All posts in Racial Justice

Yesterday, we were happy to see the Level Playing Field Institute‘s new report, ”The Voice of Nonprofit Talent: Perceptions of Diversity in the Workplace” get top billing in the Chronicle of Philanthropy’s daily update.

Please check out this timely piece by our colleagues at Kapor Enterprises and its implications for building, sustaining and growing diverse organizations.

Here’s a small excerpt to get you started …

Across the nonprofit sector, most employers share the belief that racial diversity is a key component of organizational health, performance, and outcomes. Yet, according to today’s nonprofit talent, few organizations are doing enough to attract and retain professionals of color. There is a perceived gap between the intentions and actions of nonprofit organizations when it comes to promoting staff diversity.

A common perception held by nonprofit professionals is that their employers value diversity, but that those values are not being translated into actions resulting in the creation of diverse and inclusive workplaces. For organizations seeking to increase the racial diversity of their staff, or retain their current employees of color, the ineffectiveness of mere “good intentions” around issues of diversity and inclusiveness presents a looming problem. Download the full report.

As many of us now know, Arizona has long been a laboratory for anti-immigrant legislation, driven and funded by prison companies and their profit motives. Tonight I’m headed back to the state. I’ll be visiting for the first time since shortly after SB1070 passed, supporting a delegation of allies on a learning tour both in Phoenix and Tuscon.  I hope to share reflections from this trip in a future post, but wanted to call attention here to another Arizona related headline.

In addition to being a laboratory for anti-immigrant legislation, the state has also been a laboratory for public financing legislation, but in this instance, increasing rather than criminalizing political speech and opportunity.  Arizona did this through their Clean Elections public financing law and its matching fund provisions.  It’s the constitutionality of this law, though, that the U.S. Supreme Court is now considering.  Below is a an update on this critical case, McComish v. Bennet, by Marc Caplan, program officer of the Piper Fund, a Mitchell Kapor Foundation grant recipient:

Piper Update – March 28, 2011 – Marc Caplan

The Supreme Court will hear oral argument today at 10:00 AM on the most important public financing case the Court has heard in more than 30 years.  The case, McComish v. Bennet, marks the first time that the Supreme Court has considered the constitutionality of a public financing measure since the landmark Buckley v. Valeo decision in 1976, which upheld the presidential public financing system and other reforms. For that reason, it could have a profound impact on the ability of all levels of government to offer reforms which counteract the influence that powerful interests have over elections.

The McComish case challenges the matching fund provision of Arizona’s Clean Elections public financing law, which was enacted by voters through a ballot referendum in 1998.  The matching funds provision is “triggered” when non-participating candidates in an election spend above the amount of grants provided to publicly financed candidates and also can be triggered when independent expenditures are made against a publicly financed candidate.  In those cases, the publicly financed candidates receive additional grants. Through the 2008 election cycle, the law was used increasingly by candidates in Arizona, with solid majorities of both legislative and statewide candidates opting to run utilizing the Clean Elections law.

Despite the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in May 2010 that the Arizona matching-fund provision was indeed constitutional, the Supreme Court nevertheless intervened in June 2010 to block Arizona from making any “triggered” matching fund grants for the 2010 election cycle.  Following that action by the Court, many observers predicted the Court would decide to consider the legal issues presented in the McComish case, which they did in late November 2010.

The attack on the trigger provisions of the Arizona public financing law is part of the well-coordinated and financed multi-year assault led by right-wing legal centers on all aspects of campaign finance reform designed to empower moneyed interests with even greater influence over our country’s elections than they already have.   …

For the full update, including a summary of responses by public interest legal centers, the Brennan Center and the Campaign Legal Center, email Marc Caplan at mcaplan at proteusfund dot org.

Soon after college, I was taught and trained in a model of community organizing that had five core elements: base-building, campaigns, organizational development, alliance-building, and leadership development.  This last element, leadership development, has since been an area of work within the social justice field where I’ve found that I can both be incredibly inspired, but also incredibly frustrated.

So I was glad last Friday to attend Urban Habitat’s Boards and Commissions Leadership Institute (BCLI)’s information session in Oakland. [Read more about BCLI here.]  From the beginning of the presentation, it felt like leadership development done right. Many of the reasons why are evident in BCLI’s materials and on their website. I thought, though, that I would highlight two reasons that I hear us talk less about when looking at leadership development.

First, BCLI answers the question of exactly when and where their graduates will be able to practice the skills and use the knowledge learned through their program. It almost feels silly to credit them for this, as it’s why they exist at all, but I just don’t see that link too often. Groups that I’ve worked with have dozens of youth and adults go through their leadership development programs, but, and not to their fault, it wasn’t always clear where these members would then be able to all assume leadership roles.  Certainly the organizations themselves, with few resources and limited capacity, didn’t have enough open staff positions or even member leader roles available. Given this, BCLI not only points to the places where their leadership development program graduates can use newly acquired skills and knowledge, but also where all graduates of social justice leadership development programs throughout the Bay can now, if interested, play leadership roles and be supported in doing so.

