OurFuture.org Blogs: Alan Jenkins

Leading by Example

Alan Jenkins — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:02:26 -0400

Seventy years ago this month, New York State’s political leaders gathered in Albany to confront an economic and social challenge, the Great Depression, that makes today’s situation look rosy. Representing urban, rural, and suburban communities across the state, the group assembled for a constitutional convention designed to retool the state’s constitution for the daunting challenges of a new era.

The constitution that emerged from that 1938 convention is a remarkable example of visionary leadership combined with pragmatic action and shared responsibility. It offers an important example to New York’s contemporary leaders—who are, again, meeting in Albany to address tough fiscal challenges—and to political leaders struggling with similar challenges around the country.

The Great Depression brought home foreclosures and bank failures, layoffs and homelessness, and a lack of health care and basic social services that are familiar today. Yet the breadth and depth of that crisis was vast, reaching more visibly into nearly every home, family, farm and business.

Just as important, the Depression was understood not only as a financial crisis, but as a challenge to human security and the American promise of opportunity. As then-president and former New York Governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt said in an address to Congress, , “We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. Necessitous men are not free men….In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed. Among these are.…[t]he right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.”

In the face of that challenge, New York’s leaders in 1938 enacted a state constitution that institutionalized a new social compact, particularly with regard to the most vulnerable New Yorkers, as well as health care and related public health systems.

The bipartisan convention delegates amended the constitution to create a human right to effective health care systems and to ensure basic economic security to low-income New Yorkers. A new provision declared “the protection and promotion of the health of the inhabitants of the state are matters of public concern and provision therefore shall be made by the state and by such of its subdivisions and in such manner, and by such means as the legislature shall from time to time determine.” A second provision recognized “the aid, care and support of the needy” as public concerns that the state must protect. A third provision authorized the state to provide “for the protection by insurance or otherwise, against the hazards of unemployment, sickness and old age.”

The delegates were particularly emphatic that effective health care systems are an investment in the common good and shared prosperity of the entire state. Thomas Corsi, chair of the convention’s social welfare committee, emphasized the need for state leadership to ensure “a constructive program for the promotion of positive health,” noting that “[p]oor health conditions in one locality are a menace to the State as a whole.”

Leading New York through the Great Depression required tough spending cuts, new taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations, and insisting upon cooperation and assistance from the federal government. But by also incorporating a constitutional commitment to public structures that protect basic health and economic security, the 1938 delegates were visionary as well as pragmatic.

The 1938 constitution, moreover, is not just a model. As New York’s leaders again gather in Albany, it is also a mandate. Tough decisions and fiscal discipline are clearly needed, and New York Governor David Patterson deserves credit for pressing for them. But further dismantling the state’s already frayed health care system would violate the state’s prescient constitution and must be taken off the table.

Even before the current fiscal crisis, the state had fallen out of compliance [http://www.opportunityagenda.org/site/c.mwL5KkN0LvH/b.1406015/apps/s/content.asp?ct=3269333] with its public health obligations. In 2001, for example, some 1.8 million residents lived in what the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services calls “medically underserved communities,” meaning that they have high rates of infant mortality and poverty—key community health indicators—but small numbers of primary care physicians. Nearly 3.6 million people lived in “Health Professional Shortage Areas” (areas with less than one primary care physician per 3,500 people). Between 2001 and 2005, that number increased by an estimated 13.23%.

Due to uninsurance, underinsurance, and poor healthcare planning by state agencies, nearly one in four New York City residents does not have a regular doctor, and almost 60% of New York City’s zip codes have an inadequate supply of primary care physicians willing to see Medicaid patients. More than half a million New York City residents reported needing but not receiving medical care between 2002 and 2003.

Health care services in the state are not only inadequate, but unequal. In New York City, areas with high concentrations of African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans are most likely to have serious shortages of primary care physicians. Hospital closures and downsizing[http://www.healthcarethatworks.org] in New York City – each with the approval of the state Department of Health – have also disproportionately harmed communities of color.

These numbers represent unnecessary suffering and death from treatable illnesses like diabetes and asthma. They also represent a shortsighted disinvestment in the economic future of the state, from lost job productivity to health care costs to the inefficient use of emergency room services.

