Poverty Amid Plenty

What happens when a sociologist crosses a historian in a parking lot? This morning, as my colleague Michael Durfee and I walked into our office building, he told me he wanted to share something that Martin Luther King said about poverty. Michael, a Ph.D. candidate in the history department at SUNY Buffalo, pointed out these words from Dr. King:

"Poverty is a glaring, notorious reality for some forty million Americans. I guess it wouldn't be so bad for them if it were shared misery, but it is poverty amid plenty. It is poverty in the midst of an affluent society, and I think this is what makes for great frustration and great despair in the black community and the poor community of our nation generally."

Michael provided me with background information about this quote. Dr. King appeared at the sixty-eighth annual convention of the Rabbinical Assembly on March 25, 1968. At the convention King responded to questions submitted in advance to Rabbi Everett Gendler, who facilitated the event. The answer that you see above was in response to a question about the Kerner Report and how to work towards social justice and equality.  

Michael and I have a shared interest in inequality. Earlier this semester, we both attended a panel discussion about inequality. At the event, a viewpoint was expressed that poverty in America isn't so bad. The basic point was that poverty is much worse in lesser developed countries. After all, poor people in America have TVs, so how bad can poverty be? I strongly disagree with that line of thinking. I don't think that any poverty is good poverty. When Michael showed me these words from Dr. King, he referenced the panel that we had attended. The passage reminds us of how difficult it is to endure poverty in a rich nation. Poverty is difficult to endure anywhere. But there is an extra layer of frustration and strain that impoverished people experience in a land of plenty. If everyone is poor, it's hard to be poor and it doesn't feel good. It sure doesn't feel better (maybe it even feels worse) when you're surrounded by excess.

Source of quote: Clayborne Carson et al. (editors). 1991. The Eyes on the Prize Civil Rights Reader. New York: Penguin Books. The quote appears on page 402.

Race: A Poem

I hear people say we are a race-obsessed society.

I beg to differ.

We are a race-dysfunctional society.

We don’t know how to talk about race.

We don’t understand race.

We confuse race and ethnicity.

We talk past each other, not to each other.

We wait until a fool says something foolish 
     (“Nappy-headed hos”) 
and then we talk about race, mediated by media.

We ask the wrong questions 
     (“Why can’t I say the N word if they get to say the N word?”) 
and jump to the wrong conclusions 
     (“We have a black president so how can we be racist?”)

We have race fatigue.

We are tired of talking about race.

We don’t understand why people don’t get along.

We just wish people would relax and get over "it."

But we can’t wish race and ethnicity away.

Race and ethnicity are us.

Why are we afraid of honest history?

Do we have to hear about the Pilgrims and Indians again this year?

How about history reduced to glossy magazines?

So much amazing African-American history 
     (amazing American history) 
that is disrespected by a shabby supermarket display.

If race doesn't matter then why does it matter?

Is your school diverse?

Is your neighborhood diverse?

How dare we say race doesn't matter?

Why do we ignore the power of symbols?
How does the Cleveland Indians logo still exist?

Why is it cute for kids to dress "like Indians" on Halloween?

Why do high school kids want to perform a blackface skit?

How dare we say race is no big deal or it's just a joke?

If race is a joke, I'll never get the punchline.

And I'll never find inequality funny.

None of us are perfect when it comes to race.
No one can know everything and know exactly what to say.
Let's start by dropping the claim of being color-blind.
And keep our eyes out for stronger lenses to see arrogance and privilege.

The End.

Author’s note: I took a picture of this display at a supermarket in Buffalo, NY in February 2011.

Author's note #2: I highly recommend Peter Kaufman's recent blog post about racism, which includes his analysis of a blackface skit that took place at a high school.

Breaking Up By Text Message

Here's a sociological question: is it socially acceptable to break up by a text message? Occasionally I hear students comment on a relationship ending with a text message. I'm far removed from breaking up in the first place. If I break up at this point in my life, it's called a divorce. But let's talk about how people end relationships. Is it something that is supposed to happen face-to-face? People break up by phone calls, right? Is there a difference between breaking up with a phone call and breaking up with a text message? A text message sure seems cold and impersonal, but it makes sense if we keep in mind that breaking up is hard to do. Well, with due respect to Neil Sedaka, breaking up is much easier if we do it by text message, isn't it?

What are the rules about using a text message to break up? Is there any follow up required? Does the break up "stick"? Or, like the old Stylistics song says, it is just another case of "break up to make up" (gotta love any song that has a Wikipedia page).

Breaking up can get ugly fast. Many a Lifetime movie has been made about a break up gone bad. Is there such a thing as a good break up? Let's cut to the chase, people. How do we break up these days, and what do the techniques for breaking up tell us about relationship norms? How do people react to a break up by text message? Finally, generally speaking, what insights about our culture can we make if it is acceptable practice to break up with a text message?

Life Lesson from a Dentist

At our new student convocation a few days ago, one of the speakers was an alumnus. He was introduced as a dentist. The man proudly spoke of his experiences at Niagara University, and happily mentioned that his daughter is joining Niagara as a first-year student. He said all of his friends who went to Niagara University are successful. But more important, he said, is that all of his friends who graduated from Niagara are good people. I love that he used his time to convey the importance of being a good person.

We live in a society that is obsessed with rags-to-riches stories. We put way too much emphasis on individual success stories. It seems like we're in a contest about who came from the most humble circumstances. There's so much talk about success, but I don't hear much about being a good person. Why focus on "riches" without paying attention to the character of the person?

So here is a dentist--who by most indicators would be a considered successful (no one likes to go to the dentist, but a dentist represents a successful occupation). He references "success" but does so in the context of being a good person. In doing so, he highlights the value of being a good person. The overall message is that being a good person is more important than obtaining financial success. I was struck by these wise words and report them here so I don't lose sight of his message.

No one goes to college to become unsuccessful. Who wants to accumulate student loan debt while doing all-nighters in order to be unsuccessful? Pursuing success, defined in traditional terms, is obvious. I am inspired by the dentist to move the conversation to goodness. How meaningful is success if you aren't a good person? I don't wish away all rags-to-riches stories. I do wish we would reign ourselves in and stop trying to outdo each other in terms of our humble origins. And with regard to higher education, can we agree that part of the mission should be to develop good persons? (Defining "good" is another topic for another day. Suffice to say here that we speak often at Niagara University of serving others, especially people who are poor. Our emphasis on service to others, I believe, helps develop good citizens.)

Classic Sociological License Plate

Life is busy, hectic, and stressful. Sometimes we need a humorous moment to keep us going. This week I got one as I drove behind a van with a sociological license plate that says LOVESHAK. I drove as close to the van as I could without ramming into it, and took a picture (you can clearly see my dashboard). If somehow I get the chance to interview the owner of this van, I would ask her/him about the motivation for selecting LOVESHAK as a customized plate. Was it to make people laugh? Does it speak to activity that has taken place in the van?

Notice the person uses decals to announce herself/himself as a sports fan (you can easily see a Buffalo Bills magnet) and to affiliate herself/himself with a university (I think the sticker says University of North Carolina). In all, the person is using the back of a van to say a bunch of things about herself/himself. As I've said before, some people use their license plates like tattoos: as a way of communicating something about themselves to the world.

HOTT News Declares Obama Winner

HOTT News, the newest player in cable news, wasted no time in stirring controversy. In its first day on air, the station declared Barack Obama the winner of the presidential contest, even though the actual election is 98 days away. Shauna Falco, the White House Correspondent for HOTT News, said she had enough information to report the winner: "The New York Times has Nate Silver. We have someone like Nate Silver. A few battleground states are too close to call, but we feel confident enough to say Obama has won."

Stunned that a news channel would choose to debut by reporting Obama's re-election as hard news, media watchdogs are hammering HOTT News and encouraging people to boycott the channel's sponsors. But executives at the station are immune to criticism, including station founder Steve Rose. In a press release, Rose defiantly stated: "We're playing to be first, not second, and definitely not last. We care about being out in front...way out in front. It doesn't matter if we get it wrong. Other stations are wrong all the time. They're wrong and boring. Call us what you will, but we'll never be boring."

