Monday, April 28, 2008

Roots of Racism Today


A few days ago I wondered aloud whether or not our capacity for "compassion" as a society was decreasing, or whether or not I'm just being overly sensitive. In the context of reading Weber, I was exploring some of Weber's conceptions for the disenchantment of society, such as bureaucratization and rationalization. I wrote an entire essay for my Social Studies class on why I disagreed with Weber's prognosis that bureaucratization and rationalization are disenchanting for society. Of course, I wrote in the narrower context of the roles of the politician and the scientist. Since then, I've been taken by another idea on this related problem of the disenchantment of society by thinking that people may just be withdrawing from a public life, for whatever reason, and therefore are just becoming more removed and isolated from their peers that way.

Think about it: with people living in the suburbs, or just hanging out with their own comfortable social networks and not really stretching their social boundaries, how much are people really exposed to the ethnic, cultural, economic, geographic, political, artistic and philosophical diversity around them in society? How much compassion can one feel for peers that they don't even entirely know exist, or who are almost entirely alien and foreign to them?

(In response to my musings, I've received more stories of people who have experienced and/or seen something similar. Fascinating stuff. Thank you so much for sharing with me. I really appreciate knowing that there are people out here who I can communicate with so I don't feel like I'm constantly only communicating with myself.)

In any case, one of my friends responded by asking, "How much compassion has there been in society to begin with?" In this, she was critiquing my question's implication that in order for society's ability for compassion to decrease, I had to be referring to a period of time where compassion was the norm. I've been wondering about that too; she's right. How much compassion, really, has there been in a society with a history of war, religious conflict, genocide, cheats, and colonization? The ideals that I hold in my head are either just high minded fantasies and daydreams, or something that I've only experienced on a smaller scale.

I guess I'm really remarking about how, upon leaving San Francisco, I feel that people's understanding of diversity and compassion are really different than I expected. I feel really lucky to have had a really compassionate community in high school. Compassion to me, if I can just throw out a definition, is the ability to empathize even with people that you have little understanding of, or fundamental disagreements with. A compassionate community, then, is one where disagreements and differences are tolerated, accepted, and even appreciated. Imagine what a compassionate society can be.

Truthfully, it scares me that people can cut each other off and be emotionally detached from each other. I've lived this only recently, where I fear my roommates and I (who have split up for about two to three weeks ago over fundamental differences) have little to do with one another now. I don't even think that they miss my presence, although I know that I still care for them. In any case, my example isn't exactly illustrative of the point I'm trying to make, although it is illustrative of it on a smaller scale. What I'm trying to say is that what scares me the most, is that there is a capacity in people and society to dehumanize other individuals or even other groups of people. You don't need to physically harm or disrespect someone in order to dehumanize them. Quite simply, you can shatter their dreams. You can just treat them differently, or simply ignore them. What's worse is when you actively work to suppress them.

This has happened a lot recently to many groups, but in our current American society this is happening particularly to Muslim-Americans. There's an article in the New York Times today that struck me in particular. In this case we have a Muslim-American who attempted to moderate between Muslim-Americans, Jewish-Americans, and Christians. Ultimately, her efforts were untenable, and she paid for it. Her dream was to create a school that would teach the Arabic language, just like we do with many schools for the Spanish, French, Chinese, and other languages. Religion wasn't even a consideration in the curriculum, except in the context of global studies. Yet people out there made religion an issue, and painted her as an extremist. In fact, she didn't need to be an extremist to be punished, all that people needed to do to ruin her was identify her with a group of people who the greater American society holds little compassion for.

One of these critics in particular was a Harvard grad, Daniel Pipes. In any case, here are some of his quotes:

Conceptually, such a school could be “marvelous,” Mr. Pipes wrote, but in practice, it was certain to be problematic. “Arabic-language instruction is inevitably laden with Pan-Arabist and Islamist baggage,” he wrote, referring to the school as a madrassa, which means school in Arabic but, in the West, carries the implication of Islamic teaching.

Mr. Pipes is perhaps best known for Campus Watch, a national initiative he created to scrutinize Middle Eastern programs at colleges and universities. The drive has accused professors of, among other things, being soft on militant Islam and sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. It has stirred widespread controversy and, in some cases, may have undermined professors’ bids for tenure.

Mr. Pipes was joined in the monitoring effort by other self-declared watchdogs of militant Islam. Their Web sites are often linked to one another and their messages interwoven. One critic, David Horowitz, founded Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, a campaign aimed at college campuses. He noted in an interview that monitors of radical Islam have increasingly trained their sights on nonviolent Muslim-Americans.

It's interesting to me how the Arabic language can automatically be defined by Islamic religious fundamentalism, and the English language not automatically identified by Christian fundamentalist evangelism. This contradiction only serves to point out the absurdity of how harshly people can treat other groups they have little understanding of, and consequently, little compassion for.

In any case, her story is a complex and complicated story. Naturally, if you have time, I encourage you to read about it and think about it.

In an odd twist of fate, she was sent to the Bronx last fall to review a small, innovative school that had opened the same month as Khalil Gibran. It also taught a foreign language: Spanish. The students seemed to be thriving. As Ms. Almontaser walked the hallways, she was shaken, she said.

“It wasn’t that I was envious that her dream materialized,” said Ms. Almontaser, referring to the principal. “It was seeing her sixth graders, her teachers, and seeing that she did it. And I didn’t get a chance.”

What is the root of the problem? Can something as simple as more compassion be the end-all cure-all of racism?

Saturday, April 26, 2008

Prisons and Immigration

I've been meaning to say something about the U.S. prison system and current immigration policies for a while now. Right now, though, I feel like I'm writing out of the blue, so I'm not prepared to put my heart into this post yet. Maybe I'll get to that certain place you get to when you open up your heart and just write- if I just start somewhere.

So let me start with a few thoughts:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, the tempest-post to me,
I lift my golden lamp beside the door.
When I think about our country, I think about the great ideals that we were founded upon. They weren't perfect. We were, after all, founded upon a time of slavery, of sexism, and on war and territorial expansion. But even with all these caveats, we created a country. It was a country which I think was created for the purposes of aiming for ever higher ideals of compassion and benevolence, with the goal of progressively creating a better civilization and society for us and those after us. It was written, after all, that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Not some, not only citizens, not whites or landowners or those who are educated or Christian, but "all".

I love the inclusive "all" in that sentence. I love the words "yearning to breathe free", and "I lift my golden lamp beside the door." I think of these words, and I get so inspired. I feel full of love and sympathy. I want to get into public policy when I think these thoughts. I want to teach our next generation of students to feel the same way. I want to do something that expresses these wonderful thoughts that were written naught three hundred years ago.

We have come a long, long way since those early days. We have expanded suffrage and granted minorities more rights and liberties and equalities progressively with time. At the same time, I think, we are getting a little bit more isolated. I think a lot of people tend to be drawn into their own little comfortable social circles, and try not to worry about social problems unless these problems directly affect them. I look at capable people who could do some good for this world, and I see some of them distracted by suburban living, by wealth and luxury, by sailboats and video games, by everything other than thinking about what's wrong with our society and working towards a solution. I see people that look down on others, and disparage them, and add to their hopeless situation.

