Monday, January 15, 2024

Martin Luther King's Vision

 

Can we join together as a planet, to address the issues that face humanity? Martin Luther King Jr. had a vision, expressed during the two speeches he gave at the time of his Nobel Peace Prize award.

All statements below are direct quotes.*

I accept this award today with an abiding faith in America and an audacious faith in the future of mankind. I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the “isness” of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal “oughtness” that forever confronts him. I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsam and jetsam in the river of life, unable to influence the unfolding events which surround him. I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.

I believe that even amid today’s mortar bursts and whining bullets, there is still hope for a brighter tomorrow. I believe that wounded justice, lying prostrate on the blood-flowing streets of our nations, can be lifted from this dust of shame to reign supreme among the children of men. I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. I believe that what self-centered men have torn down men other-centered can build up.

Yet, in spite of these spectacular strides in science and technology, and still unlimited ones to come, something basic is missing. There is a sort of poverty of the spirit which stands in glaring contrast to our scientific and technological abundance. The richer we have become materially, the poorer we have become morally and spiritually. We have learned to fly the air like birds and swim the sea like fish, but we have not learned the simple art of living together as brothers.

Another indication that progress is being made was found in the recent presidential election in the United States. The American people revealed great maturity by overwhelmingly rejecting a presidential candidate who had become identified with extremism, racism, and retrogression8. The voters of our nation rendered a telling blow to the radical right9. They defeated those elements in our society which seek to pit white against Negro and lead the nation down a dangerous Fascist path.

Why should there be hunger and privation in any land, in any city, at any table when man has the resources and the scientific know-how to provide all mankind with the basic necessities of life? Even deserts can be irrigated and top soil can be replaced. We cannot complain of a lack of land, for there are twenty-five million square miles of tillable land, of which we are using less than seven million. We have amazing knowledge of vitamins, nutrition, the chemistry of food, and the versatility of atoms. There is no deficit in human resources; the deficit is in human will.

So man’s proneness to engage in war is still a fact. But wisdom born of experience should tell us that war is obsolete. There may have been a time when war served as a negative good by preventing the spread and growth of an evil force, but the destructive power of modern weapons eliminated even the possibility that war may serve as a negative good. If we assume that life is worth living and that man has a right to survive, then we must find an alternative to war. In a day when vehicles hurtle through outer space and guided ballistic missiles carve highways of death through the stratosphere, no nation can claim victory in war. A so-called limited war will leave little more than a calamitous legacy of human suffering, political turmoil, and spiritual disillusionment.

So we must fix our vision not merely on the negative expulsion of war, but upon the positive affirmation of peace. We must see that peace represents a sweeter music, a cosmic melody that is far superior to the discords of war. Somehow we must transform the dynamics of the world power struggle from the negative nuclear arms race which no one can win to a positive contest to harness man’s creative genius for the purpose of making peace and prosperity a reality for all of the nations of the world. In short, we must shift the arms race into a “peace race”.

This is the great new problem of mankind. We have inherited a big house, a great “world house” in which we have to live together – black and white, Easterners and Westerners, Gentiles and Jews, Catholics and Protestants, Moslem and Hindu, a family unduly separated in ideas, culture, and interests who, because we can never again live without each other, must learn, somehow, in this one big world, to live with each other.

This means that more and more our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. We must now give an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in our individual societies.

This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one’s tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all men. This oft misunderstood and misinterpreted concept so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response which is little more than emotional bosh. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life.

* Quotes from:

Martin Luther King Jr. – Acceptance Speech. NobelPrize.org. Nobel Prize Outreach AB 2024. Mon. 15 Jan 2024. <https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1964/king/acceptance-speech/

Martin Luther King Jr. – Nobel Lecture. NobelPrize.org. Nobel Prize Outreach AB 2024. Mon. 15 Jan 2024. <https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1964/king/lecture

Friday, July 07, 2023

Racial Disparities, Suppression of Speech, Denial of Science – but nonetheless Hope on Independence Day

Some quotes from the Times for our times, which I noticed as I paged through The New York Times on the recent Fourth of July and the day after

From an essay by Matthew Thompson, questioning the impacts which urban economic development has had upon Black communities:

“Are we doing better than our ancestors? Are we building on their best ideas and learning from their worst mistakes? What sort of future are we preparing the next generation for?”

