College campuses are supposed to be places where students can grow intellectually, while also feeling comfortable enough to share their beliefs and opinions. However, if a student or a group of students does not feel safe expressing their views, then clearly the university is not doing a good job at supporting its students. For example, on my campus at the University of Chicago, students in a group called UC United are currently pushing the university to establish cultural centers, so that minority students can feel more welcome and supported by the administration. I figured that my school isn’t the only one fighting this battle, so I decided to do some research into cultural centers and housing on college campuses throughout the U.S.

One of the first schools that I looked at was Northwestern University, which is located just north of downtown Chicago. I discovered that Northwestern is a few steps ahead of UChicago when it comes to having cultural centers on campus. For instance, Northwestern has the Black House, which serves as the social, cultural and educational hub for African American students on campus. However, the president of Northwestern, Morton Shapiro, has received complaints regarding the house. As a response, Shapiro published a letter explaining that he had been receiving complaints about the Black House, but has never once received notes questioning the Hillel or the Catholic Center’s presence on campus. After reading this letter, I wasn’t that surprised that there were complaints about the Black House on a predominantly white campus, since the majority of Jewish and Catholic students are white. So why not attack the minority’s safe space?

After reading about the ongoing backlash against this house that has been on campus for over 40 years, I wanted to learn more about the possible reasons why UChicago might be pushing back against cultural centers. To my utter surprise, I found an extensive research project carried out by the National Association of Scholars (NAS) titled “Separate but Equal, Again: Neo-Segregation in American Higher Education.” This project took roughly two years to complete, and the result is a 214 page pdf with data from 173 schools across the U.S. The report concluded that of the 173 schools, 42 percent offer segregated residences, 46 percent offer segregated orientation programs, and 72 percent host segregated graduation ceremonies. Keep in mind that the word “segregate” often has a negative connotation, but it is important to decide for yourself if this is a negative word in this context or not.

Of course I had to look and see what the report said about my own school, just so that I could see how accurate the data was. Based on the report’s findings and my own experience on campus, I can verify that UChicago does indeed have segregated commencement ceremonies (to use the language of the report), such as our Lavender Graduation, which honors students in the LGBT+ community. Another fact listed in this report is that 68% of the schools have diversity fly-ins, otherwise known as segregated previews of campus. As someone who has personally experienced one of these programs at UChicago, I find these programs to be very beneficial to students because it gives them the chance to see what going to school on a predominantly white campus looks like through the lens of a minority student. However, at the NAS’s presentation of their report, Dion J. Pierre, the lead researcher of this project, proclaimed that diversity fly-in programs make students think of themselves as members of a racial category months before college matriculation even takes place. Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with students viewing themselves as members of a racial category since that is their personal identity and will most likely dictate how they are treated in this racially tense nation, unfortunately.

As previously mentioned, 42 percent of the schools in this report were found to have segregated residencies also known as “themed houses” or dorms that are designed for specific ethnic or racial groups. Honestly, I didn’t expect this number to be so high, and I was surprised to find out that these types of living communities do not solely exist at private universities, and that they also appear at public universities.

Something that was not so surprising to me, is that UChicago isn’t in this 42 percent, and it is for this reason that students are pushing for cultural centers hoping to include places such as a Black house and a Latinx house on campus. One of the reasons why we don’t have places like these on our campus is because we have the Office of Multicultural Student Affairs (OMSA), which provides the main support for many minority groups on campus. I found that it is common for universities to try and appease students demanding cultural centers by implementing places such as these like at Rice University’s Multicultural Center. However, these places are simply not enough for minority students since we are all so different, and while these centers do provide some support for minorities, we can’t help but see the situation as the university’s way of trying to appease all of its minority students by shoving them all into one building.

As with any debate on a college campus, it is important to listen to the other side of the argument, so in this paragraph, I will do my best to acknowledge some of the reasons why people, like NAS, are against cultural centers and housing. The main reason that I came across for the opposing argument is that providing these spaces, which target specific racial and ethnic groups, is a form of neo-segregation. If you have never heard of this term, the NAS defines it in their report as the “voluntary racial segregation of students, aided by college institutions, into racially exclusive housing and common spaces, orientation and commencement ceremonies, student associations, scholarships, and classes.” However, I think the use of this term isn’t appropriate for the situation because segregation in American history was less of a “voluntary” act for the Black community and more of a forced separation. Additionally, another argument being made is that cultural centers and housing erode any sense of unity for students by forcing students to feel like they have to self-segregate into these communities. But in reality, no one is forcing students to live in these themed houses or venture into these designated cultural centers.

