Pink is a Punishment

I recently read this seemingly innocuous article in The Economist about passport colors—how is color determined, meaning, etc—and the article ends with this statement:

Fun-coloured passports exist too. But they can sometimes seem a punishment: Sweden and the Netherlands issue emergency travel documents for nationals who have lost their passports. They are pink.

I re-read it several times trying to make some alternative meaning  to what I think the statement is implying and I’m stumped. Essentially, the author is stating that the use of the color pink is sometimes seen as a punishment. And I cannot think of why the color pink would considered a punishment other than its association with femininity and/or possible communist or socialist leanings (pinko). Given that the Netherlands and Sweden are more socialistic nations, the negative connotation of pinko doesn’t seem to apply. So I took to Wikipedia to see if I’ve missed some other more international negative symbolism of the color pink. Other than the pink slip, there is little to associate pink with a negative or punishing meaning outside of its connection to femininity. A quick Google search highlights the use of pink as a punishing color to emasculate:

Apparently innocuous things build up to create a society that perpetrates oppressive ideologies and practices. —Diary of a Feminist Lawyer

The use of pink to mean all things feminine is not new. From Legos to Tools, pink is used all of the time to market specifically to female identified people. The problem is that it’s not just a color. It’s not that pink tools or legos are inherently offensive or bad, it’s the historical and contextual meanings behind the use of pink to emasculate men and devalue femininity. In what should have been a rather inoffensive article on passport color, the author perpetuates systemic sexism in that pink is a punishment = feminine is wrong.

Activist Art Museums

Words and music were my tools for connecting to the larger world and making meaning of my life. Music was a huge part of my political awakening. Books gave me the words to name experiences and deepen my understandings.

In the last year or so, I’ve visited art museums in Seattle, Dallas, Portland, New Orleans, and Los Angeles. I’ve been able to see the special exhibits of the works of Yves Saint Laurent, Auguste RodinAndy WarholRobert Mapplethorpe and Sandow Birk. However, it wasn’t until I revisited the Minneapolis Institute of Art during a recent trip home to Minnesota, that I experienced an art museum as a place for activism. The MIA made intentional connections between the art, artists, and politics. While, art is frequently recognized for controversy and commentary on life and politics. The MIA made a larger connection to the current social-political climate–namely racism, anti-immigration, xenophobia –and art. They have this amazing exhibit Resistance, Protest, Resilience that highlights acts  of resistance throughout the last 100 years. They don’t allow viewers to believe that the current social-political climate is something new or attached only to the Trump Administration. This is a powerful counter-narrative.  The MIA doesn’t stop with this one exhibit. They host a series titled, “Current Conversations,” that connects current events to museum collections. While I was there in February they focused on immigration, so throughout the museum there were informational sheets connecting immigration and art. It was amazing to experience art in such a politicized way. It profoundly changed my connection and thinking around visual art. It helped me to see art museums as places for activism in ways I previously only held for music and books.

Ending social work licensure

Legislator rips up bill to end licensing for social workers, barbers, other professionals

Damn! I would have been really interested to see how Iowa faired in removing social work licensure requirements.

I think social work licensure is a racket.  It is a system set up to make people pay large sums of money to hold a license that provides minimal title protection, very little consistency across practice, and often privileges a specific definition of social work practice (i.e. clinical practice).

Unlike teachers, lawyers, doctors and nurses, the practice of social work it not a unique set of skills that are held by a specific profession. That is not to say that social workers don’t do great work, but social work does not provide a unique training to practice despite claims or requirements of state legislation, NASW, CSWE, or ASWB. This is evidenced by many other disciplines or majors that are often qualified and hired to provide social services. This includes degrees in psychology, human services, healthcare administration, or other behavioral sciences. See “social services” is the work around the “social work” title protection.

Removing the licensing process would save colleges and universities and social workers some money. In order to be eligible for a licensure, students need to graduate from a CSWE accredited program. This means that colleges and universities that want to offer license eligible social work programs must be accredited by CSWE. Unsurprisingly, CSWE does not publish the cost of accreditation but the process requires colleges and universities to pay a multitude of fees for accreditation including submission and site visit costs. New graduates need to pay initial fees for the ASWB test, background check, and initial license then are sometime required to pay for supervision for the first few years of practice before advancing to a next level of license with another round of testing and fees.

I would love to see some thoughtful conversation about the benefits and limits of licensure and the system that has been created as a result of licensing requirements.  Who is protected by licensure and how? Where is it required for billing and why? How does licensure impact education and practice? Instead, I often see people dig in on how licensure is what makes social work a profession. And I’m just not buying it.


