Mitchell Kapor Foundation Weblog

We’ve just completed a process to identify new key partner organizations. And while the bulk of our funding will support this cohort, I want to reiterate to the broader community that we are still able to consider quarterly grant requests for special opportunities and efforts like convenings and tech-related work.

If you’re interested in learning more, please feel free to check out our regularly-updated guidelines (or keep reading the blog) and contact us to discuss your ideas.

Just got word from Dion Ward at Northern California Grantmakers that the Kapor Foundation was mentioned (among others) in today’s Chronicle of Philanthropy for supporting Census outreach efforts.

In the coming weeks we hope to sponsor a funder briefing with NCG on the Census. Stay tuned for that announcement. Meanwhile, I’m glad the buzz is growing around the importance of the Census (I saw four different messages on BET this past weekend), and glad we could add our voices to the mix!

Yesterday I heard a terrific briefing at the Haas Jr. Foundation (Thanks Cathy and Ted!) on the California redistricting process, which stands to be a great experiment in participatory democracy or  a hugely controversial process stunted by our national polarity. Or maybe some of both.

The San Francisco Chronicle recently ran a front-page article describing the process and the need for a pool of candidates who reflect the diversity of our state. The article drove me to look closer at the selection process for the California Redistricting Commission, which will be comprised of 14 citizen applicants, some randomly selected and others not. Criticisms of the lopsided applicant pool notwithstanding, the selection process alone promises to be thrilling, kind of like a civic lottery. I even checked out the application, which is due on Friday, February 12th. There has been a last minute push to spread the word to communities of color; I even received a video message in my personal email from the Northern California district director of my fraternity encouraging brothers to consider applying if we met certain eligibility criteria required by Proposition 11, which was passed by voters in 2008 to create the commission:

• Are a registered voter and have voted in at least two of the last three general elections.
• Have had consistent voter affiliation for five years.
• Had no conflicts of interest as outlined here.

If you, dear California voter, meet these criteria and are interested in participating in a process that will shape the immediate electoral future of our state, you have a week to get your name in the hat!

Happy New Year everybody! Like many others, I’m glad to see the dawn of a new decade.

There are many things that I thought I’d never see happen, or that I’d be quite elderly before they did. Aside from the obvious and much-talked about one, I also never envisioned gay marriage being legal (although in precious few places, but still…). And as a native North Carolinian, I never thought I’d see the day when smoking was banned in public places in my home state.

During my childhood, tobacco was king. My high school is named after a tobacco baron. My grandfather, uncles, cousins, and stepfather all worked in the local tobacco company. It was steady agri-industrial work for high school grads with limited opportunities in the newly integrated/de facto segregated south.  I spent a summer sweeping the floors of a cigarette factory after my first year of college. And one of the nation’s fiercest basketball rivalries (go ‘heels!) plays out along the folksy-named Tobacco Road.

While North Carolina started to diversify its economic offerings in the 1980s, the tobacco industry still exerts a strong presence in the state. So imagine my surprise when I saw that, as of the beginning of this year, North Carolina restaurants and bars can no longer allow smoking (California fully enacted similar legislation in 1998).

This was a nice affirmation that change does come. And to paraphrase my grandmother, it “may not come when you want it, but it’s always right on time.” Let’s keep that in mind as we continue to work for equity, justice, and access during the coming year.

Just returned from a full week on the East Coast, where I experienced weather-related lows and highs (24F in Washington and 86F in Miami) and attended two mightily impactful meetings.

The Funders Committee for Civic Participation winter convening was chock full o’ learning and strategizing opportunities. Yours truly had the honor and pleasure of not only attending my first meeting as a newly-elected member of the Steering Committee, but also chatting with Lani Guinier, our keynote speaker. Professor Guinier, now serving on the faculty of Harvard Law School, is a prolific academic and author. She is perhaps best (and unfortunately) known for being thrown under the bus by a panicky first-term Bill Clinton during hearings about her nomination as Assistant Attorney General.

Professor Guinier continues to challenge traditional thinking about race and power in the U.S. She spoke with this rapt audience about the “electocracy” and questioned whether our current electoral system truly allows for representation. Actually, it wasn’t that simple; her assertion is that there are precious few spaces for public discourse around determining policy issues. She cited promising examples in Porto Alegre, Brazil, and domestically, in Chicago with a collective budgeting process (and thanks, Professor, for emailing me the article!).

FCCP participants also heard and discussed much new information about a precipitous drop-off in potential participation in the mid-term elections. Many voters who were energized by last year’s presidential elections are turned off, burnt out, or simply not motivated to vote in 2010. A similar civic burnout may also hamper participation in the dicennial census, due to kick off in March. Both of these events – elections and the census – have huge implications for communities across the nation – redistricting and reapportionment of Congressional seats, budget allocations according to population shifts, governor-ships, and the President’s policy agenda.

Just when I thought we might have a little respite, 2010 promises to be a tough year. Kudos to FCCP for yet another stellar meeting of the minds. These opportunities for funders synch up are always valuable and serve our individual and collective work well.

I also had the great pleasure of attending the “Transformational Leadership Retreat” sponsored by the Open Society Institute and the Knight Foundation in Miami. Organized by and for OSI’s Campaign for Black Male Achievement grant recipient organizations, this three-day convening provided a forum for networking, reflecting, and most importantly, galvanizing around a common agenda for promoting efficient and effective work with black men and boys in programs throughout the nation.

