mrs. Clinton hasn't done any of these things, and has a staff that readily responds to fact-checking questions, she doesn't like to hold press conferences. Equivalence!
Perhaps more frightening than these simple facts is that we're not talking about a subterranean conspiracy of which only a privileged few are aware. This dynamic is embedded in the journalistic canon. Krugman has said, for example, that his editors at the New York Times did not allow him to use the word "lying" back in 2000 when debunking the George W. Bush campaign's claims about tax cuts Bush proposed. And in an editorial by the Los Angeles Times calling the 2004 Swift Boat Veterans for Truth allegations against John Kerry fictitious, the editors stated:
[T]he canons of the profession prevent most journalists from saying outright: These charges are false. As a result, the voters are left with a general sense that there is some controversy over Dukakis' patriotism or Kerry's service in Vietnam…And they have been distracted from thinking about real issues (like the war going on now) by these laboratory concoctions.
The most disturbing line in this editorial is: "The canons of the profession prevent most journalists from saying outright: These charges are false." Why is this so? That they can't call a lie a lie? Who wrote these "canons," which seem to explicitly demand that journalists lie to their readers, in the name of "objectivity?"
Although I have seen many instances of this overt self-awareness by journalists, I am still left with the mouth-agape question: why not? Why can't truth be the central pillar of journalistic ethics, instead of a "canon" of false equivalency which allows Lee Atwater, Karl Christian Rove, Donald J. Trump, and others to use lies to great effect?
Matt Taibbi (a journalist reporting on politics, media and finance for Rolling Stone and other outlets) noted in On the Media:
Though we're tempted to blame the politicians, it's time to dig deeper. It's time to blame the press corps that daily brings us this unrelenting symphony of horseshit and never comes within a thousand miles of an apology for any of it. And it's time to blame the press not only as a class of people, but also as individuals.
This lack of accountability in the media presents one of the greatest threats to democracy and the American republic. Greater then climate change, greater than the terrorist menace, greater even than a frontal attack by a nuclear North Korea, the media's unwillingness to base their reporting in the truth, opting instead for a mushy and moving center point between whatever the members of the two major political parties are saying, reduces the public conversation on matters such as climate change, the terrorist menace, and a frontal attack by a nuclear North Korea to a debate over points of view (one often factually inaccurate), instead of an exploration of the unassailable truth of any issue.
The unwillingness to base reporting in truth allows lies to fester, metastasizing from the corners of the Internet into a presidential campaign (Donald J. Trump's) which fuses White supremacists, climate denial, fascist undertones, and an increasing series of lies into a viable candidacy.
Even worse is the level of awareness and even pride some journalists show concerning this "canon" of objectivity. As Washington Post journalist Melinda Henneberger observed, concerning her profession's (lack of) attachment to truth in reporting: "Newspapers hardly ever haul off and say a public figure lied, and I like that about us."
This same mainstream columnist stated, concerning some media outlets which tagged as "flatly inconsistent with the facts" a number of points vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan made in his Republican National Convention speech in 2012: "of course, each of these pieces is analysis or opinion rather than a straight news story." And this "opinion" (i.e. the truth) has less impact on the shared reality of the public square than a "straight news story" (i.e., one that does not separate fact from fiction).
Political campaigns agree: facts can be presented as "spin" by partisans, and therefore fall under the rubric of "opinion." Consider, for example, this excerpt from an article in the Washington Post in 2012:
Jon Cassidy, writing on the website Human Events, said one fact-checking outfit declares conservatives inaccurate three times as often as it does liberals. "You might reasonably conclude that PolitiFact is biased," he wrote [as opposed to the fact that Republicans simply lie more often].
…Brooks Jackson, executive director of FactCheck.org, said he fears that the campaigns have come to see running afoul of fact checkers as something of a badge of honor.
Now, in Donald J. Trump's America, even the lying spinmeisters are welcomed into the journalistic tent. After Corey Lewandowski was fired as Trump's campaign manager on June 21, 2016, he immediately resurfaced as a CNN political commentator – even though he had signed a non-disclosure agreement with Donald J. Trump! As Rutenberg noted in his New York Times article:
Mr. Lewandowski has frequently wandered past the bounds of truth…[though, when he was hired by CNN,] Mr. Lewandowski told [fellow CNN journalist] Erin Burnett that he'd call "balls and strikes" in spite of his agreement with Mr. Trump. But when he weighed in on Mr. Trump's big economic speech last Tuesday, all he saw was a home run ("Mr. Trump's best speech of the presidential cycle," he gushed).
