Trouble at the Border

If the US was Africa or Europe, what's happening at our border with Mexico would be labeled a humanitarian crisis, not an immigration issue. In fact, NGOs would be en route. Sure, what's happening in Central America is not the kind of sectarian violence that is typically the cause of this kind of exodus, but it is, as the AP reporters Alberto Arce and Michael Weissenstein distinguished it, "criminal gang" violence.

For those Americans still struggling to grapple with this concept, think of it as the "War on Drugs" coming home--not via more needles in the arms of our kids or overdoses in clubs but via lives destined to carry out the drug trade if they don't escape.

I get it, humans take a while to absorb new information. We want to keep pressing square peg information into our existing round holes: People crossing our border with Mexico can mean only one thing: illegal immigrants. That understanding of this situation is, at best, misguided, at worst, criminal.

Are we, the American people, really so frightened of being hoodwinked by these children--potentially masquerading as victims--that we would dare to send them all back to the violence most of them are fleeing? Can we not stretch our imaginations just a bit to realize that this situation cannot be categorized as an illegal immigration problem?

Another problem with America's mentality is that we like to think we are impervious. Oceans to the west and east. Neighborly countries to the north and south. We don't get refugees en masse.

Of course, speaking of our neighbor to the south, we are so used to thinking of Mexico as an immigration problem that we are failing to interpret what is happening down there now through the proper lens. For those who fear immigrants, or at least illegal immigrants, the image of all of those "illegals" at the border is a frightening prospect. Will we have to feed them, clothe them? Will they be eating up our tax dollars? Who is paying for their social security? How many more will come if we don't send those kids right back home?

Has anyone considered that, seriously, the countries from which these kids are fleeing are at war, and, as happens in war, refugees are pouring out of their countries and into safer spaces?


In everyone's effort to make Americans sound less selfish than we are, I keep hearing, the American people are compassionate. As if America's compassion is better than any other place's compassion or as if, unlike other places, America is compassionate.

I think the US is different from other places, not because we are compassionate, but because we are not accustomed to war in our backyard, and, because we like to think of war as something that happens elsewhere, when it does come knocking, our first response is to close the door.

Holding Back 3rd Graders Who Don't Score "Proficient" on Reading Portion of MEAP

This morning, the Detroit Free Press published an article titled "Bill Would Keep Kids in 3rd Grade if They Don't Pass MEAP Reading Test". The Michigan Rep proposing the legislation is Amanda Price, a Republican representing Park Township. If you look at the Michigan House GOP site, their headline is "Price Introduces Measure to Increase Literacy Rates in Public Schools".

When I read the headlines I just couldn't figure how failing third graders who do not pass the reading portion of the MEAP would "increase literacy rates"? I figured I must be missing a critical piece of Rep. Price's argument, so I took a look at the bill (House Bill No. 5111). I figured it must be at least ten pages long--or long enough to provide the nuanced solution required for such a complex problem. No, not ten pages. Not five pages. It's literally one page long. It says exactly what the DFP headline says: 3rd graders who don't score "proficient" on the reading portion of the MEAP will have to retake 3rd grade.

One lawmaker said he couldn't believe there was any controversy over this legislation. After all, it's a no-brainer: All 3rd graders should know how to read. The controversy isn't about the goal that every 3rd grader should be able to read proficiently. The controversy is in using the MEAP as the sole indicator for determining reading proficiency. The controversy is in suggesting that k - 2nd grade teachers aren't already doing their best work, that they really just need to be motivated with a larger stick--in this case, the knowledge that, if they can't get these kids to read, their soon to be third graders will fail third grade. The controversy is in dumbing-down this problem to this ridiculous premise that somehow parents will do more at home and students will work longer and harder if they only knew they could fail third grade.