With that entreaty Thompson concluded a discussion that emphasized taking a comprehensive look at how changes made in the name of “progress” can often produce positive results from some, but negative results for others. He suggests learning from experience – good and bad – as we address economics, education, health care, criminal justice, and housing in order to create an optimal and equitable quality of life for all people.

From an essay by Darren Walker, the president of the Ford Foundation, urging us to overcome the divisions in our nation:

“I believe fiercely in the promise of America. My love for this nation is unyielding and unwavering…In this new era of deconstruction, we must summon renewed fortitude, resilience and vigilance, with reverence for those who came before us and resolve for those who follow. This will require patriotic defiance, with respect for the rule of law but with fidelity to the ideals that precede it.”

Walker encourages us to change cultural values and institutional systems that don’t work optimally for all. The fundamental principles which underlie this nation’s democratic vision persist in their relevance, despite flaws and shortcomings in their application since the nation’s founding. We can fix that.

From an article by Vimal Patel, on free speech in the cyber age, in reaction to the actions of Daniel Schmidt, an activist protesting “anti-White hatred”:

“the Chicago statement (a declaration of free speech principles) has become a guide for colleges across the country that have struggled to manage campus controversies, particularly when liberal students shout down conservative speakers….The Chicago statement assumes that what takes place on campuses is ‘in good faith and that people have an interest in engaging the ideas’…but ‘the ecosystem that Daniel Schmidt is part of has no interest in a conversation’”.

Much has changed since the 1970s, when I began my research career. Certainly, extremists of all persuasions have always existed. Some of them have claimed their own sets of “facts” and have denied objective, credible evidence. However, the majority of members of audiences for research used to include diverse constituencies who would accept a study’s findings and then proceed with their interpretation.

As an analogy, if we determined that a 16 ounce glass contained 8 ounces of liquid, groups who differed in their outlooks and priorities would accept the data and move forward. Some might proclaim that the glass was half full; others might proclaim that the glass was half empty. But no significant denial arose regarding the fact that the glass held six ounces.

Today, unfortunately, some people would attempt to conceal the number of ounces. Others would look straight at the number 8 and say that it is not really 8. Those people render conversation and mutual agreement very difficult, at least in the short term.

From an essay by Anthony Fauci, regarding the complex relationship which evolved during 32 years between him and an activist who at the outset loudly and publicly proclaimed Fauci a “murderer”:

“…we reminisced like two aging warriors who recalled the battles that we fought together, how despite our initial adversarial relationship, we ultimately became partners in an important struggle and how differences of opinion and even a history of antagonism are entirely compatible with friendship and even love….I am so pleased and grateful that the last words we had the opportunity to say to each other were, ‘I love you.’”

So, on this Independence Day, I hope that as many people as possible can declare independence from rigid ways of thinking, that they can expand their perspectives, and as Thompson and Walker exhort, build a future based on respect and understanding of the past, along with energetic dedication to improve the future.

Walker also stated: “However we give voice to our patriotism, let’s step away from the extremes and from the edge, away from the sanctimony and certitude. Let’s build longer bridges, not higher walls.”

I hope that the portions of those on the left and on the right who now obdurately cling to narrow visions can refrain from demonizing their adversaries. Then, with expansion of their scope of sight, perhaps as Fauci suggests, all of us can act as partners in our very important human struggle to make this country, in fact this entire world, a just and healthy place to live.


Monday, April 24, 2023

Immigrant, Sociologist, Visionary: Aronovici

 

Science attempts to inform politics, with mixed results.

Public health expert offers recommendations and is ridiculed by a racist public official.

Research identifying inequities suffers backlash.