And they are unlawful, as they fail either to “protect and promote” the health of the inhabitants of the state, or to ensure “the aid, care and support of the needy.” Whatever solutions emerge from this month’s special session in Albany must acknowledge and adhere to the social compact enacted 70 years ago under far more daunting economic circumstances.

Doing so is fully consistent with the fiscal discipline that circumstances clearly demand. Various New York leaders have proposed a range of approaches, from pursuing Medicaid and Medicare fraud by providers, to reducing and retooling corporate subsidies, to a “millionaire’s tax” to ensure that the wealthiest New Yorkers are contributing their share.

By making tough decisions while reinvesting in health care and other public structures, New York can again be a national leader at a time when that leadership is sorely needed.

Making A Wave When You Can

Alan Jenkins — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:23:47 -0400

Over the weekend, I found myself listening to the theme song from the 1970s TV show “Good Times,” because, yes, I have that kind of time on my hands. The show depicted the struggles, triumphs and heartache of the Evans family, a low-income African-American family living in a Chicago housing project. In case the lyrics have slipped your mind, here’s how they went:

Good Times!
Any time you make a payment.
Good Times!
Any time you need a friend.
Good times!
Any time you’re out from under.
Not getting hassled, not getting hustled.
Keepin’ your head above water.
Makin’ a wave when you can.
Temporary lay offs.
Good Times.
Easy credit rip offs.
Good Times.
Scratchin’ and surviving.
Good Times.
Hangin’ in a chow line.
Good Times.
Ain’t we lucky we got ‘em.
Good Times.

I’ve probably heard the song a hundred times since the show first aired in 1974. But this time, I was struck by the parallels to today’s reality for so many Americans: struggling to make payments for gasoline, health care, and groceries; dealing with layoffs from downsizing and a weak economy; and feeling preyed upon by unscrupulous lenders and other corporate hustlers.

Thinking back on the show itself, there were other similarities, particularly for low-income African-American families: the concentrated poverty and segregation of so many inner city neighborhoods, the failure of too many elected officials to serve those communities effectively (remember the self-serving Alderman Davis character?), under-resourced public schools, and the abandoned commitment to affordable and public housing (personified on the show by building custodian Nathan Bookman). In these and other ways, “Good Times” America might look sadly familiar to many of today’s low-income Americans.

What is even more striking, though, is a major difference in the public and political discourse between then and now. A central premise of “Good Times,” was that the Evans family—and, by extension, America’s low-income and Black communities—were honest people of good faith struggling, “scratching and surviving” for opportunity and the American Dream against very tough obstacles. Older son J.J. shucked and jived, but he worked all manner of low-wage jobs, as did most of the main characters. Younger son Michael, the mini Black militant, protested injustice—particularly police brutality and what we now call racial profiling—but he worked hard in school and aspired to become an attorney.

Contrast that with how our current public and political discourse depict low-income people and, particularly, poor African Americans. The TV news, as well as countless movies and crime dramas, paint a picture of near universal violence, drug dealing and dysfunction. While Bill Cosby’s book, “Come On, People,” speaks both to the structural barriers facing low-income Black folks, and to the changes that we must make in our own communities, only the latter message has received any real attention, including from the author in his own media appearances.

In the modern political context, there is so often an implicit or explicit charge that inequality and hardship boil down to a lack of “personal responsibility”—that 1 million home foreclosures and 47 million people without insurance are simply the result of millions of individual bad decisions.

In March of this year, for example, as more and more Americans, disproportionately African-American and Latino, lost their homes to foreclosure, John McCain warned [http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-07-flip-flop_N.htm] that the nation should not "bail out and reward" irresponsible borrowers. He backtracked later, as it became obvious that the crisis swept far beyond just poor and inner-city communities. Barack Obama has explained with clarity that poor people face obstacles, and that contemporary racial bias and the legacy of past discrimination still pose barriers in our country. But he consistently pairs those observations with an admonition that Black people must become more responsible parents, students and breadwinners.

It is unquestionably true that low-income and African-American parents, families, and young people must practice greater responsibility towards themselves as well as others. But that is true of all Americans, whatever their socioeconomic or racial status. To consistently tie that admonition only to poor people or Black folks is troubling and inaccurate.