After dodging a contamination scare, and without betraying any confidences from the conversation circle, I found it liberating to finally break the unspoken tension around the role of gender equity and inclusion in this work – namely, how do we appropriately and respectfully include women in this male-focused work? While we collectively recognize the importance of focusing on this very “endangered” demographic group, we also need to develop an appropriate gender lens – what do we mean, exactly, when we talk about “manhood”?

While the discussion was impassioned and even tense, it was a very necessary bridge to cross as we try to work together as a community to ensure better pathways and futures for young black men and their families, neigbhorhoods, and greater communities.

All in all, the trip was simultaneously terrific and sobering. And I got to wear shorts and a pea coat in the same week.

Over the past week, a few job announcements have come into my mailbox. Thought I’d compile distribute them. Please send broadly to those who might be qualified. I’m especially interested in promoting the ED position at our sister organization, Level Playing Field Institute. Let’s find some great people for these organizations and efforts!

Level Playing Field Institute: Executive Director;  Education Programs Associate

Women’s Foundation of California: Development and Communications Director

Community Housing Partnership: Executive Director

I feel quite fortunate to have role models and other professional peers whom I admire in the broader philanthropic and civic engagement movements. Thomasina Williams is one of these people. She’s the Program Officer for Democracy, Rights and Justice Program at the Ford Foundation and has a rich herstory as a civil rights attorney and legal advocate for social justice. We met through the Funders Committee for Civic Engagement, where she serves on the Steering Committee. More than once I’ve asked myself, when at the crossroads of a grantmaking dilemma, “What would Thomasina do?” I trust her vision and observations about the power dynamics inherent to electoral politics and what marginalized communities must do in order to break our elections processes free from the stranglehold of big money.

A conversation with Thomasina last week gave me the following inspiration: we must push beyond “diversity.” We’ve heard it used as lingo to indicate that people were at least *considering* the racial/ethnic/gender makeup of a particular entity. Yet, superficial treatment of representation doesn’t ensure that people’s voices, experiences, and opinions are taken into consideration during decision-making processes. Diversity in and of itself does not guarantee that pluralism is woven into setting policy or direction.

If we’re going to really embrace this nation’s diverse demographics, we also have to be willing to build our institutions that are inclusive from the beginning. And if they aren’t inclusive from the beginning, they are doggedly determined to have appropriate representation on the staff and board.  “We’re thinking about it” is so 1987. Do it. And – to borrow another inspiration from the intrepid Ludovic Blain, if orgs aren’t inclusive and don’t have appropriate representation, stop claiming to be diverse or represent diverse communities. Tokenism doesn’t count. Having racial and gender castes by job level (from executive leadership to support staff) doesn’t either.

We’ve made great progress in this nation; I remain cautiously optimistic that we can get even closer to the American ideal of “liberty and justice for all.” For real.

I went to Bay Area Rapid Transit’s website to look up the train schedule and caught this photo:

My immediate reaction was “Good for them for using a young brotha’s photo among the commuters, professionals, and suburbanites that they usually feature.”

Then I thought, “Should I be cynical about the use of this photo given the Oscar Grant tragedy?”

And furthermore, “Does this simple image of a capped and “hoodie-d” teen evoke a sense of fear among some of BART’s riders, especially those already nervous about using public transportation?”

This photo reminds me of the Project Implicit tests that gauge deep-seated biases for/against certain categories of people. The tests are quite revealing – and can be troubling.

For a long while I’ve contended that race and class – specifically the devaluation of darker-skinned people -  play major roles in expectation setting and stereotyping. These kinds of biases show up the way that people with privilege and power treat those that have less or neither.

I’m still trying to figure out a way to factor image-shaping into our College Bound Brotherhood initiative. While our top priority is supporting the direct service work to get young black men prepared for college success, I also wonder about provoking a public dialogue about images of young black men – embraced by blacks and non-blacks alike – that limit and suppress their potential.

Got any ideas??

Painting by Robert Shetterly, from his Americans Who Tell The Truth series

I went to bed last night and did that thing you’re never supposed to do in order to get a good night’s sleep: opened my laptop, went to the New York Times, and started poking around.

About half way down the page was the news of Van Jones’ resignation from the Obama Administration as the Special Adviser for Green Jobs. Within seconds of reading the article, the sad truth about the limits of this presidency became very, very real.  I met Van briefly when I first moved to Oakland in 2000 and our paths crossed numerous times as my great friend Zachary Norris deferred NYU law school because he was so inspired by the work of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and the leadership Van offered.  Van is a true intellectual, an amazing orator, and the most down to earth human being you will ever meet.

Over the course of the last months, I’ve been a giggling skeptic of the power that Glenn Beck has over the state of American politics.  I imagined it to be peripheral, on the margins of American society, and at the end of the day powerless.  Today, I can’t help but think: What have we done?  As progressives, we have let one of our great leaders, activists, and thinkers fall and still the streets of Oakland, DC, and  New York are quiet.  As progressives, we continue to let the administration fall under the relentless scrutiny of Republicans and, worst yet, right-wing talking heads and assume that it will have little to no effect on the movement we worked so hard for.  What have we done?  And more importantly, what can we do to make sure this never happens again?

Can’t stop won’t stop: http://cantstopwontstop.com/blog/time-to-knuckle-up-on-van-jones-resignation/
Sierra Club: http://sierraclub.typepad.com/carlpope/2009/09/we-all-blew-it.htm