The function of lines...

As I travel the highways and streets throughout the country, I have been struck by the impact that lines have on each of us as we drive.  This might seem like a rather inconsequential direction to go at this time, given all that is going on in the country and the world, but I do believe that lines also impact how we live.  We are often confronted with lines that we must join in order to gain admission, be given a test, purchase some commodity, wait your turn to be called, lines are a part of everyday living.  As an example, let us say we are in line to get into the stadium to watch a football game (pre Covid-19).  As you wait, some individuals break into the line ahead of you and this pisses you off.  Similarly, driving on a two-lane highway you come upon a solid yellow line—no passing is what we are supposed to do, but some fool comes roaring past you and darts in front of you and this pisses you off.  There are rules of the road that we had to learn to pass the driver’s test and the solid yellow line is explained therein.  There are also rules of conduct about waiting your turn as you wait in a line.  These rules are handed down by parents, schoolteachers, clergy, and others.  They are the mores that have come to balance the interaction between and amongst humans.

Lines also control our behavior, whether driving or interacting with others.  On the road people, typically, stay in their line and vehicles proceed in some semblance of an orderly fashion.  In our daily interactions with one another there are also lines that we are not to cross, just like the solid yellow line.  We are not to cheat or defraud others in some type of transaction.  To do so is to cross the line.  We are not to malign or slander another without a factual basis to support such.  To do so is to cross the line.  We are not to physically or emotionally abuse another person, be that person a spouse or child.  To do so is to cross the line.  There are various behaviors that we are not to pursue in public and to do so crosses the line.  To engage in sexual activity in public would, generally, be crossing the line and should be done in private.   Handling bodily function should also be done in private and not in public.  To do so crosses the line. 

Having lines maintains a measure of decorum and acceptance in human interactions.  Often there is an historical and/or legal basis for the line.  It is my judgment that what we are experiencing in the days since the election on November 3rd, is a continuing disregard for the historical and/or legal lines that have been passed on from generation to generation.  Prior to the election we also witnessed the accepted lines of appropriate and legally sanction behavior being broken over and over.  Administrative officials continually breaking the directives of the Hatch Act which precludes engaging in political activity while engaged in governmental business.  The Secretary of State endorsing Trump while in Israel on government business is, but one, example.  Using the White House and surrounding grounds to hold the Republican National Convention is another example of crossing the line.  In the absence of accepted lines, we would have chaos and anarchy. Gun-toting vigilantes surrounding and intimidating duly elected state officials at their homes, certainly crosses the line.  Members of white supremacists’ groups plotting to kidnap and execute duly elected governors is really, really crossing the line.

Indeed, there are multiple examples of the impact that lines have on human interaction.  In a moment of heated passion between a man and a woman, and the man continues to have his way even though he has been told to stop, he has crossed the line.  A young girl becomes pregnant and the known father refuses to accept responsibility and pay child support, he has crossed the line.  A teacher telling an elementary school child that he/she is not capable of learning and becoming a doctor has crossed the line.   At a drive-in fast-food establishment, there are alternating lines to go from placing the order to paying and picking it up.  It is expected that each driver will respect the alternation and if they do not, they have crossed the line of fairness and respect.  As we watch a football game there is a line of scrimmage and it is clearly understood that you remain on your side of the line until the ball is snapped.  There are also lines drawn as to what is acceptable physical contact in a sporting event and what contact crosses the line. 

In an orderly society there are laws, rules, ordinances, and regulations that govern behavior.  Lines are created from these actions and decisions.  A legal decision sets a precedent which is to be adhered to and to ignore a precedent is to cross that line.  An ordinance may require a restaurant to reduce its capacity by 50 percent occupancy during a public health crisis.  Failure to adhere to the ordinance crosses the line.  A high school may have a rule about what is acceptable attire to wear to school and to flaunt the rule crosses the line.  There are emission regulations which spell out the amount of carbon dioxide can be emitted from a factory smokestack.  Not to follow the regulation, crosses the line.   