I don't want to disparage these people, and I don't want to say that "if they only knew better, they would think the same way that I do. " I don't think that way. At the same time, I just wish that more people were compassionate in our society. I see compassion as something that's fading away with time. I think of the people in prison, and I ask the question, why do we let so many people rot there, for so long? I think of some people's reactions to immigrants, and I wonder how they have little compassion for people who, just like their forebears, are only looking for a better life? I love Maya Angelou's poetry, especially "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings." I don't want anyone to be the caged bird. But we have so many caged birds. Literally, we have a growing prison population (the highest in the Western world, even higher than China's on a proportionate basis) for silly things like drugs and petty crimes, which are bad, but why aren't we exploring rehabilitation and other policies just like other societies do? If our system's broken, why aren't we trying to fix it? Where is our compassion for our human brethren?

A free bird leaps on the back of the wind
and floats downstream till the current ends
and dips his wing in the orange suns rays and dares to claim the sky.

But a bird that stalks down his narrow cage
can seldom see through his bars of rage
his wings are clipped and his feet are tied so he opens his throat to sing.

The caged bird sings with a fearful trill
of things unknown but longed for still
and his tune is heard on the distant hill
for the caged bird sings of freedom.

The free bird thinks of another breeze
and the trade winds soft through the sighing trees
and the fat worms waiting on a dawn-bright lawn and he names the sky his own.

But a caged bird stands on the grave of dreams
his shadow shouts on a nightmare scream
his wings are clipped and his feet are tied so he opens his throat to sing.

The caged bird sings with a fearful trill
of things unknown but longed for still
and his tune is heard on the distant hill
for the caged bird sings of freedom.


What are your thoughts? Reactions?

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

The Truth Shall Set You Free

I'm struggling to find a methodology by which to state what I feel. I'm having a hard time because I don't think people are stupid. By and large, I think people are really capable of understanding anything you can teach them. Just think, in Newton's time only a few people really understood the implications of his theories on motion. Now it's standard high school physics fare. So, with time, it just goes to show that anything a genius can come up with can soon be standard knowledge. What's troubling though, as a news article that a Harvard Tutor (what we call RAs) pointed out via his blog, is that ignorance isn't bliss, it's widespread. He quotes an article that states,

"A recent survey of teenagers by the education advocacy group Common Core found that a quarter could not identify Adolf Hitler, a third did not know that the Bill of Rights guaranteed freedom of speech and religion, and fewer than half knew that the Civil War took place between 1850 and 1900."
Weber once wrote that the charismatic politician can overcome reason, and by that he meant in a good way in that the charismatic might bring back some of the magic of humanity back into our society. It's also a double edged sword. Just think about what our current government is doing to repudiate the public's knowledge on the effects of global warming, and a recent news report shows that they've been trying to convince us that air pollution doesn't really affect our health. As if. My question is how, by what passivity, or influence, or politics, do we let this happen? It's ridiculous. In an era of great technological progress and achievement, why is it that we allow parts of the government to impinge on the progress we strive for by suppressing or calling into question science?

Here's the quote from the article I reference:
Short-term exposure to smog, or ozone, is clearly linked to premature deaths that should be taken into account when measuring the health benefits of reducing air pollution, a National Academy of Sciences report concluded Tuesday.

The findings contradict arguments made by some White House officials that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits.

Saturday, April 19, 2008

Bureaucracies and Politicians

A while ago I posted an essay discussing Weber's view of the politician and the scientist in terms of the budding modern bureaucracy. I wrote that modern societies may not be as disenchanting as Weber realized. On the other hand, I have to give Weber credit for predicting that bureaucratic mismanagement could bring about disasters such as this:

"Arrested for killing his father late one night in 1958, James was ruled mentally ill by a judge, sent to an asylum for the criminally insane — and forgotten.

Decades after his doctors pronounced him cured, he remained trapped in a criminal justice nightmare. The hospital could only release him to the prisons authority. The prisons authority could only pick him up under a court order. The courts never called for him because they couldn't find his file.

Longing for some of his lost years, James wishes he had been convicted of murdering his father. At least then, he would have been freed after only 15 or 20 years in prison.

But a conviction would have been unlikely. His father was still alive." (link to the full story)

On another note, speaking of politicians, it's ridiculous that no one's doing anything to better manage the billions of dollars we throw at the farm industry when we could spend that money promoting sustainable, organic farming. Come on Democrats! You can do a lot of good with the money we throw at these commercial farms on a lot of issues, not just for our farms. Think about global warming, the environment, promoting domestic businesses, etc. etc. What's more interesting? Imagine going to China for organic foods. It's happening!

from sfgate.com

"Farm bill negotiators may have to trim these programs to make room for billions of dollars in automatic payouts to a few big commercial farms growing a few grain crops whose market prices are shattering records.

The 91 percent of California farmers who grow produce and are struggling against urban encroachment and environmental regulations will get none of that money. The farm bill throws a comparative pittance to the organic farming that shuns pesticides and rotates crops in a traditional method that attracts wildlife. Organic farming remains just 0.5 percent of U.S. agriculture despite soaring demand. Buyers are forced to look to China for organic produce."

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

The Kartika Review


I've complained a lot about the dearth of Asian American voices in cultural mediums, so it's really heartwarming to find a publication out there that is trying to develop and promote the AA voice and experience out there to the larger American society.

In reality, I think it's really remarkable that there really isn't a work or a series of works that are universally acknowledged to encompass the Asian American experience. To me, this is a travesty because the Asian American experience encompasses many historical events, is fraught with challenges and successes, encourages cultural exploration, explores the meaning of family, raises many questions around "What is American culture?"... well, you get the picture.

I hope you'll check out the Kartika Review. If you, or anyone you know, writes about anything related to the Asian Diaspora, or is a talented AA writer, please seriously consider submitting to the magazine. The Kartika Review is a quarterly magazine, and accepts submissions year-round. It's a new publication, so imagine the possibilities of what may come if we all buy-in and support this project, which is perhaps the only one of its kind.

Just think about how much more vibrant, more colorful, more interesting society is now that we are growing ever more diverse and multicultural than we ever were in history. So if one entire group of people's voices and/or artistic representations are less clear, prominent and/or developed than others, then isn't that is a cause worth working towards?

(In the interest of full disclosure, I was recently brought on as the Essays Editor for the Kartika Review. Therefore, I'm personally interested and invested in this project, and if you are a writer or are interested in writing, then I hope that you would think about sharing your work with us for the benefit of the AA community and all our readers.)

Sunday, April 13, 2008

Technology and The World

If you have some time to spare, I recommend reading this article from the New York Times on cell phones, the developing world, and poverty. I found this article really enlightening. The anthropologist/designer that they hired to me seems to have a dream job. As someone who's read a lot of social theory, it's interesting to extrapolate the effects that cell phones have even to the most impoverished members of society. If trends continue, it seems like every person in the world may soon enough have a cell phone. How interesting is that? What effect do you think this would have on society?

Saturday, April 12, 2008

Boycott 21

Ever since yesterday evening, I've been really actively promoting the Boycott 21 facebook group and have been trying to tell all my friends to boycott the movie. I'm worked up on this issue because this is a case of Hollywood whitewashing a partially Asian American event, and marginalizing the Asian American role.

