Presenter: Jess Pettitt, I am… Social Justice & Kirkland Productions
What is the difference between Social Justice and Diversity? As a leader, change agent and person working and living with other people — this difference is imperative. Learn the difference, stretch from your comfort zone, sit in your privilege, power, and place of dominance within institutional and systematic forms of oppression in this highly interactive program. Join us for an interactive webinar to really press ourselves out of our usual behaviors and into difficult and authentic conversations. Looking at campus trends, increases of bias incidents in our organizations, and the rhetoric being used to align actions with values – tough conversations need to be held. Who better to start than you?

I’m sure by now you have seen the video from UCLA student Alexandra Wallace ranting against Asians.

Or maybe you have seen the response by the Chancellor

But have you seen: White Girls in the Library, Asians in the Library Dance Party, or the Remix?

I realize the problem here is not YouTube, but her thoughts and actions toward a particular ethnicity. This video is here to stay and will appear in google searches for the rest of her life. If we are going to talk with student about how to interact with a global society we must include their online presence.

Find Digital Citizenship Resources here.

The Former Majority Association for Equality (FMAE) is a San Marcos, TX based non-profit that has recently garnered attention for their White Male only scholarship initiative. Their goal is to “financially assist young Americans seeking higher education who lack opportunities in similar organizations that are based upon race or gender” by offering five $500 awards, exclusively to applicants who are 25% white and have a 3.0 GPA. The group’s President Colby Bohannan says he felt excluded when trying to find scholarship funds for his college career, and was not able to find scholarship resources based on (his White) race/ethnicity.

When I first read about this group and the scholarship, I was angry. I believe my initial reaction lies in the name of the group itself — Former Majority Association for Equality. Any group that is focused on maintaining a majority status, or chooses to identify itself as fighting only to retain the rights of former majority peoples is not focused on equality. Equality is not found by fighting to maintain a majority, or looking to give an advantage to those who still maintain privileges far greater than students of color. And, while I understand and respect that our current financial aid system can be difficult for students, I don’t believe that creating a scholarship for White male students does anything to level the playing field or address issues of equality because Whites still are the majority in our country.

According to the US Department of Education, during the 2007-08 academic year, White students earned 71.8% of the Bachelor’s degrees awarded to graduating students. African American students earned 9.8%, Hispanic students earned 7.9%, Asian Pacific Islander earned 7%, American Indian/Alaska Native earned 0.7%, and Non-Residents earned 2.8%. While at first glance it may seem that these statistics roughly mirror the census data, it is important to note that the census also reports that in the year 2009 only 30% of people over the age of 25 had a Bachelor’s degree. When you do the math, this means that only 8.5% of over 25 graduates are people of color. I want to emphasize that 8.5% includes African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, American Indian and Native Alaskans, and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. Again, that means roughly 35% of the population is earning 8.5% of the awarded degrees.

If we as educators and student affairs professionals want to work towards equality in financial assistance for our students, we need to focus on connecting current and potential students to educational resources that improve access to all marginalized populations. An important fact that is not getting reported by every source is that Mr. Bohannan is a returning Veteran. I do think that Veteran students have barriers to access that our traditional students do not face which could have added to his struggle to find scholarships and financial aid. I do not doubt that Mr. Bohannan’s family found the cost of college to be somewhat prohibitive to him pursuing his degree. But the rising cost of college is an issue that all of our students face, and segregating and reserving resources for students who are already the majority benefactors of our educational system will not lead us to equality.

Matt Matera

This a a repost from a presentation given by Matt Mattera, Co-Founder of Scholarships A-Z

Matt has also been on a few podcast with Jeff and Gary.

1st appearance on the podcast Original Air Date: April 28, 2010

2nd appearance on the podcast Original Air Date: July 01, 2010

Yesterday, NASPA sent out an email informing it’s membership that the Board of  Directors collectively decided not to move the 2012 national conference out of Phoenix, AZ. (I can’t seem to produce a link to the memo, so if anyone has one, please comment below.) In sum, while they “considered a statement submitted by the Latino/a Knowledge Community, as well as comments from many others” it appears to have come down to money. The email states the cost for canceling the hotels at this point in time would be $850,000. While I agree that this is a large sum of money for NASPA to pay out, I find their logic that paying the penalty negates the effect of an economic boycott a bit of a stretch, and in truth, wrong.