As we reflect on the impact that lines have in our lives, we can measure ourselves against what is right or wrong, true or false, acceptable or unacceptable, appropriate or inappropriate.  Most of the time, an individual is aware when he/she has crossed the line.  When the police officer stops you for speeding. You know you have crossed the line as defined by the speed limit sign.  When the professor writes a note on your research paper which questions whether it was your work, you know that you crossed the line.  The lines are there, we, individually, choose whether to abide by them and/or to, selectively, choose which ones we will abide by.  A person may situationally choose to cross the acceptable line.  Speeding to get someone to the hospital in an emergency is an example.  At times of intoxication a person may jump across several lines, only to regret his/her actions later when sober.  Well, I am getting close to crossing the line of your indulgence of this blog, so let me stop.  In closing, let me extend my best wishes to each of you for a safe holiday season and a very anticipative new year.

The winner is ....

In the recent election over 74,000,000 cast their vote for the eventual and apparent victors, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.  Also, we are aware that in excess of 70,000,000 Americans cast their vote for Donald Trump and Mike Pence.  Even though the Biden/Harris ticket received over 4,000,000 more votes than their opponents, that, alone, did not assure their selection as the winners.  The bigger issue in the presidential election are the number of electoral votes ascribed to each of the states.  It is common knowledge that the magic number to win the election is 270 electoral votes and the Biden/Harris ticket exceeded this number.  As of this writing, the exact number is still uncertain as a few states have not concluded the counting of all ballots cast in their respective state.  With very few exceptions throughout the history of this country, the ticket which receives the most popular votes in a state receives the corresponding electoral votes for that state.  As we are aware, the loosing ticket in this election has been fanning the fires of discontent and expressing dismay in the outcome of the people’s choice.  Fraud by various descriptions has been alleged, but up to this point unfounded.  A myriad of lawsuits have been filed, yet none have been found to be valid.  There has not been any evidence presented to substantiate these claims. The purpose of this brief summary of the current situation is simply to provide a backdrop for further discussion.

 As noted, the electoral votes are determined by the popular vote and the legislature in each state must certify the electors which they send to the Congress.  Through the history of our nation, this has been a procedural exercise with little to no drama or problems.  There is but one exception.  In 1876 Rutherford B. Hayes was the Republican candidate and Samuel Tilden was the Democratic candidate.  In the election Tilden received 4,300,000 votes to Hayes 4,036,000 and it appeared as if Tilden had won, but controversy reared its ugly head.  There were contested electoral votes in Louisiana, South Carolina, and Florida.  To resolve the dispute, in January of 1877 Congress established an Electoral Commission.  The commission consisted of eight Republicans and seven Democrats.  The vote of the commission members was eight votes for Hayes and seven for Tilden.  The final electoral vote was 185 for Hayes to 184 for Tilden and that is how the nineteenth president of the United States was selected.  In addition to the efforts being taken by the Trump administration and his allies through the courts, there is also an attempt to influence Republican state legislatures in selective states, that Trump lost, to submit two sets of electors.  One set for the winner of the state, Biden, and one for Trump.  Congress would be the final arbitrator as was the case in 1876.  Let us hope beyond all hope that this does not occur.

 There is no acceptable evidence that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris did not win the popular vote in states that gave them the requisite electoral votes.  I have maintained for most of my adult life that the Electoral College is a vestige of a bygone era.  It did serve a purpose in the developing years of this country, but, I believe, it has served its usefulness and run its course.  To the best of my knowledge, the United States is the only country that uses this system to elect the president and vice president.  Further, at all other levels of government it is the majority vote that selects the winner.  Indeed, I am aware that small states with less population would be affected but look at the underrepresentation in the senate as an example of the power that small states wield in this legislative body.  Each state has two senators; therefore, the senators from South Dakota have as much legislative influence as the senators from New York.  Numerically, there are more of the lesser populated states than those with larger populations, but the representation in the senate is the same.  Is this equitable?  It is time to step back and, objectively, evaluate the purpose and function of the electoral college system.  To be thrust into a situation like the country went through back in 1877 would be devastating to our constitutional system of government and our representative democracy.

 A final note is the failure of the administrator of the General Services Administration, Emily Murphy, to authorize the transition to take place.  Ms. Murphy was appointed to her position by the president and obviously has some measure of allegiance to him.  A function of her position is that she must ascertain the winner of the election by signing a letter to that effect which allows for the transition between the parties to occur.  The delay in authorizing the transition has serious implications for national security, but also can impact the distribution of vaccines, once they are available, to combat the coronavirus.  In a recent opinion piece by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post, he quoted the director of the center for public policy at the University of Virginia who stated that national security transitions are complicated and dangerous.  The director goes on to state: “It’s no coincidence that the Bay of Pigs in 1961, Black Hawk Down in 1993 and the 9/11 attacks all came during the first year of presidential terms”.  I am hopeful that the president will come to realize the absolute importance and necessity of sanctioning the transition to occur in a timely and orderly fashion

The fullness of life

I started this blog about two weeks ago, then took a bit of a detour to the local medical facility where I remained for a week.  Trying to get my thoughts back so I can complete this contribution to the ongoing annals of Flying with the crow.