The educational challenges that our nation faces are not going to be resolved through increasingly punitive, blanket measures. Yes, I totally want all kids to read proficiently by third grade. But the problems our kids face don't exist only in the classroom. Some simply don't test well. Others have no support at home. Others have loving homes, but parents are working all the time to insure bills are paid and food is available or the parents themselves may not have learned to be their kids' first teacher. Others come from homes where English is the second language, and the student may be the only one learning English. Others come from areas where survival is a daily challenge, so grades are the last battle to be fought. There is a never ending list of challenges for every kid and every neighborhood.

This proposed legislation adds one more layer of bureaucracy and pressure to an already burdened school system and home life. Our educational system does need work. We need to do better by our kids. But threatening everyone with failure won't get the results we all hope to achieve. Please urge your representatives to vote no on House Bill No. 5111!

Dearborn’s SMART Bond: A Smart Investment

This year, the Dearborn Public Schools’ Board of Education is counting on voters to pass a $76 million bond called the Security, Modifications, Additions, Renovations, Technology, and Transportation (SMART) bond.

According to the Press and Guide, the SMART bond would be used for:

• $3.6 million in bus improvements and purchases
• $38 million in additions and projects
• $21 million in roof and parking lot improvements
• $12 million in technology purchases
• $800,000 in grounds improvements
• $600,000 in security improvements

 Among school staff and parents, I imagine there is a great deal of support for this measure, but what about those people who oppose it. What are their thoughts?

To find out, I took a look at the reader comments section of a few online articles relating to the SMART bond. Normally, the reader comments sections are fraught with some pretty extreme viewpoints, so I usually read them for entertainment more than analysis. However, on the issue of the SMART bond, the voters will have the final say, and the people commenting are the voters. Whether their sentiments reflect a significant portion of the population remains to be seen, but it’s worth taking a look at what they’re saying:

If the school board trimmed the fat, then they wouldn’t need more tax payer money. Just let the voters have a look at the budget; we’ll be able to trim the fat without disrupting services.

Why do people always think there is so much fat in “the budget”? Why do people assume that one need only look at “the budget”? As if “the budget” is this magical thing that will tell you everything you need to know about running a school district of 19,000 students and over 30 sites.

It isn’t as if there is just one giant stream of unrestricted funding flowing into the district. The budget doesn’t tell you about the rules and regulations that come with each funding stream. It doesn’t explain the federal and state regulations or changing public policies or union rules.

We have become so used to questioning, doubting, and mistrusting our democratically elected officials that unsubstantiated cynicism is standing in for reasoned evaluation and accountability. This cynicism is leading to a mentality that screams: We don’t need elected officials as our surrogates. The people should have a direct say in everything. It’s like a board of directors gone rogue.

Our elected officials have critical knowledge of the systems they oversee and manage. Yes, those systems are often political, and, yes, everyone has an agenda. But those systems are comprised of intricate networks of funding, bureaucracies, and policies. It takes years to know these intricacies. Elected officials are the people making that investment of time and brain power, and we rely on them to do so. After all, if we are doing their jobs, then who is going to do ours?

Buses and bricks and mortar are so passé. How does a bond that pays for such antiquated tools expect to move the school district forward?

$12 million of the total SMART bond is slated for new technology. One would think that such a figure would speak for itself on moving the district steadily forward into the information age. But, alas, someone always has an even better idea.

In this case, the idea is to move to an Amazon.com learning environment. Screw those big box schools. We want cloud learning! No need to invest in building improvements. Let the buildings crumble around the kids as they sit in their ancient work spaces, holding their rudimentary writing tools. (Pardon our dust, snow, rain, heat. This long-term inconvenience means that one day you’ll be able to learn from your own home). Just think of what we’d save on transportation too! If we don’t need buildings, then we don’t need buses to get our kids to those buildings!

Despite being in its infancy, online learning at the k12 level has already had some success. However, it’s hardly a replacement for the mainstream physical classroom environment. The people making this suggestion assume that “school” is a single-purpose, one-way learning experience. They also assume that everyone has a home or that everyone has a home from which they could access a computer.

