A Tale from the other side of the Experience

Hello Everyone,

I have so much enthusiasm writing the blog this week!!!  The semester has taught me a lot about myself.  What is even more exciting is that the professors were able to get a hold of Ana.  Ana brings a lot of knowledge about law school and the realities of what it will take to complete the schooling.  The reality is that not everyone, who wants to be a lawyer, may have the knowledge of what a lawyer does. There is not always that fame that is depicted on television.  Ana gives a very realistic account that making a step into law school is not the right direction for some people.  She also brought up a very good point that a law degree is flexible.  Often time’s people are rigid in the pursuit of finding a job within the major from their undergraduate education.  I believe if nothing else can come from this fellowship, we take away that there are multitude of paths in the pursuit of helping people.

At CASES, I was able to execute both the leadership events this week.  The events were both a success, the students want both speakers to come back.  Although the leadership event was a workshop, the result was many of the students got to network with people, who I work closely with.  Ultimately, this will build their own network and foster future connections.  In addition, this week at John Jay, I was part of a committee of club presidents, who organized a reggae charity concert and all proceeds are going to Habitat for Humanity.  This week just shows that helping people is just as simple as having an idea.

I love that Ana gave lots of insight about the stresses and rewards of being a lawyer.  She is truly a voice from the other side. Ana once sat in a classroom similar to our own and is now pursuing something close to her heart.  We all sat around the table and many of us were not sure about the future.  There are questions I have for the group. Now that we are at the end of the semester at our agencies and have sometime to experience the social justice world.  What are the differences/ similarities between how the theories /ideologies read about in text compare to the practicing of the work?  Take yourself back to the first day of the Vera fellowship and think about starting the experience “What have you learned thus far that you did not know coming in?         

     

   J.T.

Foucault! Foucault! Foucault!

Foucault suggestions that the existence of some practices, notions, forms of knowledge, social institutions and systems of government have led to the pavement of modern day culture. Examples such as the plague are used during Foucault’s explanations; he speaks about how the sick were isolated from society, with the purpose of creating a perfect community. The plague is just one example of the regulatory periods throughout history that were used to discipline society.

Foucault states that these practices were first created in secluded institutional settings such as prisons, hospitals, and schools but steadily have become methods of social regulation and control. The main reason for disciplinary power is to directly aim towards body (physical and mental) which can include endless amounts surveillance and examination that can allow a constant control of individuals conduct. Panoptism is a form of perfect discipline, an involuntary way of building a self-disciplined group of people or society. Panoptism installs the nervousness or anxiety of been watched onto unconscious individuals. Panoptism is almost a secret mental control, enforcing each mind to try to be the best person they can be and this way of discipline and surveillance, is everywhere in today’s society. Panopticism can be seen currently in many areas of NYC…at almost every high end shopping corner. Security cameras are located in many shops, but are they real or fake? The answer does not matter, in order for the security cameras to work; they must to be visible. Tall mirrors located around shops are an excellent effective way of monitoring both customers and staff. By seeing yourself perhaps shop lifting, or not doing your job you instantly feel that other people see your actions and you automatically self-discipline yourself. If you are to feel human emotions such as shame, then you try to create yourself into someone who would never have to be shameful of their actions; but only if you felt as if every action of yours was been watched…

My questions for you all are... Are we all 'docile bodies'? Do you think our lives are ordered or does it seem natural?

Do you think the recent access of the US government has gained via the Patriot Act (this Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records gathering within the United States), could easily look at it as acting like a panoptican?

Oh look below! It’s a cute kitten wearing a tiny hat! But wait - someone’s watching, and that someone is not happy! Poor kitty! Why this sudden violence? By using Foucault’s bases of the idea on the Panopticon, explain why this kitty was attacked? Is it because wearing a tiny hat might be cute, but goes against the institutional code that cats should not wear hats, and kitty is appropriately punished for failing to obey to a ‘docile body’?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mNB_VG_shc

Let's get the bad guys!

Yesterday's tour was an amazing experience for me. So many things that Mr. Giovanni said were surprising, even with my decent knowledge of how the criminal justice system works, and I left there feeling disheartened and saddened. He mentioned the common sentiment about the greatness of our criminal justice system, and asserted that this belief stems from the number of arrests made, and the speediness of processes, though usually at the cost of humanity.