Imagine a political candidate telling suburban soccer moms that it’s their irresponsible SUV-driving, urban-sprawl-loving lifestyle that’s making the gasoline price crunch so painful. Imagine McCain or Obama warning Virginia NASCAR dads that domestic violence is unacceptable and it’s time for them to take responsibility and change their ways. Think of the backlash when Obama was overheard talking about “bitter” small town Americans clinging to their guns and their church, or the fallout when Phil Gramm was heard to say "we have sort of become a nation of whiners.”

The solution to this trend, in my view, is not for the candidates to stop talking with voters about mutual responsibility, commitment and sacrifice. Rather, it’s time to issue that legitimate call to all of us, in a way that recognizes that all of our communities are working hard and struggling, yet capable of rising together. Contrary to the contemporary narrative, poor people of all races face steep barriers to opportunity that they work hard every day to overcome. Income, race and ethnicity have never been accurate predictors of how responsible a person, family, community, or nation is towards itself or its neighbors, and that is just as true today.

Let’s acknowledge that reality, and talk about how shared and mutual responsibility—including through public structures like education, health care, and support for affordable housing—can keep the doors of opportunity open. It will always be the responsibility of individual Americans, rich and poor, to step through those doors. Today as in 1974, they are willing, waiting to do so. And when that happens, as Good Times’ J.J. used to say, it’s dy-no-mite!

Bringing New Integrity to Our Criminal Justice System

Alan Jenkins — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:29:37 -0400

There is a saying in many African-American communities that our system of criminal “justice” means “just us.” While overstated, the expression reflects longstanding, as well as very recent, experiences of racial profiling and unequal treatment.

For many years the evidence has been mounting that, despite our progress as a nation, race continues to have a strong and unequal influence on outcomes in the criminal justice system. Research has found racially biased treatment in many state and federal systems at the stages of investigation, arrest, charging, plea bargaining, jury selection, and sentencing. That bias contributes not only to stark racial imbalances in our nation’s prisons—some three-quarters of prisoners in the US are African-American and Latino—but also to a dangerous erosion of public trust.

Last week, federal lawmakers introduced bipartisan legislation that, if enacted, could begin to restore that trust. Senators Biden (D-DE), Specter (R-PA), Cardin (D-MD), and Kerry (D-MA) introduced the Justice Integrity Act. The Act would establish a pilot program within the US Department of Justice designed to eliminate unjustified racial disparities.

Under the legislation, ten U.S. Attorneys designated by the Attorney General would appoint and chair an advisory group composed of prosecutors, public defenders, judges, civil rights leaders, and other experts their region. Each advisory group would gather and analyze relevant data on criminal justice systems within its jurisdiction to determine whether racial inequality exists and, if so, its cause. Each would report key findings and recommend a plan to reduce unwarranted disparities. The ten reports would inform a comprehensive report and recommendations to Congress by the Attorney General at the end of the pilot program.

The bill grew in large part from a 2007 study by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU and the National Institute for Law and Equity. (By way of full disclosure, my wife was one of the architects of that report). The report included the contributions of over a dozen former U.S. Attorneys, and won the support of public defenders as well as prosecutors.

To be sure, the Justice Integrity Act, if passed, would be a modest step. Its principal weapons against bias in the system would be rigorous investigation, honest reporting, and concrete recommendations, along with the reputations of the advisory group members themselves. The legislation, on its own, will not prevent or remedy injustice. Just a few years ago, however, such a bill would have been unimaginable, as lawmakers on both sides of the aisle routinely ignored or denied the existence of racial bias. This modest step is, nonetheless, an important one.

In introducing the bill, Senator Biden noted that “nowhere is the guarantee of equal protection more important than in our criminal justice system.” If enacted, the Justice Integrity Act can help to make that guarantee a reality.

What's the Matter with Ohio?

Alan Jenkins — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:57:19 -0400

For decades, residents of the Coal Run neighborhood of east-central Ohio had to haul water from wells or collect rainwater to drink, cook, and bathe. Their story might be quaint, except that the decades stretched from the 1950s to the 21st Century and, as a federal jury concluded last week[http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hMnu0H6Qi8X7GmSypI2yEhoTAflAD91RD6B81], they were denied water services because they were black.