I want to say a few words in support of boycotting 21, and then I want to say a few words about my own stances on this issue versus another stance I took publicly on a Harvard Op-Ed on Equal Opportunity Casting. I also want to say a few words why your support, even if it's just you, means a lot.

In a serious movie about the American cowboys, Hollywood (and I'd happily recant if I'm ever proven wrong) would never cast Asian Americans, Hispanics, or African Americans as the major characters. But 21 is another example of this equation being carried out in real life, albeit in reverse and only in one direction. 21 is an example where a group of people’s contributions are being marginalized, for whatever reason. This is unfair, and quite simply, the state of affairs as they are now sucks.

Asian American actors have yet to break the glass ceiling so that they are better represented on screen or on stage. If you look at the Hollywood productions themselves, there seems to be a movement (accidental, or intentional) to suppress Asian American talent. I'm not arguing that Asian Americans are being oppressed by the man! But on the other hand, Asian Americans are already given very little opportunity to break through to major productions, especially when Asian American stories like 21 are whitewashed, and when Asian productions such as The Departed, and The Ring, are redone with a White cast.

There's an argument to be had that maybe there isn't enough Asian American talent. My answer is that there is a Chicken or the Egg paradox that makes it hard to tell. Is it that there aren't enough Asians on stage or in major Hollywood productions because there is little Asian American interest in trying out for these roles? Or is it that Hollywood doesn't really give them a chance, so Asian Americans don't really bother... and Asian American talent consequently stays underdeveloped?

So why is it important to boycott a silly movie? Well, to tell you the truth, boycotting this movie probably won’t make a difference. It won’t make a difference, unless, be it on this issue or another issue, the people who matter get our message. They might hear us this time, they might hear us next time, or the time after that. What’s most important, though, is that we keep trying. Just by signing on to this facebook group, and inviting your friends makes a difference. That’s one more voice, one more human being, endorsing a message that is important for people to realize.

It’s not fair to Asian American talent that Hollywood does this. It’s not fair to the Asian American community to be largely ignored in mass media. It's not fair to society that Asians don't get to donate their version of George Clooney, or Will Smith, or Samuel Jackson, etc. etc. to the enjoyment and entertainment of society. For whatever reason, why is it intentionally harder for Asian Americans to break through in theater and in the movie theater? What in our culture doesn't allow for fair casting without consideration toward ethnic background? Even Roger Ebert has noticed a general condescending attitude toward Asian American artists and its detrimental effects. Ebert angrily proclaimed to the public at large and particularly to an amateur critic who criticized the Asian American cast and production team at a Better Luck Tomorrow event that "What I find very offensive and condescending about your comment, is that nobody would say to a bunch of White filmmakers, "How could you do this?!"... Asian Americans have a right to be whoever the hell they want to be!" (3:06) [I definitely recommend watching this youtube video]

We all know that if we don't start somewhere, if we don't say anything, if we don't do something, then nothing will change. The state of affairs will continue to persist- and some people don’t think that’s a bad thing.

It is a bad thing because there’s this dream. There’s a dream about a multicultural society, where the color of a person’s skin doesn’t matter. In this ideal society, it doesn’t matter if there’s a white actor playing an Asian American role and vice versa. But we aren’t there yet. We aren't there when this trade-off only goes in one direction. We’re at a place where Asian Americans are noticeably absent from the stage, from the movie screens, and from television. We’re in a place where we have to work to make things happen. So let’s work.

Please join us and Boycott 21, and please tell your friends. This isn't the first time this has happened to Asian Americans as a group. Otherwise, I'm inclined to agree that one instance isn't a big deal and probably doesn't indicate much, if anything. But there's been a pattern of whitewashing and anti-Asian racial casting, where Asian Americans are excluded from these historical roles and/or are ethnically subjugated if they are even given roles. The least we can do to address this problem is start a dialogue.

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Follow-Up: Why Calling for Bush to Boycott the Opening Ceremonies is a Big Deal

Two nights ago I posted why I've dropped my support for Hillary. For me, her very public statement calling for President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies of the Olympics both alienated and disappointed me. I feel like a better stance for her to take could have been Barack's "let's wait and see approach", at the very least, and an even better role model to follow on this sensitive issue would be San Francisco Gavin Newsom's handling of San Francisco's sponsorship of the Olympic torch run. Gavin, as best anyone could, balanced the needs of the torch run, the rights of its protesters and supporters very commendably. I wish our national politicians displayed these qualities.

Quite simply, many Chinese-Americans and I feel that America, though perhaps the most free and diverse nation in the world, is still not an ideal place. Stereotypes, such as that we are nerdy, tend to excel in math and science, and have no social life just aren't true, and yet you'll see these characteristics typified by the media all the time, if we aren't excluded all together. (Incidentally, you can read a well-articulated article on this other issue here.)

I'm not bringing this up to whine, or even complain. I've learned to accept these stereotypes and their consequences with a grain of salt, as a part of life that maybe some day I can help change. So why am I bringing this up? What does this have to do with Hillary Clinton's campaign-- one that I had been so excited for up until recently?

I am bringing this up because Clinton should know that her calls aren't going to do anything. China's not going to listen to her calls. President Bush is not going to listen to her on this matter. So why do it? The only reason I can think of for Clinton's actions are that docking China wins lots of political points, not only in areas where race is still a sensitive issue, but also in places that specifically view China as a threat to their way of life economically. To me, if this is the case, it's a form of race baiting-- even if it is unintentional. That's why I indicated, in my previous post, that her actions displayed either a lack of judgment, bad advice, or both.

For better or for worse, I believe that the coverage of the Olympic torch and the Olympics overall has been slanted by the Western media. If you read most of the headlines, you'll read about protesters standing out against China's human rights violations. You won't hear emphasis on quotes from protesters calling Chinese Americans communists, which is a patently ridiculous accusation reminiscent of the McCarthy witch-hunts. You won't hear about how China is single handedly bringing more people out of poverty faster than the United States, the E.U., or any other international organization. (I'm not coming to China's defense in terms of human rights violations, I just want to make the point that most reporting on China right now is really noticeably biased.) People don't realize these complicated issues, because the media's not reporting on them fairly. How many protesters even know where Tibet is?

Anyways, a lot of people have looked at this issue in more prescient ways than I care to express here right now. If anyone would like to talk about it, however, and debate it, please do!! I'd definitely spend time responding, if that is the case. But right now, I'm not sure that there is interest.

I hope this post answers your last question Sarah. To also make it clear, I'm not against Hillary. I just don't want to contribute to her campaign anymore for this primary season. I'm equally supportive of both both Clinton and Obama over McCain. I'm just not as excited as I used to be. This also explains why I'm not discounting these candidates based on their foreign, economic, or social policies. I'm for them. They're both much better than Republicans. I also think that targeting China makes it easier for some of us to forget about our own country's human rights abuses.

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Why I've Dropped My Support for Hillary Clinton

After really passionately supporting Hillary Clinton as my candidate for President almost since she began her candidacy, it is with great disappointment that I have to announce that I cannot support her to that extent anymore.

