| Number 168 | August 23, 2002 |
|
This Week:
|
|
Greetings, I could write an entire issue of Nygaard Notes with nothing but translations of the code-words that are routinely found in the mass media (and perhaps I shall, before too long). The "Quote" of the Week this week, for instance, has the NY Times using the word "unclear." This is standard Times code for "completely unsubstantiated" or "unknown." This word is used when a reporter or copy editor feels compelled to report the words or activities of the powerful, but is aware that he or she is on shaky journalistic ground. If we had an opposition daily press, we could expect to see at least one headline at the newsstand that would dare to say, "Officials Say So-and-So, but Evidence Shows They Are Lying." I long for the day... For the record, I want to say that I have nothing against Mary Tyler Moore. I chose to use the story of her statue in this week's issue merely to illustrate a larger point. I hope the Mary Tyler Moore fans (I know you're out there!) will forgive me. Thanks for your letters this week, Notes readers. I really do enjoy hearing from you. Keeps me on my toes, y'know. I'll soon be teaching a class here in Minneapolis on media and international affairs. Some of you may wish to attend. Details next week. In solidarity, Nygaard |
|
|
The Associated Press published a report on July 3rd about the response of "President" George W. Bush to the Supreme Court decision allowing public money to go to private religious schools in the form of vouchers. Commenting on his desire for "private" groups to do more than "government" to provide a range of human services, the "President" said, "Let's worry more about results and less about process." I'm not sure how to classify this comment. It isn't a "lie," exactly, but it certainly doesn't reflect what the Individualist and Competitive (IC) crowd—as represented by the "President"—are constantly "worried about." One of the main differences between the IC crowd and the Social and Cooperative (SC) crowd is that the IC crowd is dominated by very powerful people who are concerned almost entirely with "process"—that is, who gets to make the important decisions—at all times. At the same time, as the "President" says, they would like "them" (meaning "us," the U.S. public), to not worry about process. People like Mr. Bush (or Mr. bin Laden, for that matter—any elitist power-crazed leader will do) might say to themselves: "We don't know exactly what we may want to do in the future, but we do know that we want the Freedom to do it, whatever it is." Their "freedom" and our "freedom" contrast in important ways, of course, and that is the source of much conflict. A small example of the importance of "process" in modern life can often be seen when you look at public art in your community. Are there any statues of people? Who are those people? Who decided who they should be? It's likely that the people with money in your community decided who would get a statue of themselves made and put up. In my own community of Minneapolis, for instance, the most prominently-placed statue in the center of downtown is a statue of Mary Richards. Mary Richards, for those who don't know, was the fictional star of the Mary Tyler Moore show. The "Minneapolis connection" is that the MTM show was supposedly set in Minneapolis, and the spot where she was filmed throwing her cap into the air at the beginning of the show is the very spot where now stands the statue. The nostalgia cable TV network "TV Land" paid for the construction of the statue of Mary Richards and will fund its upkeep in perpetuity; I have no doubt that it will be accounted for as an advertising expense. Visitors to Minneapolis are constantly standing in front of Mary to have their pictures taken. Everybody knows about Mary Tyler Moore, and Minnesotans are big on getting noticed on the coasts, even if it is only as the backdrop for a television sitcom. (To add insult to political injury, the sculpture itself is bad art, with poor Mary sporting a grotesque B-movie grimace.) What if we had a statue of one of the people who played a role in Minnesota's exciting history of labor organizing, and whose influence is still felt today, if not recognized? I'd like to see a statue of Carl Skoglund, for instance, or the Dunn Brothers. But who would fund statues of those people? When is their TV show on? OK, I'm done ranting about public art. For a somewhat longer illustration of how this fight for decision-making power is played out in modern-day politics, see the following story. |
|
Back in May I wrote about something called "The New Federalism," an understanding of which is essential for those who wish to resist the agenda of the current resident of the White House and his cronies (see "The Immense Capacity of States" in Nygaard Notes #157 of May 24th.) At that time I referred to The New Federalism as "the larger of a couple of Trojan Horses coming out of the welfare ‘reform' process." The other, related, Trojan Horse is a little-noticed "waiver" proposal contained within the welfare reauthorization bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on May 16th, and slated for further action when Congress reconvenes next month. If passed, this proposal would give enormous new powers to the executive branch "to waive, at a governor's request, most provisions of authorization and appropriations laws related to a range of low-income and other domestic programs," according to a recent study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). The provision, which some refer to as the "superwaiver" proposal, "would constitute an unprecedented transfer of authority from Congress to the Executive Branch to establish funding priorities and determine program parameters across a broad range of programs." That's bureaucratic-speak for "it's a big power grab by the President." It's not as if the U.S. Congress is the greatest advocate for programs of benefit to poor people, but the big difference is that Congress has to do its work in the light of day (at least theoretically, assuming we have news media that occasionally pay attention). Things like executive orders and "waivers" tend to happen behind closed doors and we only hear about them after the damage has been done, if we ever hear