Esther J. Cepeda

Let's talk

 
 

Hi everyone,

Welcome to my archive of columns published by the Washington Post Writers Group and the Chicago Sun-Times. After you've looked around please join me on Facebook where I post links to my columns as they come on-line, there's constant conversation, and you can get feedback on comments.

 CLICK HERE

Thanks! 
~Esther
 

The laptop-shooting dad: shooting the "messenger"

BY ESTHER J. CEPEDA, Washington Post Writers Group

When last I checked, Tommy Jordan's video "Facebook Parenting: For the troubled teen," where he shoots up his daughter's laptop, had been viewed 25,505,340 times on YouTube.

Jordan had previously clashed with his 15-year-old daughter about appropriate behavior on her social media networks. Then, after spending more than $100 and several hours of his time upgrading her laptop, he ran across a complaint letter she wrote and posted on her Facebook wall that put him over the edge.

The next day he filmed his video. It shows a frustrated man so disappointed by his daughter's expletive-laced digital diatribe -- on the perennial teen-angst topics of chores, schoolwork and general parental unfairness -- that he feels the best course of action is to publicly castigate her by shooting a whole clip of exploding-tip bullets into her laptop and posting it online.

Commenters on the original post and on the YouTube video have either hailed him as a parental folk hero for his "tough love" or denounced him as a clueless villain who might as well have shot up the girl's diary.

It's not great parenting to publicly shame your child or resort to symbolic violence with a real .45-caliber handgun to make a point -- Child Protective Services visited the family to ensure Hannah's safety -- but the video is a testament to the anxiety of a generation of parents. They grew up in a world so foreign from their kids' present-day reality that they are completely unprepared to deal with their children’s notions of work and play.

Let's say Jordan was 15 in the 1980s. Back then, children were expected to work -- they either did chores at home or, starting as young teens, got jobs to help the family, save, or help pay for schooling if they intended to go to college.

Since that time, society has shifted to where many middle- and upper-class families treat each of their children as 18-year get-into-college projects that begin in infancy. Countless extracurricular activities designed to both enrich and make for a great university entrance application, in addition to schoolwork, aren't expected to leave much room for low-wage work that couldn't begin to dent soaring tuition costs.

Throughout history, there have always been distractions, but nothing could possibly compare to the spectacle of entertainments that now await us 24 hours a day. Cell phone calls and texts keep people from sleeping at night, and unlimited audio and video are accessible from smartphones, electronic tablets, home gaming systems and personal computers. Through these innovations life is largely lived in the pretend privacy of public social networks, some of which are specifically designed to air sorrows and grievances.

Jordan, like everyone else, is trying to figure out how to deal with this cacophony. I don't know if he's one of the 52 percent of Americans 18 and older who report spending four to nine hours a day watching electronic devices -- whether that's watching TV, viewing video, texting or interacting on social media networks -- but he lives in a world where 12 percent of people surveyed say they spend 10 hours or more doing so.

That's the same world where law enforcement, employers and marketers all mine social-media sites for leads, background checks and positive impressions while others study such sites to determine whether they help or hurt democracy, interpersonal relationships and community bonds.

Adults don't quite know what to make of social media's impact on their own lives and fear the toll on their kids': A Poll Position survey last November found that 53 percent of Americans believe social media are harmful to the social development of young people.

It's no wonder that today's 40-and-older adults are having such a hard time navigating their families through this new world that destroying electronic devices feels like a productive way to deal with its challenges.

This will pass.

Parents Jordan's age and older will limp along, expressing their frustrations as best they can, but will soon be replaced by upcoming waves of parents who will have grown up in the digital age.

By the time today's net natives become parents, they'll be raising children whose own social and electronic habits mirror their own -- for better or worse -- in a society chock-full of sound, well-researched advice for parenting in a social media world.

Esther J. Cepeda's e-mail address is estherjcepeda(at)washpost.com

 

Copyright Washington Post Writers Group 2012

The new Lego "women"

BY ESTHER J. CEPEDA, Washington Post Writers Group

My sons are aghast at what we call the new "Lady Legos." So am I.

They think our favorite toy manufacturer's new "Friends" line of building kits aimed at girls is "stupid." My two boys don't view Legos as male toys in need of a female variety. To them, Legos are already gender-neutral.

Of course, they are biased. The most fervent evangelist of the multi-colored, interlocking building bricks in their lives -- the one who has pushed them into Lego clubs and Lego-building classes, and arranges family outings to the local Lego museum -- is a woman. Me.

My problem with the new "Friends" Legos is that they are specifically designed to more-closely resemble the rest of the pink, girly, personal-appearance-driven claptrap already cluttering department stores' girl toy aisles.

When the new building sets were first announced in December, they inspired angry reactions from offended women. Well before the toys hit stores last month, a change.org women's rights petition called "Tell LEGO to stop selling out girls!” received more than 52,000 signatures.

I just recently got a chance to inspect the new Legos, and it's pretty clear why they'd hit such a nerve.

The seven "Friends" sets I found are designed for 5- to 12-year-olds, and range from a scant 43 bricks to a small 183-piece set. But though you'd never let a toddler play with something with such tiny pieces, they look like something only a 3- or 4-year-old would find interesting, setting aside the complexity of assembling it, that is.

The sets feature female figures completely unlike regular Lego "minifigs" -- lest anyone be confused about their gender, the "ladyfigs" have long, shapely hair to go with their curvy busts, arms and legs.

These Lego women spend their time lounging by the pool -- with a fruity Lego tropical drink -- or singing on a glamorous stage. Some assemble cakes in an outdoor bakery, put big pink bows on puppies at the dog show, or wash their fancy convertible cars.

If you're the sort of woman who feels nauseated anytime the "sugar and spice and everything nice" version of womanhood is served on a platter to young children, these Legos will make you despise our society's lovingly held caricatures of femininity even more.

But I fear that not enough of us grimace at the constant barrage of princess fantasy gear, preschooler manicure/pedicure kits, and lipstick and other makeup products for girls under 12.

Lego, a privately held company, can't be hammered too hard for taking a sure route to increased profitability through the hearts and purses of the millions of American grandmothers and moms who live to see their little girls swathed in pink and lilac and playing make-believe mommy, celebrity or pastry chef.

This could turn out to be the exact reason why the "Friends" line may not be the worst way in the world to get more girls to use their left brains and engage in the engineering skills necessary to create Lego masterpieces.

Legos started out as building toys designed to appeal to both sexes, but in the late 1980s the company began a testosterone-fueled appeal to boys via its wildly successful "Zach, the Lego Maniac" marketing campaign.

Look on the shelves today and you'll see boy-friendly ninja, "Star Wars" and "Pirates of the Caribbean" sets dominating most stores' selection, and they're sitting among the toy swords, action figures and remote-controlled cars. Who could blame a generation of women and their mothers for never considering a Lego play set for their little girl?

If the smiling bunnies, lipsticked dolls and beauty accessories invite a whole new crowd of women to make building with interlocking blocks appealing, then it may not be too far a leap for those same consumers to walk to the next aisle and embrace the rest of Lego's general interest products such as medieval market villages and castles, "Toy Story 3," "Harry Potter" and architecture-themed sets.

And let's not forget that some girls will love building airplanes, race cars, imperial flagships and undersea explorers as much as boys do.

However, until that sophisticated level of marketing strategy is taken advantage of by a company that surely didn't mean to insult the very people they'd hoped to appeal to, Lego should consider that girls can also dream about being astronauts, ninjas and superheroes.

Esther J. Cepeda's e-mail address is estherjcepeda(at)washpost.com

 

Copyright Washington Post Writers Group 2012

It's official: Fear of Muslim-Americans is overblown

BY ESTHER J. CEPEDA, Washington Post Writers Group

It seems that every week, some really important news fails to get enough headlines. A story that crept by amid last week’s bloated political coverage was a study that showed how few Muslim Americans are involved in terrorist activities.