“As a child I thought it was normal,” said one of the plaintiffs, Cynthia Hale Hairston, “but I realized as an adult it was wrong.” Ohio’s Attorney General, Nancy H. Rogers, agreed, saying the decision “speaks firmly about the importance of treating citizens with equal respect, regardless of race.”

The verdict came just weeks after the Cincinnati, Ohio-based Kroger grocery store chain agreed to a $16 million settlement [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gMqkwg32nbnODw7zc_jv2Bm3tBuwD91CQBP01] of a suit by black employees who say Kroger blocked the promotions of black employees and paid them less than white workers.

The two Ohio developments reflect the complex reality of race in America today: while we’ve made great progress as a nation, racial bias continues to deny opportunity to large numbers of Americans. The stakes are high, from jobs to housing to school quality and criminal justice, to the very basics like clean drinking water. And, unfortunately, Ohio is hardly unique when it comes to patterns of racial exclusion and unequal opportunity.

The persistent evidence of racial bias in corporate and governmental systems is especially jarring at a time when an African-American candidate has a real shot at the U.S. presidency. But it also suggests some of the challenges facing the next president, whoever he is.

The next president will need to rejuvenate the Justice Department’s languishing civil rights enforcement systems, through leadership and non-partisan staffing, as well as increased resources. His administration should restart testing programs to detect broad patterns of discrimination in employment, housing, lending, and healthcare. It should analyze the workforce data submitted to the Labor Department and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by large companies to identify and investigate outlier companies with suspiciously low lumbers of employees from groups who have a presence in the local qualified labor force. It should restart the effort, begun under President Clinton, to ensure that environmental clean-up is administered fairly based on needs and conditions. It should aggressively screen new voting policies and law enforcement practices that may discriminate against racial or ethnic groups. And it should use an Opportunity Impact Statement to determine whether proposed uses of federal funds would expand equal opportunity or hamper it.

A first step, even now during campaign season, is to talk about the modern face of discrimination, which many Americans incorrectly view as an issue of the past. Given the events of the last several weeks, the politically important state of Ohio is one crucial place in which to have that conversation.

Summer School Assignment

Alan Jenkins — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:40:08 -0400

Summer vacation began this week for millions of kids across the country,. But in many communities, school board members, principals, and administrators are still hard at work. Among their tasks for the summer is designing new ways of fulfilling the promise of equal educational opportunity and preparing students for a diverse, interconnected world.

They are responding to the Supreme Court's decision last year on the constitutionality of voluntary school integration efforts. Because school assignment plans are typically charted out a year or more in advance, most schools have just begun to grapple fully with the decision's implications. Fortunately, they have a range of options for pursuing integration as an integral part of educational excellence.

The Court's decision last year struck down the voluntary integration policies of the Louisville, Kentucky and Seattle, Washington school districtrs. But, at the same time, the controlling decision of Justice Anthony Kennedy found that the goal of an integrated education is vital to our students, and to our country's future. And his decision held that that goal is constitutionally achieveable.

Kennedy represented a majority of the Justices, who flatly rejected the idea--advanced by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito--that considering race to promote integration and educational opportunity is legally or morally equivalent to considering race to segregate children based on their skin color. And of particuloar importance to communities and educators planning for the upcoming school year, Justice Kennedy's opinion identified specific ways in whch districts can constitutionally promote integration. These include, but are not limited to, drawing attendance zones with neighborhood demographics in mind and designating "magnet" schools designed to bring students together across neighborhoods and backgrounds. Race can be carefully considered to promote integration, Kennedy explained, so long as an individual student's race is not used as the basis for particularized student assignment.

In the year since the Court's decision, a number of school districts have led the way in crafting lawful and effective polciies that bring our kids together across lines of difference. They include Louisville, where the Court's decision prompted an innovative change in policy, and Berkeley, California, which is also breaking new ground while adapting to the new legal landscape. A range of educational experts, at institutions from Harvard[http://www.charleshamiltonhouston.org/Home.aspx], to UCLA[http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/], to Ohio State University[http://www.kirwaninstitute.org/research/education.php], to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund[http://naacpldf.org/]--the architechts of the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling--have also developed resources for communitiees committed to inclusive and successful educational strategies.