The reality of death is the finality of it. Whether one’s belief structure includes “life in the hereafter” or not, the reality is that the person is gone and not to return.  That is final.  What remains are the memories of a life and an awareness of accomplishments, awakenings, and milestones.  As I reflect on the past few months, there have been the deaths of three individuals that I would like to highlight.  In my judgment, each of them was a giant at a time in the history of the country when there was a critical need for such individuals to come forward.  As I have written in the past, the 1950’s and 1960’s were a time of confrontation, conflict, and tumultuous interactions between individuals supporting different agendas.   Into this morass of dissent came three individuals from the most varied backgrounds, yet with a common theme to their message—doing what needed to be done to promote humanness, dignity and respect for all people.

In July of this year, Congressman John Lewis of Georgia died from the ravages of pancreatic cancer.  Mr. Lewis was born and raised in Troy, Alabama and became involved in the Civil Rights Movement in his early 20’s.  He was a close ally with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  He was the youngest speaker at the March on Washington in 1963 and was a lead organizer and participant in the march over the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama on Bloody Sunday, March 7, 1965.  From that experience he was beaten and left with a fractured skull.  This latter event was the catalyst for the Voting Rights Bill passed by Congress and signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965.  Mr. Lewis was arrested on numerous occasions for his peaceful protests to advance the cause of equality for all.  From the time he was a young boy preaching to the chickens in the yard, the “boy from Troy”, was destined to leave his mark , not only in the civil rights movement, but throughout his efforts in Congress.  Characterized as the “Consciousness of the Congress” by politicians from both sides of the political spectrum, he never lost sight of championing the rights of all humankind.  John Lewis will be sorely missed, but there is a legacy that lives forever.

The local paper carried the headline, “Pioneering Justice dies”.  This captures the essence of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s contributions as a member of the Supreme Court of the United States.  Justice Ginsberg was truly a pioneer, especially in advancing the rights of women in this country.  Prior to being named to the court by President Bill Clinton in 1993, she had been recognized as the nation’s preeminent litigator for women’s rights.  Being the second woman named to the high court, she became the leader of the liberal bloc against an increasing conservative majority. One of her celebrated rulings led to women being allowed admission to the Virginia Military Institute—she wrote the majority opinion in the 7-1 decision.  Her interest in gender equality might well have grown out of her own experiences.  She graduated first in her law school class from Columbia, but when she applied for a clerkship with Just ice Fleix Frankfurter, she was denied because she was a woman.  The contributions made by the decisions supported by Justice Ginsberg will remain for generations to come, regardless of what might happen with the court’s composition.  Her legacy will live on.

Over the years, I have been involved with the Alabama Conference of Social Work and as we approached the 100th year of the organization’s existence, I offered to engage in an analysis of those 100 years.  The Conference had it’s beginning in 1916, thus the 100th year was 2016 and those 100 years were filled with an unbelievable amount of history, including world wars,  the great depression, a presidential assassination, a presidential resignation, and multiple movements, including the civil rights movement. In my preparations, a friend introduced me to the Rev. Robert Graetz and his wife Jean.  They came to Montgomery, Alabama in the mid 1950’s and Rev. Graetz was the pastor of Trinity Lutheran Church.  The church ministered to a black congregation and one of its members was Rosa Parks who became quite famous as a result of the Montgomery Bus Boycott.  Rev. Graetz was the only white pastor in Montgomery to support the boycott, and spent his days driving people to work, to shop and to keep appointments.  Rev. Graetz was also the only white member of the Montgomery Improvement Association which grew out of the boycott.  The boycott lasted for a year and proved to be quite successful in leading to changes in some of the local ordinances that discriminated against black citizens.  The KKK bombed the Graetz home on two occasions, put sugar in the gas tank of their car and engaged in other acts of intimidation.  Rev. Graetz was described as “a man of peace, a gentle soul, and a fierce proponent of equal justice”.  Rev. Graetz died on September 20th following a long illness.  It was my distinct pleasure to meet him and his wife and, indeed, his legacy will live on.