Second, BCLI starts with the recognition of its participants, particularly poor and low-income communities of color, as being leaders in the room whose contributions and experiences will benefit their community, given the opportunity. This quality is one that has stuck with me from working with immigrant youth. It’s what I’ve understood to be the role model versus gang approach. While the former can provide a glimpse of a new reality for an audience, it could still also feel foreign and far off if their isn’t a deep connection with the speaker. The latter’s approach, on the other hand, proved instructive once we came to understand the appeal of gangs to Southeast Asian immigrant and refugee youth in the Northwest Bronx.  Rather than preparing youth to be leaders at some unknown time in the future, gangs, albeit tragically, offered responsibility and recognition almost immediately, allowing a place for them to apply and be recognized for the knowledge and maturity they had acquired growing up as the bilingual bicultural advocates of their community. Good leadership programs shouldn’t be gangs, of course, but I do think that they should include an approach that begins with recognition of existing leadership experiences and a trust to fulfill responsibilities based on this.

As someone new to the Bay area and to BCLI, I’m looking forward to learning more and seeing all that directly and indirectly comes out of this work.

* Title inspired by Paula Gidding’s book, When and Where I Enter: The Impact of Black Women on Race and Sex in America.

NAACP LDF "Redrawing the Lines" Video

With the release of new population data from last year’s decennial Census, district lines within states will now have to be redrawn so that every district is roughly equal in population size and, as a result, each person is equally represented in governemnt.  This process of redistricting will figuratively and literally shape the conditions within which we work and live, affecting all levels of government from local school boards and city councils to state legislatures and the United House of Representatives for the decade to come.

Unfortunately, redistricting has proved less straightforward and less fair than we might hope for in a representative democracy.  Section 2 and Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, in fact, were specifically written to address prevalent partisan and discriminatory redistricting practices.

Below are two resources, a website and a guide, that each serve as primers on what redistricting is and what the responsibilities are of us, of elected officials and, in California, of redistricting commissions to ensure a just and equitable redrawing of political lines. We hope you’ll take the time to learn more and participate in the process where possible.

NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.: www.redrawingthelines.org |  Brennan Center:  A Citizen’s Guide to Redistricting

Are you dissatisfied with the government policies being made in your local community? Would you like to help make sure voices like yours gets heard in local policy meetings? Would you like to have a cohort of progressive leaders with the same leadership training available to support your efforts to make change in your community?

If so, you should learn more about Urban Habitat‘s Boards and Commissions Leadership Institute at their upcoming information session!

Urban Habitat’s Boards and Commissions Leadership Institute (BCLI) identifies, supports, trains, and places low-income people and people of color in priority boards and commissions seats around the Bay Area. The BCLI prioritizes seats that influence equity in the areas of transportation, equitable development, housing, jobs, and climate change. Graduates form a network of progressive leaders who are technically and politically prepared and supported to make decisions that reflect the needs and interests of low-income communities and communities of color. Graduates have the capacity and community support to advance a regional agenda for economic, environmental, and social justice and serve as the next generation of progressive officials who are representative of and accountable to the region’s most burdened populations.

Come hear how the BCLI has empowered and supported the next generation of advocates working for and representing the needs of low-income communities and communities of color, and learn about the nomination, interview, and selection process. You will also be able to meet Alumni who will be available to answer questions and share their experiences.

Logistics:

Date: February 18th, 2011
Time: 9:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
Location: East Bay Community Foundation, 200 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Oakland

RSVP to Riana Shaw Robinson at riana(AT)urbanhabitat(DOT)org!

Image Source: Urban Habitat, 2009 BCLI Graduates

The health, wellness, and education of young black males have been a hot issue as of late, locally and nationally.  Why has this group warranted so much attention?  Simply put, black males have higher dropout rates, lower high school and college graduation rates, and higher incarceration rates than all other racial groups.

So what’s being done to address the issue?  Organizations and foundations across the country have been working both independently and collectively to improve the conditions of black youth and deliver them to successful outcomes.  Last year, The Schott Foundation released Yes We Can: The Schott 50 State Report on Public Education and Black Males, a state by state detailed report of the graduation rates of black males vs. white males. In the past year there has been several conferences focused on issues related to Black males & youth: Boys and Young Men of Color (BMOC), Black Male Initiative (BMI), Man Up! Conference, and A Dream Deferred.

