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