Hidden Figures: Moves to Innocence

“Moves to innocence are characterized by strategies to remove involvement in and culpability for systems of domination” (Mawhinney, 1998, p17).

I went to see Hidden Figures this weekend. The movie brings to light the important work of Katherine G. Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan, and Mary Jackson. Three African-American female mathematicians who worked for NASA and their role in the launching of the space program. While Hidden Figures is being celebrated as finally giving credit to these women and launching women and girls into the field of science, embedded in the Hidden Figures movie is a white redemption story and move to innocence.

Mawhinney (1998) and Tuck and Yang (2012) introduced and deepened my understanding of this concept and how it applies in so many areas of history and contemporary narratives of white power and privilege. “Moves to innocence are characterized by strategies to remove involvement in and culpability for systems of domination” (Mawhinney, 1998, p. 17). Importantly, claims of innocence are rooted in framing the innocent as non-oppressors” (Tuck & Yang, 2012).

The film brilliantly highlights how systems of white dominance and oppression are set up to be reinforced. When Johnson repeatedly asks to be in the Pentagon briefings because she needs the up-to-date information to do her job, the response is that women are not allowed and she doesn’t have the clearance. Harrison asks who makes this rule and Johnson responds that he makes the rule so he allows her into the briefing. The white judge who rules to allow Mary Jackson to attend University of Virginia graduate level courses at the segregated Hampton High School. These examples demonstrate how those with the power can change the system.

In this same way, the film reinforces moves to innocence by showing white men as heroes towards integration. Specifically, the characters of John Glenn and Al Harrison (admittedly an aggregation of several NASA leaders) are portrayed as white male heroes. John Glenn-steps out of line to shake hand with the African-American women lined up to greet them and also specifically asks for Katharine Johnson to double check his landing coordinates. The scene in which Al Harrison personally breaks down the “Colored Ladies Room” sign and says “We all pee the same color” effectively integrating the bathrooms at NASA is set up to be the movement of change.

This is not to say that white allies are not needed in the fight for racial justice. However, I am critiquing the narrative. The motivation of Glenn and Harrison is never questioned to be anything but motivated by racial justice. I am left wondering if Glenn and Harrison did indeed act in those ways, was it self-serving towards their own professional goals? If their actions were motivated by racial justice, where have they been all these years? Glenn specifically spent a lot of time in the public arena and where was his strong voice in racial justice movement?

Silencing Voices

This is not a mandate.

Despite what the Trump Administration wants us to believe, Trump and the GOP do not have a mandate. Trump did not receive a majority of the votes. He lost the popular vote by over 2 million votes. Of the 136,628,459 voters in 2016, Trump received  62,979,363 votes ( (46% of the popular vote and 307 electoral college). There were an estimated 231,556,622 people eligible to vote in the 2016 election. Of those, 40% of eligible people did not even vote. This means that Trump received support of just over 25% of the eligible voters. The analyses around the election among them White supremacy,  Russian interference, and voter suppression have been written about elsewhere.

On Friday and Saturday, we witnessed millions of people demonstrating and marching in solidarity in the Festival of Resistance and  Women’s March. This type of action is important to democracy. The voices of the people must be heard. If not through the electoral process, then in the streets. Yet, we have a growing movement to silence voices of the people (especially those in opposition to the police and government).  Over the last several years, we have seen propaganda that frames political protests and demonstrations as riots. The media and government consistently frame Black Lives Matter and No Dakota Access Pipeline (#noDAPL) protests as riots. This serves to silence opposition and spark fear in citizens.

We are witnessing bills being introduced (and thankfully some defeated) that threaten protections and criminalize protests and acts of civil disobedience.

We are also reading about the censoring of federal agencies. The Environmental Protection Agency and Depts. of Agriculture and Interior have reportedly been told to cease communication with the public including the use of social media.

So, we have an Administration that refuses to acknowledge that it doesn’t have the support of a majority of voters and ruling through Executive Order and memoranda with law makers who are actively trying to silence and criminalize the voices of the people.






First Impressions

We are on the fourth day of the Trump Administration.

On Friday, hours after being sworn in, Trump suspended the interest rate reduction on FHA loans and signed his first Executive Order to assist in the repeal of the Affordable Care Act (aka ACA or Obamacare). These actions got me thinking about other Presidents and their first actions in office. I looked back through the records of The American Presidency Project to view the first Executive Orders. In just looking at Executive Orders from Eisenhower to Trump, some were in immediate response to a contemporary crisis—Johnson, Ford, Carter, Reagan —others were expansions or streamline of government—Eisenhower, Nixon, and G.W. Bush—still others were concerned with ethics and transparency—G.H.W. Bush, Clinton, and Obama.