School is more than an information transfer from teacher to student. At its simplest, school is designed to level the playing field because homes and families are not all equal. It is a place where at-risk kids receive food and, sometimes, the care they can’t get at home. School is also about socialization and learning through multiple mediums using a variety of tools. School is about exposure to new ideas and concepts and opportunities. It is about building a community by investing in our children.

We’ve given lots of millage money for years, and what does the school district have to show for it? By now, Dearborn Public Schools should be ranked in the top 20.

The commentators didn’t specify in which top 20 ranking they wanted to be. Apparently, it’d just be good enough to be in the top 20 of something as evidence that our money made a difference, like a trophy after the big game. Nor did these commentators have any sense of how much money it actually takes to run a school district of any size, much less the fifth largest in the state.

If our citizens want to measure our success, we can only hope they have better metrics than some top 20 ranking. Here are a few: Dearborn Public Schools has a graduation rate of 82.53% which is 6.29% above the state rate. Our drop out rate is just .83% above the statewide rate. Our elementary schools retain music, art, and physical education as part of the core curriculum. The district boasts a strong extracurricular program complete with athletics, theater, music, model UN, and much more. We have a five year high school program, so students can complete an Associates degree while completing high school. We have a technical school and a center for math, science, and technology. These trappings are just one way to measure the district’s success to date. For me, the other measure is my first hand experience.

As the parent of school-age children, I have the opportunity to interact with my local branch of the school system on a regular basis. I speak with my children’s teachers and principal. About once a month, I visit my son’s school for an event or meeting. I keep up with the PTA news and attend meetings when I can. I volunteer for different activities with my son’s class, and I sit on the school improvement committee. All of this means that I have the opportunity to know some of the teachers as professionals and as individuals; to hear from the teachers and administrators about the challenges and successes of Dearborn Public Schools; and to learn from the experiences of other parents. I value this kind of access because, as a citizen investor, I get to see firsthand the value of my investment.

Dearborn Public Schools is an investment, just as our homes, neighborhoods, area attractions, and businesses are an investment. Investing in the schools is not merely about the children, it’s about the kind of community we want to be.

______________________________________________

This post is the last for Code Words—at least for a long while. I am grateful to everyone who read this blog and encouraged me to keep writing. I have loved this experience, but it’s time for me to try something new. I wish you all the best. Keep questioning; keep observing; keep thinking.

Thank you!!

Sources:

 “2011-12 Graduation Dropout Snapshot.” MI School Data. State of Michigan. N.d. Web. 3 Apr. 2013. https://www.mischooldata.org/DistrictSchoolProfiles/StudentInformation/GraduationDropoutRate.aspx?Common_Locations=1-A,0,0,0~2-A,0,0,0&Common_SchoolYear=11&Common_Grade=Grade11&Common_Subject=ELA&Common_Subgroup_SchoolDataSet=Ethnicity&Common_Subgroup_GraduationDropout=AllStudents&Common_LocationIncludeComparison=False&Portal_Cohort=FourYear&Common_AssessmentType=SupportedIndependence

Carreras, Jessica. “Dearborn Schools’ Bond Refinancing Saves Taxpayers Nearly $1M.” Dearborn Patch. Patch. 26 Feb. 2013. Web. 3 Apr. 2013. http://dearborn.patch.com/articles/dearborn-schools-bond-refinancing-saves-taxpayers-nearly-1m

Carreras, Jessica. “Dearborn Schools May Ask for $76M Bond from Voters in August.” Dearborn Patch. Patch. 12 Mar. 2013. Web. 3 Apr. 2013.

http://dearborn.patch.com/articles/dearborn-schools-may-ask-for-76m-bond-from-voters-in-august

Carreras, Jessica. “Graduation Rates Up 6.5% in Dearborn Public Schools.” Dearborn Patch. Patch. 15 Feb. 2013. Web. 3 Apr. 2013.

http://dearborn.patch.com/articles/graduation-rates-up-6-5-in-dearborn-public-schools