Do these sound like familiar recent events? They actually occurred in Saint Paul a little more than 100 years ago. Carol Aronovici, who served as the first director of Wilder Research, found himself immersed in controversies that arose because he did good social scientific work that did not align with the thinking of some people in power at the time.

In 1917, the Wilder Foundation board of directors hired Carol Aronovici, Ph.D., as the first research leader of the organization. Romanian-born Dr. Aronovici had earned his Ph.D. in Sociology at Brown University, under the supervision of Professor Lester Frank Ward, the first president of the American Sociological Association. Professor Ward stressed that science should work for the benefit of humanity – an axiom continuously underlying the quest of Wilder Research to improve the lives of individuals, families, and communities.

Immediately upon taking his position, Aronovici initiated a survey of housing and health conditions, which Wilder Research considers its first study. The Saint Paul Pioneer Press reported that Aronovici told the funders of the study and other community leaders that he wanted their assurance that the findings of the research would lead to action. “It is my conviction that a housing survey which is merely intended to give the community a bad reputation and does not result in immediate, practical, and far-reaching action, is detrimental rather than beneficial to the community.”1

Based on Aronovici’s survey, which included visiting the homes of more than 22,000 people, Wilder Research issued its first research publication: “Housing Conditions in the City of Saint Paul”.With statistical tables, graphs, maps, and pictures, the report provided a framework for significant recommendations intended to improve the lives of Saint Paul’s residents, including: development of housing ordinances; formation of a Housing Bureau; and initiation of comprehensive inspections of hotels and lodging houses to ensure that the conditions in which people lived met basic standards of sanitation. 

The report by Aronovici exhibited wisdom more characteristic of the twenty-first century than of the twentieth. He understood the importance of managing the social and physical environments of an urban area in order to create equitable, healthy living spaces for all people, especially people of low income. He had observed city life across the United States and in other countries and had witnessed how housing design could enhance human life. 

Some of his observations seem very prescient, given what we now know about the importance of green space, the mixed impacts of the advent of automobile travel, and the advantages and disadvantages of urban growth. He urged, for example, “comprehensive community planning of constructive character” that would produce “the maximum amount of light and air” and “the economical use of land without hindrance to requirements of safety, sanitation, convenience, or permanency of investment”.

Observing inequities that produced challenges for poor people and immigrants, as well as power dynamics that favored unscrupulous landlords over tenants, Aronovici proposed bold conclusions and recommendations. He acknowledged the importance of promoting health for all of Saint Paul’s residents, but noted the special importance of attending to the needs of lower income people:

“The entire city needs a constructive plan, but the elimination of the slums and the redistricting of the city to meet the housing and industrial needs of the wage earners and poorer elements of the population, should take precedence over the construction of costly public buildings, the development of improving thoroughfares, the building of boulevards designed for the automobile tourist, the opening up of park areas in districts undeveloped and inaccessible sections of the City. These things, while desirable, should not take precedence over the immediate needs for the improvement of the living conditions of the people.” 

Based on the study, Aronovici felt that the city had failed to do as much as it could and should have done for its residents. He specifically faulted Saint Paul’s public officials for failure to enforce existing building codes, enact new health and housing codes, provide adequate water and sewer lines, and maintain an effective system of garbage collection. He identified tropes which stigmatized poor people and immigrants, and which public officials referenced in order to justify inaction by government with respect to addressing public health issues. 

For the legislative branch, the report suggested that stereotypes of the “foreigner” served as excuses which legislators used to delay passing laws that would protect the health of immigrant and poor populations. Regarding the executive branch, the report strongly criticized the Health Department for inadequate attention to public health issues, citing a lack of personnel and lack of efficiency, but also citing the unwillingness of the Health Department to bring issues forward for attention, due to dominant prejudices against the poor. The report advised that anyone in the Health Department or in any other department of the City government responsible for the neglect of public health should receive “public condemnation” and be removed from office. 