While hotel costs are not yet published, given my previous NASPA experiences, I’ll estimate a cost of $200 per night. Then I’ll estimate the average hotel stay time of 4 nights. At $800 per room, it only takes 1,062.5 rooms to equal $850,000. Even assuming most professionals opt to share a room to cut on costs, that means any additional attendees over 2,125 (the approximate number of attendees in Chicago was 4850) equal profit for Arizona. This does not include the meals, drinks, souvenirs, drinks, tourist attractions, or drinks that also accompany the conference experience. All this to say, moving the conference out of Arizona will have an economic impact.

I do recognize that the $850,000 to pay the cancellation fee is probably not in the NASPA budget for this year. However, I have to wonder if the Board of Directors considered the possible negative financial impact agains the organization by members choosing not to renew membership and/or boycotting the 2012 conference. After deciding to move their December institute out of Arizona, the Social Justice Training Institute made an appeal to members to help offset the cancellation costs. As of June 17th, former attendees have donated $1,535 towards the $5,000 charge.

Exact numbers and figures aside, what most concerns me is that it appears NASPA made a decision based on the bottom dollar and not their members. As the Latino/a KC said in their statement, “although there are financial costs incurred with moving the conference, we cannot put a price on the emotional, psychological, and professional toll that some NASPA members may experience as a result of keeping the conference in Phoenix.” While members who may be fearful or feel threatened can choose not to attend the conference, I give this argument: when a targeted group of members feel as if they are not safe or welcome at a national conference, the hosting organization is acting with the oppressor.

In graduate school, I worked on a collaborative paper where we discussed the difference between intent and impact when making decisions on a college campus. We have all been there, not realizing until it is too late that the intent behind our decision had a far greater negative impact than we ever imagined. In their email from yesterday, NASPA promises that “as an educational organization that stands for justice, inclusion, and access to education” the 2012 conference will prove to be a time where we can come together for change. Invite various government leaders to participate in dialogue with us, organize and brainstorm around immigration reform, and “purposely present in Arizona with programs that will educate” and “enhance the dialogue”.

But if some members boycott, others choose not to attend for fear of targeted prejudice, and government officials give NASPA the snub, who will be left to dialogue?

Yesterday on the BreakDrink 19 podcast we briefly discussed the recent measure signed by Gov. Jan Brewer that prohibits Ethnic Studies Courses.  This law is geared at eliminating Mexican American Studies, Native American Studies, and African American Studies courses from classrooms in the state of Arizona.  The law specifically prohibits courses that: 1) are designed for a particular ethnic group; 2) advocate ethnic solidarity; 3) promote resentment towards a race or class of people; or 4) advocate for the overthrow of the government.  The citizens of Arizona may have seen this one coming as this has been debated for a couple of years but now the law is now a reality.

Last night if you tuned into Anderson Cooper you could have watched Arizona’s Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Horne, discuss why he pushed for the ban on ethnic studies.  It seems that he thinks they are a “downer” and he may be fearful of young Latino students wearing khaki.  He is joined in the debate by Sociologist Dr. Michale Eric Dyson who believes that an all encompassing approach to American History is needed.

Do you feel that a students educational experience can be enhanced by Ethnic Studies courses?  Is it important that students learn about oppression and the impact on minority communities?  Is the Arizona law just another law in the long line of unjust, xenophobic, homophobic laws passed by an out of control state legislators?  What do you think BreakDrinkers?

You can watch the debate by clicking on the image below (will redirect):

Moments after Jan Brewer signed AZ SB 1070 into law the talk of boycott has gone off the chart. A quick google search will bring you almost 3 million results ranging from blog post, boycott wear, and videos about the protest. Over the weekend I started to hear news about possible boycott of the 2011 All-Star game in Phoenix, and now I am starting to hear reports about city governments like Austin, LA, San Francisco, Dallas and St. Paul boycotting the State of AZ, and I am somewhat amazed buy how quickly and wide-spread the boycotts have grown.

There are 2 organizations that have not yet spoken on the issue that has a direct connections to college campuses. One is the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, or (AFA). They are scheduled to have their National Conference in Phoenix December 1-5 and have yet to make a statement publicly on their website if there are any thoughts of moving the location. They have, however, created a space on their members forum to have a open discussion about the issue. The 2nd organization is the BCS. The National Championship of Football will be decided in Glendale, AZ. No institution has contacted the BCS expressing concerns about the game according to ESPN.com. It also said…

Bill Hancock, who runs the BCS, said Friday afternoon that he has not heard anything about the BCS Championship Game being played in Arizona.

Two decades ago, when the state refused to approve a holiday honoring Martin Luther King, Jr., the NFL rescinded its decision to stage Super Bowl XXVII in Tempe. The 1991 Fiesta Bowl ended up with Alabama, with its 7-4 record, because several other schools refused to play in the state.

