When U.S. Dist. Judge Bernice Donald concluded last month that the Shelby County Schools district has not yet overcome the relics of segregation, the stunned reaction from school officials was unequivocal.
"Certainly we are disappointed by the ruling," said school board chairman David Pickler.
"It could have some very dramatic negative effects on the children of Shelby County," school attorney Rick Winchester added. Winchester went on to suggest that Donald's ruling could mean that education dollars would be diverted to busing and moving children to schools farther from their neighborhoods.
This practice of crying "bus" is a disservice to those the county schools serve and a distraction from what ought to be the goal of all parties involved -- providing the highest quality education to all Shelby County students. Compliance with Donald's ruling is -- forgive me -- not so black and white as the school officials seem to suggest.
Busing is not the only way for a school district to become unitary, and among the potential solutions, busing is probably the least appealing. Rather than frightening parents by alluding to the possibility of busing, school officials would do well to think outside of the busing box for creative ways to increase both the diversity and the educational quality in the Shelby County Schools. Where Winchester sees in the ruling the possibility of "dramatic negative effects," I see an unprecedented opportunity for Shelby County Schools to become a national model for equity and excellence in education.
Donald wrote that the true goal of any school desegregation plan is to provide equal educational opportunity to all students by eliminating racial isolation. For decades, as districts across the country were forced to comply with the mandate of Brown v. Board of Education, the focus was on the elimination of racial isolation. Educational considerations were too often only secondary considerations.
In the 1960s and '70s, eliminating legally sanctioned racial separation was very important. But in 2007, with the benefit of a half-century of hindsight, districts like Shelby County have the opportunity to move beyond simplistic solutions such as busing and implement desegregation plans that embrace both the educational and the social ideals of Brown.
Using a combination of neighborhood schools with carefully drawn attendance zones, magnet schools that provide a variety of educational choices for parents, and lenient transfer policies combined with racial targets similar to those in Donald's ruling, districts across the country have achieved increased diversity by lifting the quality of all schools. In some instances, transportation is necessary, but it is far easier to convince a parent to accept busing when his or her child will be bused voluntarily to an exceptional school than when the child will be bused across town to a school no better, or worse, than the neighborhood school.
There is no reason to think the county schools cannot come up with a similar plan tailored to Shelby County in response to Donald's ruling. Devising such a plan is far more difficult than simply imposing busing, but county school officials need look no further than the Memphis City Schools to see the devastating effects busing can have on a district. The challenge is for school officials to resist the temptation to defensively use the threat of busing to criticize Donald's ruling and instead to develop a thoughtful, multifaceted desegregation plan that creates a world-class school district.
"In those instances where the Board adopted the Court's goal as its own," Donald wrote, "it has progressed with remarkable speed." The district should not miss this opportunity to adopt the goal of improving education across the system while eliminating instances of racial isolation. The initial signs of such adoption are not positive -- the board has already said it will appeal Donald's ruling -- but if the district does embrace the spirit of the ruling, there is no reason it should not progress with remarkable speed.
August 13, 2007
July 09, 2007
What Can Brown Do For Us Now?
After the U.S. Supreme Court's recent rejection of school assignment plans in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle that were aimed at maintaining racial integration in schools, a variety of pundits and scholars trashed the court for sticking a fork in the most revered decision of the 20th century, Brown v. Board of Education. However, the ideals of Brown -- providing students with equal educational opportunities regardless of race or background -- are far from dead. What has been missing from much of the criticism of the June 28 decision is an analysis of what exactly makes integrated schooling so beneficial, and what advocates for equity in education can do within this new legal landscape to recapture those benefits.
The court's decision is potentially calamitous because it handcuffs districts that are working to achieve racial diversity, thus threatening to eliminate the proven benefits of integrated classrooms. Numerous studies have shown that students who attended racially integrated schools -- such as the students in Louisville and Seattle -- show higher levels of tolerance toward individuals of different ethnic backgrounds and an increased sense of civic engagement, when compared with peers who attended more racially isolated schools. Academically, the benefits for African-American students are immense, with studies showing higher graduation rates, larger enrollments in advanced courses, and even higher post-schooling salaries for African-American students who learned in racially integrated schools. Preliminary studies show similar benefits for Latino students. Meanwhile, the racial composition of schools has proven to have no effect on the academic achievement of white students.