Now that we’ve heard both sides of the argument, I want to throw in a little blurb from Van Jones, who I think describes college safe spaces in the most accurate terms possible. In a discussion hosted by the Institute of Politics at UChicago, Jones explained his stance on safe spaces by explaining that they are supposed to be places where people will not be physically harmed, or subjected to sexual harassment, or become targets of hate speech and racial slurs. He says that a common mistake is for students to want safe spaces as places where they feel ideologically and emotionally safe, where if someone says something they don’t like, then it has to become a problem for everyone including the administration. Now in this case, I definitely agree that we, as students, have to be willing to interact with people we disagree with, because disagreement is such an inevitable part of today’s society. However, as Jones said, it is important that we still have a place where we feel physically safe and not subjected to hate speech or slurs within our campuses.

In the end, it is clear that there are already many challenges that come with minority representation on college campuses, and not only do we have to work to get minority students to college, but we also have to work on keeping them there, and that means setting them up with the best resources that make them comfortable being their true selves on campus.

If you would like to read the NAS report on Neo-Segregation, check out the link to their website below:

https://www.nas.org/reports/separate-but-equal-again

[Claire Shackleford is a student at University of Chicago.]

The post Cultural sensitivity at colleges: Separate but equal again? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Robert Byrd served in the United States Senate for 51 years representing the people of West Virginia as a Democrat. 51 years is worth several lifetimes in politics and the country changed in a myriad of ways from 1959 to 2010, and so did Robert Byrd. Growth is important not just in politics but in life and often if one is a politician those can look like the same thing, but there is a difference between genuine introspection and political gamesmanship. Byrd falls into the former, and so far, former Vice President (and Senate contemporary) Joe Biden has fallen into the latter.

Before Byrd was elected to office he was still active in local politics, he recruited over 150 people to form a chapter of the Ku Klux Klan and he was elected the top officer of his chapter by a unanimous vote. Byrd in his capacity as a Klan leader was a prolific writer and one of his letters addressed the possibility of an integrated army, “I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.” Eventually Byrd left the KKK but he did not leave behind the ideas of that organization, for decades Byrd clung to his beliefs that were without question rooted in white supremacy and he pursued policies that protected racist institutions.

Byrd joined Senate Dixiecrats in filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a filibuster that lasted over 80 days and the legislation was only able to pass after the Senate invoked cloture for only the second time since 1927. Byrd’s personal filibuster of 14 hours and 13 minutes remains today the 11th longest filibuster in the 213-year history of the practice. Byrd also voted against the Voting Rights Act and the nomination of Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, going as far as to solicit the help of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to dig up dirt to kill his nomination. Byrd didn’t just have a bad record on race, he also supported the red-baiting Joseph McCarthy and the failure of conscience that was Vietnam. Byrd could’ve continued to align himself with bitter regressive men like Strom Thurmond and Herman Talmadge, there would’ve been no political consequences as Byrd was electorally secure in West Virginia and was quickly gaining seniority in the Senate. But he didn’t continue as he did, Byrd apologized and then he spent the rest of his life attempting to come to terms with his past.

In his autobiography Robert C. Byrd: Child of the Appalachian Coalfields he said “I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times … and I don’t mind apologizing over and over again.” Starting in the 1970s Byrd renounced his segregationist past and began to attempt to make amends with the communities he had harmed. Byrd was fiercely outspoken against President Bush’s determination to launch an illegal war in Iraq. After originally calling the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. “self-seeking rabble rouser”, he advocated the creation of a federal holiday to celebrate his memory and acknowledging “I am the only one in the Senate who must vote for this bill.” Byrd eventually went on to earn the support of the NAACP and respect within West Virginia’s black community. The biggest symbol of Byrd’s evolution happened in May of 2008, after a string of losses and a controversy involving an explosive pastor there was doubt about whether DNC superdelegates would continue to support Sen. Barack Obama. Then Robert Byrd endorsed Obama, perhaps securing delegate support and ultimately the nomination of America’s first black President. Byrd later went on to cast the deciding vote in support of Obamacare while dying from a terminal illness.