“Muslim-American Terrorism in the Decade Since 9/11” was released last Wednesday by the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security, a consortium of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Duke University and RTI International. It found that attempts at terrorism by Muslim-Americans were down for the second year in a row. Twenty Muslim-Americans were arrested for terrorist crimes in 2011 -- only one was accused of executing an actual terrorist attack -- down from 26 in 2010 and 49 in 2009.

The author of the study, Charles Kurzman, a professor of sociology at UNC, wrote that “Muslim-American terrorism continued to be a minuscule threat to public safety last year. None of America’s 14,000 murders in 2011 were due to Islamic extremism."

While the 20 white, African-American and Arab Muslim-Americans arrested for terrorism-related crimes are obviously 20 too many, the number is significantly low considering that there are about 3 million Muslims in America.

According to the consortium, 193 Muslim Americans have been arrested or convicted of violent terrorism offenses since 9/11 -- a number completely out of sync with the fears of the extremely vocal minority who believe that Muslim Americans hate America.

Of course to those of us paying attention, these statistics aren't any real surprise: Studies come out all the time showing that America's Muslim community is peacefully adopting our cultural norms like every other immigrant group in this country's history.

Last September, the Pew Research Center's survey on Muslim attitudes found that despite constant targeting by government anti-terrorism programs -- some of which act on outsize suspicions about Muslims, such as those in an ultra-slanted film that the New York City Police Department was using in training until recently -- Muslim Americans are not angry or alienated.

The majority have an unfavorable view of al-Qaeda, decry all violence in the name of their religion, rate their communities as excellent places to live and increasingly believe U.S. anti-terrorism policies are "sincere."

A month before that, a Gallup poll found that the Muslim-American community is more enthused and optimistic about its country than any other religious group -- and without question Muslims are loyal to America.

Some, of course, will never be swayed. A Florida fundamentalist Christian group got Lowe’s to dump its sponsorship of the reality-TV show "All-American Muslim" because it felt the show is "propaganda that riskily hides the Islamic agenda's clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values."

But the facts speak for themselves. “Those who predicted an inevitable, rapid increase of homegrown violent extremism among Muslim Americans were wrong,” said David Schanzer, director of the center and professor of public policy at Duke University.

As Kurzman noted, “The challenge is for Americans to be vigilant about potential violence while keeping these threats in perspective.”

It's a challenge indeed, but the fearful among us can check yet another stereotype off their list. Muslim Americans are no more likely to harm us than any other Americans.

Esther J. Cepeda's e-mail address is estherjcepeda(at)washpost.com

 

Copyright Washington Post Writers Group 2012

Leaders buckling under the "wisdom of the crowds"

BY ESTHER J. CEPEDA, Chicago Sun-Times Columnist

So much has been made of “the wisdom of crowds” — a term coined by James Surowiecki to describe how large groups of people can be better at solving problems and coming to wise decisions than the elite few — that I fear the wisdom of people in charge is fast becoming meaningless.

Take, for instance, the flap over the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation announcing that it would no longer fund breast cancer screenings at controversial Planned Parenthood.

From an organizational governance standpoint, it made sense for Karen Handel, Komen’s senior vice president for policy, to take up a suggestion — one that had been in the works before she took the post — to avoid harm to the foundation’s brand. Headline-grabbing protests at Komen fund-raising events by those who oppose Planned Parenthood’s abortion services were a mounting concern.

Handel and Komen’s executive leaders decided that disassociating themselves from Planned Parenthood was vital in order to maintain their ability to continue the foundation’s mission of curing and eradicating breast cancer.

“The crowd” — which is to say those who were enraged by this turn of events and rose up in a fury of social media — pressured Komen into reversing its decision. Before you knew it, Handel was out, the foundation had been rocked to its core, and though Planned Parenthood’s funding has been restored, it’s unclear how the foundation can move forward with pro-choice and anti-abortion supporters disappointed.

Add that to the pile of contentious issues decided by crowds.

In 2010, the Gap clothing chain felt no other option than to revert to its decades-old logo after those who despised the new one took to Facebook, Twitter and blogs to complain. SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act, was recently torpedoed by social media outcry, and the Obama administration’s much-criticized decision to require Catholic universities and charities to offer women birth control free of charge got an official White House backpedaling.

There’s nothing wrong with giving the customer what he or she wants. Nor with leaders of an organization being responsive to stakeholders. But there’s a problem when the crowd has such an outsized effect that even the possibility of its social media wrath drives leaders’ decisions.

You have to wonder if that’s what happened with Susana Mendoza and Stickergate.

Despite lacking any hard evidence that the special-needs student who designed the city sticker had any intention of including vaguely gang-related images, Mendoza yanked it over fears that it could be “misconstrued.”

It’s easy to imagine Mendoza fearing that the sticker would become such a huge problem that it was better to put an end to it before someone from “the crowd” called for her to step down. I guess she wasn’t worried about enraging the crowd of 18,000 Chicagoans who voted for the design.

Our appointed and elected leaders live in a society where individuals expect organizations to treat them like Burger King — “Your way, right away, now” — and to bow to their demands via electronic “vote.”

Not only are they in danger of becoming slaves to “the crowd’s” reaction, but of routinely acting in anticipation of them — making them nothing more than figureheads reliant on correctly forecasting change.org petitions, public opinion polls, and tweets-per-minute to make tough decisions.

You might hate that idea or love it. Meanwhile, the very notion of what leadership entails is being turned on its head — and our “leaders” are at risk of following “the crowd” off a cliff.

 

 

 

 

 

Adults: get those braces you always wanted, it's worth it

BY ESTHER J. CEPEDA, Washington Post Writers Group

This column is for all the crooked-toothed adults out there: Tell me if you can relate to this story. 

When I was a child, I dreamed of getting braces. 

As my more-affluent school mates started getting them, my own request was denied because the cost put them out of my family's reach. My fate was to cry about my terribly crooked teeth -- a lot. 

When I was about 10, I devised a plan to spend 10 minutes every day trying to rotate my front teeth into a normal, flat-front position by pressuring them with my thumbs and forefingers. That didn't work -- and neither did my brilliant scheme to use unbent paper clips to force my pearly whites into line. 

Throughout my young adult life I suffered years of embarrassing school portraits, was compared to chipmunks and other rodents -- even by loved ones and friends -- and was once referred to as "the girl who makes McDonald's arches with every bite." In college I noticed that my friends tended to set me up on dates with similarly crooked-teethed guys, as if we belonged together solely based on our parents' inability to pay for heavy dental metal. 

Then one fine day -- long after I'd gotten married, had kids and left any self-esteem issues far behind -- my dentist told me that if I didn't have four of my teeth pulled and get braces, I was in for a lifetime of painful mouth problems. 

Getting braces as a 31-year-old was the longest, most painful and awkward ordeal I've ever endured. For an entire year and half, I could barely eat, and every time I opened my mouth people were shocked and full of questions -- a grown woman with braces?! Why? 

Today, just six years later, I would not be such an exception. 

I just about fell off my chair last week when I learned that the American Association of Orthodontists is launching its first-ever marketing campaign aimed at prospective adult patients -- to add to the skyrocketing numbers of adults who are doing now what they couldn't as kids. 

According to the association, the number of Americans 18 and older who are getting braces or other teeth-straightening treatments more than doubled from 1994 to 2010 to 1.1 million annually. Adults now represent one in five orthodontic patients. 

I'm proud to say I was the first in my family to get braces and, not long after, my older cousin got them, then my husband, too. And though the number of child patients has been increasing at a slower rate than the number of adult patients, both of my terrible-toothed children are already in treatment and I can't imagine that any of their cousins will lack straight teeth. 

Whether the change in our facial structures gave us new confidence, or others found us more attractive because of contemporary beauty standards, braces have already changed our lives for the better. 

Sure, they're expensive and rarely covered by health or dental insurance, and because teeth that have been in certain spots for decades are being forced in new directions, it hurts a lot. And there's the weirdness of having important meetings with people you want to impress over a meal. Depending on how much pain you're in, you may be unable to bite into even the softest food or, alternately, be fine to eat but have such a mess in your brackets that you fear talking and must run to the bathroom to brush and floss as soon as you're done. 