about them. The biggest problem with the "superwaiver" proposal, as with "The New Federalism" in general, is that it seeks to write into law the "right" of states to ignore federal standards in any number of areas. Although a few states—Minnesota likely among them—might use the law to ask for waivers so they can implement programs that actually exceed federal standards, in the current anti-tax climate that won't happen much. It's likely that far more states will use the law to try programs that fall short of those (already inadequate) standards. If the superwaiver legislation passes, programs and initiatives that would be at risk for de-funding or serious alteration by cash-strapped state governments would include Food Stamps, public housing programs, job training programs, adult education and literacy programs, and even welfare itself. The Green Party, in their analysis of the proposal, adds that the "superwaiver" proposal "allows states to spend welfare relief and job training funds on projects like the promotion of marriage [see Nygaard Notes #160 for details on that one]. It also allows some faith-based organizations—groups that seek exemption from discrimination statutes in hiring and training, providing services, and licensing requirements—to claim larger shares of public funding." Ho hum, say the nation's editors; another battle front in the fight for The New Federalism. Since this fight has been going on since the Civil War, it's not "news," so you won't read much about it in the newspapers. It's important, though. For a short summary of the issue, go to the website of the Food Research and Action Center at http://www.frac.org/html/news/superwaiverbg.htm. For a longer, but fascinating, report on the superwaiver Trojan Horse, visit the website of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities at http://www.cbpp.org/pubs/stasaf.htm and look for the title "Superwaiver Would Grant Executive Branch and Governors Sweeping Authority to Override Federal Laws." |
|
On August 8th, The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University released the results of an important study showing that our nation's schools are rapidly becoming "resegregated" by race. They use the term "resegregated" to refer to the fact that, after the Supreme Court's historic Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954, U.S. public schools began to become more and more integrated, a trend that lasted through the 1980s. Since then, the study points out, "As courts across the country end long-running desegregation plans and, in some states, have forbidden the use of any racially-conscious student assignment plans, the last 10-15 years has seen a steady unraveling of almost 25 years worth of increased integration." It's a complex picture. The post-Brown improvements applied only to the segregation of African-Americans. "For Latinos, the story has been one of steadily rising segregation since the 1960s and no significant desegregation efforts outside of a handful of large districts." And all of this is "happening in the context of an increasingly diverse public school enrollment," with the numbers of Latinos in the U.S. increasing particularly quickly in the last decade. T he details are complicated, but the basic point is not. The report is clear that "desegregated schools have been shown to have educational and diversity benefits for their students," and the numbers of such schools are dwindling. As the report states, "The isolation of blacks and Latinos has serious ramifications: this isolation is highly correlated with poverty, which is often strongly related to striking inequalities in test scores, graduation rates, courses offered and college going rates. Virtually no attention is being paid to this troubling pattern in the current discussion of educational reform even though it is very strongly related to many outcomes the reformers wish to change." A Shame and An Embarrassment The report points out that "The most rapid resegregation in terms of black exposure to whites is occurring in some Southern districts" of the United States, with "many of the same districts...also resegregating with respect to Latino exposure to whites." This is no doubt reassuring to those Minnesotans who are proud of our famous reputation for "Minnesota Nice." However, those reassuring points were followed by this one: "Minneapolis is a notable exception in that it is the only non-Southern or Western district that is rapidly resegregating, and both black and Latino exposure to whites have declined sharply since 1986." Note to those readers who live in Minnesota: If you already knew about this, congratulations. (And please send me a note telling me where you heard about it!) Despite the fact that this seems like a major story to me—my choice for a front-page headline: "Minneapolis Schools More Segregated Than Any Other Northern City!"—the only reference I have seen or heard was a small story on page 8 of the Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!) of August 10th. To its credit, the Star Trib did highlight the "Minnesota angle" on this national story, with a subhead reading "Minneapolis Was the Only Northern City That Made the List of the Top 20 ‘Rapidly Resegregating' Districts, a Harvard Report Found." Still, only two paragraphs of the actual story dealt with the shameful record here in my city. Imagine a major city where such news would be a scandal. Imagine that our city's leadership considered such a report a major embarrassment, and their judgment was confirmed when they received hundreds of calls from their "white" constituents (Minneapolis is 65% "white"), demanding action. Imagine a city where the contrast between the "Minnesota Nice" mythology and our segregationist reality was sensational news, appearing on the front pages of our papers and dominating the talk-show airwaves for days. Imagine that, everywhere you went, people were engaged in discussions trying to figure out how we can turn this around. Imagine a city with a strong anti-racist consciousness, where a significant number of the majority "white" population had done their homework, and their organizing work. (Many Nygaard Notes readers are doing this work!) As of 2002, that city is not Minneapolis, and it's a shame and an embarrassment. |