Byrd did not have a perfect record nor was he progressive, not really by any metric. He supported anti-gay legislation which was common for the time though still abhorrent. Byrd was a proponent of tough on crime policies and his politics while more liberal in his old age were still reflective of conservative West Virginia. Byrd’s politics overall were not especially commendable, but they were evidence of a man who was affected positively by his experiences and became a more ethical leader.

Joe Biden served with Robert Byrd for 30 years and witnessed his evolution first hand, that is why it is so disappointing that he has not learned from his example. Biden’s record may not include segregation, but it does include some of the worst policy decisions in recent years. Biden wrote the mass-incarceration ‘94 crime bill that has imprisoned a generation of black and Latino men. Biden voted for the illegal war in Iraq that left hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s dead, gave rise to ISIS, cost trillions of dollars, and has ushered us into an era of forever war. Biden wrote the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act which lead to millions of Americans falling deeper into economic despair as they were unable to file “clean slate” bankruptcies during the Great Recession forcing people into what Bob Cesca called “neo-indentured-servitude to creditors”.

Joe Biden’s record is mixed but there are countless times, whether relating to Anita Hill or his affinity for the same segregationists that Byrd distanced himself from, when Biden was decidedly not on the side of progress. Biden has had bright spots like his support of marriage equality as Vice President while the official position of the administration was opposed, but those bright spots are far and few between. Now Biden is running for President of the United States (again) and his record is coming under fair scrutiny. Biden is leading the field and stands a good chance to be the nominee of the Democratic Party and perhaps beat Donald Trump in the upcoming Presidential election. He has had a little over a decade to evolve and learn and change his politics for the better, but he’s failed to rise to the occasion thus far.

It is not too late for Biden to become a better politician and a better person by looking inward and taking account of the consequences of the actions of his career and redefining his politics to serve as reparations for those he’s harmed. Humility is often missing from politics and hubris is often excessive, and Biden has shown too much of the latter and has only been forced into the former after embarrassing himself through unforced errors. Not only do the American people deserve a better Joe Biden, but Biden deserves a better version of himself. It’s difficult to change in politics and in life and more difficult still to sustain that change (see the many faces of Mitt Romney). Biden should ask himself why does he want to be in government. If the answer is to exploit proximity to power to achieve some personal fantasy of grandeur, then it’s not necessary to change. However, if the answer is something more noble, to be in the service of the public and use government as a tool to meaningfully improve the lives of others, then he must recognize that he has not always achieved that goal and spend this campaign and a potential presidency fighting for that end.

The post The Redemption of Robert Byrd and What Biden Could Learn appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Local history may be about to repeat itself in suburban St. Louis, as another well-established African-American neighborhood faces extinction by buyout, demolition and commercial development. This time, it’s an area of the inner-ring suburb called University City. That municipality’s city council is proposing a $70-million tax-increment-financing plan [TIF] to entice a developer to transform a 50-acre area via a $170 million project. Currently occupying the redevelopment area is an diverse array of successful, locally owned, small businesses—including Japanese, Jamaican, Vietnamese and Korean restaurants, and other enterprises. Behind the shops are neighborhoods of small, 1950s-vintage homes, many of which are owner-occupied by people of diverse ethnicity.

St. Louis has seen this movie before. In the 1950’s, an African-American residential enclave fell victim to an ambitious plan for the suburban City of Clayton, which transformed itself from a quiet County seat into a virtual second downtown for the St. Louis area. In the 1980’s, the City of Kinloch—founded in 1948 as Missouri’s first incorporated African-American city—lost a vast chunk of its territory, and later, most of its population, to the expansion of St. Louis’ airport. In the late 1990’s, another mostly African-American area, known as Hadley Township, was largely demolished and reincarnated as a Wal-Mart development. More recently, most of the remainder of Hadley Township disappeared as well, to be replaced by a Menard’s hardware super center. Nearby, the traditionally black neighborhood called Evans Place vaporized when a developer paved it over for the Brentwood Promenade, anchored by Target, Trader Joe’s, Bed Bath & Beyond and other big boxes. And, about five miles away, is a development known as Kirkwood Commons, which clear- cut a huge swath of an historically significant African-American neighborhood called Meacham Park.