Two weeks ago, CLASP and the 2025 Campaign for Black Men and Boys teamed up for a webinar entitled We Dream a World: Re-Imagining the Landscape for Black Men and Boys. This one-day discussion, highlighted some of the national efforts transpiring to close the gaps in outcomes for Black youth. Guest speaker Dr. James L. Moore, from the Todd Anthony Bell National Resource Center on the African American Male at Ohio State University, described education as the biggest civil rights issue to date and emphasized that “we can no longer sit on the sideline and watch African-Americans underachieve and low achieve.”  Dr. Moore’s words set the stage for the community panel discussion, which focused on programs being implemented across the country that strictly focused on improving social and educational development of black youth.  The webinar also highlighted the report, We Dream a World: The 2025 Vision for Black Men and Boys.

The community panel was composed of individuals from various regions of the country that are involved with organizations that are bringing game changing practices to issues regarding young black men.  Greg Hodge, Bay Area resident, education advocate, independent consultant, and co-owner of Community Development Associates, was one of three individuals on this panel.  Mr. Hodge led off and quickly dove into the projects that have or are being implemented in Oakland such as the Oakland Brothahood project, a multi-generational collaboration focused on building a mentoring-bridge across generations as well as establishing a rites of passage program for young black men.  In addition to the Oakland Brothahood project, Mr. Hodge discussed the African American Male Achievement (AAMA) initiative, a program designed to examine the Oakland Unified School District’s systems, collect research on best practices, and implement its findings into the district’s most vulnerable sites in order to improve outcomes for black males.

Greg Hodge’s presentation represented Oakland well.  The responses from the online viewers were positive.  One viewer commented, “Something is percolating in Oakland.”  Similar sentiments were echoed throughout the presentation; with some even suggesting that the AAMA’s work could serve as a national model for other cities in distress with their black male population.

Local and national organizing efforts currently taking place to improve the conditions of young black men need to be (a) recognized and brought to the attention of the masses and (b) supported by individuals or groups of individuals that have the means by which such efforts can be effective and sustained.  It is critical for Oakland and Area residents to stand up and get involved.  The greater the effort we put into closing these disparities in health, education, incarceration, and opportunities for young black men, the greater the outcomes of success will be for them and our community.

To get more information on the Oakland Brothahood project please contact Greg Hodge at greg@cdatrust.com.

photo source: The 2025 Vision for Black Men and Boys

Please help spread the word to people in your network about the call for nominations for the $100,000 Purpose Prize.

In its sixth year, The Purpose Prize provides major recognition to community leaders, 60 years and older, who are creating new ways to solve our most pressing social issues – from health care to the environment, poverty to education. It is the nation’s only large-scale investment in social innovators in the second half of life.

I’ve served as part of the selection process for the past three years, and the nominations and work from people throughout our communities is amazing, as are the entrepreneurial ideas that people develop.

Nominations – including self-nominations – are due by March 31, 2011 at www.encore.org/prize.

I don’t know about other folks of color, but whenever I hear about a shooting, a terrible accident, or any form of violence, I pray real hard that it wasn’t committed by a person of color.  That was my first thought on Sunday after hearing about the tragic shooting of Gabrielle Gifffords and nine innocent people by a young man in Tucson, Arizona.  I was no more relieved when I heard it was a young white man who had committed this senseless act, but it did raise a number of critical questions for me, as a woman of color, and for our country, which is clearly suffering from it’s criminalization of people of color.  These questions included:

- If the shooter had been of South Asian descent, as was Major Nidal Malik Hasan the shooter at Fort Hood in 2009, would this shooting be considered an act of ‘home grown terrorism’?

- If voter’s in Arizona were more concerned with gun control than the policing of Latino immigrants, by enforcing ID checks and shutting down Chicano & Mexican American studies courses, would this have happened?

- If Barbara Lee had placed crosshairs over the district of a  Republican opponent, as Sarah Palin did over Gifford’s district, what would the prospects of her political future be?

- When senseless acts of violence are committed by white people, primarily white men, why don’t all white people feel responsible? Remember the Virginia tech shooting when the whole country of South Korea apologized to the US for the shooting committed by an American of Korean descent?

- And last but not least, when will it be the case that there could be a couple of crazy folks of color without it falling on all of our shoulders when someone is clearly in need of mental health services?

The Freedom From Fear Award is a new national award that will honor fifteen ordinary people who have committed extraordinary acts of courage on behalf of immigrants and refugees—individuals who have taken a risk, set an example, and inspired others to awareness or action. The award seeks to honor unsung heroes who are not professional advocates. Based on nominations from everyday people, awardees will receive a $5,000 cash award.

Nominations and self-nominations will be accepted from anyone, excluding members of the Selection Committee members, their family members, and close associates. There will be a strict conflict-of-interest policy governing members of the Selection Committee.

Nominations close on February 28, 2011. All completed forms, supporting documents, photographs, video and music files must be submitted by this date. Entries will not be accepted after this date.

To get more information, visit the Freedom from Fear Award website. No paper nominations or attachments will be accepted. The writing skill of the nominator will matter less than the power of the story. One or two references will also be requested.

Image Source: Freedom from Fear Award website