Last March 30, I gave a keynote address entitled “Civic Renewal: Theory and Practice,” at “Generations: Age and Citizenship,” the 9th Annual Conference in Citizenship Studies at Wayne State University in Detroit. Here it is. I launch into the actual content just after minute 9.
[youtube]http://youtu.be/GbDS8UZCyE8[/youtube]
(In DC for a Street Law board meeting) For anyone interested in the potential of the new electronic media to enhance young people’s active citizenship, I recommend “Service & Activism in the Digital Age: Supporting Youth Engagement in Public Life,” A Digital Media and Learning Working Paper written by Ellen Middaugh with contributions by me and five colleagues/friends. Thanks to Ellen, this is an ambitious, detailed, and compellingly written report, drawing on extensive scholarship and offering numerous current examples of programs. (PDF here).
One way to summarize the report is to list four “Core Principles” that should generally guide youth civic programs, whether offline or online. For each principle, the report offers a theoretical argument, provides examples of excellent practice, explores the potential of the new electronic media, and then raises unresolved questions for research and practical experimentation
1. “Youth civic development is best supported in the culture and context of communities and movements.” (But we don’t know enough about “how to effectively use new media in building and connecting to community and movements.”)
2. “Youth civic development is best supported when youth are treated not just as future civic leaders, but also capable participants in the present.” (But we don’t know, for example, whether being young is a disadvantage in online discussions of real issues, or whether it is better to mix ages or create youth-only spaces online.)
3. “Youth civic development is best supported when youth have access to authentic learning experiences.” (But I think there is an important unresolved debate about what counts as “authentic” in an era of games and simulations.)
4. “Youth civic development requires opportunities for youth to grapple with issues of what is just and what is fair.” (But we don’t know whether typical methods, such as asking students to post videos online, contribute to rich and productive discussions.)
At the discussion I moderated yesterday, Ralph Nader said that the AFL-CIO’s leadership once asked him to get the Occupy movement to press for a raise in the minimum wage. He replied: You mean to tell me that organized labor needs a bunch of 20-somethings in flip-flops to lobby for a living wage? Theda Skocpol explained why: unions represent just 9% of private sector workers.
As we were talking in DC, Wisconsites were voting to retain a governor who had broken the public sector unions. Walker got 37% of voters from union households and more than half of the voters with only high school degrees.
The most obvious interpretation is that labor is dead and we need some kind of functional alternative. I’d qualify that by noting that Walker broke the public employee unions (minus the police and firefighters). Those aren’t blue-collar workers. Many hold masters degrees–and Barrett, the Democrat, won 60% of voters with postgraduate degrees. This wasn’t really a neoliberal attacking the blue-collar unions and the traditional working class. They are split by race and don’t form a coherent political force. (“Non-Whites/No College” voted overwhelming for Barrett, whereas “Whites with No College went” 61% for Walker). This was rather a neoliberal attacking the public-sector professional class.
I’m not a big fan of public sector unions, who are often at odds with the people they serve, but the Wisconsin fight was about political pluralism and countervailing force. As Franklin Roosevelt told Congress in an April 29, 1938 Message:
liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.
(Washington, DC) Later today, I will moderate a discussion on the state of US democracy at a Kettering Foundation Trustees’ meeting, involving:
… and the Kettering Trustees. One of the Trustees, Dr. Sandral Hullett from Birmingham, AL, will begin by describing the state of politics in her currently dysfunctional city. I hope to use that example to elicit useful perspectives from our guests, who differ in their basic diagnoses and prescriptions. Some are concerned that the political center isn’t holding; others call for a radical populist movement. Some argue that periodical elections are insufficient instruments of citizen control; others believe that we suffer from too much citizen influence. They direct their reformist energies, variously, at campaigns and elections, the federal civil service, educational institutions, Fox News and other media organizations, and citizens themselves.
The discussion will be audiotaped and ultimately turned into a public program. I am hoping for light as well as heat.
Today CIRCLE released a major new report entitled Pathways into Leadership: A Study of YouthBuild Graduates, funded by the Knight Foundation and distributed during the White House Summit on Community Solutions for Disconnected Youth. This was the outline of my comments at the White House (although I had to truncate for time):
You know YouthBuild as a set of local programs in communities across the country that enroll high school dropouts and provide GED classes, job training, community service opportunities, and leadership development. Previous research has found good effects on the participants’ education, employment, and (for the students who had criminal records) recidivism.
We studied something different: a leadership pathway that begins in the local programs when students are asked to help manage the organization and continues at the national level for alumni who choose to participate.
When I say “we” studied it, I mean CIRCLE along with 10 YouthBuild alumni who were our co-investigators.
Surveying and interviewing alumni who were involved with the alumni programs, we found a gigantic difference between then and now.
Then: these were “disconnected youth,” outside of school of college, jobs, and civic organizations. None had high school degrees. Most struggled with violence and depression. Half expected to die before age 30, many before age 25.
Now: these are civic leaders. Some hold public office or serve as pastors. About one third are professional youth workers. All expect to live to a ripe old age and feel they have a lifetime of service to contribute. They are optimistic, satisfied, and dedicated. “I’m important to me community and my community is important to me … I build everything off that premise” is how one person summarized things.
We draw two lessons: