Let’s talk about Mission Drift. And about dissonance.
And about framing. And about, yes, The Clench.
In this New York Times article the tension between living out the ideals of racial equity and doing what one feels is best for their families come into stark relief.
This is an interesting place to have this tension and dissonance. The community was planned to ‘bake in’ integration and diverse community when it was founded fifty years ago. It has attracted those on the progressive end of the spectrum, as the NYT says: ” They were Democrats, they said, consultants to social justice nonprofits, teachers, veterans’ advocates. ” And a startling number of them oppose a new redistricting plan that would course correct a trend of segregation in a community that not only prided itself on its diversity, but had actually built diversity into its ethos and its praxis.
One issue that the community faces is that it is now, decades later, effectively two communities: the original development, and newer annexations that have veered from the semi utopian 1960’s vision. These newer developments are different from that vision, that included single family and affordable multi family options; the newer developments are more homogeneous, more affluent, and less diverse, with mostly white and Asian residents, while those in the original development have more Black and Latinx students, and more relative income insecurity, as is to be expected from a more inclusive housing stock, and the realities of American educational and employment discrimination, and hence, income distribution.
The two high schools have different reputations (however real or percieved) and demographics, and a plan to introduce more equity and diversity between the two schools have been met with strong opposition.
That this is racialized is clear. What is uncomfortable is that there is a cohort of people of color who are, in a more ‘civil’ way than their white counterparts who are also in opposition to be sure, still vocally opposed to the change.
That there is social capital in the mix is also true.
It has attracted those on the progressive end of the spectrum; as the NYT says, ” They were Democrats, they said, consultants to social justice nonprofits, teachers, veterans’ advocates. ” And a startling number of them oppose a new redistricting plan that would course correct a trend of segregation in a community that not only prided itself on its diversity, but built diversity into its ethos and its praxis.
Quote: Dana Goldstein; New York Times
But I want to pivot, as the NYT did, to more than the parents’ views and fears.
I want to think about what it means to children who see people in the community basically making them into pariahs. That the opposition is careful about language and framing makes it more concerning, not less; that said framing is careful about talking about the risks and downsides to the cohort they want to keep away from is disingenuous at best.
The teens at Wilde Lake know exactly what the parents of River Hill think of them; know that their distaste at ‘sacrificing’ their children actually means. That this opposition consists of voters who cast their ballots ‘the right way’, who are in helping professions and promote social justice everywhere but in this crucial part of their own lives is not lost on them. That there are even some Black and Latinx parents who oppose the change does not make the rhetoric go down any easier.
Let’s talk about us here in our community of Lace on Race, and how we make choices in our own circles of influence, and whether doing all the right things in service to ostensibly committed rock solid values matter when one choice wipes out all that goodwill.
Let’s deeply reflect about how the optics look to those on the marginalized part of the slash.
The arguments made to justify what is essentially a racialized and class based choice would be laughable were they not so damaging. Citing fear on behalf of the very students they reject, they spoke of ‘… the freedom to choose a public school to the freedom to choose an abortion. If the redistricting plan moved forward, they said, students might die in car crashes driving to campuses further away. They might turn to suicide because of the increased stress of longer travel times.’
As I read it, I had to wonder about the relative integrity of the arguments against: some red meat racism on the part of some of the white parents, as opposed to the civil discourse meant to reframe and obfuscate by groups who were loathe to be plain about the politics of exclusion. At the end of the day, which is more searing?
Again, pivot to the children, who know unequivocally how those of the west side think of them. How can this not affect them?
And then think of your own areas, how some kids in exurbs and rural areas risk the same long drives without comment; how they do not feel they have to defend not only their schools but themselves and their very humanity.
Some of the students of Wilde Lake are reconsidering the plan, but certainly not for the same reasons. Do they, at bottom, want to be in close contact with students who feel themselves better then they? Who, put bluntly, feel they are slumming?
50 years ago, the people who opted in to Columbia knew what they were buying; knew the ethos and endorsed it. Now, that ethos has sharply eroded to the point of so much dust, and the community, however the eventual outcome will be decimated. Is it still a place of equity? Has the dream of the original developer been set aside?
And in our areas, whether it be in Iowa or Indiana or California or Colorado, lest we are too quick to demonize the west end residents of Columbia, we are no better.
Here in San Diego, in our own districts, there have been tension around this very thing, to the point of some San Diego neighborhoods opting into whiter school districts (hi Poway!); and in our East County, a fight about where students in La Mesa, El Cajon, Lemon Grove and Spring Valley, inner ring suburbs all, but with strikingly different demographics, are allowed to go. This matters. It’s more than just about education; more than about drive time; more than about even funding.
It’s about values.
Who are we going to be? And how do we pass our values along to our children?
After all of this, will there still be a Columbia as was first envisioned? Or has it regressed back to the fetid time a half century ago?
Leave a Reply