For the sake of full disclosure (and the truth), it must be noted that, although the Democrats are certainly not immune from this particular political sport (see: "Hillary Clinton" + "emails," for instance), the Republicans have perfected the Machiavellian art of conflating "truth" and "lie." Two longtime Washington insiders, Thomas Mann (Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution) and Norman Ornstein (Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute), wrote a book that got at this idea and summarized it four years ago in an article entitled: "Let's Just Say It: The Republicans are the Problem:"
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition . . . "Both sides do it" or "There is plenty of blame to go around" are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias . . . But a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomena distorts reality. If the political dynamics of Washington are unlikely to change anytime soon, at least we could change the way that reality is portrayed to the public.
Our advice to the press: don't seek professional safety through the even-handed, unfiltered presentation of opposing views. Which politician is telling the truth?
Finally! One true statement about the political situation in the United States.
However, those in the media did not appreciate the sentiment. After publishing their book and then article in the Washington Post, these two writers were essentially ostracized for their bipartisan, honest point of view. As the alternative news outlet Media Matters noted a couple of weeks after the publication of the piece, "their [Mann's and Ornstein's] recent conclusion that Republicans are responsible for political dysfunction has been largely ignored, with the top five national newspapers writing a total of zero news articles on their thesis." Media Matters also pointed out that, after years of being go-to voices on the various Sunday political programs, Mann and Ornstein saw those invitations dry up after the publication of their book.
Given all of this, the rise of Trump should come as no surprise. He is simply better at using lies to shape reality than the other 16 candidates he bested. And he is cognizant that the press – compliant concubine that it is – will mostly parrot whatever garbage he spews from his mouth.
Donald J. Trump has risen from the fetid fertilizer of years of Republican obfuscation, lies, false accusations and other pernicious verbiage, all of which have been dutifully reported as one "opinion" (countered by an equally-weighted "opinion" known as the truth). And when respected journalists have attempted to point out the problem of false equivalence, they have been "ostracized" by their mainstream compatriots or even shut down by their editors.
Trump is not an outlier, surprise or anomaly. He is the natural outgrowth of years of terrible reporting, coupled with Republican exploitation of this dynamic.
In a sense, Trump is doing us a favor. He is exposing the undercurrent of American democracy which has been hidden beneath the surface of "civility" and "objectivity" provided by the supine press. However, we must learn from his rise, and demand – once and for all – that truth, and not false equivalence, becomes central to our political discourse and public square.
If not, we might well learn just how far America can go toward becoming a fascist government ourselves, instead of fighting against them as we have in Germany, the Soviet Union, North Korea and other places around the world. While all of us certainly want to "make America great," the question becomes for whom, and at what cost? A question that the mainstream media should – but never seems to – put at the exact center of the conversation about Donald J. Trump, and our public square in general.
Filed under 2016 Election, Philosophy, US Political System
Tagged as Donald Trump, Krugman, lies, Machiavelli, objectivity, PolitiFact, Republicans, Tom Block, truth


text:
NAKIA TOWNS
Deputy Superintendent of Gwinnett County Public Schools
Georgia Watch Video
Dr. Nakia Towns is the deputy superintendent of Gwinnett County Public Schools in Georgia. Gwinnett County is the state's largest district, serving approximately 177,000 students. Previously, Towns was deputy superintendent of Hamilton County Schools in Chattanooga, Tenn., where she supported the superintendent's executive cabinet and oversaw communications; accountability; strategic planning; and federal programs. Her leadership in Hamilton County also included her time as interim superintendent from July to December 2021.
Prior to Hamilton County, Towns was assistant commissioner, division of data and research, at the Tennessee Department of Education. At the department, she served on the executive leadership team and helped set the strategic direction for pre-K through 12 education policy by developing the state's highly regarded plan under the Every Student Succeeds Act.
Towns began her education career in Knox County Schools in Knoxville, Tenn. There, she held roles as director of human capital strategy, acting human resources executive director, and chief accountability officer. During her tenure, the district became the only large, urban school system to earn the highest designation on the state's report card.
Before her work in education, Towns was a finance executive whose clients included numerous Fortune 500 companies. She oversaw a commercial lending portfolio that helped to expand and strengthen small businesses and local economies. She also co-founded a nonprofit after-school tutoring and intervention program in rural Georgia. Her experience as a volunteer teacher in the after-school program ultimately inspired her to pursue a full-time career in education. Towns earned her doctorate in educational leadership and policy from Vanderbilt University and has an MBA and an engineering degree from Duke University. She was a member of the third cohort of the Future Chiefs leadership development program.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The song "Oi! around the world" is included in the "United Worldwide" benefit 7" (Moscow Death Brigade / Feine Sahne Fischfilet / Los Fastidios / What We Feel) released by Audiolith Records (Germany) with the support of with the support of KOB Records, Voice Of The Streets Records, True Rebel Store and Lonsdale.de.
The song will be also included in the Los Fastidios "1991-2016 25 Rebel Years" best of CD, coming on november 2016, published by Kob Records, for the 25th Los Fastidios anniversary.