Allegations vs. Truth

At work today, coworkers debriefed us on a recent conference that they attended. My coworkers decided to specifically mention the statements made by a few keynote speakers. Although it was early on a Friday, I was particularly fiesty but I internalized my reaction (I'm still a probationary employee)...until I got back to my computer. Below I have posted some of the thoughts which came to me as I thought more and more about what was said (apparently) at the conference by very well-known public figures (who, for not at least, will remain unnamed). I welcome any response, addition, or correction you may have to either my statements or those to which I am responding. Enjoy the Olympics.

ALLEGATION No. 1: Modern-day segregation is caused by students choosing to attend a school that is geographically more convenient – which, as a result of residential segregation, is predominantly attended by students of the same race – rather than travel a greater distance to attend a more diverse or more representative school.

Implication: Blame the victim

Segregation is self-imposed and, therefore, is not the fault nor the responsibility of lawmakers, suburbanites, or anyone else for that matter

Students simply are too lazy and/or under-ambitious and, by refusing to travel and leave their comfort zone, they are resigning themselves to the fate that they claim is forced upon them.

If the students themselves do not care enough about themselves to travel a little further (especially in an urban environment where it only means an additional transfer on the subway or getting out of bed a little earlier), why should the taxpayers make sacrifices for them?

TRUTH
Residential segregation determines the quality of education our children receive. The student body of a school is likely dictated by the makeup of the community of the surrounding neighborhood. If the community is racially, socially, or economically segregated, the school will follow suit. Teachers who have been conditioned to believe that the students at a segregated school will be less receptive, more trouble, and, therefore, less desirable are more likely to accept an offer in another school district. The quality of the education drops which, in turn, drives out what few students who have the option to go elsewhere.

Therefore, if we are to be serious about our children’s and our nation’s future and if we are going to address that issue via correcting the quality of our education, we must first address the role of residential segregation. Residential segregation’s impact and influence is broad and deep. It is much more pervasive and dangerous than most acknowledge. Finally, it is of utmost importance and must be a priority for advocates, lawmakers, families, and all citizens.

ALLEGATION No. 2: Most of the members of the Armed Forces enlisted for the financial incentives and in the hope of a college education. Most of these enlistees are lower-income, without connections or family wealth, and are disproportionately non-white. Therefore, when our government sends the military into danger and soldiers are killed, it is tragic. It is tragic because the soldier is killed because (s)he did not have other options to generate income or opportunity to attend college. It is tragic because the soldier, who enlisted as a means toward the end of an education, will never have the chance to make a claim on the very promise which drove him/her to enlist. In other words, the soldier is killed before s/he has a chance to live and this is attributable to the lack of legitimate options for those of lower-income, without connections or family wealth, and those who are non-white.

Implication: The government takes advantage of soldiers
The government markets to and draws in vulnerable youths with the promise of money and money-earning potential (investment toward education) but knows that there is a likelihood that the soldier will be killed in action and, thus, will not be able to collect on the investment. This manipulates the needs of low-income youths whose futures are not lined with the same opportunities of their wealthy peers. The manipulation is compounded by the “fact” that those youths are so situated because of government policies or, at the very least, past government policies (e.g. slavery, Jim Crow, de facto segregation).
In short, the government is responsible for the limited options before the low-income youth and offers the youth a way out yet the escape is fraught with the potential for a sudden “dead end” in the road toward success.

TRUTH

I could write about this one for a long time. Suffice (for now) to say that this ignores the element of glorious sacrifice and patriotism of all men and women in uniform. Actually, I'm just going to drop this one (for now) because I'm too tired to articulate a very important yet sensitive point.

ALLEGATION No. 3: There must be only one foreign policy. Currently, the U.S. has a foreign policy for Israel, a foreign policy for Great Britain, a foreign policy for China, etc. What is needed is the development of a single, universal foreign policy to be implemented by the U.S. government regardless of who the recipient of aid or offending nation may be.

Implication No. 1: All countries are the same and are similarly situated in the world

in terms of their economic contribution, stability, and role;

in terms of their military policy, strength, and tendencies;

in terms of their internal politics and stability; and,

in terms of their historical and trend-line of interaction with the United States.

Implication No. 2: No problems
A one-size-fits-all approach to foreign policy would eliminate the difficulties of diplomacy and deciding when and how to intervene (economically and militarily); such an approach to foreign policy would establish a procedural element to any scenario thereby absolving world leaders from justifying or defending any action (the policy determines the outcome, not the person).

Implication No. 3: Utopia
A one-size-fits-all approach to foreign policy would create a utopian world free of conflict, war, or misunderstanding.

TRUTH

The speaker of this ALLEGATION demonstrates his/her lack of knowledge of international relations, diplomacy, theories of power. The prime characteristic of a strong foreign policy is its customized fit for the always-changing world. Power shifts in a second. Nations crumble in minutes and are reconstituted even faster. The distinguishing characteristic of anything “one-size-fits-all” is its static, inflexible nature which, by definition, imposes uniformity on its subject.
The speaker of this ALLEGATION conflates “foreign policy” and the principles which under-gird it. Great presidents are defined not by their policies but by the principles which drive them to develop said policies. The Marshall Plan was not a foreign policy: it was a collection of principles upon which policymakers built a nation’s involvement in the world (one involvement at a time, I might add). Policies are evaluated in the light of the broader principle(s), not the other way around. Policies are necessary adaptations of the principle to fit the current clime, problem, or nation at issue. The sad truth of a power-driven, multi-state world is that fluidity and adaptability are signs of strength and great hope; while monotone inflexibility is a signal of vulnerability to what tomorrow brings.

ALLEGATION No. 4: The United States only exercises its military might when the affected country is easily overcome. The U.S. refuses to intervene in nations such as North Korea or China but, instead, will invade nations like Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq on a whim. We do this because these are nations that cannot fight back; if the nation could present a competitive response, we leave them alone.

Implication No. 1: The U.S. military is weak

It would invade all nations if it could succeed;

It does not invade all nations, therefore,

It must not be strong.

Implication No. 2: The U.S. military is overbearing and a bully
The military will not “pick on someone its own size”; instead, we seek out easily-conquered targets to establish (faux) dominance which acts as a deterrent (see No. 3, below).

Implication No. 3: The U.S. military is inconsistent
What the U.S. lacks in strength (see No. 1, above), it compensates with indiscriminate application of force thereby unsettling would-be foes.

TRUTH

We did not invade Bosnia
We did not invade Afghanistan.

- posted by C @ 7:38:00 PM