But those are mere speed bumps to a smile you'll never again want to hide away. 

It is true that it's what's on the inside that really counts. But many adults -- especially those whose families couldn't afford childhood treatment and are now trying to make it in politics, media, corporate America and just about any other situation where looks matter -- will find that having a newly straightened smile will help them in life in countless ways, just as it has others who had the benefit in adolescence. 

Yes, braces are every bit as magical as I imagined them to be as a kid. If you're an adult and always wanted them, don't hesitate to go for it -- the cost, pain and hassle are nothing compared to the joy of smiling at yourself in the mirror every day.

 

Esther J. Cepeda's e-mail address is estherjcepeda(at)washpost.com

 

 

 

Consequences of gutting the Dream Act into a military-only opportunity

BY ESTHER J. CEPEDA, Washington Post Writers Group

During one of the Republican debates in Florida, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney agreed that the only way they'd support the DREAM Act is to take out the educational component.

Coincidentally, the day after the candidates introduced the idea of a path to citizenship for hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants only if they serve in the military, Rep. David Rivera, R-Fla., submitted the Adjusted Residency for Military Service (ARMS) Act to the House.

Immigrant advocates across the country have rejected as unfair the premise that illegal immigrant youth should have no alternative other than to put their life on the line in order to gain citizenship.

What's really unfair is that such a program would not provide a legitimate pathway for a large proportion of the young immigrants who want the opportunity -- and it could have a negative impact on our armed forces.

"Rivera's bill is a cruel joke," said Margaret Stock, an Alaska-based immigration lawyer, former professor at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and supporter of the full DREAM Act. "Rivera gives them nine months to enlist and the only thing I can think of is that he doesn't know anything about the military cycle."

Stock told me that an eligible immigrant would have to be extremely lucky to meet the requirements -- maintain residence for the past five consecutive years, show intent to enlist in a branch of the U.S. Armed Forces and demonstrate "good moral conduct" -- and then actually get into the military.

"On Oct. 1, a whole bunch of slots are available, but it depends on the economy -- when it's bad, there are fewer and they fill up right away. For instance, right now there are no slots left in the Army until next October," Stock told me. "People are going to pay a ton of money to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in upfront fees and adjustment of status fees, have nine months to get enlisted and then once that time runs out and they've failed to enlist because there aren't any slots, they'll become illegal immigrants again."

Stock explained that in addition to the high demand for military openings and the expected drawdown of troops, few positions are available to noncitizens due to national security considerations.

"Potentially hundreds of thousands of people will want to try to enlist, but the jobs they'll be able to do will be low-class jobs. The numbers don't match up. The U.S. Army, let alone the Navy, Air Force or Marine Corps, don't need an unlimited supply of people without citizenship," she said.

Then there are the physical and cultural aspects to joining the military.

Stock notes that a person needs to be in excellent physical and mental condition to be accepted into the military. This brings up the question of what portion of these young people would be fit to serve -- many of them have grown up in poverty and, if they are Latino, are likelier than others to be overweight or obese and have respiratory medical conditions or emotional issues due to the stress of living in the country illegally during a time of high deportations.

And would Latino parents, with strict ideas about traditional female roles, even let their daughters try to enlist?

But most alarming is that such an opportunity -- while it might be welcome to those willing to do nearly anything for a chance at citizenship -- would fundamentally challenge the notion of the volunteer military.

"It turns the concept of an all-volunteer force on its head," said Stock. "This would be sort of a return to a draft for desperate people who don't have any other options. If you run the numbers, those paying for the privilege of joining the military will essentially be playing the lottery. It might be a funnel for a very few, very lucky people who will get to enlist, but it would create chaos and a lot of heartbreak."

A military-only DREAM Act might seem reasonable on its face, but the details sound more like a nightmarish bait-and-switch for desperate young people. It's an idea that has been considered and rejected before -- it should be left for dead once again.

========

Esther Cepeda's email address is estherjcepeda(at)washpost.com.

Copyright 2012 Washington Post Writers Group

Student disciplined for saying "I love you" in a non-English language

BY ESTHER J. CEPEDA, Washington Post Writers Group

Only in America can saying "I love you" merit a senseless punishment.

Just days after I wrote a column about the need for this country to not only ensure that all its public school students are fluent in English but also be able to communicate in other languages comes this story out of Shawano, Wis.: A 12-year-old was punished by a teacher for speaking a few non-English words in class.

Miranda Washinawatok said she was reprimanded by her Sacred Heart Catholic School homeroom teacher for "attitude issues" so egregious that the seventh-grader was benched from playing in her school's basketball game that evening.

Washinawatok, a bilingual student who speaks her family's native Menominee language, said the words "posoh" and "Ketapanen" which mean, respectively, "Hello" and "I love you" to two of her classmates.

According to news reports, Miranda's mother, Tanaes Washinawatok, said the teacher responded by slamming her hands down on the desk and stating, "You are not to be speaking like that. How do I know you're not saying something bad?"

That's really what it always comes down to when we're discussing the overly emotional topic of language, doesn't it? When monolingual people hear others speaking a different language, they tend to feel uncomfortable, like maybe they are being spoken of unkindly.

I get that -- no one wants to feel awkward, but monolingual Americans need to get over the fear that people who speak languages other than English are somehow saying something bad.

It's beyond ridiculous that in a school that is 60 percent Native American, and situated about six miles from the Menominee Indian Tribe Reservation, a student got punished not for disturbing class or ignoring an instructor, but for teaching a fellow pupil how to say a few words in a different language.

This -- in addition to the vitriolic emails I was flooded with after suggesting that foreign languages and bilinguality have important roles to play in enriching American culture -- illustrates how sadly unprepared some people are to accept our rapidly diversifying country and the realities of globalization.

Yet, it's almost understandable when people who don't have positive relationships with those who speak other languages feel this way. It is a disgrace, however, that professional staff at a largely Native American-populated school have so little regard for their own students' culture.

Sure, the school sent home a letter of apology for allowing a "perception" of cultural discrimination to exist, but it insisted that the disciplinary incident "was not the result of any discriminatory action or attitude and did not happen as a negative reaction to the cultural heritage of any of our students."

A "cultural awareness program" may be instituted for staff and students, which is fine. But the lesson is clear: Our young people have no issues with happily coexisting in our melting pot of multi-languages and multi-cultures. It's the so-called adults who need to come to grips with reality.

========

Esther Cepeda's email address is estherjcepeda(at)washpost.com.

Copyright 2012 Washington Post Writers Group

Raising high school dropout age is not shown to help

BY ESTHER J. CEPEDA, Chicago Sun-Times Columnist

In a perfect world, raising the dropout age to 18 in Chicago and elsewhere would miraculously make kids planning a run for the schoolhouse exit stay and go on to graduate.

Unfortunately, though keeping students in school as long as possible sounds like a good idea — so much so that President Obama suggested it in his State of the Union address and Gov. Pat Quinn jumped on the bandwagon by including it in his own “state of the state” address — there is little evidence to suggest it’s a successful strategy for blunting dropout rates.

In a 2009 study titled “Raise the Age, Lower the Dropout Rate? Considerations for Policymakers” by the Rennie Center for Education Research and Policy, researchers looked at whether Massachusetts succeeded in lowering dropout rates by raising the compulsory school attendance age to 18.It did not.

After analyzing other states’ policies and the various academic pro-con arguments for raising the compulsory age of school attendance to 18, the Rennie Center concluded, “There is no credible empirical evidence to support this policy alone as an effective strategy to combat the dropout crisis.”

The study also said that believing age increases will work today simply because they did in the past fails to recognize that the world has changed.

“The research suggests that these laws had an impact on high school students in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s when the circumstance behind the decision to drop out were likely quite different than they are today,” the report says. “In addition, the findings themselves suggest that the impact of the laws requiring students to stay in school until they are 18 has decreased over time.”