Often, individuals seem to be larger in death than in life, but in the case of these three individuals I would argue that their lives were quite large and the contributions they made will live on.  Life is but a vapor and each person must decide how that life is to be lived before the vapor subsides. 

The bed to lie in...

Throughout the years, we have often heard the phrase,” you’ve made your bed, now lie in it”.  I spent over 25 years teaching at the university level, thus I come from a perspective that is grounded in a degree of experiences and observations.  In my judgment, institutions of higher education are one of the most inefficient organizations that have risen to a level of dominance and prominence in our society.   Often there is rampant duplication, gross misuse of resources, a blurring of priorities, and a failure to couch the workings of the institution in a context of reality. The absence of essential productivity among faculty members and administrators has become a hallmark of these institutions. 

The misuse of resources is an area that characterizes the current higher education environment.  Where are the priorities?  In a recent edition of the local paper, The Tuscaloosa News, that included a headline about Alabama football assistant coaches being given significant salary increase.  Now this is at a time when the university is pleading with donors to financially support the university.  The Covid-19 pandemic has certainly had a toll on higher education and will, undoubtedly continue to have a toll in the foreseeable future.  It was within the past few weeks that the Athletic Director encouraged season ticket holders and members of the support group, Tice Pride, to donate what they paid for tickets and Tide Pride fees to the Athletic Department.  Obviously, this could provide some of the resources for these increases.  It is unbelievable that the Offensive Coordinator, received an increase of $850,000 bringing his salary up to a measly $2.5 million.  In the same article, it was reported that the Defensive Coordinator was given an increase of $25,000 bringing his salary to $1.225 million and the Special Teams Assistant Coach received an increase of $75,000 which brought his annual salary to $725,000.  I am aware that the football program brings in a great deal of revenue, but it does seem at times that the tail is wagging the dog in terms of priorities and resource allocation.  Is it any wonder that panic is prevalent in any discussion about the future of college football this coming fall? 

In an August 7, 2020 article in the Washington Post titled, “College sports embraced reckless greed.  With the coronavirus, the bill has come due”, Sally Jenkins has laid bare the culture that is pervasive, especially in the Power 5 Conferences (SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Pac 12, Big 12).  Stadiums have continued to be expanded, plush locker rooms are the norm, amenities such as waterfalls, miniature golf, bowling lanes are included in football complexes.  The salaries of coaches, administrators, and support staff have ballooned, and the bill is coming due.  In her article Jenkins quotes a former NCAA Investigator who stated:” Schools have spent money recklessly for years.  Now they’re in a position where if the season doesn’t go forward, they’re on the hook for millions…There has just been an extraordinary amount of spending on things that have very little resemblance to a university’s mission to educate and develop people.” 

Continuing with the discussion of resources, let me also comment about the absence of productivity.  Specifically, I am referring to the productivity of faculty members commensurate with the respective salaries that are being paid.  A few years ago, I wrote a Letter to the Editor of The Tuscaloosa News, noting that there were a dramatic number of faculty and administrators at The University of Alabama who were earning in excess of $100,000 per year.  In analyzing the data of that year, it became apparent that some of the highest salaries were being paid to faculty members in the Management and Marketing Department in the College of Commerce and Business Administration.  Several of the faculty members were young and inexperienced, fresh out of their doctoral degree program and had never managed or marketed anything other than, perhaps, themselves. There were certainly other departments in the College of Commerce and Business Administration that paid faculty members rather exorbitant salaries. The argument put forth to justify these salaries was that if Alabama did not pay it, other universities would, and therein lies a big part of the collective problem.  Higher Education as a business, is out of control.  Faculty are demanding to teach fewer classes so that an average workload might consist of 5 or 4 courses in an academic year.  This is indefensible and very costly.  On top of this blatant abuse of available resources is the exponential growth in administrative personnel and support staff within the institutions.   

