Something in the smoothness
of machined plastic and polished steel,
something in the perfect warmth
of lights designed when electricity was not tamed,
carried in pockets, on wrists,
when things electric still warranted wonder,
still burned the curious touch like Franklin’s key,
takes me up and away, to filtered film reels
in the mind, to see through their eyes, untainted joy.

Our devices secured, we spin around
in seats engineered to hold us
like a father holds a child, sifting kernels of dread
for fine joy through a sieve of imagined danger.

And even with alert eyes, and encompassing arms,
and higher heights, and bigger drops,
somewhere inside, I am stretched wide with trust,
hurtling impossibly high, six feet above ground,
glowing golden in the encroaching darkness,
with newly-minted wonder.

-C. G. Brown

I’m Sorry.

“Yeah, that was during that period when you hated women.”

One of my closest female friends, who I’ve known since college, responded to some conversation that we had had, about I don’t remember what. We must have been talking about something absurd I had said a long time ago or that I was trying to reconcile with how differently I see things now. I was taken aback, but not offended. I hadn’t thought about it that way before, but she was right.  I was even more ashamed in that moment that whatever phase I was going through, I was comfortable enough with it to not even bother to clean it up for or hide it from her.

Last week, actually before the #MeToo hashtag, I had been dealing with a lot of guilt and shame surfacing. I don’t know whether it was the climate we are currently operating in or just some sense of the wave that was cresting. But I was thinking back to a time when I acted very much like the men that we talk about today, that we look down upon, but that we do very little about.

This isn’t an attempt to receive pats on the back for my seeing myself more clearly. This is something I’d frankly rather not write. People think I have it together, generally. They see the way I treat my wife, the way that I generally treat women, and the way that I at least talk about gender and gender privilege. I don’t want to risk being viewed as just another toxic male, or a fraud pretending to give a damn to make himself look better. I even toyed with giving this post the pithy title “I Was A Teenaged Toxic Male”, but after the tenth or so Me Too story, it seemed inappropriate to be too clever or lighthearted.

When we experience regret, it’s usually the thing that we can’t do anything about that looms largest. I had a story prepared, but it wasn’t a story to be proud of overcoming. It was a story about how, long ago, I was a perpetrator. It wasn’t sexual assault or abuse, please know that, even though it doesn’t make it any better. It was just unwanted advances, repeated, repeated, rebuffed on multiple occasions. It was just my entitlement and disregard for her full humanity, accelerated by a few drinks. It was me being a person that turned a fun nighttime place into a hostile environment for one woman I kept running into there.

I’m not even sure why I did it, or what I was thinking. Maybe I wanted to date her but she was too far afield from who I thought I should be with. I don’t know what it was I saw in her that made me feel that I could act like a person I didn’t typically act like, a person I would hate, and on a very good day, intervene to stop, if I saw them from the outside. I don’t know.

She carries what for her was probably yet another minor incident on a heap of incidents that she as an average woman deals with just for being a woman. And I carry this lie inside me: this lie that I’m better than these men who brazenly abuse their influence and power, or the men on the street that are looking for their next encounter.

I always strove to be a nice guy. When the guys in elementary school were touching girls’ butts against their will as a game, I abstained. When the teenagers around me were looking for their first time, I was looking for romance, or at least a TV and film caricature thereof. I did what I was “supposed” to do. I acted like I thought I was supposed to act. And when I didn’t get the girl like the shows told me I would, I was mad.

They’re lying, I thought. They say they want a nice guy, but they want a bully, a thug, a macho man with no substance. In me, too many of them saw a sweet little brother. The inability to be seen in my fullness rankled. Ironic, considering how few women get to be seen in their fullness. Doubly ironic, in that I inevitably picked the women least likely to actually be interested in me in the way I wanted, the same crime of which I accused the objects of my desire.

Of course, as my mother says, there’s a sock for every shoe, and some women did see me. Of course, I couldn’t see them. I was supposed to choose, hell, I was supposed to have my pick. The very fact that they saw me must have meant something was lacking, right? Because my niceness was all about seeking my worth in someone else, and then having bitterness about the fact they didn’t have what wasn’t theirs to carry in the first place.