But successful models and useful resources won't be enough to prompt some school districts into action. Also crucial will be the voices of parents, students, business people, and civic leaders calling for schools that prepare our kids for an increasingly diverse society and a globalized economy. Polls show that public opinion favors voluntary integration efforts over resegregation. But those views are frequently not communicated to elected and appointed officials responsible for school policymaking. That needs to change.

As the school year comes to a close, and our kids head off for their summer break, it's time for the rest of us to go to work.

Challenge and Community in the Heartland

Alan Jenkins — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:54:33 -0400

The nation’s eyes are again on Iowa this week, as its residents struggle with the aftermath of violent storms and devastating flooding. People from Cedar Rapids to Columbus Junction to Des Moines are dealing with the tragic loss of life and the grim destruction of homes and property.

The catastrophe has understandably eclipsed recent developments in Northeast Iowa, where residents are coping with the fallout from a different kind of trauma: the biggest immigration raid in US history, made by federal officials last month at a Postville, IA, meatpacking plant. Nearly 400 workers—more than one-third of the plant’s employees and nearly 10% of the town’s population—were taken into custody.

The two phenomena are, of course, very different, especially because the flooding and tornadoes have taken precious lives. But to some Iowans in the Postville area, the immigration raids and their aftermath have felt like a catastrophic event. Postville School superintendent David Strudthoff told the Washington Post [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/17/AR2008051702474.html] that the sudden incarceration of more than 10 percent of the town’s population “is like a natural disaster—only this one is manmade.”

After the Postville raid, half of the local school system’s 600 students were absent. Many businesses were shuttered and churches left empty. And many families and friends were separated. But, unlike this month’s terrible storms and twisters, the Postville raid could have happened differently, or not at all.

The rise in federal immigration raids makes for big headlines, and may placate some Americans who are understandably frustrated by our nation’s broken immigration system. But, ultimately, the raids are the wrong approach to a complex dilemma: they duck the real problems with our system while upending communities and creating mayhem. And they fail to live up to the ideals that we hold as a country.

When it comes to immigration, most Americans want workable solutions that uphold our national values and move our country forward together. Raids like the one in Postville fail that test on multiple counts. First, the raids are designed for show instead of effective problem-solving. There are some 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States today working America’s farms, factories, and small businesses. The idea that these 12 million people can be rounded up and deported or somehow driven out of the country simply defies reason.

Second, the raids have failed to uphold our national values, which include accountability, due process, public safety, and community. Recent raids conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have swept up citizens, legal permanent residents, and undocumented immigrants, often on the basis of race or ethnicity. They are chaotic and disruptive to whole communities and, as a recent study by the Urban Institute found[http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411566_immigration_raids.pdf], they have particularly harmful effects on children and the people and institutions that care for them.

Recent raids around the country have left children stranded at school or daycare, denied many parents access to telephones to communicate with their families, and moved many parents to remote detention facilities out of the states in which they were arrested. In the Iowa raid, those arrested were taken by bus to Waterloo, IA, for processing, some 75 miles away, where they were processed at the National Cattle Congress fairgrounds.

Some readers may have little sympathy for the plight of these parents, or even their kids. If they wanted to avoid this kind of disruption or separation, some will say, they should not have come here in the first place. That response, while perhaps understandable, ignores both the urgent drive of all parents to give their kids a better life, and the reality of the immigrant experience in the United States. America’s 12 million undocumented immigrants are a part of our nation’s economic engine, and part of the social fabric of many, many communities around the country. They are caregivers and mechanics, laborers and professionals, college students and soldiers. They are among the volunteers fighting Iowa’s rising flood waters. They are a part of us.

Accordingly, recent raids have unsettled not only individual workers and their families, but also entire schools, workplaces, congregations, and larger communities. In Postville, Sister Mary McCauley of St. Bridget's Catholic Church asked attendants to light a candle for 20 congregants arrested in the raid. "If we had 400 candles, we would have lit them all," she told the Des Moines Register[http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008806130370].