Carreras, Jessica and Jenny Whalen. “Dearborn Superintendent’s Compensation Ranks 48^th in State.” Dearborn Patch. Patch. 22 Feb. 2013. Web. 3 Apr. 2013.

http://dearborn.patch.com/articles/dearborn-superintendents-compensation-ranks-48th-in-state

Hetrick, Katie. “Dearborn Public Schools Moving Forward with Bond Plan.” Press and Guide. Journal Register. 30 Mar. 2013. Web. 3 Apr. 2013.

http://www.pressandguide.com/articles/2013/03/30/news/doc5152105fd2ddc291603197.txt?viewmode=fullstory

Lai, Daniel. “Dearborn School Board Seeks Public Opinion on Election Date.” Dearborn Patch. Patch. 2 Apr. 2013. Web. 3 Apr. 2013. http://dearborn.patch.com/articles/dearborn-school-board-seeks-public-opinion-on-election-date#comment_6896490

Wallace, Christina. “Eliminating Arts Teachers Hurts Students, State’s Future.” Detroit Free Press. Gannett. 3 Apr. 2013. Web. 3 Apr. 2013. http://www.freep.com/article/20130403/OPINION05/304030046/Christina-Wallace-Eliminating-arts-teachers-hurts-students-state-s-future

Penises to the Left; Vaginas to the Right; Here I Am; Stuck in the Middle

Public bathrooms are at the heart of the opposition to Royal Oak’s approved-yet-pending human rights law. Fred Birchard, a Royal Oak resident and leading opponent of the law, claims that the law would allow:

Men and boys who think they are women and girls to use women’s restrooms and showers and play on girls’ sports teams. That’s religious discrimination, association discrimination and a wicked policy” (Kavanaugh).

Jim Rasor, Royal Oak’s city commissioner and leading supporter of the law, says that the law is desirable because of its economic benefits and that Birchard and his supporters are just trying to scare people into supporting their own prejudice (Kavanaugh). According to Rasor, in municipalities across the country, similar human rights laws have been passed, and, in those places, transgender persons have not crossed the anatomical barriers of bathrooms or sports teams (Kavanaugh). Technically, that’s true; at least as far as my limited research suggests.

In Maine, a school refused to allow a 12 year old transgender girl (male-to-female) to use the girls’ bathroom, so the Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC) attempted to ban schools from gender separation in athletics, student organizations, and, yes, bathrooms (Macedo). A court ruled against the ban (O’Connor).

In Colorado, a school reversed its policy from allowing a six year old transgender girl (male-to-female) to use the girls’ bathroom to, instead, requiring her to use the boys’ bathroom, staff bathroom, or nurse’s office bathroom. The girl’s parents filed a complaint claiming this decision was in violation of Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act. This case is still in process (O’Connor).

Though neither case has, as yet, come out in favor of transgender children, there is no doubt that Birchard and others like him see the writing on the wall: Change is coming. They fear that human rights laws will open up bathrooms and locker rooms to all manner of lewd and sinister behaviors. Commenting on the MHRC's proposed ban, Ken Trump, president of an Ohio-based school security consulting firm said:

If my kid walks into a girls’ bathroom and sees a man in there, the child is going to instinctively feel that something’s wrong. If you create an entirely new climate where anything goes, you’re going to create increased confusion, and those with ill intentions could take advantage of that confusion and decreased ability to make a distinction (Macedo).

Trump’s argument that kids might be confused about who should or should not be in the bathroom has merit. It’s a concern worthy of thoughtful discussion. However, after listening to this school security expert, we are left with an image of an adult male towering over a little girl in an elementary school bathroom. That’s definitely a discomforting image, but it has nothing to do with gender identity.  

Another opponent of the MHRC proposed ban, Reverend Bob Celeste, told Fox News: “There’s not a whole lot of spaces that a girl can expect privacy, but the bathroom should be one of them. There’s not a whole lot of spaces that a boy can expect privacy, but the bathroom should be one of them” (Macedo). When we talk about a “girl” or a “boy” expecting privacy, the discussion is already moving in the wrong direction. Individuals deserve some level of privacy. Individuals are not defined solely by their anatomical parts any more than they are solely defined by their skin color or religion.