(Not that my thoughts make much of a difference, I suppose I'm just announcing this personally exceptional moment to myself on my blog, maybe facebook.)

One recent event in particular prompted this change: her recent appeal to President Bush to boycott the Olympics in Beijing. The issue of China's human rights record is a separate topic, but one that is important enough to require a brief mention concerning this post. I've read many reactions to the protests in London and Paris, most of which are supportive of the protesters. I'll write another post about this issue after the Olympic flame tours my favorite city tomorrow. Save to say, I support their right to protest, on the other hand I believe they have taken their protests too far. It is one thing to make a statement and practice civil disobedience, it is another to be disruptive to the extent that one will attack people in wheelchairs in order to make a statement. These issues need to be aired out, and I'll do my best to write about this important issue tomorrow.

But for now, I think Clinton's calls to boycott the Opening Ceremonies are indicative of exactly the opposite of what I hoped for in a Presidential candidate. Objectively speaking, her protests will do nothing to convince President Bush to boycott the Olympics. Her appeal to President Bush does nothing more than appeal for political points among certain groups. In fact, her appeal does her more harm than good. She has demonstrated, by this one act, how little she really understands China as a country, while at the same time arguing for her foreign policy credentials; and has demonstrated how much she's willing to turn a peaceful international event into a forum for politics in a way that really demeans what the ancient tradition of the Olympics stands for, in my mind.

I may be wrong about what I believe the Olympics stands for, but as I understood it, it was an event to help heal international rifts and act as a peaceful, friendly forum for athletic competition. To me, the Olympics overall indicates that there are things, such as celebrating such ideals, that are more meaningful to us as a human society than rivalries. I think people kid themselves when they think that people are solely motivated by China's dismal human rights record. Let's face it, China does have a dismal human rights record. But let's also face it: What good does poking the eye of a giant do to help it better sympathize with human rights?

People with other motives too are interested in increasing rifts between America and China.

Also, I think people (particularly those who have only paid attention to issues concerning China in depth for only a few days or weeks at most) need to wake up to the twin realities of: 1) China overall, not just the Chinese government, are really excited about hosting the Olympics. It is ingrained in our culture that being hosts are a great responsibility. To not be great hosts is to lose a lot of face. For an entire international community to put politics in play where politics never really was an intention of the Olympics, except the transcendence of politics, would be an insult to the entire Chinese nation. The Chinese people already have a reason to be biased against us in the West, the Western media sometimes really does seem to report Chinese issues from a one-sided vantage point. That's not a wrong in of itself, but the Western media as an important democratic institution should not be intentionally or inadvertently giving biased reports against an entire country. And 2), let's face it, China has a really thin skin in terms of criticism. What does Clinton's appeal to boycott the Olympics really do then, if it doesn't convince President Bush to boycott? It insults the Chinese government and the Chinese people, and it doesn't accomplish much else. In the event that Clinton becomes President now, she has only more distance to cover before being able to repair relations with the Chinese. What kind of foreign policy advice is she getting? That she's willing to risk so much, for no gain, except maybe political points, is cause for my disappointment and despair that I have lost the candidate that I have hoped for. There are much better ways, in terms of impact and less divisiveness, to work out international disagreements. Forcefully bringing them into the Olympics is not one of them.

Let's make it clear: Civil disobedience and protests are great. Attacking people in wheelchairs is not. If one is a politician running for an office where one should know better (for many reasons), turning an athletic competition into an official political bashing opportunity reflects poor judgment, bad advice, and maybe both.

For these reasons, and a few others, I am renouncing my support for any Democratic nominee for the duration of this year's primary. Good luck to both candidates.

Sunday, April 06, 2008

Weber’s Conceptions of the Roles of Two Types of Individuals: the Politician vs. the Scientist

This paper is primarily interested in the great sociologist and philosopher Max Weber’s account of the characteristics of the politician and the scientist and the contributions each has made to modernity. In order to place Weber’s discussions on the roles of the politician and scientist in their proper context, we must briefly discuss the rise of the bureaucratic order of the Weberian society. We begin with Weber’s sobering idea that modern society is headed toward a colorless, completely rational and bureaucratic order, which Weber indicated was the “disenchantment of the world.” We then discuss the roles and characteristics of the politician and scientist themselves, and critically examine Weber’s claim that the politician plays a bigger and more irreplaceable role in modern society than the scientist. We evaluate this idea and attempt to look at historical and current examples to support and discredit this claim, primarily focusing on the role of the scientist in modern society. Finally, I come up with my own modified analysis of the roles of the politician and the scientist. I indicate that, considering their overarching tendency to promote social progress and the overall goals of society, the roles, characteristics, and contributions of the politician and the scientist are not as mutually exclusive as Weber believed. I conclude with the thought that because politicians and scientists can contribute to society in a way that Weber may not have considered, then modern society may not be as depressing as Weber believed.

Max Weber was fascinated by the issue of modernity. Weber’s prognosis of what will result from modern society, however, was very discouraging. One of Weber’s most famous quotes reads, “The fate of our times is characterized by rationalization and intellectualization and, above all, by the ‘disenchantment of the world.’” (Weber, Science as a Vocation, p. 155) Weber believed that the defining characteristic of the modern state was the increasing reliance on rationalization and bureaucratization, which had a negative effect on society by taking away some of the magical effects of the natural world. Weber dismally wrote, “No summer’s bloom lies ahead of us, but rather a polar night of icy darkness and hardness, no matter which group may triumph externally now.” (Weber, Politics as a Vocation, p. 128) For Weber, the future brought ‘darkness and hardness’ because the rationalization of society brought on by the ascent of bureaucratic order was all but assured through the rise of democratic societies. This is because bureaucratic societies are the most effective means to level social stratification, one of the major goals of democratic order. On this idea, Weber wrote about how bureaucracies encourage equality:

“Bureaucracy inevitably accompanies modern mass democracy in contrast to the democratic self-government of small homogeneous units. This results from the characteristic principle of bureaucracy: the abstract regularity of the execution of authority, which is a result of the demand for ‘equality before the law’ in the personal and functional sense—hence, of the horror of ‘privilege,’ and the principled rejection of doing business ‘from case to case.’ Such regularity also follows from the social preconditions of the origin of bureaucracies.” (Weber, Bureaucracy, p. 224)

Two types of individuals loomed large in Weber’s account of modernity and the rise of bureaucracy: the politician and the scientist. Weber, as a preeminent sociologist, was particularly interested in studying the patterns of social relationships and interaction among and between the scientist and the politician. Furthermore, he investigated their effects on the modern social state, which we just described as increasingly rational, intellectualized, and disenchanted.