Third, by focusing on workers, the raids ignore the pervasive employer practices that negatively affect all Americans and our economy. Not one official of the company that owns the Postville plant, Agriprocessors, Inc.[ http://www.agriprocessor.com/], was hauled away or charged that day. This is true despite a string of alleged legal and ethical violations by Agriprocessors that have little to do with immigration but lots to do with unsafe and exploitative labor practices.

According to the Washington Post[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/01/AR2008060101059.html], the Iowa Department of Labor found numerous workplace safety violations at the plant, including improper storage and handling of hazardous chemicals and inadequate training in the use of respirators. Occupational Safety and Health Administration records show workplace incidents that led to five amputations, broken bones, eye injuries, and hearing loss at the plant between 2001 and 2006. An affidavit filed by an immigration agent alleged that a supervisor blindfolded one worker and struck him with a meat hook. The state of Iowa is investigating allegations of child labor law violations at the plant, and the company recently lost a federal appellate court case over whether it could ignore a vote by workers at its Brooklyn distribution center to unionize.

A federal enforcement strategy concerned with public safety and accountability would have focused on these alleged practices which, if true, pose a real threat to economic opportunity within the state. And it would fix our broken immigration system so that immigrant workers can be realistically and fairly held accountable.

The next president should reject headline-grabbing factory raids that exacerbate problems instead of solving them. Instead, he should pursue smarter, more just solutions that serve our country’s best interests. A pathway to citizenship for immigrants willing to work, pay taxes and learn English must be combined with measures that hold employers, workers, and other institutions accountable to firm rules that are fairly applied. So long as millions of immigrants live in the shadows, their will be exploitation of the kind that happens in too many meatpacking plants, sweatshops, and corporate farms around the country. That, in turn, hurts all workers and communities.

By offering an earned pathway to citizenship and directing enforcement at employer practices that threaten all workers’ health and prosperity—sub-standard wages, dangerous conditions, exploitation, racial discrimination, child labor and fair labor violations—a new administration can promote shared prosperity along with fair, pragmatic, and legal immigration. Disruptive, arbitrary raids should give way to effective approaches that enforce our laws while upholding the fairness, accountability, and protection that are so important to our Democracy.

Time to Get Real

Alan Jenkins — Sun, 18 May 2008 22:43:34 -0400

The California Supreme Court connected human rights to reality last week when it ruled that same-sex couples have the same right to marry that heterosexual couples have. The court majority rejected the false notion that offering gay and lesbian couples a separate and unequal arrangement—civil unions—was anything less than second-classed citizenship.

It’s time for the presidential candidates to do the same. According to the New York Times, Clinton, McCain, and Obama all oppose same-sex marriage, while saying that same-sex couples should be entitled to the legal protections afforded married couples.

All three are wrong. The human right to marry has never been just about insurance coverage and tax status—though those are important. It is also about the more fundamental principle of recognizing the humanity and equality of gay and lesbian Americans; of recognizing that they are a part of the American community with equal value and equal dignity.

What’s especially troubling is that it seems likely that all three candidates would support same-sex marriage if they did not believe it was political suicide to do so. Again, they’re wrong. Although most Americans lean against same-sex marriage, most also believe that gay and lesbian Americans should enjoy basic human rights.

In a recent national poll by The Opportunity Agenda, 57% of Americans said that “equal opportunities for gays and lesbians” were human rights that should be protected. That included 71% of Democrats, 57% of Independents, and 40% of Republicans. Majorities recognized this human right in the Northeast, Midwest, South Atlantic, the West, and (by a margin of 51% to 49%) in the South.

The point is not that most Americans can be convinced to support same-sex marriage between now and Election Day 2008. It’s that most Americans, and most voters, simultaneously hold both inclusive and exclusionary values when it comes to gay and lesbian Americans. And, just as important, most will be willing to vote for a candidate who supports same-sex marriage as a matter of principle, even if they themselves disagree.

Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were each elected despite their opposition to Roe v. Wade, which most Americans support. Indeed, Americans cast votes every Election Day for candidates with whom they disagree on a single issue, and they respect candidates who stand by their convictions on tough issues.

In talking about same sex marriage, this season’s candidates can learn a lot from San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s statements of support for the California Supreme Court’s decision. Newsom has astutely focused on opportunity, community, and human rights. Newsom told CNN’s American Morning, “this is so much bigger than the gay/lesbian, and bisexual community. This is about families coming together. This is about what we represent as Americans and what the constitution represents in terms of its principles and protections.”

Newsom told CNN’s Anderson Cooper:

“The reality is, take a look around. The people that are serving you gas, the people that are in your restaurants serving you, the firefighters, and police officers [are] members of the gay and lesbian community. They're members of our broader community. And the fact is, we're all affirmed when their rights and their opportunity to live their life out loud is affirmed. And, so, I think, eventually, people will come to grips with this, and then they will move on to things that matter more in their lives, health care, education, all of those things that the presidential candidates should be focused on, not this issue yet again.”

Newsom is right on the issue, and his message is one that will resonate far beyond California.

Brave New Laws

Alan Jenkins — Mon, 05 May 2008 09:28:11 -0400

By an overwhelming bipartisan margin, Congress has passed what sponsors are calling the first civil rights act of the 21st century: the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. The Act, which President Bush is expected to sign, prohibits employers and insurance companies from denying people jobs, benefits, or health coverage because of their genetic make-up.

Past attempts to prohibit genetic discrimination failed after employers and insurance companies opposed them. But the Human Genome Project has given more and more Americans access to their genetic profile, and raised ever-greater concerns that DNA information will be used to limit opportunity and human rights in employment, health care, criminal justice, and other aspects of life. While the U.S. Chamber of Commerce still opposed the bill, it passed the Senate by a 95-to-0 vote and the House by a vote of 414-to-1.

The Act represents a welcome acknowledgement of how technological advances can both advance and threaten our national values and basic rights. DNA testing can help identify and prevent or ameliorate a range of debilitating diseases. Yet it can also feed societal biases—even lead to new ones—and stoke cynical and exclusionary business practices. The legislation is timely and important.
Two other issues at the confluence of science, equality, and human rights warrant quick attention from policymakers: subconscious bias and segregation from opportunity.

A growing body of research shows that, while old fashioned bigotry has declined, subconscious stereotypes and implicit biases continue to pose daunting barriers to equal treatment in health care, education, and the criminal justice system, among other sectors. Particularly compelling is the work of Harvard’s Project Implicit (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/), which shows that we all carry around subconscious biases based on race, gender, religion, and other human characteristics that often influence our decisionmaking. The Institute of Medicine at the National Academies, among others, has found that such biases can influence health care and other decisions, including by professionals who have no conscious intention to discriminate.

Despite this established research, the courts have interpreted the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, as well as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which bars racial discrimination in federally funded programs), to address only intentional efforts to harm people of a particular group. Because that reading fails to respond to the realities of modern exclusion, Congress should amend Title VI, and the next Administration should advocate a reading of the Constitution that embodies the Framers’ intention to eradicate discrimination, in its evolving forms, from our nation’s institutions.

A different technology, Global Information Systems (GIS) mapping, provides a powerful new way of understanding unequal opportunity, and addressing it. These maps, including interactive versions that use Google’s open source technology, can illustrate how some communities—predominantly low-income and minority ones—are physically disconnected from the steppingstones to opportunity like good jobs, quality schools, and health care services. A map developed by The Opportunity Agenda – http://www.healthcarethatworks.org -- shows, for instance, how New York City neighborhoods like Southeast Queens have few or no hospitals, despite high levels of asthma, diabetes, low-birth-weight babies, and other health needs. John Powell of the Kirwan Institute on Race and Ethnicity at Ohio State University has pioneered the use of static GIS maps to measure access to opportunity in a number of cities.

Government, private industry, and community leaders should use these maps to redevelop neighborhoods and regions with access to opportunity in mind. Relevant agencies should collect and analyze the data necessary to make smart and equitable decisions, communities should have access to that information, and developers—especially those receiving government contracts or subsidies—should be required to make choices that expand opportunity rather than deepening inequality.

Like genetic information, our growing knowledge about bias and geography presents both challenges and opportunities. Used in the right way, each can help our communities and nation to rise together.