That’s really the heart of it, for men. The world tells us that we are superior, that we are the standard, and women are objects in our peripheral vision, only to be locked into our sights for conquest and consumption. We’re raised on that sour, false nourishment, and if we’re lucky enough to not have it poured at home, then it’s still poured at school among friends, or from the taps of our music and entertainment. It’s drilled into us, a mantra. How many times did I sing along with NWA in high school? With Dr. Dre’s Bitches Ain’t Shit in college and after? How could that not alter my perception? And it’s not just one form of “entertainment”, by the way. If it wasn’t hip-hop for you, maybe it was rock and roll, or the endless cavalcade of sexualized bodies across a screen selling household products and consumer goods, or video game characters that somehow manage to twist their backs like the neck of an owl to be sure you can view all of their body parts at once.

What’s worse, when the lie is exposed, when women prove to be autonomous beings with their own hopes and desires and free will rather than servants to men’s will or flawless projections of our hopes, it makes us mad. How dare they not want us? How dare they not live up to our fantasy? I bought you a meal. I said you were pretty. I deigned to touch you. Some of us turn it inward, to bitterness or depression. Others turn it outward, to verbal, or emotional, or physical assault. We hide our emotional disfigurement like a switchblade, unsheathing it when we feel threatened, and hoping to hurt someone worse than we are hurting.

It was only in realizing my agency over my own life, as well as everyone’s autonomy over theirs, that I began to heal some of the toxicity that filled my spiritual and emotional bloodstream. The work I’ve been doing in the racial reconciliation space took on a new level of empathy when I began to understand how my privilege as a man was similar to privilege of those born white in America. And as I encouraged white people to lament and repent, my own heart began to answer the same call.

I don’t want praise for working on being a decent person. I am even concerned about centering my story when we should be doing more listening and lamenting than talking. But this is a piece of my repentance.

I’m deeply sorry for the harm that I’ve caused women that I’ve known or been acquainted with, for the carelessness with which I treated them. I grieve with girls and women who live in a hostile and terrifying world that appears like a nightmare unfolding out of a happy dream as soon as the first signs of development hit them. I feel confused and don’t know how to be most helpful, but I’m just trying to not be a bystander anymore when I see the old evils unfold.

I do not ask for forgiveness, and I’m not owed it. I pray instead that the wounds I’ve caused are long healed and forgotten, and that those women do not think of me at all.








Free Speech and Broken Hearts

A friend of mine who is both concerned with liberty and the well-being of her neighbors sent me the ACLU’s position paper on Freedom of Expression. She had genuine conflict because she is concerned about our 1st Amendment rights and agrees with their position, but doesn’t want to be or appear to be unloving to her friends and neighbors affected by this. I decided to respond openly because I know this is something a lot of my liberty-minded friends struggle with.
I will not ever say that Nazis, or any other awful group that you can think of, can’t assemble in the public square peacefully and express their point of view. Yes, they can do it, and should be free to do it peacefully without legal consequences. (Financial and social consequences are another matter entirely.) Here are the challenges I have with this line of discourse:
  • Relatively few people are saying they shouldn’t – There are varying degrees of outrage, disappointment, and sadness about the protest, but most who are opposed recognize their right to free speech.
  • They’re not peacefully assembled – A woman was killed and 19 people were injured by the car that plowed into counter-protestors. At least one man was beaten in a garage. When violence begins, your right to speak ends.
  • There is a double standard – There are conflicting accounts from the ground, but a number of accounts point to police being more vigilant and aggressive toward the counter-protestors. I don’t want to speculate on to what degree the police were prepared for violence from the right-wingers versus the left, or how that compares to a BLM rally or vigil, but there is certainly a sense of a double standard when you look at, for instance, the protest in Baton Rouge with the iconic picture of the woman appearing to cause riot officers to lean back from the force of her resolute will.
Talking about free speech is important, once people actually start saying they shouldn’t have it. When people start lobbying for policy to be introduced, then you should speak up against it, and speak up loudly. As it stands, most of the complaints are angry, sad, and hurt people just wishing that these people would go away.
Speaking of hurt, let’s talk about the heart. Leaping to free speech as the first thought in your mind when you see something like Charlottesville is at best callous. It’s a failure of love to not see your neighbor’s fear and pain and seek to help resolve that first. When a good friend is hurt by someone, do you start trying to see the good in that other person? Do you try to convince your friend that they’re being unreasonable by being so upset? No, you hug them, cheer them, get some food, commiserate for a bit. If your friend becomes obsessive about the situation, or wants to get revenge, then maybe you talk them down and start pointing out where they’re being unreasonable. But you start with care and love.
Pointing out a Nazi’s right to speak freely isn’t love for your neighbor. It’s true, but it’s not helpful or kind. Instead of fixating on the right of evil to exist, turn that energy and focus to your neighbor and let them know through your words and actions that they are not alone, that you stand with them. Show them that when the torches come to your city, they don’t have to stand alone.