For Weber, the politician and the scientist both play key roles in the highly bureaucratic modern society. In his analysis, Weber has mostly given up on the ability of either of these two types of individuals to bring back romantic and inspiring notions of humanity and enchantment into social order. Weber overall held a low opinion of scientists. He described the culture of science as a “predominance of mediocrity” because in his mind random chance, rather than naturally endowed and/or developed ability, played a larger role in the process of academic selection. In his lecture Science as a Vocation Weber wrote:

The fact that hazard rather than ability plays so large a role is not alone or even predominantly owing to the ‘human, all too human’ factors, which naturally occur in the process of academic selection as in any other selection. […] The predominance of mediocrity is rather due to the laws of human co-operation, especially the co-operation of several bodies, and, in this case, co-operation of the faculties who recommend and of the ministries of education. (Weber, Science as a Vocation, p. 132)

Weber argues that networking and other “human, all too human” factors play too large a role when scientists achieve academic recognition and/or academic positions in academia. Weber also believed that great scientific discoveries may happen only once in a blue moon, and that these discoveries will be out of date in too short a time frame. A scientist seeking to enter the field will have to gamble on whether or not an idea will strike them at the appropriate moment. Weber famously mused that “ideas occur to us when they please, not when it pleases us,” and that “each of us knows that what he has accomplished will be antiquated in ten, twenty, fifty years.” (Weber, Science as a Vocation, p. 136 & 138) Weber’s biggest issue with science, though, is not based on the fact that he viewed success in science as random chance. His biggest issue with science is based on the idea that scientific accomplishments are purely technical achievements. Science, Weber argues, doesn’t provide additional meaning to life. In fact, Weber would say, science detracts from life. Success in science would mean increasing rationalization and disenchantment in the world. Weber argued:

It means something else, namely, the knowledge or belief that if one but wished one could learn it at any time. Hence, it means that principally there are no mysterious incalculable forces that come into play, but rather that one can, in principle, master all things by calculation. This means that the world is disenchanted. One need no longer have recourse to magical means in order to master or implore the spirits, as did the savage, for whom such mysterious powers existed. Technical means and calculations perform the service. This above all is what intellectualization means. (Weber, Science as a Vocation, p. 139)

It is important to note that Weber sees one key distinction between science as a vocation and politics as a vocation. Science as a vocation directly leads to the disenchantment of natural occurrences and our understanding of natural events. Politics as a vocation, on the other hand, (for reasons which we will discuss after this note), only indirectly leads to bureaucratization and rationalization. Furthermore, it is possible for a very talented and rare political leader to be able to inspire others and serve “the vocation for politics in its deepest meaning.” (Weber, Politics as a Vocation, 1958, p. 128) Generally, it is assumed, that both types of individuals (politicians and scientists) will encourage, promote, and protect rational bureaucratic order, although Weber leaves room to hope that a charismatic authority can restore meaning and vigor to the populace, should one arise.

Weber begins his lecture on Politics as a Vocation with the line, “This lecture, which I give at your request, will necessarily disappoint you in a number of ways,” (Weber, Politics as a Vocation, p. 77), indicating that the vocation of politics may not be as glorious, or to use a Weberian term, ‘enchanting’, as one would think. Politicians, being in charge of the political state, tend toward routine and bureaucratic order rather than promote personal relations and/or passionate behavior. The state, after all, “is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” (Weber, Politics as a Vocation, p. 78) It makes sense then that politicians would turn to bureaucratic administration in order to maintain the stability of the state, ensure law and order, and otherwise manage politics in a way that doesn’t radically alter the systems and organizations in place nor stir up the populace in a negative manner. Weber writes that “the political element consists, above all, in the task of maintaining ‘law and order’ in the country, hence maintaining the existing power relations.” (Weber, Politics as a Vocation, p. 91) The process of promoting this stability and bureaucratic order has given rise to a class of politicians who Weber describes as the ‘professional politicians’, who Weber notes, are “unlike the charismatic leader.” (Weber, Politics as a Vocation, p. 83)

Weber does, however, as previously noted, hold on to the hope that politicians can circumvent the rationality of their time through charismatic leadership. Weber writes that “As a permanent structure with a system of rational rules, bureaucracy is fashioned to meet calculable and recurrent needs by a means of a normal routine.” (Weber, The Sociology of Charismatic Authority, p. 245) He continues, however, later on in his essay entitled The Sociology of Charismatic Authority that “charisma, and this is decisive, always rejects as undignified any pecuniary gain that is methodical and rational. In general, charisma rejects all rational economic conduct.” (Weber, The Sociology of Charismatic Authority, p. 247) Charismatic leadership, Weber notes, “takes passion and perspective. Certainly all historical experience confirms the truth—that man would not have attained the possible unless time and again he had reached out for the impossible. But to do that a man must be a leader, and not only a leader but a hero as well, in a very sober sense of the word.” (Weber, Politics as a Vocation, p. 128) Charismatic leadership, then, can inspire and encourage passion in the populace through their leadership. Charismatic leaders can help men and women reach for goals they never before believe possible. But charismatic leadership is a double edged sword, in addition to being a rare quality among men. Weber notes that “by its very nature, the existence of charismatic authority is specifically unstable.” (Weber, The Sociology of Charismatic Authority, p. 248) By this observation Weber is implying that charismatic leaders can also blind a populace and encourage them to pursue action that are detrimental to their overall social welfare and best interests.

It is safe to say that Weber emphasizes the role of the politician more than the scientist. As previously noted Weber believes that scientists serve a technical purpose rather than a deeper meaning—which is to say that science as a vocation doesn’t increase human society’s sense of purpose. Weber writes,

Under these internal presuppositions, what is the meaning of science as a vocation, now after all these former illusions […] have been dispelled? Tolstoi has given the simplest answer, with the words: ‘Science is meaningless because it gives no answer to our question, the only question important for us: “What shall we do and how shall we live?”’ That science does not give an answer to this is indisputable. (Weber, Science as a Vocation, p. 143)

On this point, Weber is overly critical of the field of science. Weber does not recognize that a key characteristic of the scientist is that the scientist necessarily first takes into account the greater needs of society before embarking in scientific investigation. In order for the scientist’s discoveries to be relevant to society, which is to say that in order for the scientist to make money off his or her discovery or achieve renown from it, the scientist needs to understand toward what purpose their discovery shall serve. For example on one hand Weber makes the argument that most of humanity need not understand the physics behind a moving streetcar. Weber writes that “unless he is a physicist, one who rides on the streetcar has no idea how the car happened to get into motion. And he does not need to know.” (Weber, Science as a Vocation, p. 139) However, in order for such a technology to exist, someone needs to acquire the technical knowledge to create such an invention. In order for such a technology to serve human purposes, that person, the scientist, needs to first understand how his or her invention will further humanity’s goals.

Weber takes issue with the fact that the invention and improvement of the streetcar itself does not shed light on important questions such as “What shall we do and how shall we live?” Responding to Weber’s example, the streetcar assists human transport, and the train helps increase human industrial capacity and supports an increasing human population by transporting goods and supplies. The scientist is eminently aware of these facts, and for this reason the scientist’s technical discoveries are not outside the domain of serving larger social purposes as Weber would believe. For this reason Weber underestimates the contributions scientists have made to further the larger social questions.

It is obvious to the modern observer that science has greatly changed the experience of human society and how we humans go about our lives. Without our latest technical advances, humans would not be as connected as they are if we did not have cheap and ready access to telephones, speedy travel, and the internet. Governments, such as the United States, and other entities such as the United Nations, would not be motivated to interfere in genocides such as Sudan and Darfur if it weren’t for the populace’s easy access to news of worldly events (modern communication is a byproduct of science). The fact that international countries are pressured to react to catastrophes and crises in other states are a testament to how increasingly inter-connected human society is compared to human societies of the past where such incidences would be ignored. Science can also change human society for the worse, as well as for the better. The advent of the nuclear bomb allows motivated groups of people the option of destroying the planet as we know it. Society has necessarily reacted to these threats, especially political bureaucracies concerned with self-preservation.