The judicial branch received disapprobation through statements in the report that reflected Aronovici’s values of equity and fairness, such as: “…the courts are frequently unwilling or unable to realize the importance of using their judicial power in the protection of the health of the people with the same sense of justice that guides them in the protection of mere property…Property can be reproduced, health cannot…” 

Many people praised the report, and it did lead to changes in health and housing policies. Within four months of the report’s publication, the Saint Paul City Council enacted a housing ordinance which Aronovici had authored. 

Not surprisingly, however, the report received a negative reaction from Saint Paul’s health officer, Dr. B.F. Simon: “I wish to go on record from the first that I have not given a great deal of time or attention to said Dr. Aronovici since taking public office because I absolutely refuse to give much of the public’s time to recommendations made by any man who is not a full-fledged American citizen.” 

Aronovici died in 1957. His obituary in The New York Times indicated that, at the University of Pennsylvania, he had taught “the first course in city planning offered in this country”. After leaving Saint Paul, he became the State Commissioner of Housing and Immigration for California. The obituary also noted: “At the New York World’s Fair of 1939-40 he was one of a group of naturalized citizens honored for contributions to ‘the welfare and progress of the United States’.”A profile of Aronovici in the StarTribune in 2017 characterized him as “years ahead of his time”.


[1] Saint Paul Pioneer Press, March 5, 1917.

[2] Aronovici, Carol, “Housing Conditions in the City of Saint Paul,” Amherst H. Wilder Charity, 1917.

[3] The New York Times, August 1, 1957.

[4] Brown, Curt, “Lifting the Lid on St. Paul’s Poverty,” StarTribune, November 19, 2017

Wednesday, November 23, 2022

My Wilder Thanksgiving

 

From the first of May in 1978 through the first of July in 2022, my many experiences at the Wilder Foundation offered much to appreciate. 

I’m thankful for the foresight and generosity of the Wilder Family: Amherst; Fanny; and Cornelia. They could have bequeathed their fortune to friends, but they chose instead to establish an endowment that would charitably enhance the lives of people throughout the community into perpetuity.

I’m thankful that Wilder’s Board of Directors initiated formal research activities in 1917 and that they approved continuation of research throughout my tenure as Executive Director, beginning in 1982.

I’m thankful for the idealistic, energetic, competent staff at Wilder Research. Over the past four decades they pursued research to fulfill our mission to improve the lives of individuals, families, and communities. I’m thankful for all the information they have created for use by nonprofit organizations, public officials, leaders in philanthropy, and other policy makers – to support the creation of better human services and better social policies. The Wilder Research Library’s database includes several thousand public reports published by Wilder Research, dating from 1917 to 2022. Staff produced about 60 percent of those items since 2009.

I’m thankful for the many partners and colleagues I have had – within the Wilder Foundation and within other organizations and community groups. They have made it very fulfilling to work in collaboration to learn, discover, and innovate by means of social research. They have demonstrated through their thoughtful and caring endeavors how to apply research in meaningful and impactful ways.

I’m thankful that Wilder’s CEO, Armando Camacho, and the search committee that he assembled selected a new leader for Wilder Research, Heather Britt. I’m thankful that Dr. Britt brings a wealth of experience and wisdom that will guide Wilder Research well into its second century.

Much to appreciate on this wild, Wilder career journey. Now, I plan to “rewire, not retire”. It will be fun to see what new and different opportunities arise.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Monday, July 04, 2022

An Independence Day Appeal for Liberation (from Disinformation and Division)

 

Some people have never cared about the facts. Extremists on the right and the left. Fiercely partisan segments of the Democrat, Republican, and other parties. People with a vested interest in a specific cause, belief, or technology. When I began my career, it usually seemed that perhaps 20 percent of the population, at most, fell into the “don’t bother me with the truth” category. Four out of five people would accept valid information from reliable sources.

Those four out of five might dislike what they observed. They might, very appropriately, apply their values-based or political lens to interpreting the numbers. The numbers might motivate them to resolve to change the status quo, seeking to take things in a different direction. But they would accept the research and move forward. They would also often seek compromise with individuals holding different viewpoints.