What is the reaction where you live? Is there talk? Are People boycotting?

In case you’ve missed it there have been a number of news items out of the State of Arizona the last week or so.  Last week Governor Jan Brewer signed AZ SB 1070, a controversial bill  that allows for individuals to be detained and questioned about their immigration status.  Critics have warned that this amounts to little more than racial profiling and a violation of civil rights.  Some activists have called for a boycott of the state in order to show their displeasure with the law which will take affect in 90 days.

Just yesterday the  Arizona Legislature passed a law that makes it illegal for schools to have ethnic studies programs or courses.  Now there are some items in the bill that probably make sense to include:

-courses shouldn’t advocate for the overthrow of the government;

-promote resentment to a race or class of people.

But the measure also outlaws courses based upon the following:

-courses that advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of people as individuals;

-courses that are designed for a particular ethnic group

The law does include provisions for Native American students (because there are federal laws that AZ must comply with) and courses based upon academic potential or English proficiency.

The big question is how do these laws affect the educators and students in Arizona and what type of impact it will have on the educational system.  Do these laws amount to a form of racism or forced assimilation?  Is this the right path, the future of education in the United States?  How will it impact future students and the future role of higher education?  Does it impact you?

We’d love to hear your feedback on these issues so feel free to comment.  You can also listen to University of Arizona students speak about AZ SB 1070 and how it affects them and their communities on cnn.com.  It’s a great piece with news and thoughts directly from those impacted.

You can read AZ SB 1070 that deals with immigration issues here.

You can read HB 2281 about ethnic studies courses and programs here.

In this letter to the University of Arizona employees list-serv, the President of U of A, Robert Shelton, addresses the newly passed SB1070. He states that several families of out of state students have notified him they will be enrolling elsewhere. You can read the email below:

“Many people and organizations on campus are expressing understandable concerns over the ramifications of SB1070, the new law that was signed last week by Governor Brewer.  The law directs local police to require anyone whom they reasonably suspect of being in the country illegally to provide evidence (such as a driver’s license or alien registration document) of their lawful presence.  This has raised worries about racial profiling along with troubling questions about how SB1070 will affect the University’s international community on our campuses.

The University of Arizona is an institution that is international in its impact and reach.  We attract students and scholars from every corner of the world to our campus.  On any given day there are literally hundreds of people here from around the globe.  They come to our campus to learn, to collaborate in research projects, and to share the products of their own scholarship.

I cannot state more firmly that the health and safety of our international students, faculty, and professional staff are priorities of the highest order for us, and we are going to do everything possible to help each of them understand the law and its impact.  We intend to put in place whatever procedures are necessary to ensure their safety and free movement on campus and in our community.

Foreign students who have come to study at American universities are responsible for huge portions of the gains this nation has made in technology, medicine, materials, and so many other academic areas critical to our nation’s defense and economic prosperity.  We must do everything possible to ensure that these students continue to feel welcomed and respected, despite the unmistakably negative message that this bill sends to many of them.

UAPD, which is one of the finest police operations anywhere, will be receiving extensive training on the specifications of the new law.  I have total confidence that they will abide by the letter of the law, which includes a provision that individuals may not be stopped solely on the basis of race, color or national origin.

We have already begun to feel an impact from SB1070. The families of a number of out-of-state students (to date all of them honors students) have told us that they are changing their plans and will be sending their children to universities in other states.  This should sadden anyone who cares about attracting the best and brightest students to Arizona.

Additionally, large numbers of UA students, faculty, staff and appointed professionals have expressed concerns that they or members of their families or their friends may now be subject to unwarranted detainment by police.  Many of these individuals are from families that have been residents of Arizona for generations.  While I am completely confident that no one need fear the way that UAPD will approach the application of this law, I nevertheless appreciate the anxiety that friends and colleagues are feeling.  It is a concern and fear that no one should have to harbor.

At its meeting in Phoenix later this week, the Arizona Board of Regents will be discussing the implications of SB1070.  I will keep you informed of any developments that might result from that meeting.”

The Huffington Post reported yesterday that the University of Pennsylvania has approved transgender insurance for students. This supporting article in the Philadelphia Inquirer explains in greater detail that students who purchase the school’s insurance will have up to coverage for surgery up to $50,000, with the benefits also covering “psychotherapy and hormonal treatments that go with the surgery.”

Penn joins Stanford and Harvard which both also offer coverage for transgender students.