Recognizing these benefits, school officials in Louisville and Seattle enacted plans aimed at maintaining racial diversity, in certain circumstances considering a student's race in making school assignments. It was this minimal use of race to achieve the districts' goals that troubled the court (or at least its majority in the 5-4 decision). In a line from the ruling that is already famous, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." Unfortunately, it's not quite that simple. Brown itself actually ended discrimination on the basis of race in making school assignments. Something more than just ending discrimination has been needed to achieve Brown's ideal of providing equal educational opportunities to students of all races. Now that the court has ruled that the "something more" can no longer include consideration of race to ensure integrated schools, the question education advocates must confront is how to recapture the benefits of integrated education within the new limits of the law. One avenue that offers a particularly hopeful outlook is a shift in focus away from racial integration and toward socioeconomic integration.
The disadvantages that characterize many racially isolated schools -- inequitable resources, higher teacher turnover, fewer advanced classes -- and the lower average outcomes for students attending those schools -- higher dropout rates, lower graduation rates -- are even more pronounced in schools with high concentrations of poor students. The same educational benefits that flow to African-American and Latino students in racially integrated schools will flow to poor students of all races in schools integrated by socioeconomics.
One district that already uses this model is Wake County (Raleigh), N.C. In Wake County, where socioeconomic integration has been in practice since 2000, low-income students perform better than similarly situated students in other North Carolina districts. In addition, Wake County's minority students outperform the minority students in similar districts throughout the state. And the improved outcomes are not limited to low-income and minority students. In 2003, Wake County had the second highest graduation rate among the nation's 50 largest school districts. In addition, the cultural benefits of racially integrated schools, such as higher levels of tolerance among students, can also be captured by socioeconomically integrated schools. Unfortunately, there is a high correlation between income and race, such that creating schools with children from differing income levels is likely to have the effect of also creating schools with children from different races. Wake County, for example, has maintained much of its previous racial integration since switching from a racial to a socioeconomic integration plan in 2000. Income-based assignment plans also have the legal benefit of not triggering the strict judicial scrutiny that follows whenever a decision is made based on a student's race, making them less vulnerable to challenge.
With all due respect to Chief Justice Roberts, the way to end discrimination on the basis of race is to create a world where the playing field for individuals of all backgrounds is as level as possible. That leveling begins in our schools. Although the Supreme Court removed a critical tool in achieving opportunities that are equal for students of all races, other tools remain. It is now up to advocates of equity in education to find new ways to pursue Brown's ideals with the tools we have left. They are ideals -- with proven cultural and academic benefits -- worth fighting for.
The court's decision is potentially calamitous because it handcuffs districts that are working to achieve racial diversity, thus threatening to eliminate the proven benefits of integrated classrooms. Numerous studies have shown that students who attended racially integrated schools -- such as the students in Louisville and Seattle -- show higher levels of tolerance toward individuals of different ethnic backgrounds and an increased sense of civic engagement, when compared with peers who attended more racially isolated schools. Academically, the benefits for African-American students are immense, with studies showing higher graduation rates, larger enrollments in advanced courses, and even higher post-schooling salaries for African-American students who learned in racially integrated schools. Preliminary studies show similar benefits for Latino students. Meanwhile, the racial composition of schools has proven to have no effect on the academic achievement of white students.
Recognizing these benefits, school officials in Louisville and Seattle enacted plans aimed at maintaining racial diversity, in certain circumstances considering a student's race in making school assignments. It was this minimal use of race to achieve the districts' goals that troubled the court (or at least its majority in the 5-4 decision). In a line from the ruling that is already famous, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." Unfortunately, it's not quite that simple. Brown itself actually ended discrimination on the basis of race in making school assignments. Something more than just ending discrimination has been needed to achieve Brown's ideal of providing equal educational opportunities to students of all races. Now that the court has ruled that the "something more" can no longer include consideration of race to ensure integrated schools, the question education advocates must confront is how to recapture the benefits of integrated education within the new limits of the law. One avenue that offers a particularly hopeful outlook is a shift in focus away from racial integration and toward socioeconomic integration.
The disadvantages that characterize many racially isolated schools -- inequitable resources, higher teacher turnover, fewer advanced classes -- and the lower average outcomes for students attending those schools -- higher dropout rates, lower graduation rates -- are even more pronounced in schools with high concentrations of poor students. The same educational benefits that flow to African-American and Latino students in racially integrated schools will flow to poor students of all races in schools integrated by socioeconomics.