As a nation, we justify policies such as stop-and-frisk, because they generate more arrests. There are many civil rights groups and individuals who condemn this practice because of the obvious abuses and inherent racism it promotes. Yet, there are many policies similar, in theory, to stop-and-frisk that are barely contested at all. It has been proven by the Associated Press that the NYPD enforces a policy of surveillance of the Arab, Muslim, and South Asian populations. The NYPD claims that this policy has helped weed out terrorists and has prevented attacks on our city. However, when the stories are looked at more closely, it is often the case that an undercover officer befriends a lonely Muslim and engages in talk about extremism and violence, in an effort to trap him into saying something that can be misconstrued, and hence easily label him as a terrorist. Professor Stein sent me the following short article yesterday because of the ethical questions it raises:

http://www.businessinsider.com/sweetie--the-scary-new-face-of-a-war-on-pedophiles-2013-11

Pedophilia, like terrorism, is a universal evil that everyone can agree upon and join in an effort to eliminate. While the aforementioned methods claim to weed out "terrorists" and "pedophiles" and eliminate the crime, are they actually creating these criminals?  Would these people have engaged in the crimes had they not been entrapped and enticed into doing so? This is a tricky situation because while we all want pedophiles and terrorists to be locked up, how far are we willing to go to do so?  If, in "fighting terrorism," we drop a drone on a village in Pakistan and kill a "terrorist" along with his wife and children, is it okay because we all want to be safer? Does this create a dangerous precedent? We would never allow the use of drones if it were not for our common belief that terrorism is an evil. But where do we draw the line then, in deciding for which crimes these methods are acceptable in eradicating? How far are we really willing to go to make arrests? Are we willing to target specific populations and entrap people into committing crimes? Unfortunately, It seems that we are, and with very little opposition.

Post from Popy!

The following post is from Popy Begum in OXFORD! Write back -- and feel free to ask questions about her experience and your internships.

Hello Verons!

It feels great to visit the blog and read through some of your really insightful posts. I loved reading how the seminars and internships are shaping your ideas and thoughts on social justice... It made me realize how much my views have changed as well (I mean you’re more or less aware of this as the Fellowship flows, but to be able to sit down and reflect how your views have been shaped and changed is really refreshing). So, thank you for that! While I was a Fellow, the blog wasn’t my favorite thing in the world, but I can admit now that I actually miss it. Who would have ever thought?!

I recently went to a conference organized by The Howard League for Penal Reform, the oldest penal reform charity in the world and campaigns for less crime, safer communities and fewer people in prison. Of course, I wanted to attend the talks involving juvenile justice reform in the UK, since I’ve done quite a lot of research on the US’ juvenile justice system. I was very eager to see how they differed because I had already decided they weren’t similar. I mean we’re constantly told the US’ is harsh on crime, it incarcerates more than any other country in the world, and so it's quite natural to think other countries are deterring crime in a less punitive fashion. I can honestly say I was horrified at the end of the conference. I cringed when I learned that 7,618 children and young people are currently serving prison sentences; recidivism is quite high—73 percent are reconvicted after a year of being released; AND very little attention is given to the idea that young people are most likely to outgrow crime with the right intervention and support.

I used to assume this was happening in the US, but sadly it’s happening in the UK, too. I guess the most thought-provoking part of the conference for me was when the chair of the panel asked us (the audience) what would we do if we were given 100,000 quid (pounds) to change the system. Where would we start—the educational system, intervention charities (non-profits), therapy… Surprisingly, the room couldn’t come to an agreement. So, I am extending that question to you. What would you do? 

How do we effectively address social justice issues?

Hello all.  This week's reading was interesting as always.

Professor Stein asked (a paraphrase) if those who come from privilege can effectively address social justice issues as opposed to those who have "felt the pain" by living with those issues? Please forgive me Professor Stein if I have incorrectly paraphrased your question but this is what I think you were asking.) Unfortunately, those with the financial means have not experienced the pain and those that have experienced the pain do not have the financial means. I believe addressing social justice issues should be a collaboration between both. As James said, those from privilege need to scrutinize themselves. I'll add that both sides need to constantly do self-evaluations to ensure that the recipients are not forgotten in the process.

Sometimes the financiers "have not walked a mile in someone else's shoes", they are unable to empathize and may bring rigid conditions as part of the package. On the other side, those who have experienced those issues first-hand may be on either of two extremes. Either they become too lenient or they are too harsh because they may have transitioned out of the situation and may feel that if they did it, so can everyone else. The key is to finding the balance but I realize that it is only theoretical. The person who have lived in the situation, for example poverty, and has transitioned out of it, may experience the splitting that we spoke about, the multiple moralities. It is very important for constant and honest self-scrutiny. The "splitting" be painful but it can serve to keep us grounded and help us to remember those we seek to help.