Any change that seeks to undo over 125 years of accepted social practice is bound to face this kind of idealistic, exaggerative, and fearful thinking, so it’s a matter of course. But, seriously, since when has the public bathroom, as an institution, lived up to this image as a private, safe space?

Talk about identity confusion: The public bathroom is a space in the middle of a public place attempting to create a minimal level of privacy. As such, public bathrooms are the perfect places to participate in all manner of transgressions. As Larry Craig, the Republican Senator arrested in an airport men’s room, can attest and as Jerry Seinfeld humorously points out: The gaps between the doors and the stall walls (not to mention between the floors and bottoms of the stall walls) are perfect for peeping—or, in Craig’s case, flat out soliciting. And let’s not forget the bully in the middle school bathroom waiting for some poor soul with a full bladder.

So, let’s not idealize public bathrooms. They’re often dirty and smelly, with broken door locks or toilet flushers, lacking soap, toilet paper, and paper towel. Most people try to get the hell out of them as quickly as possible. They’re just private enough to prevent people outside the stall from a full-on view of your face and intimate anatomy. Thus, allowing you to pee, poop, or puke without facial recognition. But, make no mistake; you are totally identifiable by your shoes.

That said, the issues of modesty, privacy, religion, and accepted social practices pose legitimate questions. Such a significant social change will need to be preceded and accompanied by education and communication at all levels of society, from the federal government to the family dinner table. Laws like the one attempting to be implemented in Royal Oak mark the beginning of these conversations.

.........................................

As I wrote this blog, there were points I wanted to mention that simply did not fit in to the post. Here’s a short list:

1. College campuses are blazing the path to gender-inclusive bathrooms. We could learn much from the different models being tested.
2. Transgender students often end up with bladder infections because they refrain from using public bathrooms out of fear of harassment.
3. Coy Mathis is the Colorado first-grader mentioned in this post. Definitely check out Colleen O’Connor’s story and the picture gallery of Coy. She is a beautiful child, and her face is a sobering reminder that there are many families and children out there struggling with gender identity and the social stigma that comes with it. No matter what you think about the issue, it’s wise to remember that it is a human issue.

Coy Mathis
(AP Photo by Brennan Linsley)

Sources:

Kalfus, Elly. “The Ethics of Gender-Segregated Bathrooms.” Ethical Inquiry. Brandeis University. May 2012. Web. 17 Mar. 2013. http://www.brandeis.edu/ethics/ethicalinquiry/2012/May.html

Kavanaugh, Catherine. “Royal Oak Human Rights Law in Limbo.” Daily Tribune. Journal Register. 14 Mar. 2013. Web. 16 Mar. 2013. http://www.dailytribune.com/article/20130314/NEWS01/130319775/royal-oak-human-rights-law-in-limbo#full_story

Macedo, Diane. “Maine Commission Moves to Ban Gender Specific Bathrooms, Sports Teams in Schools.” Fox News. Fox News Network, LLC. 9 Apr. 2010. Web. 16 Mar. 2013.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/08/maine-commission-moves-ban-gender-specific-school-bathrooms-teams/

Muller, David. “Gay Rights Supporters Fighting Repeal of Royal Oak’s Anti-Discrimination Ordinance.” Mlive. Michigan Live, LLC. 14 Mar. 2013. Web. 16 Mar. 2013. http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2013/03/metro_detroit_group_urges_roya.html

O’Connor, Colleen. “Colorado Parents of Transgender 1^st-Grader File Complaint Over Restroom Ban.” The Denver Post. MediaNews Group. 26 Feb. 2013. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.

 http://www.denverpost.com/frontpage/ci_22674172/transgender-fountain-1st-grader-banned-from-girls-bathroom