One district that already uses this model is Wake County (Raleigh), N.C. In Wake County, where socioeconomic integration has been in practice since 2000, low-income students perform better than similarly situated students in other North Carolina districts. In addition, Wake County's minority students outperform the minority students in similar districts throughout the state. And the improved outcomes are not limited to low-income and minority students. In 2003, Wake County had the second highest graduation rate among the nation's 50 largest school districts. In addition, the cultural benefits of racially integrated schools, such as higher levels of tolerance among students, can also be captured by socioeconomically integrated schools. Unfortunately, there is a high correlation between income and race, such that creating schools with children from differing income levels is likely to have the effect of also creating schools with children from different races. Wake County, for example, has maintained much of its previous racial integration since switching from a racial to a socioeconomic integration plan in 2000. Income-based assignment plans also have the legal benefit of not triggering the strict judicial scrutiny that follows whenever a decision is made based on a student's race, making them less vulnerable to challenge.
With all due respect to Chief Justice Roberts, the way to end discrimination on the basis of race is to create a world where the playing field for individuals of all backgrounds is as level as possible. That leveling begins in our schools. Although the Supreme Court removed a critical tool in achieving opportunities that are equal for students of all races, other tools remain. It is now up to advocates of equity in education to find new ways to pursue Brown's ideals with the tools we have left. They are ideals -- with proven cultural and academic benefits -- worth fighting for.
June 04, 2007
Supreme Court Notebook - Ledbetter
How much do you know about the salaries of your coworkers? Talking among peers about compensation is always a little awkward and one-third of private employers actually prohibit such discussions of wages. The odds are that unless you are in charge, in the payroll department, or downright nosy, you probably don't know much about the compensation of your coworkers. This would make it nearly impossible for you to discover -- especially within 180 days of the time your pay is set -- that you are a victim of pay discrimination. Yet last week, the Supreme Court ruled that pay discrimination claims not brought within 180 days of setting the discriminatory salary are time barred. Unless you are nosy, you're out of luck.
The case, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, was brought by the only female supervisor at a Goodyear tire plant in Alabama. Ms. Ledbetter discovered late into her twenty year career at Goodyear that the salaries of males in the same position as her were higher -- the lowest paid man was paid $4,286 a month while Ms. Ledbetter earned only $3,727. In the trial court, Ms. Ledbetter was awarded $360,000 in back pay and compensatory and punitive damages, but that award was erased on appeal. Last week, the Supreme Court agreed with the appeals court, holding that Ms. Ledbetter brought her claim too late.
The law states that in order to bring an employment discrimination claim, the plaintiff must show that she suffered an "unlawful employment practice" in the 180 days prior to filing her complaint. Until last week's ruling, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission operated under the theory that each paycheck distribution that reflected the discriminatory pay constituted a new "unlawful employment practice" that retriggered the 180 day clock. The Supreme Court, voting 5-4, disagreed.
Justice Ginsburg, notably the only woman on the Supreme Court (and someone who is paid the same amount as her male colleagues), read a blistering dissent from the bench. Justice Ginsburg wrote that even though Ms. Ledbetter had established that discrimination (as opposed to performance inadequacies) accounted for the pay differential, the Court's ruling "grandfathered" such discrimination in. "The unlawful practice," she wrote, "is the current payment of salaries infected by gender-based discrimination -- a practice that occurs whenever a paycheck delivers less to a woman than to a similarly-situated man."
I am not the first to criticize this decision and Senator Hillary Clinton has already pledged to introduce legislation that would render the decision moot. But it is disturbing that five members of the Supreme Court, including President Bush's two appointees, could be this out of touch with the purpose of discrimination laws. The world the Ledbetter opinion would create is one in which it is illegal to discriminate in pay based on gender, but only for the first 180 days after that pay is set. If an employer avoids a complaint during those first six months, the employer is free to discriminate for the rest of an employee's career.
The Supreme Court would dispute this characterization. They would argue that this is not so much a case about pay discrimination as it is about statutory construction. A theme of the more conservative members of the court -- including Justice Alito in this case -- is that it is not the Supreme Court's job to set public policy, but to interpret the law by strictly adhering to legislative text. The Bush Administration, however, who weighed in against the EEOC's interpretation, was singularly concerned with setting policy and the Supreme Court delivered precisely the policy the Administration sought. Even if the message the Supreme Court claims to have sent is "draft clearer legislation," the message they actually sent is "employers are free to discriminate if they are not caught in the first 180 days."
The advice to Americans is clear. For those beginning new jobs in the future, it would be wise on the first day to shake your coworkers' hands with the question, "And how much are you paid?" This will not only make you popular around the office, but if you do otherwise, the Supreme Court has ruled, you may simply be out of luck down the road.
The case, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, was brought by the only female supervisor at a Goodyear tire plant in Alabama. Ms. Ledbetter discovered late into her twenty year career at Goodyear that the salaries of males in the same position as her were higher -- the lowest paid man was paid $4,286 a month while Ms. Ledbetter earned only $3,727. In the trial court, Ms. Ledbetter was awarded $360,000 in back pay and compensatory and punitive damages, but that award was erased on appeal. Last week, the Supreme Court agreed with the appeals court, holding that Ms. Ledbetter brought her claim too late.
The law states that in order to bring an employment discrimination claim, the plaintiff must show that she suffered an "unlawful employment practice" in the 180 days prior to filing her complaint. Until last week's ruling, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission operated under the theory that each paycheck distribution that reflected the discriminatory pay constituted a new "unlawful employment practice" that retriggered the 180 day clock. The Supreme Court, voting 5-4, disagreed.
Justice Ginsburg, notably the only woman on the Supreme Court (and someone who is paid the same amount as her male colleagues), read a blistering dissent from the bench. Justice Ginsburg wrote that even though Ms. Ledbetter had established that discrimination (as opposed to performance inadequacies) accounted for the pay differential, the Court's ruling "grandfathered" such discrimination in. "The unlawful practice," she wrote, "is the current payment of salaries infected by gender-based discrimination -- a practice that occurs whenever a paycheck delivers less to a woman than to a similarly-situated man."
I am not the first to criticize this decision and Senator Hillary Clinton has already pledged to introduce legislation that would render the decision moot. But it is disturbing that five members of the Supreme Court, including President Bush's two appointees, could be this out of touch with the purpose of discrimination laws. The world the Ledbetter opinion would create is one in which it is illegal to discriminate in pay based on gender, but only for the first 180 days after that pay is set. If an employer avoids a complaint during those first six months, the employer is free to discriminate for the rest of an employee's career.
The Supreme Court would dispute this characterization. They would argue that this is not so much a case about pay discrimination as it is about statutory construction. A theme of the more conservative members of the court -- including Justice Alito in this case -- is that it is not the Supreme Court's job to set public policy, but to interpret the law by strictly adhering to legislative text. The Bush Administration, however, who weighed in against the EEOC's interpretation, was singularly concerned with setting policy and the Supreme Court delivered precisely the policy the Administration sought. Even if the message the Supreme Court claims to have sent is "draft clearer legislation," the message they actually sent is "employers are free to discriminate if they are not caught in the first 180 days."
The advice to Americans is clear. For those beginning new jobs in the future, it would be wise on the first day to shake your coworkers' hands with the question, "And how much are you paid?" This will not only make you popular around the office, but if you do otherwise, the Supreme Court has ruled, you may simply be out of luck down the road.
June 03, 2007
Voting for Present and Future Memphis
(NOTE: This column appeared in the Commercial Appeal)
City government plays two distinct roles in the life of a city. First, it must deal with the issues of today, delivering services and providing a safe environment in which citizens can pursue their day-to-day business. Performing this role requires competence in management and administration as well as a commitment to serving a city's residents.
Second, government must dream of what a city will look like tomorrow. Elected leaders set priorities and policies that can affect the direction of a city well beyond the term of any elected official. Such dreaming requires both vision for the future and the ability to enact policies that point the city toward that vision.
With four months until the most important city election since 1991, it is time for Memphians to start thinking about which candidates provide the right combination of competence and vision to steer Memphis into the next decade and beyond. Too often, coverage of the elections focuses on the issues of today with little attention paid to the candidates' vision for tomorrow. Although the short-term tasks of government -- including, most importantly, confronting crime -- are what keep a city's wheels spinning, it is the forward-thinking vision that gets a city moving ahead.
So what are the issues Memphians ought to be quizzing the City Council and mayoral candidates about to get a sense of what they see in tomorrow's Memphis?
At the top of the list is education. If Memphis is to move forward, it will have to be on the shoulders of a new generation of citizens with the skills and learning abilities to support the 21st-century economy. Too often, this newspaper reports a story about a business that was considering a move to Memphis, but decided not to relocate here due in part to the "education level" of the workforce. Raising that level for Memphis students -- whether they attend city, county or private schools -- must be a priority.
Another top priority is how each candidate sees Memphis thriving economically in the future, as a vibrant business community can provide the jobs that will allow thousands of Memphians to flourish. The city government has several tasks in the area of economic development, beginning with support for existing businesses to help them prosper. In addition, leaders can sell the city's benefits to businesses considering a move to or growth in Memphis. Finally, and perhaps most critically, city government can strategically revitalize areas of the city best placed to attract the type of business growth that can lift an entire city.