But isn't HOTT News concerned that nobody will take them seriously? Won't making outlandish predictions hurt their brand? "Making outlandish predictions is our brand," said Che Clinton, the head pundit at HOTT News. "People will have to take us seriously because we're in the news business for the long haul," he said.

So what happens in November, after the real election takes place? What will HOTT News do if Mitt Romney gets more electoral votes? "Simple," said Ms. Falco. "We'll issue a mea culpa, or at least a just kidding, and report that Romney won. It's no big deal. But we think we got this one right, so we're not freaked out about it." For the record, when we asked Ms. Falco about her credentials, she would only say she is a news hound and that she excelled as an intern in her college years.

Criticism aside, the antics at HOTT News instantly paid off, considering it had more prime-time viewers last  night than MSNBC and CNN combined. "We're here to win the ratings game--in all demographics," said Ms. Falco, "So get your popcorn ready." Get your popcorn ready? That sounded familiar, so I asked Ms. Falco what inspired the comment. She replied: "Terrell Owens. When he was in the NFL, he was my fav." I assume she was abbreviating the word favorite, but I was too exasperated to ask. It's not going to be easy covering HOTT News.

Crafting a Cell Phone Policy with Students

I haven't been in a classroom since December 2011. Following the Fall 2011 semester, I enjoyed sabbatical leave. I return to the classroom in September. I'm looking forward to teaching again. I'm not looking forward to cell phones. For an excellent discussion about cell phones and texting in class, I recommend this piece by Nathan Palmer. I agree with Nathan's comment that "you can stop cell phone use, but the costs aren't justified by the rewards." I totally agree with Nathan that I don't want to use up my goodwill by policing students' cell phone use. I ultimately view the War on Cell Phones as a war that can't be won.

For many years I've included a perfunctory statement in my syllabi asking students to not use cell phones during class time. Students respond to the policy by "politely" using their phones underneath their desks, as if I can't see them. Sometimes I ask students to put their phones away, other times I don't have the energy to do it. There's so much cell phone use, I can't stamp it all out. My colleagues generally admit they are also at a loss for what to do, although a few will boast that no student would dare use a cell phone in their class. Maybe it's true; maybe a few people have squashed all cell phone use, but I have a hard time believing that it came with no cost to their relationships with students.

So what am I going to do in the Fall semester? Instead of writing a lame statement prohibiting cell phones, on the first day of class I'm going to ask students to develop a policy about the use of cell phones. I'm going to ask them what they think a reasonable and fair policy should be. I plan to do this in each of my classes. Keep in mind that professors aren't the only ones who dislike Texting While Learning. Students do not uniformly support the use of cell phones in class. Some of my students have complained to me about the use of cell phones in class. Some students find the use of cell phones as distracting as I do. Considering that students bring a range of viewpoints to this subject (as with any subject), it will be interesting to see how it plays out. What do you think of the idea of including students in the development of a policy on cell phone use?

How will this work? I'm not a power-hungry authoritarian type, but I'll have veto power when students design the policy. So if all they come up with is "Cell phones can be used at all times, for any purpose whatsoever," I'll be forced to block it. But I can safely predict that students will design a nuanced proposal. As I work with students to make policy, I'll have them consider several key questions: (1) For what purposes are cell phones appropriate? (2) Should cell phones be used for Twitter, assuming that tweets involve class-related content? (3) What limits should exist on cell phone use? (4) What is a proper way to ask a student to stop using their cell phone? (5) Is it only the professor who should ask a student to stop using their cell phone? (6) What, if any, consequence should there be for a student who ruthlessly and rudely uses a cell phone throughout class? 

Assuming that students work together with me to form a sensible plan, it will become the official policy for the semester. It might take a long time to work out the details (possibly even the entire first session), but I think it's a valuable use of time.


In all, I want this to be an exercise in thinking about the use of cell phones during class time. I hope students will care more about cell phone use after having a hand in shaping the policy. However it works out, students will discover on day one that I value their input and encourage their participation in class.