Views from the 6th: A Post-Mortem

The Georgia 6th District race is over. Karen Handel is the latest occupant of the seat formerly held by Newt Gingrich. Ossoff, despite running a machine of a campaign and spending more money than any rep ever has, lost by about 10,000 votes. So what did we learn?

Party allegiance is stronger than candidate evaluation, at least for now. Handel is a weak candidate that benefitted from the bruising multi-way primary. But the supposed Republican slate and antipathy for the Democratic name buoyed her well beyond her own charisma and message.

We need a deeper bench. Ossoff wasn’t a bad candidate and had strong support. But how much better would another local person holding current office or with known community credentials have fared? County parties do candidate development, so if you think everyone in power are a bunch of numbskulls and you can do better, contact your county party and step up. If you live in Atlanta, contact me and I’ll personally see to it that you are connected.

Not sure if you are ready to run? You can start with a two hour canvassing shift. Get behind a local candidate. Start talking to people. See how the game is played. Decide after that.

We have to fix gerrymandering. This district in this climate was winnable for Republicans because it was drawn that way. And incidentally, it’s your state legislatures that redraw federal districts. So again, stepping up for 2018 and 2020 state races are your best bet to have a chance to change this.

It would be good to try some different voting systems. Ranked voting would eliminate grueling and expensive runoffs, and allow people to better express their preferences. In this race, if we had ranked voting and you liked Ragin Edwards but would be okay with Jon Ossoff, you could’ve voted her first and him second. This would both better express preferences and encourage more people to run. And it would be substantially cheaper. Most importantly, having only one vote per election would increase turnout as well.

Hearts over minds. The progressive message is one of hope, inclusion, and courage. (I don’t call it the Democratic  because it’s not clear to me that they are on one message top-down.) The Republican narrative currently being sold is backward-looking to imagined halcyon days that conveniently ignore the exclusion and oppression required to produce them. It continues to be about an expansive and pervasive fear — terrorists, criminals, even our own government. This is not a message that should win rationally. 

But winning isn’t rational. So progressives have to pitch a message not about how stupid it is to want to live in 1950, but how courage is standing up for your neighbor, not letting terror cow us. For the religious, we don’t talk about where literal interpretation of the Bible is problematic; we leave that to the theologians. We talk about the emphasis on service and love for the outcast that we are called to, and how all the fear talk about today’s outcasts flies in the face of that.

Money doesn’t matter; we have to vote. Jon Ossoff proved that money can’t win an election. He literally had more money than he could use, and beyond a certain point, it only produced fatigue in the electorate. As good as turnout was for a runoff, the rain still kept many away, and it still was less than the presidential election, even though the impact of the lower level race on the area is greater. 

There are no two ways about it. We have to vote. Money can’t win an election, and as long as you have enough resources to reach the electorate, it won’t lose it either. It’s all about showing up during the generous three week early voting window and casting that vote.

If you don’t believe that you making that effort to vote makes a difference now, you are abdicating your responsibility as a citizen. I don’t want to hear all this Illuminati/Bilderberg/same-same talk. If there is an Illuminati or similar, your apathy means they don’t even have to work hard! 