Memphis is already well placed to become the nation's 21st century distribution hub if it can intelligently develop its "aerotropolis," or the distribution center built around the multibillion-dollar global air shipping industry. Candidates should present ideas to keep Memphis ahead of this curve and seek other areas in which the city can push ahead of the competition.
Finally, in this election, coming as it does during what feels like a turning point in local politics, the candidates should step forward to change the tone of pessimism and divisiveness that afflicts Memphis. For too long, Memphis has divided itself into factions -- racially, geographically, economically, politically -- that have stunted city prosperity. As factions grapple amongst themselves over municipal power, the larger community is left with the status quo.
For Memphis to truly move forward, city leaders must search for common ground, take risks that do not serve only the interests of their own political group, and be willing to consider opposing viewpoints with respect. Changing the self-identity of Memphis is not a task that can be accomplished in one term in office, but it is a challenge candidates must be willing to confront if Memphis is to reach its potential over the next decade.
It is up to all Memphis voters to ask the questions that push this year's candidates to present their ideas and priorities for the future. Only then will voters be able to reward those candidates who are thinking seriously about where our city could be in 2017 while still addressing the problems of 2007.
City government plays two distinct roles in the life of a city. First, it must deal with the issues of today, delivering services and providing a safe environment in which citizens can pursue their day-to-day business. Performing this role requires competence in management and administration as well as a commitment to serving a city's residents.
Second, government must dream of what a city will look like tomorrow. Elected leaders set priorities and policies that can affect the direction of a city well beyond the term of any elected official. Such dreaming requires both vision for the future and the ability to enact policies that point the city toward that vision.
With four months until the most important city election since 1991, it is time for Memphians to start thinking about which candidates provide the right combination of competence and vision to steer Memphis into the next decade and beyond. Too often, coverage of the elections focuses on the issues of today with little attention paid to the candidates' vision for tomorrow. Although the short-term tasks of government -- including, most importantly, confronting crime -- are what keep a city's wheels spinning, it is the forward-thinking vision that gets a city moving ahead.
So what are the issues Memphians ought to be quizzing the City Council and mayoral candidates about to get a sense of what they see in tomorrow's Memphis?
At the top of the list is education. If Memphis is to move forward, it will have to be on the shoulders of a new generation of citizens with the skills and learning abilities to support the 21st-century economy. Too often, this newspaper reports a story about a business that was considering a move to Memphis, but decided not to relocate here due in part to the "education level" of the workforce. Raising that level for Memphis students -- whether they attend city, county or private schools -- must be a priority.
Another top priority is how each candidate sees Memphis thriving economically in the future, as a vibrant business community can provide the jobs that will allow thousands of Memphians to flourish. The city government has several tasks in the area of economic development, beginning with support for existing businesses to help them prosper. In addition, leaders can sell the city's benefits to businesses considering a move to or growth in Memphis. Finally, and perhaps most critically, city government can strategically revitalize areas of the city best placed to attract the type of business growth that can lift an entire city.
Memphis is already well placed to become the nation's 21st century distribution hub if it can intelligently develop its "aerotropolis," or the distribution center built around the multibillion-dollar global air shipping industry. Candidates should present ideas to keep Memphis ahead of this curve and seek other areas in which the city can push ahead of the competition.
Finally, in this election, coming as it does during what feels like a turning point in local politics, the candidates should step forward to change the tone of pessimism and divisiveness that afflicts Memphis. For too long, Memphis has divided itself into factions -- racially, geographically, economically, politically -- that have stunted city prosperity. As factions grapple amongst themselves over municipal power, the larger community is left with the status quo.
For Memphis to truly move forward, city leaders must search for common ground, take risks that do not serve only the interests of their own political group, and be willing to consider opposing viewpoints with respect. Changing the self-identity of Memphis is not a task that can be accomplished in one term in office, but it is a challenge candidates must be willing to confront if Memphis is to reach its potential over the next decade.
It is up to all Memphis voters to ask the questions that push this year's candidates to present their ideas and priorities for the future. Only then will voters be able to reward those candidates who are thinking seriously about where our city could be in 2017 while still addressing the problems of 2007.
May 24, 2007
America's Next Generation
What will the United States look like in 2030? How different will the face of the nation be in a quarter century? And how will that difference affect the country?