Weber’s major critique of this assessment would focus on the ultimate authority by which scientists are held accountable. He would argue that scientific accomplishments are only a response to the general needs of the day, and are exploited by others such as politicians. Weber writes that individual scientists generally “maintain that he engages in ‘science for science’s sake’ and not merely because others, by exploiting science, bring about commercial or technical success and can better feed, dress, illuminate, and govern.” (Weber, Science as a Vocation, p. 138) This argument also has historical merit: the United States’ development of the nuclear bomb was a result of government sponsorship of the science, without which the nuclear bomb would likely not have developed the way it had—especially if countries did not compete to obtain the destructive nuclear technology. This shows that politics and science are inextricably linked, which Weber agrees. But the nuclear example is only one of many different examples for ways in which scientific discoveries are made. Many have been encouraged by governments, but others have been encouraged also by individuals unaffiliated with governments, be it for capital gain, academic study, and/or fame. Individual scientific discoveries happen often enough that rather than treat them, as Weber would, as exceptions, they must be included in the rule. The advent of electricity was unanticipated, and thus its discovery and utilization could not have been prompted by the government. On the other hand, other inventions such as the nuclear bomb, the internet, and other inventions were sponsored by the government to serve social and/or state needs. This shows that Weber is correct in many areas of his analysis, but could have been mistaken in others.

In response to Weber’s critique concerning the politician’s greater authority over society than the scientist, I would argue that the relationship between politicians and scientists are more complex than Weber recognizes. Weber holds the reasonable assumption that politicians hold the ultimate authority within a state. On the other hand, as Weber also recognizes, there is much movement on behalf of democratic societies of the modern era to level social stratification and enable governments to tap into the will and desires of their citizens in order to better serve them (see Bureaucracy page 224, which was quoted early on in this paper). In this manner, citizens, being “occasional politicians” (Weber, Politics as a Vocation, p. 83) can complicate the authority of the politician. Citizens, if under the influence of scientists or scientific beliefs that are contradictory to those held by politicians, can easily vote in politicians that agree with them and vote out politicians who disagree. For this reason, politicians don’t hold supreme authority over the power of the state. Furthermore, in democratic societies, there is always the possibility of the scientist becoming the politician. In modern American politics, there are many examples of scientists becoming politicians. Howard Dean, a doctor by trade, was a governor and contender for the Democratic Party’s nomination for President, and now heads the Democratic Party organization. George Foster, a physicist, was recently elected to the United States House of Representatives for the Illinois 14th Congressional District.[1]

Weber believed that the scientist and the politician generally promoted bureaucratic order that increased rationalization, intellectualization, and disenchantment of worldly affairs. On that same vein, he criticized scientists for their technical study, and did not recognize that their discoveries and achievements can in actuality serve general social pursuits. Their discoveries in many instances are necessarily based on their understanding of social progress and how their achievements can service societal needs. To name a few of their accomplishments, many of their inventions have allowed humans to increase their population and live in greater luxury than at any other point in history, to better enjoy each other’s company even from faraway locations, to be exposed to many different geographies and cultures through advances in transportation, and each of these achievements and others (while we may take them for granted) have encouraged us to dream of other future advances in store for us. These advances have also enabled us to reach ever higher in whatever pursuit we choose to strive for. For example, we would not be able to dream about exploring space, or even conceive of space exploration, if not for the technological achievements before our time. I would argue that rather than being disenchanting, these accomplishments, and the possibilities for greater achievements, is more enchanting than he realized.

Works Cited

Weber, M. (1958). Bureaucracy. In H. Gerth, & C. W. Mills, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (pp. 196-244). New York City: Oxford University Press.

Weber, M. (1958). Politics as a Vocation. In H. H. Gerth, & C. W. Mills, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (pp. 77 - 128). New York City: Oxford University Press.

Weber, M. (1958). Science as a Vocation. In H. Gerth, & C. W. Mills, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (pp. 129-158). New York City: Oxford University Press.

Weber, M. (2002). The Protestant Ethic & The Spirit of Capitalism. (S. Kalberg, Ed.) New York City: Oxford University Press.

Weber, M. (1958). The Sociology of Charismatic Authority. In H. Gerth, & C. W. Mills, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (pp. 245-252). New York City: Oxford University Press.

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Urban Education Reform Midterm: San Francisco

School District Reform in San Francisco

Introduction

Located in the internationally renowned city of San Francisco, the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) is both a source of local pride and a source of headache. SFUSD is the top performing urban public school district in California, is the only district to meet proficiency targets for special education students, and the school district was a finalist for the prestigious Broad Prize for Urban Education in 2005[i]. On the other hand, SFUSD is often characterized by problems that include political infighting among school board members that inhibits the activities of the Superintendent and district administration. It is often criticized for its student placement policies, lack of utilization of technological development over the years, shaky relationships with the teacher’s union, and still has much more room for improvement on student test scores. Any attempt at improving SFUSD must address these deficiencies while preserving the district’s overall progress over the years and protecting its tradition of student achievement growth over most of the past decade.

A Tale of Two Cities

San Francisco overall is a very wealthy city. The population of San Francisco is among the most highly educated in the nation (indicated by the proportion of residents with college degrees[ii]), and live in areas where housing prices are among the nation’s highest.[1] On the other hand as a result of high housing prices (and lack of affordable housing for middle-class families), San Francisco is also in the midst of a great middle-class flight. Much of San Francisco’s middle class population has evaporated over the years, and school district enrollment has reflected their decline. SFUSD currently serves approximately 55,000 students, down from its peak of over 90,000 in the 1960s and 1970s. Over the past ten years, SFUSD has lost almost 10,000 students[iii]. The lower-income group has remained relatively stable, and/or might have decreased slightly over the years due to gentrification. But most lower-income residents are protected from increasing housing costs due to specifically designated low-income housing in most development projects, and because of the relatively stable housing costs in troubled low-income neighborhoods. As such, San Francisco is sometimes known as the “tale of two cities”, because of relative differences in lifestyle among its two dominant groups. San Francisco schools in general reflect this disparity: San Francisco has the highest population of private school enrollment in the nation (at approximately 30%[iv]), while SFUSD enrollment is mostly minority and low income (SFUSD is only 10% white, and 62% of students qualify for free lunch according to 2005 figures[v])

Taking Stock

SFUSD faces many challenges familiar to an urban school district. SFUSD serves primarily low-income and minority students, faces declining enrollment, is attempting to narrow a daunting achievement gap and increase its test scores. SFUSD is also challenged by nearly annual budget deficits that are precipitated by state budget cuts, declining student enrollment, a sometimes temperamental and combative union leadership, and rising costs of conducting regular business (such as in purchasing commodities and paying for salary increases for teachers, administrators, and staff). San Francisco also faces problems that are unique to urban school districts, such as that many members of San Francisco’s active community activists, and several members of the Board of Education are ultra-liberal; for example they may take extreme positions such as closing down the city’s prestigious arts high school for all students because students with arts backgrounds are unfairly advantaged in the admissions process, which is primarily based on auditions. Infighting among the school board was the primary precipitating factor that pushed out former San Francisco Superintendent Arlene Ackerman from her position. Political infighting also prevented her successor, Interim Superintendent Gwen Chan, from seeking to apply for the permanent position of Superintendent.