Many systems categorize the clients as a group instead of individually. The reality is that there is no solution that fits all as what works for one may not work for another. The key though, is to try to do the best you can. Always remember that we are all individuals first. As Battistoni said, "poverty is sometimes the result of people making poor choices and is not just limited to the poor." Although her quote is directly related to poverty, it can be extended to any circumstance. A problem does not define the individual. At times we may be faced with moral dilemmas as our personal morals might conflict with that of the group/agency. What do we do then? Do we do as Straker did and hold on to our beliefs about right and wrong knowing that we can have a stake in the society of which we hope for? Or do we do as Stanley did and replaced our personal conscience by that of the group or agency? The answers to these are subjective and it's up to the individual to decide but I believe that we always need to remain true to who we are at our core. 

Context! Context! Context! (And a little bit of screaming about sexism!)

Hi all!

Yesterday's class was certainly an interesting one! I wanted to raise an issue that unfortunately wasn't really touched on in class or in the readings as much as I would have liked (with the exception of Battistoni!) but that holds an important place in our discussion about social justice and culture. The issue being that of context and how that affects our understanding of both Oscar Lewis' "The Culture of Poverty" and Daniel Patrick Moynihan's "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action", and in effect, our world. 

When reading Lewis' article, I found myself questioning the traits that he associated with this "culture of poverty" and analyzing how he phrased these traits. Initially, it proved to be painful to read this article, because so many of the traits of the culture were found in my own life coming from a poor, second-generation immigrant family. But then I found myself becoming defensive and questioning the way he describes these traits (intentionally or unintentionally) as being a negative result of this culture which then, perpetuates the negative perception of those who are impoverished. Why isn't it a positive (and thus, normal) thing that women don't marry men so that they can have a stronger claim on their children and housing? I think this speaks volumes of what is expected within the dominant community; is this to say that women who marry are stripped of their rights and claims on their own children and home? How did this become a trait of poverty? This little piece of information, without the right context to give it meaning and life, stands alone unquestioned and accepted as one of the "negative" consequences of being "poor". 

Likewise, when reading Moynihan, I was enraged at the information that was supposed to allude to some "pathology" of the "Negro American Family". He states: "the Negro community has been forced into a matriarchal structure which....seriously retards the progress of the group as a whole." Of course, we should remember that this was published in 1965, but let's keep in mind that this was the information being provided and taken as fact by the dominant culture.

The regular layperson reading these articles depend heavily on the writers to provide factual information and assume that the context (if any at all) is being given to the reader in order for them to process and determine if the information is important to them. This brings me to my overall question: how, when reading about a culture that we are not affiliated with, do we determine what that culture really is? I mean, let's ignore for right now that we've got two White scholars writing about poverty and people of color, but how do we determine the context of the supposed facts that are being given to us by them? If we are given these articles, and only these, how do we go about questioning their word (and in effect, their authority) if we're ignorant to its context?

In our internships, how do we determine if the information we're getting is being relayed correctly and in the "correct" context? (And if we feel like it isn't, how do we go about asking the right questions to challenge it?)


Best,
Apollonia

P.S. I really wanted to write something on how sexist these papers were (I wanted to pull my hair out!), but I'll leave those discussions for class!

On Our Use of Language

This week's class was certainly interesting!

There are some points that I would like us to revisit. From the readings, we learned that the use of euphemistic language for the sake political correctness risks a widening of the gap between word and reality. I ask us all: is it permissible for us to accept such widening? In social justice work, are there some truths that we must or should somewhat ignore (e.g. a client's criminal history or the fact that in our present economic model poverty is a constant)? Perhaps, one of the underlying visions of social justice work is a deliberate alteration of reality.

We also reached a consensus on the point that language is a tool that can be used for political manipulation. Since, at this point in our careers, we do not use language for any manipulative schemes (I hope), I would like us to continue the discussion on how language affects us as students and teachers.

I leave you with a brief talk by Alan Siegel, a proponent of simplicity in writing. 

P.S. Inspired by Orwell, I wrote this post with extra caution, with hopes of achieving clarity. Now, I am excited to read all your responses, the final and least tortuous phase in the translation process.  