A recent Census report breaking down the nation’s demographics by age group suggests that the United States of 2030 will be one with a much higher percentage of minorities of voting age. As an aging white population is gradually replaced with a more diverse next generation, the country’s priorities are likely to shift to reflect the changing demographics.
In 2006, the American minority population topped 100 million for the first time. Today, nearly one in three Americans is Hispanic, African American, Asian, or from another minority group. However, for those under 19, minorities represent 42% of the country. Compare that to the 80% of Americans over the age of 60 who are white and it is clear that there is a racial generation gap that affects both the America we are and the America we will become.
Today, the older white population exercises a great deal of power and influence in both voting and setting the nation’s policy agenda. As Dr. Mark Mather of the Population Reference Bureau explains it, “There’s a fairly large homogenous population 60 and older that may not be sympathetic to the needs of a diverse, youthful population.” This disproportionate power of the homogenous older population can impact policy decisions for social programs and education, areas that impact more heterogeneous younger Americans more directly.
While the racial generation gap gives a great deal of power to the older, white population today, that will change as the percentage of minorities in America continues to grow over the next several decades. The result will be an electorate more attuned to issues that affect minority communities and minority voting blocks with greater power to pursue their own agendas. Even the next generation of white Americans, having been raised in a more heterogeneous environment, will draw from a more diverse perspective in making voting and policy decisions.
I think the generational shift that is on its way will help the country domestically and abroad. At home, greater attention should be paid to the social problems that disproportionately impact minorities – lack of health insurance, disparities in health care, gaps in educational achievement, crime. These are problems that chip away at the nation’s foundation and must be seriously addressed. With the increase in influence from the minority electorate, these problems should receive the attention they deserve.
Meanwhile, in the shrinking global community, this wealth of diversity will be an advantage for the United States. As is more apparent by the day, the ability for the United States to impact global affairs without international support is limited. The shifting demographics within American borders will only better prepare the nation to consider the perspectives of nations beyond those borders. A more humble and sensitive foreign policy, supported by a strong military, will better allow the United States to achieve the goals of security and economic growth.
Since its birth, the United States has successfully incorporated and gained strength from many different ethnic groups. As the next generation of Americans, the most ethnically diverse in history, rises in influence, it will add a new chapter to this history.
A recent Census report breaking down the nation’s demographics by age group suggests that the United States of 2030 will be one with a much higher percentage of minorities of voting age. As an aging white population is gradually replaced with a more diverse next generation, the country’s priorities are likely to shift to reflect the changing demographics.
In 2006, the American minority population topped 100 million for the first time. Today, nearly one in three Americans is Hispanic, African American, Asian, or from another minority group. However, for those under 19, minorities represent 42% of the country. Compare that to the 80% of Americans over the age of 60 who are white and it is clear that there is a racial generation gap that affects both the America we are and the America we will become.
Today, the older white population exercises a great deal of power and influence in both voting and setting the nation’s policy agenda. As Dr. Mark Mather of the Population Reference Bureau explains it, “There’s a fairly large homogenous population 60 and older that may not be sympathetic to the needs of a diverse, youthful population.” This disproportionate power of the homogenous older population can impact policy decisions for social programs and education, areas that impact more heterogeneous younger Americans more directly.
While the racial generation gap gives a great deal of power to the older, white population today, that will change as the percentage of minorities in America continues to grow over the next several decades. The result will be an electorate more attuned to issues that affect minority communities and minority voting blocks with greater power to pursue their own agendas. Even the next generation of white Americans, having been raised in a more heterogeneous environment, will draw from a more diverse perspective in making voting and policy decisions.
I think the generational shift that is on its way will help the country domestically and abroad. At home, greater attention should be paid to the social problems that disproportionately impact minorities – lack of health insurance, disparities in health care, gaps in educational achievement, crime. These are problems that chip away at the nation’s foundation and must be seriously addressed. With the increase in influence from the minority electorate, these problems should receive the attention they deserve.
Meanwhile, in the shrinking global community, this wealth of diversity will be an advantage for the United States. As is more apparent by the day, the ability for the United States to impact global affairs without international support is limited. The shifting demographics within American borders will only better prepare the nation to consider the perspectives of nations beyond those borders. A more humble and sensitive foreign policy, supported by a strong military, will better allow the United States to achieve the goals of security and economic growth.
Since its birth, the United States has successfully incorporated and gained strength from many different ethnic groups. As the next generation of Americans, the most ethnically diverse in history, rises in influence, it will add a new chapter to this history.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)