On the other hand, SFUSD has many achievements that it should treasure and seek to improve. SFUSD has the highest test scores for an urban school district in the state; in 2005 48% of its students performed proficient or advanced on the state’s rigorous reading examination, and 57% of its students performed proficient or advanced on the state’s rigorous math examination[vi]. Approximately one third of San Francisco’s schools are among the top 25% percent of test scoring schools in the state. San Francisco has a very active community base from which to tap, members who include people who have worked with and/or founded or helped developed organizations such as DonorsChoose.org, GreatSchools.net, a SFSchools email listserv, and Parents for Public Schools. San Francisco also offers 17 language immersion programs and several alternative schools that specialize in college preparation, the arts, etc. Many schools have rich histories and are located in distinct communities each with unique resources of their own to offer the schools.

School Governance

Most administrative functions are decentralized. District central office plays a large role in coordinating district policy and ensuring school oversight, but most decisions such as various school policies (that don’t conflict with a pre-existing district policy) are determined on a school site by site basis. Most decisions on the school site level are made by a School Site Council (SSC), which is approximately 50% composed by teachers and administrators, and approximately 50% composed by parents and students (except at the elementary school level). SSCs are mostly responsible for the budget, although they can also determine other school policies such as student discipline, academic class offerings, etc. in coordination with the school principle within the larger school district context. SSCs typically meet monthly during most of the school year, and more often during the budget season. SSCs are required to meet with the larger school community to solicit input approximately twice during the budgeting season. Typically, the school district will provide a “menu” of items and their costs. Menu “offerings” include teachers, administrators, secretaries, supplies, central office support, nurses, security guards, etc. School budgets are allocated primarily by student attendance by way of the “Weighted Student Formula” (WSF), which distributes money on a per pupil basis. Students with more needs, such as special education and low income students, are weighted more in order to incentivize schools to outreach and enroll these students. Furthermore, “troubled” schools can sometimes receive up to three times more per student than the district average in order to provide them the financial resources to offer more programs and support.[2] School Site Councils are also responsible for annual reports which include school goals, and academic plans for each school. District staff will visit periodically to ensure that these plans are being followed, evaluate, and give input where they see fit. Sometimes, SSCs are also charged with making unfortunate decisions on which school programs to cut and which staff members to lay off in times of budget trouble.

District Budget

Many of the school district’s accomplishments have occurred in spite of nearly annual troublesome budget situations, which have also helped to further strain some of the already testy political problems that surround the school district. The twin trials of severe budget cuts and declining enrollment have put the district’s progress in jeopardy, tested the district’s relationship with its unions, strained other political relationships, and also forced the district to take action that has alienated certain constituencies and has affected all schools in the district. The district has been forced to lay off teachers, close under-enrolled schools, and cut WSF funding across the board, all three actions which prompted wide ranging reactions from political resistance and alienation to much division within the school board itself. For this upcoming school year, the school district faces an additional budget cut of $40 million, based on the latest budget proposal submitted by the governor of California. California school districts already currently spend approximately $1,900 less per student than the national average[vii].

District Reform

As previously noted, the situation in SFUSD is very complicated. Any effort at district reform submitted on behalf of the superintendent of schools needs to carefully consider both its budgetary and political consequences even before submitting it for consideration before the Board of Education or the public. Most importantly, “reform” efforts in San Francisco must not impinge on the progress that SFUSD has already made toward educating its students. As such, “reform” is probably a less apt term for SFUSD than “plan of action.” SFUSD’s plan of action should revolve around three main pillars: 1) Protecting its record of increasing student achievement, and enhancing the academic goals of the district for its students; 2) managing its tricky political and budgetary considerations in order to maximize the effectiveness of the first pillar; and finally 3) Building relationships with outside community members and organizations in order to enhance the school district’s long term position in terms of resources available to students and in terms of stemming, and hopefully, reversing the trend of declining student enrollment. The school district should aim to become a beacon of hope for all urban students within San Francisco and aim to become one of San Francisco city’s primary assets. This third goal should also support the first two major goals of the school district.

The first goal of our school district is the most important—the other two goals are designed to support this first crucial motive. Our plan of action for raising student performance should include ideas that increase individual school cultures of excellence and results, and support teachers and principals in their efforts toward this goal. Ultimately, the aim of the school district should include the idea that the definitive goal of the school district isn’t only to raise student test scores, but also to prepare them for college, teach them to better able citizens of the world, and attempt to maximize their individual potential. The school district has already put a lot of effort into raising test scores, including giving school sites more authority over their individual academic plans and holding them accountable for results. My first priority would be to protect these efforts and allow what’s working to continue, so I’d be loathe to make drastic changes. But as someone who’s gone through the SFUSD school system, I don’t think these efforts go far enough. I think SFUSD could substantially increase student achievement by also taking aim at more intangible aspects of education, such as school culture. I would propose SFUSD take aim at affecting school culture by developing a method by which teachers and staff try to emulate professional conduct in all of their actions in front of students. For example, in many schools teachers and administers often disagree with each other and among each other. Many times, these fights find their way into the classroom, and this may contribute to student despondency. Students should feel that schools are places of intellectual and academic discourse and discovery. Teachers and administrators who disrespect each other certainly do not contribute to this ideal environment.

Although this idea seems simple, I realize that aiming at something intangible as school culture as an area for change is a difficult plan of action to implement. First of all, there are usually pre-existing cultures within schools that are hard to change. Secondly, some teachers might be offended at the implication that the district views their behavior as “disrespectful.” In one case in University Park School in Worcester, MA, one teacher attempted to file a grievance against the students he was teaching because they demanded more rigor and substance from his teaching. I think these concerns are all valid points, but I also think that these challenges can be overcome in various creative ways. To begin, it’s easier to have principals buy into ideas such as this because the administrator’s union and administrators in general tend to be more cooperative with school district officials. Having principals buy in can be a start, since the teacher’s union tends to be more combative. Having principals start leading teachers by their own example might produce tangible results. Furthermore, I think that enough teachers are amenable to the idea reasonable idea of a respectful workplace culture that enough might buy in to start a movement. If not, the district can take other steps such as negotiating with the union to include cultural factors in teacher evaluations, and the district can also continually push this message year over year in order to push more teachers to internalize this message through district newsletters, professional development days, awards and recognition to peers who cooperate, etc.

Another idea to help increase student performance would be to invest in technology to make the district more “paperless” and to make data more available to teachers. Ultimately, if we could cut down on the paperwork (and staff time wasted on paper pushing), perhaps our investment in new technologies would be revenue neutral over time, and might even save the district money over time. We then have two benefits of: saving the district money by reducing staff required to push papers (and also fewer resources wasted on commodities that might prove useless to the ordinary teacher and student in the classroom), and we’d also support our teachers by giving them more information on which to act in order to refine their teaching practices and meet individual student needs.

I’d also seek to tangibly increase student achievement by transferring resources (so that this policy is budget neutral) into creating more alternative learning communities, especially in comprehensive schools. Even if I could only afford to change schools in name into “Engineering Academies”, “Architecture/Visual Art School”, etc., I would do it on the condition of reasonable outside support. (By reasonable outside support I do not exclusively mean financial, I think soliciting coaches and perhaps “guest teachers” from professionals in their respective fields to help train students can be very meaningful.) I think our third pillar could have the most impact toward this goal. If the school district were able to attract law firms, biotechnology companies, architecture firms, and even just a small fraction of the many prestigious organizations that do business in San Francisco, even small commitments can make a difference.[viii] I believe that opening our schools to outside mentorship and resources in a carefully constructed way can 1) increase community interest in what is going on in our schools, and 2) increase the meaningful niche learning opportunities available to students. I would only pursue these ideas as long as they are an addition to reforms that have already proved their worth in SFUSD, which is namely, preserving the School Site Council and the Weighted Student Formula. I think that SSCs already do much to encourage parental participation in our public education system. Some recent candidates to school board were initially drawn into school district politics because of their experience and training on SSCs[ix].

Of our three major pillars, I think the second one is perhaps the most complicated and involves the most politicking. Methods to achieve this goal would also differ depending on the composition of the school board, and the perception of the populace toward San Francisco schools. I believe we could best prepare a plan of action for the latter in this paper. I believe the former would vary on a case by case basis. However, I would like to make one suggestion concerning the school board before I move on. I think if there were a more user friendly way to post records of board member votes, and have the public and press better able to scrutinize their votes, public statements, and political positions, then the school board might be held more accountable to being reasonable. At the very least this might encourage them to be more consistent and rely less upon personal relationships and disagreements. Moving on to the goal of increasing public support for our school district, I would lean heavily on outreach and communication. I believe most San Francisco schools are performing very well, and the school district has already achieved many accomplishments that it can use to make a case for more support such as higher taxes to support our schools, and perhaps make the case that dissuades more families from leaving the public school system. Some of these efforts have already been successful, approximately two years ago city voters decisively voted to pass an initiative that made the city pay approximately $20 million annually to schools in order to supplement its budget.[3]

Conclusion/Summation

There are many current and past practices that continue to be valuable to SFUSD’s continuing improvement in test scores. These practices include decentralization and the development of the School Site Council, the Weighted Student Formula, and efforts begun under former Superintendent Ackerman to clean up the district’s image in order to increase public support for increasing district resources by way of taxes, grants, etc. My ultimate goal would be to ensure the continuance of these valuable practices. On the other hand, SFUSD is still far from perfect. Approximately 44% of SFUSD’s graduates haven’t completed all of the courses required for admission into the prestigious University of California or California State University system. In addition, approximately half of SFUSD’s student population doesn’t score “proficient or advanced” on California’s Standards Test. In order to increase student achievement, I would aim at upgrading SFUSD’s technological resources in order to better support teachers on the front line and try to reduce the politicking on the San Francisco school board. I would also aim at relatively intangible aspects of education reform such as improving school culture and increasing community involvement in schools. I am very excited about San Francisco’s current success in educating its students, and am also very excited over the possibility of further improvement and achievement.



[1] One would think that in a city as property rich as San Francisco, SFUSD should never be in need of financial resources. In my conversations with many who were there, this was almost the case in the pre-Prop 13 era. (SFUSD was never a rich school district, but its financial picture was better in the past.) Before California’s anti-tax landmark Proposition 13 was passed, schools could pay for the latest machine technology to help train students in well-paying blue collar jobs and careers, for example. You can often tell which schools were built before and after Proposition 13 almost simply by how elaborate and posh some of the older buildings are in comparison to our newer ones. But Proposition 13 limited property tax increases year over year after its passage to approximately 2.5%. Property values have gone sky-high since then. Since this is the case, many companies are paying approximately 1970s level taxes for properties that have gone up perhaps more than tenfold since then. For this reason, SFUSD cannot tap into the vast wealth that has accumulated in San Francisco’s rich property reserves, even for commercial property worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

[2] Ultimately, however, on average these troubled schools receive about equal or less than higher academically performing schools. This is mostly due to the fact that higher performing schools have higher teacher retention rates, and teachers (because of their seniority) earn more at these schools than at lower performing schools. Schools still pay the average amount per teacher, regardless of what each teacher ultimately costs the district, so in a sense lower performing schools, in spite of their greater budget allocation, are in some ways also subsidizing the higher performing schools.

[3] This was a remarkable achievement, given that only a few years earlier a similar measure would never have passed. There had been a public scandal of a former superintendent mismanaging funds and being involved in shady deals. Superintendent Ackerman helped clean up the district’s image and laid the foundation for this victory. I believe Ackerman’s efforts should be continued, and that the district should aim for a bigger slice of the city’s wealth (San Francisco itself has a city budget of $5 billion). On another somewhat unrelated note, it is a sad statement of the extent of the state’s budget cuts for education that the district had to dip into this approximately $20 million yearly fund in order to fund salary increases for teachers in order to prevent a strike, instead of the supplementary arts, sports, and librarian funding it was intended for.



[i] This information can be found from several sources, including the California Department of Education, the Broad Education Foundation, and from the district’s “Did You Know?” webpage. http://portal.sfusd.edu/template/default.cfm?page=about.didyouknow

[ii] MSN Encarta lists that the Census Bureau’s statistic for San Francisco stands at second place for an urban area in the nation with a population proportion of 50.1% of residents having obtained a college degree or higher.

[iii] These figures were presented to the Board of Education of SFUSD of which I was a member two years ago. This information isn’t readily accessible on the internet, but please contact me if you would like contact information of district officials with whom to check these figures. As far as I’m aware, these numbers are still accurate, although district enrollment may have begun to stabilize starting this school year. You can note part of this decline by comparing Broad Finalist enrollment figures from 2005 district enrollment (approximately 57,000 students), at http://www.just4kids.org/en/files/broad/2005_San_Francisco.pdf to this past year’s student enrollment of 55,500 http://portal.sfusd.edu/template/default.cfm?page=about.glance

[iv] An article on this subject by the San Francisco Chronicle, a local newspaper, can be found online at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/31/MNGJIJ50T41.DTL

[v] San Francisco overall is approximately 44% white, according to a report at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06075.html San Francisco figures can be found at the following site: http://www.just4kids.org/en/files/broad/2005_San_Francisco.pdf

[vi] The discrepancy between its reading and math scores can be attributed to its relatively high English Language Learner population, which stands at 28%. The test score information is derived from http://portal.sfusd.edu/template/default.cfm?page=about.didyouknow

[viii] The mock trial program at my high school changed my life. It only required the commitment of four lawyers, once or twice a week. From mock trial, I was introduced to the rigors of law and competition, and I was introduced to people who helped me obtain education public policy experience.

[ix] I briefly mentioned one of these cases in an article I co-wrote for the Harvard Political Review last year: http://hprsite.squarespace.com/golden-laboratory-fall2006/2006/11/13/golden-laboratory.html