Half a century after beginning my career in research, the slice of the population willing to accept the facts seems to have narrowed. And sadly, it seems that a greater proportion of people define those with different views as noxious “others” – groups not to trust and not to collaborate with on improving community well-being.

I admit that I become maddeningly frustrated with the deniers of the 2020 presidential election result. More than sixty court cases, including many presided over by Republican judges, have not found any evidence of significant fraud. Donald Trump’s attorney general, assistant attorney general, and campaign manager all said that fraud did not influence the election outcome. The temptation becomes great to become irate, berate the election deniers, and buttress the fences to avoid interacting with them.

But I also have great sympathy for the misinformed, given the homogenous cultural, social, and political silos in which most of us live, as well as the ways that some traditional media and some social media have restricted distribution of the facts and/or intensified false information.

Out of curiosity, on the evening of the most recent hearings of the January 6th Committee, I looked at several major news websites. At about 6:15 p.m. The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, and WCBS in New York all had major stories posted about the hearings. In contrast, Fox News – the most watched news channel – had absolutely nothing about the hearings. I looked up, down. I clicked various links on the site. Prominent, top-of-site stories covered the topics of Uvalde, Bill Cosby, the PGA, and the Navy’s program to teach sailors about pronouns. But no story on Fox at that particular hour revealed information from the January 6th Committee’s hearings.

The hearings constitute important news. The hearings have information that debunks the lies about election fraud. The American public deserves to see that information. People might disagree on what the witnesses’ testimony means. They might dislike the testimony. But they deserve to learn about it.

At the other end of the political spectrum, those on the extreme left do not remain innocent of demanding unquestioning allegiance to a single worldview, even if that means covering up facts or suppressing debate about complex issues. President Obama recognized and addressed this problem in his exhortation to young people to avoid “cancel culture”. In a recent essay in The New York Times, Pamela Paul contends that the “fringe left” has resorted to “bullying, threats of violence, public shaming, and other scare tactics” when women assert their right to equality. The result, in her opinion is to “curtail discussion of women’s issues in the public sphere”.

While living in Northern Ireland, I observed the various ploys that residents would use to determine the “community” membership of someone they just met. After making that determination, they could pigeonhole that person based on learned stereotypes, decide whether to interact with or avoid that person, and in rare cases, decide whether they wanted to kill that person. During the past couple of weeks, we have witnessed similar maneuvers – making our judgements about one another based upon where we stand regarding the recent Supreme Court decisions.

Whether we should or should not form judgements that way is a separate question. I don’t intend to make a political statement. My concern is that, as we rigidly filter perceptions and judge our neighbors as friend or foe, we narrow even further the segment of the population willing to seek the truth and pay attention to the facts.

On this Independence Day, I encourage liberation – freedom to think and act differently. Take the step to have a sincere conversation with someone who holds a different point of view (maybe not while watching a parade or while eating at a picnic, but sometime during the next month or two). Do you share any common ground in your visions for the future, in your concern for humanity, in your desires for the well-being of all people? Can you appreciate the sincerity of the other person’s convictions, even if you consider their conclusions misguided? Might you and your conversation partner eventually have the ability to work from common ground to address threats to our world such as climate disasters, racism, food shortages, inequities of wealth, and others?

I hope so.

In establishing common ground, can we accept science and accept valid research? Can we start with the facts as a base, and then apply our values and opinions – rather than starting with our predispositions and only accepting information that conforms to them? Realistically, we can probably never expect that the segments of our population dedicated to extreme views will acknowledge truths that they dislike. But most of us do have the ability to maintain our values while accepting the facts.

As the civil rights visionary Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) said:

“Democracy is not a state. It is an act, and each generation must do its part…. When historians pick up their pens to write the story of the 21st century, let them say that it was your generation who laid down the heavy burdens of hate at last and that peace finally triumphed over violence, aggression and war. So I say to you, walk with the wind, brothers and sisters, and let the spirit of peace and the power of everlasting love be your guide.”

For the sake of science, for the sake of democracy, and for the sake of the future of the world, I hope we can all walk with the wind and do our part.

Happy Independence Day.