Trump’s first acts threaten the health and well-being of people in the United States and beyond.  In addition to the actions above, in his first days in office, Trump and his Administration:

  • Waived federal law requiring Secretary of Defense be a civilian
  • Promoted lies about the size of his Inauguration crowd.
  • Signed first proclamation of his inaugural day at “National Day of Patriotic Devotion” this proclamation has yet to be released.
  • Removed White House web pages with Spanish language, climate change information, and LGBTQ related information.
  • Buried White House phone contact information (still available here) and replaced the Contact page with an online form with only four message type options.
  • Signed memorandum
    • Mexico City Policy (reinstating global gag rule)
    • Withdrawal of United States from the Trans Pacific Partnership
    • Federal hiring freeze except for military
  • Advanced construction on the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipeline

I don’t think any of these actions demonstrate a commitment to transferring power to the people or helping struggling families as Trump declared in his Inaugural Address. In four days, we’ve witnessed Trump’s Administration prioritize their own egos and agenda without any regard or care of the people of the United States.



Crying Wolf

The power of the investigative press—whose adherence to fact has already been severely challenged by the conspiracy-minded, lie-spinning Trump campaign—will grow weaker. –Masha Gessan

I have some deep concerns with the Trump Administration’s agenda. It is critically important that those who are in opposition and resistance remain engaged and vigilant. A strong democracy relies on a free press and educated citizenry. As such, it is imperative that we are informed and critical of media messages that serve up fear and hype.

The Hill published an article titled: “Trump Team Prepares Dramatic Cuts.” The article provides some information about Trump transition team’s outline for shrinking the government spending. It’s list some proposed cuts to the Departments of Commerce, Energy, Transportation, Justice, and State. Additionally, there is proposal for privatizing Corporation for Public Broadcasting and eliminating the National Endowment for the Arts and the Humanities.

The article then moves from reporting potentially factual information to pure speculation that spiraled into tweets, Facebook posts, and other news reports suggesting that Trump’s team was cutting funding for Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) grant programs.“The proposed cuts hew closely to a blueprint published last year by the conservative Heritage Foundation, a think tank that has helped staff the Trump transition.” Note: There was nothing in the article that actually stated that Trump’s team was going to cut VAWA programs instead the speculation was based on the Blueprint for Reform from the Heritage Foundation.

This type of reporting and the immediate reactions concern me and feed “fake news” claims. It essentially helps to empower Trump and undermines any opposition to him by creating hysteria without fact. Thus, delegitimizing   factually based calls for action and alarm. Critical consumption of media and thoughtful responses are necessary for sustained resistance to the Trump administration. Yet, we have to be careful about judgements based on little to no evidence.  We need to be good consumers of media and resist the hype being sold via the 24/7 news cycle that ultimately feeds Trump. We must be diligent and not create false alarms.

Here are some resources on critical consumption of media:

Dr. Melissa Zimdars’ False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and Satirical “News” Sources 

Fake or real? How to self-check the news and get the facts

Supporting students from a class perspective

An interesting article in today’s NY Times: Poor Students Struggle as Class Plays a Greater Role in Success  (alternatively titled as “For Poor, Leap to College Often Ends in Hard Fall”)

I write about class a lot because it’s one of the few things I feel secure in my knowledge. When we think about class in terms of college, we often think about the financial aid piece. Universities have made great progress in meeting the financial needs of low-income student, but there are still nuances about growing up poor that are forgotten. It’s beyond the ability to pay for college. This article does a good job discussing the complex socio-economic influences in our lives. There is this cultural difference that exists between classes which people often forget or deny. As academics, it’s important that we are aware of these differences and able to support students coming from low-income families.

From the article: Annette Lareau, a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that the affluent also enjoy an advocacy edge: parents are quicker to intervene when their children need help, while low-income families often feel intimidated and defer to school officials, a problem that would trail Melissa and Angelica in their journey through college.

“Middle-class students get the sense the institution will respond to them,” Professor Lareau said. “Working-class and poor students don’t experience that. It makes them more vulnerable.”

This is a critical statement in understanding the experiences and needs of many students who come from low-income families. I’m sure there are many reasons students may not ask for help. For me, I often didn’t know what kind of help existed or that it was ok to ask for help. There was also overwhelming feelings of shame in needing help or the idea of being a bother.