At least show up, every election, and make the corruption in the system expose itself. You might be surprised to discover there’s no man behind the curtain at all.

2017 Georgia Sixth District Election – A Post-Primary Analysis

The Congressional primary for US House District GA-06 was held yesterday. As expected, the election went to a runoff. I have some thoughts on how the race shook out, having followed it closely since I decided not to run on January 5. My thoughts are my own and don’t represent any party or organization of which I’m a member. I’m also no Nate Silver. But let’s talk about it anyway.

Jon Ossoff, the golden boy of the left who rose from his Congressional staffer background with a blessing from John Lewis and a lot of grassroots fundraising, garnered 48.1% of the vote, at 92,390 votes. Karen Handel, former Secretary of State and perennial statewide candidate, rose to the top of a bruising field of 4 credible Republican contenders to get 19.8% of the vote, at 37,993. The other 16 candidates picked up the remaining 32%, with almost all of that going to Bob Gray, a local businessman, Dan Moody, a former state senator, and Judson Hill, a sitting state senator who vacated his seat to run. Since no one got 50% plus 1, the election goes to a runoff on June 20. What do the rest of the numbers tell us?

Missing Voters

I’ll lead with the data which for me was the most disappointing. If we look at the 2016 Presidential Election results in the district, Tom Price, the incumbent, got 201,088 votes. Rodney Stooksbury, a candidate that ran no campaign, had no website, and did not even have a picture, managed to garner 124,917 votes. It’s unsurprising such a candidate didn’t break 40%. What is surprising though is that with all of the energy put into this current race by Democrats, turnout across all 5 Dems added up to a mere 93,911 votes. This is a gap of 31,006 votes. Since we can assume that no one showed up specifically to vote for Stooksbury, that means a quarter of the people that bothered to show up to vote for Hillary Clinton couldn’t be bothered to show up to vote for any Democrat.

I predicted when this election was going on that the district could be won if all the Hillary voters simply showed up again and voted for any Democrat they preferred. With the same proportions, Ossoff would have had a handy victory. So why would so many people stay home?

It’s Hard Out Here for an Independent

There were two candidates who did not make a party declaration: Alexander Hernandez, a local film industry worker, and Andre Pollard, a computer programmer. Between them they managed to garner a whopping 176 votes out of nearly 200,000. If we look at their fundraising totals, we see that Hernandez spent $49.12 per vote and Pollard spent a whopping $95.45 per vote. This sounds bad until we realize that some of the leading candidates had even worse numbers, which I’ll get into in a minute. As I discussed in my article about what I learned in my exploration for a Congressional run, the money is a big deal, because it’s your voice. Hernandez and Pollard weren’t able to lean on a party and para-party infrastructure to speak for them or against their enemies, so they had to rely on their personal relationships. And like most regular people, they didn’t know a lot of rich people, certainly not ones that liked them enough to invest in their victory.

Speaking of which, a political consultant I spoke with during my preparation grilled me and asked, “what’s your path to victory?” He meant, who in the district will support you besides your mom and your neighbor? What demographic segment is looking for you to run and will come out and vote for you, then tell their friends to do the same? What coalition can you build to pull together enough votes to be a credible threat? If you don’t know the answers to those and a bunch of other questions, then don’t bother running; you’re wasting your energy and your own or your friends’ money. You’d be better off finding a candidate that will advance the policy nearest to your heart and volunteering to support them.

Really quickly, I’m not saying “don’t run! Let the two big parties do it!” I heartily encourage anyone who feels the call to run for office. I do think you should run with a goal of winning though; the taste of campaigning that I got showed me that it’s a difficult, thankless grind that isn’t worth doing for your ego or pride alone. So if you are truly neither Democrat-leaning nor Republican-leaning, figure out your path to victory before you run, or figure out how you’re going to make your third party stronger locally.

The Money

I mentioned earlier how the independent candidates spent a crazy amount per vote, right? Let’s take a look at how the other candidates spent:

Name Party Votes Spend Spend Per Vote Percentage
Jon Ossoff Dem. 92,390 $6,183,941 $66.93 48.10%
Karen Handel Rep. 37,993 $279,767 $7.36 19.78%
Bob Gray Rep. 20,755 $321,028 $15.47 10.81%
Dan Moody Rep. 16,994 $1,865,030 $109.75 8.85%
Judson Hill Rep. 16,848 $359,210 $21.32 8.77%
Kurt Wilson Rep. 1,812 $199,149 $109.91 0.94%
David Abroms Rep. 1,637 $155,412 $94.94 0.85%
Ragin Edwards Dem. 502 N/R 0.26%
Ron Slotin Dem. 488 $70,522 $144.51 0.25%
Bruce Levell Rep. 455 N/R 0.24%
Mohammad Ali Bhuiyan Rep. 414 $26,068 $62.97 0.22%
Keith Grawert Rep. 414 $34,106 $82.38 0.22%
Amy Kremer Rep. 349 $15,233 $43.65 0.18%
William Llop Rep. 326 N/R 0.17%
Rebecca Quigg Dem. 304 N/R 0.16%
Richard Keatley Dem. 227 $9,349 $41.19 0.12%
Alexander Hernandez Ind. 121 $5,944 $49.12 0.06%
Andre Pollard Ind. 55 $5,250 $95.45 0.03%

(Thanks to Ballotpedia and the NYT for the data.)

We see from the chart that the most efficient candidate was Karen Handel, at a mere $7.36 per vote, while the least efficient was Ron Slotin, the number two Democrat in the race, at $144.71 per vote. Across the election, a total of $49.61 per vote was spent on average.

What does this measure of efficiency tell us? First, it’s a reminder of how expensive marketing campaigns are. As I’ve said in the past, an election is a marketing campaign for a product that nobody wants. With all of that spending, they were only able to turn out a little under 200,000 of the about 500,000 eligible voters in the district. The turnout also represents a bit less than 60% of the turnout of the presidential election. Voter apathy is still high.

Second, it shows how much name recognition matters. Everyone knows the name Karen Handel, even if they don’t all know what she’s done. She’s been in public life for a long time, and even though her reputation isn’t pristine, she still was able to pull a significant number of votes simply because people knew who she was.

Third, it shows the advantage of incumbency. Judson Hill managed to get almost exactly the same numbers as Dan Moody with about a fifth of the spending. Both served in the State Senate in Georgia, but Hill as an incumbent was able to draw on his voter base in his Senate district to turn out solid numbers without having to spend nearly as much. He still wasn’t able to pull in the rest of the Congressional district, but with better fundraising, the story may have been different.

One additional note: A reader pointed out to me that there was a lot of PAC money spent on attack ads on Ossoff. When considering this, Republican efficiency numbers look a bit less impressive, as any anti-Ossoff ad helped one of the top 4 Republicans a bit. At least $2.2 million was spent on attack ads, and of course Democratic PACs and groups ran general GOTV efforts as well. All that adds up to even more money in an already budget-busting race, with lots more to come now that the core party spending can be unleashed on each side.

Fall in Love, or Fall in Line?

One of my neighbors, a thoughtful and regular voter, but not particularly politically oriented, was a bit disappointed by Ossoff when they saw him speak. They felt he was wooden and inexperienced. They did vote for him in the end, but they weren’t excited about it. I imagine a number of people felt the same way, but decided not to bother to vote.

I read somewhere recently in a thread on a progressive Facebook group a thought which I will paraphrase. The writer noted that Republicans tend to look for a reason to vote for a candidate, while Democrats tend to look for a reason not to vote for a candidate. While I am a firm believer in voting one’s conscience, I do think that Democrats in particular will have to exercise more pragmatism in general or open elections, and save their fire for party primaries where they can express more specific preferences among a slate of candidates who are all likely to advance mostly agreeable policy. The best is the enemy of the good, and waiting for a candidate with the perfect combination of skill to fend off Republican attacks, gravitas, charisma, and policy may leave us all waiting for a long time.

People who want to see more populist progressivism of the Sanders variety will also need to start showing up at their county Democratic Party meetings. I’m now a post holder for my state house district (something like an at-large precinct captain) [Ed. note: post holders’ duties include but are not limited to field operations and they are voting members of the county organization], and the slots were literally all open when I showed up to my first county party meeting in January. That was when I learned there is literally nothing in the way of me advancing an agenda I believe in that fits anywhere within the party’s big tent. People who grouse about corruption or anointed candidates or the like should take their complaints to the county party. You might discover that there’s a job for you to do to fix it.

Parting Thoughts

  • You can vote in the runoff even if you didn’t vote in the primary, so get out there June 20.
  • If you lean left, don’t grouse over your candidate losing or nitpick Ossoff, just vote for him and then hold him accountable as a constituent.
  • If you lean right, take a look at Handel’s willingness to be independent of Trump, the way that any member of Congress should exercise some independence from the Executive. Make sure she’s putting your district and not the party or the whims of the President first.
  • Regardless, figure out who among your friends didn’t vote. Ask them why. Don’t browbeat them, but try to figure out what would engage them. We get this ridiculous spending under control by caring enough to give some thought and effort to the one thing that can’t be bought — our votes.


On Reconciling Christian Principles with Government Programs

President Trump recently proposed a budget which makes a number of cuts to discretionary spending across government agencies. Liberal-leaning folks are predictably up in arms. Conservatives range from mild concern to relief that Trump is finally realizing Grover Norquist’s dream of “reduc[ing] [government] to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” People on the left are wagging their fingers about the hypocrisy of professed Christians being so concerned about performance of programs designed simply to feed the poor and hungry. Conservatives answer with their standard retort that being Christian doesn’t mean you advocate that the government do everything. To them, it’s the job of churches and private citizens to step in and take care of the poor and needy. Who’s right?

As usual, the answer requires a bit of nuanced thinking. Conservatives have a point about their Christian obligations not extending to an explicit call to fund government programs. Other than giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s, Jesus himself says little about how we respond to government authority, though he says a lot about how we should individually behave. Paul says more, generally telling us that we should generally abide by the government’s rules and authority, even if we are encouraged to live in a socially countercultural way and not allow human law to subvert God’s law. Generally, the commands on how to live and treat people speak to individuals, not governments. So it is technically fair to say that there’s no call in the Bible to engage in aid through taxation or government programs.

That said, it requires a narrow interpretation of the Bible to assume then that government programs that execute Jesus’s mandates are inherently bad, or even just inherently worse than a church or individual doing the same. While I cannot presume to know the mind of God, why would God not be pleased about a government that distributes some of the taxes it collects for programs to help the poor or needy? Corruption is certainly found in government, but what is forgotten by many who prefer limited government is that government is ultimately just comprised of people, just like any institution. Churches and individual hearts are no less susceptible. In fact, churches have to be on special guard because of their perceived proximity to God’s desire for humanity.

Another challenge with the standard conservative Christian position on the role of government is that churches have both an inward-facing and outward-facing obligation. The churches may have mission that they engage in locally or far away, but a primary objective is the cultivation of spiritual life and community among their attendees. While it would be better if people gave more in general so that church coffers were overflowing and churches were able to step into the breach for the needy across the nation, that’s simply not the case for most churches. The churches that do have lots of money often struggle with the challenges Jesus warned us that money brings.

Also, the outward-facing missional work of a Christian church is usually tied to evangelism, the spreading of the Gospel. Conservative Protestant denominations tend to interpret this fairly literally, with telling the message being as important or more important than showing and patiently modeling in one’s life. So, then, what if a person refuses the Gospel? What if they don’t wish to come because they know that that’s what will be served with their soup and bread, or with the clothes they are given? I’m not encouraging anyone to shut their mouth about the Gospel. I’m just asking if the church expects that it can be effective at meeting all types of needs.

On top of all this, the Christian church is no longer hegemonic in America. By this I mean that it’s not the default, dominant framing for most citizens. As church membership declines and more people turn away from faith as it’s historically been understood, the weight on the shoulders of each remaining member increases. It simply isn’t reasonable to assume that the church can serve the needs of everyone.