It is a fact that today an undergraduate degree is the bare minimum requirement to get a foot in the door to interview for a decent-paying job. In today’s market it seems almost unimaginable that anyone would be able to subsist, much less thrive, without a high school diploma.

But just as there limits to the impact of a longer school day or the latest educational technologies, a high minimum age to stay in school isn’t a silver bullet.

There are many reasons students drop out of high school. “The Silent Epidemic: Perspectives of High School Dropouts,” a 2006 report commissioned by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, listed the top five. No. 1 was “classes were not interesting,” followed by “missed too many days and could not catch up,” “spent time with people not interested in school,” “had too much freedom and not enough rules in my life” and “was failing in school.”

Students like this are not only at high risk for a lifetime of underachievement, but also put other students who are trapped in classrooms with them in the difficult position of battling for teachers’ and school administrators’ very limited time and attention. Not exactly a winning formula for graduating students instead of just housing them until age 18.

The amount of outreach and intervention that would be required to address the myriad factors that contribute to those desperate students’ issues — never mind the cost — boggles the mind. Education and child-development experts don’t agree on how to change the circumstances in a young person’s life that lead to such poor outcomes.

But addressed they should be — a movement to do so will be the only thing that improves Illinois’ current 26 percent high school dropout rate. To think that an extra year of school will do that heavy lifting, as House Minority Leader Tom Cross said in reference to another Quinn proposal, is “a game of fantasy government.”

 

 

 

FAFSA, federal aid and loans application process not as scary as risks of private loans

BY ESTHER J. CEPEDA, Washington Post Writers Group

If you're not intimately familiar with the terrifying phrase "February is FAFSA time," then you don't have college-age kids. Or you're wealthy enough to be unencumbered by the gut-wrenching process of filling out the dreaded Free Application for Federal Student Aid, the gateway to federal and state student grants, work-study and loans for college.

Though students can file the FAFSA for the upcoming fall semester until June 30, February is crunch time. College-access organizations across the country are exerting their most strenuous efforts right now to encourage middle- and low-income families, just now receiving W2 and other forms in the mail, to file their income tax returns and immediately fill out the FAFSA form for priority consideration.

It is a tremendously difficult endeavor. Fear of confronting family finances head-on keeps many people from dealing with their tax matters until the very last minute. And intense anxiety about whether a family will qualify for the necessary aid to pay for that first -- or next, or last -- year of college just causes some people to shut down altogether. In fact, more and more are simply taking a dangerous pass on federal loans.

Instead, the percentage of African-American undergraduates who took out private loans to pay for college quadrupled between the 2003-04 and 2007-08 academic school years, according to "Critical Choices: How Colleges Can Help Students and Families Make Better Decisions about Private Loans." This report, released last summer by the Project on Student Debt at the Institute for College Access & Success, outlined how college financial aid offices can play a significant role in reducing their students’ reliance on private loans -- through proactive counseling to inform students of the differences between federal and alternative, more risky, private loans.

Latino undergrads -- who along with Asian and other immigrant families have traditionally shied away from borrowing because of cultural attitudes about carrying debt -- more than doubled their reliance on private loans during the same time period.

Among all races and ethnicities, the percentage of undergraduates with private loans -- used at all types of schools from community colleges to private universities and for-profit institutions -- jumped nine points, for a total of nearly 3 million borrowers and a loan volume of $17.1 billion at the end of the 2007-08 school year.

This is a huge deal.

Compared to federal loans, private student loans are one of the riskiest ways to pay for college, tantamount to using a credit card. With uncapped, variable interest rates and origination fees, they usually end up costing the neediest students -- and their co-signing families -- the most. In 2010, the Student Lending Analytics blog estimated that, based on loans made in the 2004-07 period, 360,000 to 540,000 borrowers will end up defaulting on a total of more than $5 billion in subprime private student loans that can't be discharged through bankruptcy.

Federal loans, with their fixed, lower interest rates, no pre-payment penalties and built-in mechanisms for avoiding default by taking employment status into account, are better in myriad ways. Yet students are increasingly turning to private rather than federal loans and grants. Though it seems counterintuitive, private loans promoted with a "three-minute application" and teaser rate can seem an appealing alternative to an overwhelmed or intimidated family that fears filling out the FAFSA and taking a chance with the government.

Unlike college-savvy, upper-middle-income families, those with lower incomes are the least likely to have ever heard about need-based federal or state aid programs. According to a 2010 survey by the College Board Advocacy & Policy Center, there was less awareness of the federal Pell Grant program -- funds that don't need to be repaid -- among lower-income, Latino, and less-educated parents than among other groups. Only 44 percent of Hispanics were aware of Pell Grants, compared to 81 percent of Caucasians and 82 percent of African-Americans.

Parents of all races and ethnicities, across income and educational attainment levels, feel the federal financial aid system is too complicated. For many families, the application process is too reliant on a computer and Internet connection. And immigrant families face language barriers and the fear of providing information to the government, regardless of legal status.

In a perfect world, President Obama's latest attempts to make college affordable would begin with tackling this perfect storm that leads vulnerable parents and students to make disastrous college-financing choices. Until then, parents should know that filling out the FAFSA may be painful but the alternatives are by far too costly.

 

 

Copyright 2012 Washington Post Writers Group

The need for a fluent, bilingual America

BY ESTHER J. CEPEDA, Washington Post Writers Group

Does your blood boil at the idea that a candidate for political office can be denied a spot on a ballot because of the inability to speak perfect English? Or does the boiling commence when someone suggests that elected officials don't need to be proficient in the English language to carry on the business of American government?

It is possible for both impulses to be rooted in legitimate concerns. Consider Alejandrina Cabrera, a political activist and candidate for the San Luis, Ariz., City Council.

Last week, a judge ruled that her name be struck from the ballot because she does not know enough English to do the job -- a determination made after a linguist had tested Cabrera and reported to the court that her language skills are at the “basic survival level” and not strong enough to conduct city business.

Lest you think that decision was part of some ethnically motivated coup, Cabrera herself has told reporters, in Spanish through translators, that she speaks little English but enough to get by because the border city of San Luis conducts so much of its daily business in Spanish.

Cabrera is a U.S.-born citizen who, tragically -- and like so many other U.S.-born Spanish speakers that get put into segregated Spanish-only classrooms -- graduated from an Arizona high school barely able to speak English. That and her mostly Spanish-speaking surroundings have kept her from becoming involved in government, a fundamental right of citizenship.

Many people have taken to social media networks to express outrage that Cabrera was taken off the ballot. This reaction has to do with the feeling that immigrants, and very specifically Latinos, are discriminated against in this country and language is just another test that "those in power" use to flunk Hispanics out of ever gaining any clout for themselves. It is undeniable that not speaking accent-free-English marginalizes those who have worked immeasurably to learn our complex tongue.

Well-documented studies over the past two decades have found that people who speak English with a foreign accent are perceived to be less intelligent, in general, and less professional in a workplace. Not only that, but in some instances listeners have even reported perceiving an accent where there is none because of skin color or facial features. In 2010, a University of Chicago study found that a sample of Americans who were asked to listen to statements from native and non-native English-speakers thought that statements spoken with foreign accents were less truthful.

But those who are passionate about making English the official language of the United States cannot understand why anyone would be threatened by the premise that the country be bound by a single language.

It's obvious how the politics of bilingual education and of whether official forms, ballots or other types of government services should be available in multiple languages have blunted English language acquisition in this country. We actually fight about whether the most important thing we can do for every student in the public school system is to ensure that they graduate with fluency in English.

When Republican presidential candidates discuss English-only initiatives during debates, some people imagine the dark ages when -- prior to public schools offering bilingual or other-language education to English-language learners -- children and parents were instructed to not speak to their families in their native language at home and were expected to sink-or-swim in classrooms with no assistance.

But these candidates, the vanguard of an issue that has steadily been threatening to rear its ugly head again, might find that there is middle ground to tread.