I don’t know what the solution is or how to ease the transition to college, but I think it’s something we need to keep thinking and talking about. A start might be to move away from this idea of “first generation college student” to actually acknowledging class differences. There are many older academics who are “first generation college students” but mostly like from middle class families. Especially any of those academics who graduated college prior to the 1990s. If you are 60 years old and a first generation college student, you probably come from a middle class background. The poor kids went to Vietnam. So, your experiences as a first generation college student are probably quite different than your students. Trying to identify with them in those terms misses the point. As a person who comes from anti-oppressive practice point of view,  I intentionally discuss class in the same ways I intentionally discuss race, gender, and sexual orientation. I hope this serves several purposes. First, to highlight some of the nuances of class that middle or upper middle class people may not get. Second, to indirectly share with students who may be from low income families that I may be someone who understands their struggle. Finally, I hope it gets people talking about class in the ways that we talk about other experiences of oppression within the context of academic experiences and successes.

Poverty Tourism

I read this article the other day over at Mother Jones. It’s one person’s tale of working as a picker in a warehouse. She spend five days as a picker and writes an expose on the working conditions in the warehouse. I’ll say this once:  I am an advocate for human rights which includes labor issues.  But I have several issues with this article and this type of journalism. It’s a form of “poverty tourism” where middle class people tour the working class to gain insight and experiences that they believe will make them more enlightened.

This article is the epitome of the disconnect between middle class intellectuals and those of the other classes. I cannot speak from an upper class perspective, but I can speak from the working class. There is all this knowledge being created in the middle classes that creates the narrative of “good” and “bad.” This group gets to expound upon the horrors created by the upper classes onto those in the working classes while the middle class intellectuals sit by virtually blameless. Yet, they are the ones writing the article, selling books, and giving speeches on the classism they perpetuate and benefit from.

The disconnect between middle class is apparent from the outset. A middle class woman knowingly takes a job she doesn’t need in order to get a profitable experience. With unemployment at 8% or more, it’s shameful to take a weeks worth of wages from a person who needs them, but she and her editors did not even discuss the privilege or ethics of her taking this job.

Furthermore, her ability to obtain a genuine experience of the working conditions is questionable. There is a difference in the effects of manual labor on a person’s body. A person who has been working manual labor for many years may have less trouble adjusting to the working conditions than a writer. This is not to argue that the  quotas and speed requirements are not troublesome, but the rawness of her pain may be exaggerated by her lack of current experience in the working class.

But this is all part of the disconnect between the middle class and working class. It is even apparent in the title “I was a warehouse wage slave.”  The American middle class values the hierachary created by capitalism. Such phrases reinforce the middle class belief of what kind of work is “valued” and “fulfilling.” Read warehouse work is wage slavery and writing for Mother Jones is not.  My mother, who is in her 60s, has been a waitress nearly her entire adult working life. She averages about 60 hours a week. Two year ago was diagnosed and treated for breast cancer  During her chemo treatment, she cut down to 35 hours a week. She could have cut back more if she wanted to, but the fact is that she didn’t want to cut back–not because she needed the money–but she because she needed the activity and socialization. She finds value in her work in terms of how good of a waitress she is and the friendships she has made through the restaurant. Articles such as this, discounts the value that working class people may find in their jobs. The writer further dehumanizes working class people when she refers to them as “drones” because people are defined by their work which couldn’t possibly have meaning or value.

Ever since Upton Sinclair wrote the “Jungle” we have seen muckraking journalist trying to bring the plight of the working class to the middle to upper middle classes. My question is this: Is anyone really surprised by the working conditions? Do we as a society really believe that we can get our products cheap and fast without some kind of violation of human rights? We need to move beyond this type of expose and start thinking, talking, and writing about–not just what do we need to give up and what are we willing to give up in order to advance a human rights agenda–but how and why are we benefitting from exposing the oppression of working class people. Instead of focusing on the emotional manipulation of working conditions, we need to challenge people to think critically about capitalism, and its insatiable appetite.


I’m taking part in the Academic Writing Month challenge.

My goal for the month: Two full article drafts from my dissertation and a complete literature review for the new research project I’m working on.

Strategy: Write Mondays and Fridays. 1st article draft done by 11/10, literature review done by 11/20, and 2nd article done by 11/30.

This year’s #AcWriMo has dropped the book aspect to allow more people to get involved and ensure that tweeted content shows up in the regular #AcWri stream. Approaching the initiative as a diagnostic tool, Charlotte has set out six key rules:

• Decide on a goal that’s word, time or task based (and stretches you)

• Publicly declare said goal (this gives you a push from the start)

• Draft a strategy (planning in advance will focus you)

• Openly discuss your problems and progress

• Don’t slack off

• Declare your results at the end