Even if other people start chipping in out of pocket, we’ve already seen what that looks like. Go to GoFundMe and see which medical requests get funded and which don’t. Popular, well-connected, attractive people get more money than the unpopular, the undesirable, the forgotten. We give to people we care about or think we care about, dropping $25 here, $100 there, while we leave the masses of the invisible at the margins and mercy of government programs that we want to cut so that “real charity” can begin. Why do we think a post-tax world would look any different than GoFundMe writ large, with individuals and small shelters and nonprofits spending more time putting on a good face for well-heeled donors than servicing the needy?

This is the part where some would point out that the liberals or non-religious people out there should put their money where their mouth is and give a lot more to charity. The response: they do give, in the form of taxes. The government is able to achieve some economies of scale with the support programs it funds. Taxes are also a great way to get everyone to participate in programs that improve the state of the society as a whole rather than relying on the goodness of individual hearts. The concern often raised following this assertion is that too much government money is going to the undeserving. I always find the notion of being deserving of grace to be a funny thing to be promulgated by people whose entire faith is predicated on receiving a gift that they did not deserve.

Moreover, when we unpack the notion of an unworthy recipient of government largesse, we often find ourselves envisioning someone very different than ourselves, someone with a different style of dress, different way of speaking, different way of acting, possibly different complexion. Our biases have a way of working themselves into our decisions about who should get what, whether it’s our tax dollars our just our attention.

I consider myself fairly generous, but I hold too tightly to my money, forgetting that I’m only a steward. I don’t manage as well as I should. Why would I assume my neighbors would on average fare any better? I’m always in favor of examining places where we can cut spending waste, where private organizations can serve people more efficiently than government organizations, or where government organizations can be restructured to be made more nimble. What I am not in favor of is the replacement of tax dollars that are helping millions with a reliance on the kindness of each of our individual hearts and our willingness to cheerfully give. I fear that switching to that model will find us coming up painfully short, with a net increase in suffering, all so that we can be satisfied that someone isn’t getting what they don’t deserve.



Systemic Bias in Education – A Brief Case Study

I posted the following notes on an event in my life to my public Facebook page. What I found interesting, and sad, was the number of personal stories I heard from black high achievers that I knew in response. They had experienced the same thing (being kept from advanced opportunities) or worse (being threatened with being held back despite good performance) and only made it as far as they had because their parents were able to fight for them unrelentingly. I also heard other stories about children of other ethnicities experiencing other kinds of bias from their schools.

I think about this in more detail now because of the potential changes coming to our public education system. How do we ensure that implicit bias does not have a meaningful impact on outcomes of already disadvantaged groups?

I am helping a guardian (grandmother) of a black child I know through my father’s network of professional friends get him into a gifted program. The child scored in the 92nd percentile overall on a real and comprehensive IQ test (average in 1 out of 5, high average in 3 out of 5, and very high in 1) but there is some question by his school administrators about his ability to succeed in the program. He’s generally well-behaved and has no emotional or behavioral issues of which I am aware. What’s more, the program seems to have separable components to allow for more children, so he should qualify for at least one part based on his very high performance in one category.

It’s easy to chalk this up to the administrator taking the lay of the land and knowing the whole child. However, the problem comes in when we examine the standards in his state for gifted program access. The standards in most states indicate that “high potential” or “above average ability” be demonstrated without defining a test standard or performance percentile. This to me sounds like an administrator can pick and choose from among the top 10% or so of performers.

All that is fine until we bring in the body of knowledge around implicit bias. Imagine that an administrator, with no ill intent or conscious bias toward anyone, looks at a child like this one. The numbers are good, but they’re not perfect. Her gut tells her, “he doesn’t have the range.” Never mind that another child of a different ethnicity might have gotten by with a comparable score. The numbers were different. Maybe the percentile was lower but it was more even throughout. And that kid just had that thing, you know? It’s not personal and it’s definitely not racist.

Without undeniable numbers like 99th percentile, such a child as the one I’m helping gets denied opportunities for expansion and advancement. Because of historical bias, the child is often already starting at a disadvantage. As a result, it becomes that much harder for him to get a foothold and get ahead, and create something he can pass on to his next generation.

This is how systemic racism works without a single actual racist lifting a finger.