The Republican hopefuls can champion English as the official language of the country while exalting the important role that all foreign languages have in enriching American culture. They should stress not only how important it is to become fluent in English but also how vitally important it is to learn second languages and be bilingual in our global economy. This, at least, would make some of their Spanish-language campaign ads seem less hypercritical.

But ensuring that everyone in our society has the ability to speak the same language and take advantage of the opportunities this skill affords should not be a partisan issue. If we had put more effort into ensuring that every public school student had the equal chance at becoming fluent in English, Alejandrina Cabrera's voice could have been destined to lead her constituents in San Luis, and perhaps beyond.

Esther J. Cepeda's e-mail address is estherjcepeda(at)washpost.com

 

 

 

 

Disrespecting President Obama

BY ESTHER J. CEPEDA, Washington Post Writers Group

It is a stain on our nation's character when even our representatives and heroes can't suck it up and muster a modicum of respect for our president.

Last Wednesday afternoon, during what's been described as a tense conversation, cameras caught Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer poking her finger at President Obama’s face.

The controversial governor said she meant no disrespect during their animated exchange. It apparently got heated when Obama told Brewer he didn’t appreciate the way she portrayed an Oval Office meeting in her new book, in which she wrote that he was condescending to her.

"I respect the office of the president," she told reporters, though feeling condescended to implies that Brewer believes she and the president are equals. "Well, I would never have walked away from anybody having a conversation. ... It is disrespectful for me," Brewer noted defensively.

Yes, Obama should have been diplomatic enough to not walk away from someone, even an inferior, during a conversation. But although these days CEOs, and others in power, are expected to be nice and empathetic, dress down on casual Friday, and pretend they value every subordinate's opinion equally, there are hierarchies. None so important as that between the president of the United States and everyone in this country who is not.

You may be of the opinion, as I am, that President Obama hasn't lived up to the promise of Candidate Obama. Or you may be way on the other end of the spectrum and believe his leadership is damaging the country through either ineptitude or malice. But he's still our president and he deserves every ounce of respect as long as he remains so. He doesn't get it, though.

Who can forget instances of disrespect such as Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., shouting "You lie!" at the president during a speech back in 2009? Or the anger of protesters who brandished guns and wielded signs calling for "Death to Obama" at rallies. Last March, a constituent flat-out asked Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., "Who's going to shoot Obama?" during a town hall meeting.

The Monday before the Brewer incident, Boston Bruins goalie Tim Thomas refused to participate in a White House ceremony to celebrate the team's Stanley Cup championship because of his opposition to a government that "has grown out of control," though he later claimed his protest wasn't about "politics or party."

Brewer obviously doesn't understand that you cannot be respectful to your superior while irately pointing a finger in his face. And while it may be impolite, a chief has the latitude to simply walk away from an underling who has stopped communicating productively.

You can point to racism, economic frustration or unprecedented partisanship, but there is no denying that this particular president has not been given the esteem, honor or sense of worthiness that has historically been unquestioningly extended to the president of the United States.

Brewer said she "felt a little bit threatened" by the president's slight. It's obvious that too many people find it galling and down-right impossible to defer to, much less respect, our prickly, professorial president.

But until he leaves office, he deserves nothing less than everyone's very best behavior.

 

 

Esther J. Cepeda's e-mail address is estherjcepeda(at)washpost.com

 

Jodi Kantor's "The Obamas" shows First Family holding on to their true Chicago selves

BY ESTHER J. CEPEDA, Chicago Sun-Times Columnist

Much has been made about Jodi Kantor’s new book, "The Obamas," but above all the breathless headlines it has inspired, the book is a fascinating study on the isolating, constantly scrutinized nature of living in the White House in the age of 24 distinct one-hour news cycles daily, ubiquitous high-resolution picture-taking smartphones and Twitter, Facebook and blogs.

Kantor’s thoroughly reported avalanche of anecdotes — relayed through friends, aides and close observers of the first family — paints a portrait of four happy and grateful Chicagoans who nonetheless pine for home and surround themselves with what little pieces of it they can hold on to.

During a recent appearance on WTTW’s public affairs show “Chicago Tonight,” Kantor told host Phil Ponce, “I really wrote this book to answer the questions that I thought voters, and especially Chicagoans, would have going into the 2012 race. How do two pretty normal people turn themselves into president and first lady? How does a marriage become a kind of political partnership in the White House, what is the behind-the-scenes of their adjustment to White House life? Why don’t they come back more often? Do they still love us?”

The answers are all provided, and for me the big “aha!” was finally learning why the Obamas, far to the east of their Hyde Park stomping grounds, continued to socialize almost exclusively with the Nesbitts, Whitakers and Robinsons. For the past three years, I’ve been following the first family’s every move via the pooled reports journalists get from the White House press office and it has always seemed weird how much Obama’s Chicago friends were entwined in their Washington, D.C., life.

Kantor is skillful at illustrating how desperately Michelle and Barack — two very unique African-American superstars, who came from the humblest roots, powered through prestigious universities and became part of Chicago’s ultra-elite before arriving at the White House — needed their friends.

Sharing the same unique backgrounds, their closest friends keep the Obamas connected to the selves they were before moving to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. “The new president had given Nesbitt and Whitaker a special charge: they were the ones who were supposed to keep him normal while in office,” Kantor writes. “They were black men in a sea of white advisers, a midwestern businessman and a doctor among Washington regulars.” That protection sometimes added to the Obamas’ isolation, but arguably the friendships have been a precious lifeline.

The detail that Kantor devotes to outlining the distinct challenges that accompany being the first black first family never degrades into an easy fish-out-of-water story. It brings home for readers the intensity of being under pressure and in the spotlight with the added stress of being very different from predecessors.

She details the difficulties the Obamas encountered the first time they returned home after four weeks in White House — it was a big, painful trial. Not only were the Obamas mortified that they clogged up traffic and shut down their neighborhood, but for their own protection giant curtains were pulled down the side of their house, further reinforcing the feeling of total isolation.

Ultimately, "The Obamas" bears witness to what happens when someone’s dearest wishes come true: They are thankful and ecstatic but have to find ways to cope with all the parts that don’t make it into the final draft of the official fairy tale.

 

 

 

 

The diversity and forecasting power of Florida's Latino vote

BY ESTHER J. CEPEDA, Washington Post Writers Group

All eyes are on Florida because it's the first primary where Latino voters can have a significant impact on the presidential contest. Expect it to offer meaningful predictions for future elections because the Latino vote in Florida is evolving quickly.

Conventional wisdom says that Florida's Hispanic Republican vote is composed of conservative Cuban-Americans. But during a telephone briefing on the upcoming vote, Gary Segura, a professor of political science at Stanford University and co-founder of the Hispanic opinion tracker Latino Decisions, said, "The Cuban share of Florida's Latino population has declined even as the Latino population has grown. And the younger generations of Cuban-Americans are simply less Republican than their parents and grandparents."

"Cubans are only 3 percent of the Latino population nationwide,” Segura continued. “There is only one place where they matter, and that is in Florida politics. But I think that the days of Cuban exceptionalism and the days of Florida exceptionalism are waning.”

According to statistics from the Pew Hispanic Center, Hispanics make up 13.1 percent of the state's registered voters. But unlike in 2006, when a plurality of them were registered Republicans, they are now slightly more likely to be Democrats -- a trend that started in 2008. Today, more Hispanics in Florida are registered as Democrats (564,500) than as Republicans (452,600), according to Pew.

Perhaps the winds of change began blowing after the last comprehensive immigration reform bill failed in 2007 -- the time when many Hispanics believe the anti-illegal immigrant fury in this country completed its degradation into a general anti-Latino bias.

Whether that tipped the balance or not, one can no longer say that Florida's Hispanics stand outside the mainstream of popular Latino opinion on immigration simply because Cubans have favorable federal protections that ease their path to citizenship. In the nation as a whole, 59 percent of eligible Hispanic voters are Mexican and are believed to care more about "border issues."