Proxmire, Crystal A. “Non Discrimination Ordinances Spread City by City.” Between the Lines. PrideSource. 10 Jan. 2013. Web. 16 Mar. 2013.  http://www.pridesource.com/article.html?article=57830

“Resources.” Unity Michigan. Unity Michigan. N.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2013. http://www.unitymichigan.org/resources/

Stone, Cheryl. “USC Pushing for Gender Neutral Bathrooms.” The Gazette. University of Western Ontario. 20 Oct. 2011. Web. 16 Mar. 2013. http://www.westerngazette.ca/2011/10/20/usc-pushing-for-gender-neutral-bathrooms/

Tessaro, Emilia. "Seinfeld Live at Sony Centre Recap." EmiliaThoughts. WordPress. 9 May 2012. Web. 16 Mar. 2013. http://emiliathoughts.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/seinfeld-live-at-sony-centre-recap/

Images:

http://www.smosh.com/smosh-pit/photos/funniest-bathroom-signs

http://www.smosh.com/smosh-pit/photos/22-craziest-bathroom-signs-ever

Linsley, Brennan. "Coy Mathis." Denver Post. Associated Press. 25 Feb. 2013. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.

http://photos.denverpost.com/2013/02/27/photos-6-year-old-coy-mathis/#6

Keep Dearborn Honest

Recently, my son's social studies project brought the whole family to Dearborn City Hall. The assignment was to visit various city landmarks and favorite places, take a picture, and compile the photos into a book titled “Dearborn, My Community”. So, there we were running around in the snow in front of city hall, snapping photos. The picture that caused an internal political debate for me was the one of my son standing in front of the Orville L. Hubbard sign. As I snapped the photo, I cringed and clung to the hope that we wouldn’t have to include that photo in the final product.

Among other things, the sign notes that, “Hubbard was an effective administrator who paid attention to small details and public opinion. He made Dearborn known for punctual trash collection.” If you didn’t already know that Hubbard’s most significant legacy was racism, you might miss the hidden meaning behind the words: “paid attention to…public opinion,” “known for punctual trash collection.” He did care about the opinion of his white constituents who kept him in office for 30 years. As for trash, it turns out, the phrase “Keep Dearborn Clean” started under Hubbard, but was mostly understood to mean “Keep Dearborn White” (Good).

 

Of course, the sign makes no direct statement on Hubbard’s race record, not even a footnote. It would be a copout to say such signs are not intended to be controversial: If you are going to put a sign in front of city hall memorializing a man best known for his racist policies and then make no mention of this part of his legacy, then you are inviting controversy. Adding insult to injury is the statue of Hubbard which also stands right outside city hall.

Obviously, I’m not writing about something new here. These monuments have received press attention in the past. In James W. Loewen’s Lies Across America: What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong, the Hubbard statue is listed as one of the top 20 monuments that should be “toppled” ("Down with..."). Of course, Hubbard's sign and statue are not unique in that they pay tribute to a person who may have done great things but whose social or ethical conscience was at best questionable and at worst detrimental to society. Henry Ford, as well as many other historical figures in our history, fit the same bill.

Nevertheless, an opportunity is approaching to make some kind of change to the Hubbard tributes. Dearborn City Hall is relocating. There is talk of the grounds in front becoming a city park. One of the names being considered is Hubbard Park (Carreras). Naming the park after Hubbard just because it already has these two monuments is as strange as consulting with the Hubbard family on how they would feel about the statue being moved--to the new city hall or to the center of the existing park. Why is the question not about removing the statue? Shouldn't city leaders want to stop reaffirming Hubbard's one-sided legacy--whether or not the family approves? If removing the statue is too costly an option, then add a new placard that speaks honestly about his legacy. Definitely do not move it to the new city hall and definitely do not make it the centerpiece for a new park.

In the end, my son opted to include the photo in his project. That's fine. History should not be buried, but I made sure he knew that Hubbard, despite his accomplishments, was a man who did not like people who were different from himself. That part of his legacy is far more important than trash collection.

Sources:

Carreras, Jessica. “City Hall Move Could Result in Relocation of Hubbard Statue, War Memorial.” Dearborn Patch. Patch. 31 May 2012. Web. 5 Mar. 2013. http://dearborn.patch.com/articles/city-hall-move-could-result-in-relocation-of-hubbard-statue-war-memorial

 “Detroit: The History and Future of the Motor City.” N.p. N.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2013. http://detroit1701.org/HubbardStatue.htm

"Down with Orville Hubbard." MetroTimes. Detroit Metro Times. 19 Jan. 2000. Web. 5 Mar. 2013. http://www2.metrotimes.com/news/story.asp?id=12567

Good, David L. “Orville Hubbard: The Ghost Who Still Haunts Dearborn.” Detroit News. Media News Group. 18 Jul. 2000. Web. 26 Oct. 2012.

http://apps.detnews.com/apps/history/index.php?id=139

Hood, Anne B. “Statue of Orville Hubbard at City Hall.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 17 Jan. 2008. Web. 5 Mar. 2013. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orville_Hubbard.jpg

More of the Same

In the February 3^rd edition of the Detroit Free Press, journalist John Carlisle recounted the public comment portion of a recent Detroit City Council meeting. A few of the regular attendees had this to say:

• We should never have to lose our island and have outsiders waltz into our city, a black city, and take over our park.
• [The Belle Isle deal is] a plan to have us out of Detroit and that island out there….They don’t want that island out there for black people to enjoy. They want to turn that island into something other than a black island. Detroit is under attack. It’s under assault.
• We should never have to lose our island and have outsiders waltz into our city, a black city, and take over our park.

Because of their seeming lunacy and outright bigotry, these statements may seem unworthy of consideration. But they illuminate a valid fear that is probably shared by many of Detroit’s black residents: If whites are responsible for improving the city, then blacks will be shut out. Whites will move in to enjoy the prosperity that they have created, and blacks will be stifled—economically, politically, and socially. This history played out once already—except that, back then, it was blacks moving in and whites moving out. The results of this traumatic shift are evident today, not only in the city’s and the region’s landscape but also in the hearts and minds of those whose families lived it.

When viewed from this perspective, it’s not a mystery why many of Detroit’s black residents want to claim the city as their own, want its pending prosperity to grow from their own influence—not that of rich, white men or young, white hipsters. Better, perhaps, to own a crumbling home, than to own nothing. Theirs is a battle cry—though a faltering one: A reminder that, although racism may not take the form of separate drinking fountains and burning crosses, it still exists in powerful but subtle ways.

Sadly, though, in idealizing Detroit’s blackness, these residents chain the city to a history that they themselves would not have chosen, to a present that is born out of that history, and to a future that looks like more of the same.

Sources:

Carlisle, John. “Giving Voice to Detroit’s Worries.” Detroit Free Press. Gannett. 3 Feb. 2013. Web. 3 Feb. 2013. http://tablet.olivesoftware.com/Olive/Tablet/DetroitFreePress/SharedArticle.aspx?href=DFP/2013/02/03&id=Ar00400

“Letters: Dear Detroit Don’t Shut the Door on Outsiders.” Detroit Free Press. Gannett. 17 Feb. 2013. Web. 17 Feb. 2013. http://www.freep.com/article/20130217/OPINION04/302170140/Letters-Dear-Detroit-Don-t-shut-the-door-on-outsiders-

“Letters: Why So Angry About Detroit.” Detroit Free Press. Gannett. 10 Feb. 2013. Web. 17 Feb. 2013. http://www.freep.com/article/20130210/OPINION04/302100106/-1/7daysarchives/Letters-Think-what-Belle-Isle-s-6M-could-bought

Scheduling Change

Beginning with last week's post, I will be posting every other week. So, I will post new content by February 18th. I hope you are all well, and thank you for reading!