So, it comes as no surprise that yet another African-American neighborhood is now up for grabs. Supporters of the development—primarily members of University City’s City Council— say it will bring a “pot of money” to University City’s coffers, which can be used, in turn, to help homeowners in other deteriorating neighborhoods improve their properties, and upgrade infrastructure. Opponents object to the destruction of established, affordable neighborhoods, the demolition of locally owned businesses, and the notion of anchoring the project with a big-box store—presumably Costco—in a city  with a decades-old track record of failing big box stores. “You don’t build up a city by tearing it down,” they say in their anti-TIF literature.

University City officials want the project completed by sometime in 2020. Getting there could be problematic. A public meeting held this evening drew an overflow crowd of about 500 University City residents and business owners. After less than 20 minutes of presentations by city officials, members of the audience—already annoyed by an inadequate sound system and an overcrowded venue—began shouting out questions and criticisms. Before the meeting began, at least 50 people put their names on a speaker’s list. [Full disclosure: I left the meeting when audience members began to break protocol with angry comments. Clearly, the rest of the meeting was almost sure to be loud and contentious.] It was.

So, while the TIF commission came into the public meeting leaning toward support of the project, getting fully to “yes” is probably going to be a rocky road.

Whether this development proposal succeeds or not, the underlying question remains: Why do these projects seem to occur so frequently in African-American neighborhoods? It’s not coincidence. A 2014 report, entitled “For the Sake of All,“ laid out, in great detail, the governmental policies, discriminatory mortgage-lending practices, and real-estate-industry behaviors that intentionally created racial segregation patterns in the St. Louis area over many years. Undoubtedly, those machinations factored in to the concentration of African-Americans into certain areas in the region and to the devaluation that has attracted commercial re-developers through the years.

A 2018 update to the first report, entitled “Dismantling the Divide,” proposes strategies that could help reverse the entrenched patterns of racial segregation that plague the St. Louis region. And today, in an op-ed published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jason Purnell, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, and project director for “Dismantling the Divide,” called the University City TIF proposal—if done thoughtfully and innovatively— an opportunity for positive change:

This proposed development holds the chance for University City leaders to distinguish themselves as innovators regarding racial equity, inclusion and fair housing. Before granting a TIF, they could require the developer to sign off on a community benefits agreement with the residents and other neighborhood stakeholders. This sound policy decision would require [the developer] Novus to meet with these groups and negotiate requirements for the development, which could include the creation of appropriate affordable housing and retail spaces so existing businesses and residents can continue to call the area home.

In the 1960s and 1970s, University City distinguished itself as a bulwark against “block-busting” and white flight. Residents formed the Freedom of Residence Committee that “pressed for fair housing and inclusion of African-Americans in University City so they weren’t steered out of the local real estate market, and whites weren’t steered away from integrating neighborhoods,” writes Purnell.

Can U. City revive its reputation as an innovator in addressing the racial divide?  The answer to that question may well lie in how it deals  with the proposed TIF project.

The post Death by TIF: Another African-American neighborhood faces extinction appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Many of us in progressive circles pride ourselves on being a diverse, tolerant, and accepting group. And we are. It’s not hard to see how that plays out in politics, with the GOP constantly struggling for relevancy among minorities, not usually an issue for Democrats. Thanks to Dustin Cable at the University of Virginia’s Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, now we can see how our cosmopolitan attitude affects us–or not–geographically. The results are stunning.

A new and interesting map based on 2010 census data shows every single person in America as a colored dot. Blue dots represent caucasians, green represents blacks, red represents Asians, orange represents Hispanics, and brown represents “other”, which can mean Native American and people of more than one race.

Looking at the map, it appears there are large metropolitan areas of diversity. Here is what the St. Louis area looks like:

It looks pretty segregated, even at a distance. Zooming in provides us with a clearer picture, often much more segregated than first glance. Here we can see how individual neighborhoods look:

Where are you on the racial dot map? Is your neighborhood diverse or largely segregated?

The post The racial dot map appeared first on Occasional Planet.