A Univision/ABC/Latino Decisions poll released Wednesday shows that Hispanics may be on the same page: Both Latinos nationwide and those in Florida said immigration was the most important issue facing the Latino community that Congress and the president should address. A near-identical 43 percent of Hispanic Floridians felt that way compared to 46 percent of the national Hispanic sample.

According to Maria del Rosario Rodriguez, co-founder of the Florida Immigrant Coalition, who also participated in the Florida primary briefing, this change is due in no small part to rising immigrant diversity. "Cubans came in the ‘50s with another wave in the ‘80s, but, going back to Gary’s point, increasingly in terms of the political and electoral landscape, other Latinos are gaining ground in population," she said.

Indeed, the Pew Hispanic Center noted that while 32 percent of Hispanic eligible voters in Florida are Cuban, close on their heels are the 28 percent who are Puerto Rican and 9 percent who are of Mexican origin -- and they're less likely to be native-born citizens than Hispanic voters nationwide.

"In voter share, Puerto Ricans doubled in the last year and Mexicans are showing how increasingly diverse populations are coming in," Rodriguez said. "The different nuances are that Cubans and Puerto Ricans have different views on who are immigrants and who are exiles, but there is a continuum of identification around the immigrant experience and that includes 3 million immigrants and 200,000 DREAM Act eligible students."

Segura added that although Puerto Ricans don't face citizenship barriers, they are very sensitive to those who do.

So there it is -- Florida now better reflects the rest of America and is expected to diversify even further.

All that being said, the Univision/ABC/Latino Decisions poll put President Obama's approval ratings among Florida's Hispanic voters at 60 percent "somewhat" or "very" favorable. That the Republican candidates' harsh tone on immigration isn’t helping them with Latino voters goes without saying -- favorable impressions for Mitt Romney trail at 40 percent, for Newt Gingrich 33 percent, Ron Paul 26 percent and Rick Santorum 22 percent.

In other words, Florida's Hispanic Republican voters may give Romney a boost next week, but given Florida's Latino flip to the Democrats’ side -- and the state's 457,000 additional Hispanic voters who consider themselves independent of the two parties -- the numbers show that this is still anyone's race.

 

 

Esther J. Cepeda's e-mail address is estherjcepeda(at)washpost.com.

Jodi Kantor's "The Obamas" a flattering portrait of the First Lady

BY ESTHER J. CEPEDA, Washington Post Writers Group

Forget the made-up controversy about whether Jodi Kantor's new book, "The Obamas," makes the first lady come off as an "angry black woman" -- the author's meticulously reported portrayal is a love letter to the wife in chief.

What's truly alarming is how this latest look behind the White House curtains chronicles many missteps that have led to three years of crushing disappointment for the millions of voters who bought into Barack Obama's hopefulness and now hardly recognize the candidate they once so adored.

Though media sound bites focused on the book's catalog of faux pas -- Michelle and Barack Obama's reluctance to embrace White House schmoozing and politicking expectations, kerfuffles over how it would "look" if the family redecorated the White House as every one of its predecessors had done, and tsk-tsks about how often, where and with whom the family vacationed -- "The Obamas" is a fascinating study of the human toll that the isolation and public scrutiny of living in the White House takes on its inhabitants.

But the deepest insight of this book is reserved for the careful observer of the Obama administration who has spent the last three years mourning how scattered, uninspiring, and underachieving Obama's presidency has been. For all of those who have been bemoaning a disorganized staff, the lack of overarching goals, and the inability to communicate a vision, much less execute it, consider your frustrations vindicated.

Much like the portrait of administration-wide dysfunction that Ron Suskind's "Confidence Men" painted, this book provides example after painful example of opportunities lost to a general lack of presidential leadership.

Because some of the most withering observations about the widespread lack of West Wing cohesion come from the first lady, the critiques hold extra gravity. We read over and over again about her frustration that the president's club of competing right-hand men doesn't have its act together.

And though much of the book is devoted to Michelle Obama's early laments that she wasn't a meaningful partner in guiding her husband's strategy, that eventually changed and the first lady, with her far-higher approval ratings than the president himself, has become his administration's most effective ambassador. Her biggest irritation, by far, has been the fact that

the president's goals and work weren't governed by any cohesive strategy or message.
We learn that even back at the beginning of their political life, when Barack tried to sell Michelle on the idea that running for an Illinois state Senate seat would be the opportunity to redefine a politician as someone who educates voters about the choices before them, she doubted such open communication would be possible with constituents in the inherently roller-coaster-like game of politics.

Years later, the first lady sat detached from the action, watching as her husband struggled to communicate anything at all to either legislators or voters because the White House was forever responding to crises "instead of," as Kantor writes, "telling its own compelling story about the president's actions."

From early on, telling "their side" was next to impossible since the president's factional coterie of close advisers was too focused on day-to-day survival to do much long-term planning. The female staff who gathered with him to air concerns about women's working conditions in the White House were worried less about sexism than about the entire staff's inability to get anything done. "There was almost no process on anything," a former economic adviser told Kantor. Most decisions were made haphazardly by a tiny, insular, combative group.

Michelle was continually frustrated by the president and his staff's failure to adequately explain the administration's policies. She saw the opportunity to make the American people feel that Barack's agenda was also theirs slip away over and over again.

What stood out most in Kantor's portrait of the Obama White House was her observation that, in stark contrast to her gifted speech-giver husband, Michelle is a meticulous planner who believes that how you play is nearly as important as winning.

She is a well-educated, high-achieving professional in her own right who cherishes discipline, organization, long-term planning, detailed goals, impactful tactics and measurable results almost as much as she does the lofty ideals her husband stands for. It left me wondering if we put the wrong Obama in office.

 

 

 

Esther J. Cepeda's e-mail address is estherjcepeda(at)washpost.com.

Electronic textbooks: an e-disaster in the making?

BY ESTHER J. CEPEDA, Washington Post Writers Group

As the future's promise of e-textbooks hurtles toward us, let's discuss what will be needed to keep them from becoming mere electronic clutter on the virtual bookshelf.

I have about 30 textbooks lying around my house. Ranging from first-grade to post-graduate level, the oldest book is 45 years old and the newest was published in 2010.

In flipping through the assortment, the thing that strikes me most about the older books when compared to newer editions is how much larger the font sizes have gotten, plus the number of photographs and illustrations on each page.

Textbooks have been watered down to the point where even graduate-level course texts are compact, busy, image-filled and bold-text laden. Call it persistent visual distraction. Call-out boxes, sidebars and full-page supplements make for the feel of constant interruption.

Is it any wonder that students who have used such learning materials throughout their academic careers find regular books, with their vast expanses of unbroken word passages, boring?

Enter the multimedia, Web-enabled electronic textbook (coming to a school with the funds to get tablet computers into students' hands near you).

Now, it would be one thing if it were already compulsory for teacher training programs and professional development initiatives to give classroom instructors a clear understanding of how printed classroom texts are designed and how they should teach students to use them.

Instead, rare is the educator with a deep understanding of a course's textbook.

And it's even rarer for a teacher to give step-by-step textbook tours with the aim of getting students to understand how to really use them as a tool for reading about concepts in context, for conducting critical analysis, and as a reference.

Knowing this, it appears that the educational promise of electronic textbooks will require a staggering amount of costly training to implement effectively.

Scores of educators who are tech-averse, are not inclined to teach with multimedia or are committed to their long-ago perfected lesson plans would first have to be trained on how to use both the electronic hardware and the application software.

Then teachers would have to commit to teaching students how to use the technology properly as educational tools.

Under the right circumstances, tablets and electronic textbooks can turn the task of sitting still through long sessions of direct instruction and silent reading into student-driven inquiries that play to pupils' learning-style strengths.

Under the wrong circumstances, video and Web links will serve as entertaining time-wasters while search functions will make bold text -- and the skill of using a book's index -- obsolete for completing worksheets.

And in our "get technology into the classroom now, now, now" education reform environment, guess which scenario I predict will prevail once the e-gadgetry-for-improved-academic-performance cult gains traction in a majority of public schools.

 

 

It might be a pain, but I'm going gaga over the G8

BY ESTHER J. CEPEDA, Chicago Sun-Times Columnist

 

When riding the L or waiting in line for your morning cup of coffee, maybe you’ve heard some of our fine city’s residents moaning about the prospect of hosting the NATO and G-8 summits this spring.

“We don’t even have money to keep the libraries open all week, why should we have to pay millions to secure a bunch of international muckety-mucks?” goes a popular complaint.

“We’re already a global city, I don’t understand all this talk about putting the city on an ‘international stage,’ ” goes another.

I’ve heard this one over and over again: “Nothing is worth the pain that’ll be caused by the traffic and the downtown closings.”

Those are all legitimate concerns. But let me speak for the scores of quiet foreign affairs geeks who, like me, spent their childhood pajama-clad Sunday mornings watching people on political talk shows talk about these meetings of the presidents of the world’s major economies since back when they were the G-6 and then the G-7: This is awesome.

London, Tokyo, Venice, Versailles, Paris, Naples and Cologne — all glittering international jewels that have had the privilege of hosting the G-8, and now add on Chicago. When President Barack Obama announced it and the NATO summit last summer I practically hyperventilated.

Sweet home Chicago, hosting the G-8! And our town would be the only American city beside Washington to host the NATO gathering. How cool is that?

Obviously, everyone doesn’t wait by their mailbox for the most recent edition of the Economist like I do, so I’m not surprised most others aren’t as excited. And we’re all wondering how much it’s going to cost taxpayers to keep the peace, while no one has really made the case for what we get in return.“

Though we know we are an international city, we’re still up against the perception the world has about Chicago being just all about Al Capone,” said Jennifer Martinez-Roth, a spokeswoman for the Chicago G-8/NATO Host Committee. “The value from the 2,500 international journalists alone is just amazing. Calculations for the economic benefits to Pittsburgh when they hosted the G-20 was $35 million in local spending and $100 million in advertising value.”

Jerry Roper, president of the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, said, “I ran the convention and tourism bureau for 9 years, and the benefits of hosting an event like this ripple all the way out into the neighborhoods, but that story is never told.” He explained that though money would be spent near the Loop, the paychecks for countless hospitality workers hired to put on this event would be spent across the city.

“From the thousands of attendees who land at O’Hare airport to every hotel room — which are all sold out — to every time anyone has a meal in a restaurant or goes shopping, you’re looking at that hitting our tax base,” Roper said. “It’s 15 percent on hotel rooms alone, and that’s a positive for all us who live in Illinois.”

He suggests that our neighborhoods need to start now to get their piece of the action, too. “If we do this right, our ethnic neighborhoods will embrace reporters from around the world and tell the great story of how immigrants from Germany, Norway, Greece and Italy shaped Chicago,” he enthused. “The Little Village Chamber of Commerce should be reaching out to journalists from Mexico now to arrange to entertain them and help tell the story of Chicago’s Mexican-American community.”

So, will those last days in May be a major pain in the butt? Yeah, they might. But they also have the potential to be truly lucrative for all of us.

 

The Census, Mexican Mitt Romney, media and the Latino identity crisis

BY ESTHER J. CEPEDA, Washington Post Writers Group

The Latino community is finding itself in a quandary about how to reconcile a tremendously diverse collection of immigrants and multigenerational U.S.-born citizens who can fall anywhere on the socioeconomic map from dirt poor to super rich.
       

As if that weren't enough, three things have Latinos in even more of a tizzy these days: How they describe themselves to the U.S. Census Bureau, Mitt Romney's rise in the race to become the GOP presidential nominee, and a spate of Latino-centric media offerings.
       

Last week, a University of Southern California study found that 6 percent of respondents who reported Spanish or Latin American ancestry in a 2006 survey conducted by the U.S. Census answered "no" when asked if they identified themselves as Spanish, Hispanic or Latino.
       

The headlines that the news garnered, and the responses elicited from readers, ran from the sober notion that this is yet another sign of "ethnic attrition" or assimilation – aka, getting absorbed in the melting pot -- to the fear that millions of Latinos are committing the unforgivable sin of "denying their own heritage."
       

Such responses perfectly delineate the divide between those who want Hispanics to become nothing more or less than a normal part of mainstream America and those who want to ensure that the Latino community remains a distinct segment when it comes to population counts -- whether for the purpose of honoring their unique culture or to curry political favor or power. As it stands, Hispanics are folded into the three established racial groups: white, black, Asian.  
       

In this context, it's no surprise that Latino voters, usually considered a reliably Democratic base, recoiled in horror to learn that Mitt Romney has Mexican ancestry and could become -- gasp! -- the nation's first Hispanic president.
       

Yes, Romney can make a claim to America's not-quite-sure-what-to-make-of-itself Latino community because his father was born in the Mexican state of Chihuahua. At the end of the 19th century, the Romney family emigrated to Mexico in order to flee U.S. laws against polygamy, and it still has a presence there.
       

The collective Hispanic response to Romney's connection to the Aztec Empire has ranged from "But he's white!" to the ever-insulting "yeah, right -- who ever heard of a Mexican Republican?" -- an accurate reflection of the disconnect in Hispanics' view of the difference between race and ethnicity and a clear exhibition of the idea that though Latinos might hail from any of 20 separate countries and be distinct in a million different ways, no "real" Hispanic would be a -- double-gasp! -- Republican.
       

Enter the clever, anonymous, devil behind the just-launched parody Twitter account "MexicanMitt Romney."
       

MexicanMitt, decked out in mariachi attire -- and what he verified to me through Twitter iare authentic, ultra-pointy cowboy boots -- is hilarious. Cursing in broken Spanglish, bidding a ribald "adios" to Jon "Juanito" Huntsman, proudly declaring himself one of the rich "Juan percent," and generally exploiting every Mexican convention you can think of, MexicanMitt has injected some fun into Republican poll speculating.
       

At least his followers and admirers are laughing at this stereotype-spewing lampoon. That’s opposite to the way many Latinos have reacted to big-media attempts to engage them. There's been no backlash against MexicanMitt, so far, but to scan the offerings of movies and TV in the past year is to find a community disappointed that the performing arts either ignore Hispanics or inadvertently insults them.
       

In the past months there has been frustration over how Colombia was depicted in the action thriller “Colombiana” about that region's drug cartel violence, the lack of Latinos celebrated at the Kennedy Center Honors, and a TV sitcom portrayal of Puerto Ricans as natural-born drug dealers.
       

"Rob," a television show that debuted last week about a Caucasian goofball who marries into a Mexican family, made waves for both using reliable "close-knit Hispanic family" stereotypes to delight viewers and for getting Hispanics to question whether they should love or hate shows like this or "Modern Family," with its stereotypical sexy Latina mom.
       

Truthfully, no lines in the sand need to be drawn -- we can agree to disagree about our varied individual preferences and what they "mean." Latinos are diverse and complex and must accept this of our own community before we can expect others to do the same.
               

 

Esther Cepeda's email address is estherjcepeda(at)washpost.com.

(c) 2012, Washington Post Writers Group

Civil rights history: a part of us that needs telling year-round

BY ESTHER J. CEPEDA, Washington Post Writers Group

It's been 26 years since the first federal holiday observation of Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday and about time to expand the annual homage to year-round teaching of one of the most important episodes in American history.

The societal changes emerging from the civil rights movement -- roughly the period from the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision to King's death in 1968 -- are reflected in nearly every part of daily life, yet it’s a little-understood part of the historical record.

How could it be otherwise when, according to "Teaching the Movement: The State of Civil Rights Education in the United States 2011,” a report released last September by the Southern Poverty Law Center, 16 states don't require any public school instruction at all about the movement and another 19 address it only minimally?

According to this research, many states believe it’s a topic of interest only to black students, an assumption that was easy to spot on the 2010 Nation's Report Card U.S. History assessment -- shamefully, only 2 percent of 12th-graders could identify the two defining facts in the Brown case that yielded the ruling to desegregate public schools.

"When we looked at data, we saw that virtually in every state that teaches about civil rights, it starts in kindergarten or first grade and begins in the same way: as a unit on national holidays. It's introduced very early and gets repeated and repeated every year, sometimes getting expanded into Black History Month, but never going beyond that," said Maureen Costello, the director of Teaching Tolerance, the project of the Southern Poverty Law Center which surveyed all 50 states and the District of Columbia on their civil rights movement instruction.

"Teaching the civil rights movement in an episodic, 'heroes and holidays,' out-of-context manner is not authentic in a lot of ways. But states are fearful about including it in the regular history curriculum because they don't require strong history standards and because everybody's most concerned with being career and college ready, which means emphasizing reading and math."

No one would argue against those goals receiving the bulk of schools’ attention. But if the aim of a well-rounded public school education is to create informed citizens ready to participate in our democracy, it should be possible to integrate the lessons of the civil rights movement -- the thousands of individual acts of courage, exercising freedoms of speech and assembly, how laws are fought for and enforced -- into reading, literature and social studies classes.

In a country where we still live very racially aware lives and the promise of equal opportunity under the law continues to be elusive for many, every public school student deserves to understand this chapter of history as well as they understand the American Revolution and the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

For that, the civil rights movement must be a constant, cross-curricular facet of K-12 public education and not a mere February mention. After all, as Costello so beautifully put it: All black history, all civil rights history, is American history.

Esther J. Cepeda's e-mail address is estherjcepeda(at)washpost.com

 

 

 

Chicago Executive's Club Economic Outlook for 2012 forecasts politics, politics, politics

BY ESTHER J. CEPEDA, Chicago Sun-Times columnist

The only question on everyone’s lips these days is “will the economy — employment levels, home values, wage increases — fully recover soon?”

According to the yearly gathering of brilliant economic minds at the Executives’ Club of Chicago Annual Economic Outlook luncheon, the answer is “not in 2012.”

Held the day after the first anniversary of Illinois’ 67 percent income tax increase and 50 percent increase in the state corporate tax — and just days after the state’s credit rating was downgraded by Moody’s to the detestable spot of lowest state in the country — the atmosphere was as glum as I’ve ever seen it.

The distinguished panelists, with our own Terry Savage as moderator, described the coming year as hinging on two things: the health of the European Union and our presidential election.

The three experts — Diane Swonk, cheif economist at Mesirow Financial, Dennis Gartman, editor of the Gartman Letter, and the hyperkinetic Robert Froehlich, chief investment strategist at the Hartford Financial Services Group — mostly agreed that the eurozone will keep limping along without a breakup or a major recession.

But it’s the upcoming election that keeps them up at night.

The ever-plain-spoken Swonk put it this way: “Our biggest problem is that we’re suffering from political impotence.” Aside from jobs growth numbers that came from unsustainable low-income jobs like couriers and messengers, and a Christmas shopping season hype that far exceeded the sales reality, she told the crowd that politics is the country’s worst problem.

“We have tax cuts ready to expire and they cause distortions and uncertainty because no one knows what will expire when and what the tax code will be moving forward, the super committee failed and we’re looking at 1.2 trillion in automatic cuts and the rating agencies are ready to downgrade us,” Swonk said.

Even usually optimistic Froehlich wasn’t as sunny this year. Onto the pile of bad news he threw a housing market that won’t start healing for decades, continued high unemployment resulting from baby boomers who can’t afford to retire, and companies that will continue to overwork existing employees. His outlook, too, revolved around politics.

“The Democrats drew the short straw this election cycle; it’s the worst anti-incumbent mood in years and there’s nothing more divisive in this country right now than healthcare,” Froehlich said. “Unless the Supreme Court finds the mandate unconstitutional in June, if the Republicans can take the White House — or even just the Senate — they’ll throw out healthcare reform.” This, he said, would at least lead to a healthcare sector boom.

Gartman predicted that very little will happen until our political contests are settled at the end of the year. “I don’t think anybody can have any idea [what’s going to happen economically] until the Republican candidate, then the winner of presidency, and the [parties controlling] the Senate and the House are known. Anything that does happen will be relatively small.”

Swonk hoped that the lame duck congress will have time to put together a reasonable debt reduction plan, but she said, “The election in November is not likely to change the course of political decision-making in Washington unless everyone is willing to put individual agendas aside and do what democracy demands: legislate and be willing to make decisions.”

Ugh! If the last four years are any indicator, there’s little chance of that.

What a depressing set of predictions for 2012: We’re barely through the middle of January, some of us are already tired of the day-to-day election news coverage, and the year’s already a wash.

 

 

 

Education's help-seeking gap

BY ESTHER J. CEPEDA, Washington Post Writers Group

"Ask and ye shall receive" has become our mantra in a society where for many of us, asking for what we want or need is second nature. 
       

Yet for those who have been drilled with the comforting adage "there's no such thing as a stupid question," the results of a recent study by Jessica McCrory Calarco, a sociologist from the University of Pennsylvania, will no doubt be a surprise: Our nation's low-income public school students don't know how to ask for help. 
       

Based on long-term observations of third- through fifth-grade students in one socioeconomically diverse public elementary school, the study, published in the December 2011 edition of the American Sociological Review, found that middle-class students ask their teachers for help more often and more assertively than do working-class students and, in doing so, receive more support and assistance from teachers. 
       

Middle-class children were also much more proactive and assertive in approaching teachers with questions and request s, sometimes interrupting the class. Working-class children rarely sought assistance, and often only as a last resort or in more understated ways, hanging back from a group or sitting quietly with their hands raised.   
       

The author found that unlike working-class parents, middle-class parents explicitly encouraged their children to feel comfortable asking their teachers for help and taught them the language and strategies to use in getting support. In other words, each set of parents passed their own aid-seeking skills on to their children. 
       

When I ran across a story about the study, I was amused that this was news to anyone -- probably because I had spent my professional teaching experience with low-income and minority students. Compared to the wealthier students who start to curry favor in lower grades and grow up to be grade-grubbers in high school, the majority of my low-income students had to have student-teacher interactions dragged out of them. 
       

Unfortunately, not knowing this crucial difference in student assertiveness allows educators, policymakers, and well-meaning observers who don't regularly interact with working-class people to rely on their own beliefs about how engaged and motivated students act. They then never fully understand what our current and next generations of diverse students need to succeed. 
       

Recently Gene Marks, a Forbes magazine contributor, wrote a widely condemned column called "If I were a poor black kid" -- listing free Internet-based learning tools and minority scholarship opportunities he would take advantage of if he lived in poverty. 
       

His theory was that with hard work, free tools and opportunities designed for disadvantaged students, even the very poor can lift themselves up by their bootstraps. Marks didn't recognize that low-income youth often have no idea such tools and opportunities exist and don't know how or whom to ask about them. 
       

"Privilege has this really interesting way of blinding folks to experiences different from their own, and you have to consider the impact of that on our public schools," said Christopher Emdin, a professor and director of secondary school initiatives at the Urban Science Education Center in New York.   
       

"There are lots of aspects to think about: We know that teachers don't earn as much as they should but we know that teachers are strongly middle class and in diverse and low-income schools they generally make higher salaries than that  of parents," Emdin told me. "The nature of their communication styles are just totally different -- how can we expect parents to teach kids how to engage with people who are not like them?" 
       

And this doesn't even take into account cultural differences. Like many poor white students, Hispanics and Asians grow up intimately familiar with sayings such as "children are meant to be seen and not heard." Yet Emdin noted that many classrooms, black students’ enthusiasm is dulled by instructions to sit still and be quite.   
       

Experts working to improve educational outcomes for low-income and minority students often look to curriculum and technological innovations to bridge the gaps. Perhaps the biggest advances lie in training educators to understand the different ways that low-income students must be engaged, and directly instructing those students on how to ask for help. 
               

 

 

 

Esther Cepeda's email address is estherjcepeda(at)washpost.com.

(c) 2012, Washington Post Writers Group