- James Williams

Reflections and Takeaways from our Fellowship Experiences

To start off I would like to just say not just for myself, but I am sure for my fellow fellows as well, being able to visit the Vera Institute of Justice was truly an honor and we are all very lucky to have been afforded the privilege to be guests there. It is one thing to read about Vera or talk about it in class; it is another thing to be at the place where all the magic happens.

This past week has been truly exceptional for me personally. Along with the visit to Vera, this week my mentor Danielle and I were able to attend a workshop through a partnership of ThoughtWorks, Parsons School of Design Strategies, and Blue Ridge Foundation that helps non-profits develop a vision of how technology can help extend their program’s reach, lower costs, or add significant new capabilities to existing models. There were around 70+ different non-profit organizations represented at this workshop and it was really exciting to simply be in the room with so many ambitious people striving to achieve so many admirable goals with their respective organizations. It was also eye opening to see the sheer number of non-profits represented in that room alone.

I had a conversation with Professor Waterston as we were leaving Vera on Thursday about how it is truly incredible the amount of exposure we are gaining to the non-profit world through this fellowship, a world many of us knew little to nothing about prior to becoming fellows. Between the visit to Vera and my experience at the workshop I attended, it seems to be becoming more and more apparent to me that there is so much more opportunity for us in this world than I could have ever known before. The biggest takeaway I therefore have from this fellowship so far is that an entire world has been opened up to us through this program and, as Nick Turner said, it is vital that we make the most of these opportunities. Recognizing how incredible the opportunities this fellowship is providing us are, I am thrilled to continue to move forward in this program and ultimately see where these opportunities take each of us.

With this being said, I would like to ask you all what have been some of your biggest takeaways from this fellowship so far? I feel the visit to Vera yesterday provides an excellent opportunity for reflection and I am very interested in any particular lessons you have all learned so far, whether it is through your internship, at the visit to Vera yesterday, or in the classroom. I look forward to hearing from you all.

Thank you,

-Michael Segnan

Today's class was fascinatingly uncomfortable (as were the articles leading up to today). While reading, I faced an internal dilemma: the  capitalistic norms and values developed  throughout my lifetime clashed with the intellectual curiosity within me probing deeper into each authors ideas. As a Vera fellow, I'm sure I do not speak for myself in saying I get excited when everything I know gets shattered because of a new and innovative idea. 

The video about the unsustainable neoliberalism system in which we currently live was truly the icing on the cake. When the system finally does implode, and everything we have ever known become remnants of a system that failed, what do we do? When future epochs of human civilization reflect back on capitalism, what will they say? Is there anything we can do to change the status quo before it is too late? As depressing as it may seem, thinking about these questions excite me, and I hope the responses to my post show that the feeling is mutual. 

Hello Everyone,

During this week's seminar, we touched base on leadership through a simple but thought-provoking exercise. I personally felt the exercise highlighted the roles individuals assume in society. For instance, I quickly associated the leadership roles with individuals who push toward change and making an impact to one community or another. By making the effort and taking the first steps, the leaders accumulate followers and move towards achieving the proposed change. Of course, this is an ideal sort of relationship between the two because there are instances where it is simply not that easy. Most importantly, during our conversation, Simmone said something that really stood out to me. She stated, "Sometimes being a good leader is knowing when to follow". I agree with her statement because as it was evident in our exercise, assigned roles can potentially hinder and take away from the natural rhythmic relationships societies possess.

On another note, while reading the testimonies of "In a Grove," I could not help but associate the scenario with our criminal justice system. I envisioned the actors of the system and the hardships they encounter when trying to solve cases. How are we supposed to know who is telling the truth, for instance, in a criminal case? Who are we supposed to believe and why? What should our outcomes be based upon, evidence, mere testimony, etc.? As any lawyer would say, "It is not what you know, but what you can prove". But is that the way in which we should base our decision? How does subjectivity and objectivity come into play?

One last thing, while reading the testimonies, I could not help but re-read paragraph two of page seven which stated, "You kill people with your power, with your money. Sometimes you kill them on the pretext of working for their good. It's true they don't bleed. They are the best of health, but all the same you've killed them. It's hard to say who is a great sinner, you or me". (-Tajomaru's Confession) It was such a powerful statement and always goes back to the same question, what are the motives of those who push for social justice?

I look forward to reading your comments.

-Ana