The number of administrators at universities throughout the country has continued to mushroom.  As these positions continue to multiply, the fiscal resources available must be spread that much thinner.  The figures that were available as a composite array, were several years old, but they do allow for some reflective consideration.  At the University of Alabama there is an Assistant Vice President for Construction and at the time the salaries were reported, he was earning $171, 100.  There was also a Construction Project Director who was earning $113,950.  Are these positions justified—perhaps in a perfect world! Not including the Vice President for Finance there were several individuals who seemed to have raising money as a primary responsibility.  The Planed Giving Officer had an annual salary of $164,080, the Associate Vice President for Advancement’s salary was $157,500, the Assistant Vice President for Development had a salary of $155, 820, and the Director of Leadership Gifts’ annual salary was $122,700.  The average of these four salaries was $150,025.  The President of The University of Alabama had the third highest salaries among the 14 schools in the Southeastern Conference.  At the time figures could be obtain, his salary was $730,000.  I noted earlier that higher education is facing some difficult days ahead and the payment of high-level administrators could well be an essential part of the fuel that is leading to these inflated salaries.  Again, these figures are a couple of years old, but do contribute to the point being made and were included in The Chronicle of Higher Education.  Vanderbilt University had the highest presidential salary, $2,147,452, but it is a private school.  The other 13 presidents are at public institutions: Texas A&M University - $1,133,333; University of Alabama - $730,000; University of Kentucky - $687,500; University of South Carolina - $635,548; Louisiana State University - $600. 000; University of Georgia - $552,487; Auburn University - $520,776; University of Florida - $505,776; Mississippi State University - $ $446,100; University of Tennessee - $434,452; University of Mississippi - $429,000; University of Missouri - $397,833; and the University of Arkansas - $339,710.  Do keep in mind that several of the states noted are some of the poorest states in the country, but you would not know this from the salaries being paid to presidents and top administrators. 

Universities across the country are building student living quarters (dorms) that would rival four and five-star hotels.  Additionally, there is a growing phenomenon of recruiting non-residential students.  International and out-of-state students pay, in many situations, double the tuition of the instate student.  This practice enhances the coffers of the university and allows them to build more and more luxurious buildings to attract more and more students.

Indeed, the day of reckoning is at hand.  I have only alluded to the cost of tuition and more needs to be addressed on this topic; however, we do know that student debt is in excess of $1.5 Trillion.  Many students cannot make their payments due to the shrinking job market during the pandemic.  With the unemployment rate being what it is due to the Coronavirus, the possibility of these bills being paid is quite unlikely.  Yes, the universities made their bed and they will have to lie in it, as painful as that might be.

Defunding the police

With the recent deaths of several individuals at the hands of police officers, we have all been witnesses to both peaceful and violent protests to these actions.  Throughout all that has transpired, there have been calls and demands to “defund the police” or to eliminate police departments as efforts to rid our society of these blatant acts of discriminatory behavior.  This rhetoric that can be useful to excite and give a measure of solidarity to a cause, but it is not the answer that addresses the underlying issue of racial disparity in the country.  Indeed, disparities do exist as is evident by the actions of some police officers, but a potential answer lies in thoughtful and planful systemic changes.  

Now, let me make it abundantly clear, I am not advocating for the elimination of police departments nor am I undermining the actions of those who are claiming that change must occur with the police.  What I will be proposing is that there is much to be said about the “defunding” issue and that will be what I focus on with this blog.  There is a need for some entity, either governmental or private, to protect the citizens in a respectful and humane way.  In the absence of such a function, chaos would prevail, and anarchy would run rampant.  There must be a system of laws and rules and the enforcement of them so that there can be orderly interaction between and among various entities, including individuals and organizations.  In a recent article in the Washington Post, Georgetown University Law Professor, Christy Lopez stated: “be not afraid, “’Defunding the police”’ is not as scary (or even as radical) as it sounds.”  She went on to state: “We turn to the police in situations where years of experience and common sense tell is that their involvement is unnecessary, and can make things worse.  We ask police to take accident reports, respond to people who have overdosed and arrest, rather than cite, people who might have intentionally or not passed a counterfeit $20 bill.   We call police to roust homeless people from corners and doorsteps, resolve verbal squabbles between family members and strangers alike, and arrest children for behavior that once would have been handled as a school disciplinary issue.”  What Professor Lopez is stating, is that the police are asked to do many things that have nothing to do with ensuring the public safety of a community or that they are equipped to handle.

A good many years ago, when I came to join the faculty of the School of Social Work at The University of Alabama, I became involved with research and training activities with the Birmingham, Alabama Police Department.  I was encouraged to become involved by my good friend and colleague, the late Dr. Ray Sumrall.  He had been engaged in consulting with the police department in Birmingham and had written several proposals that were funded by the Federal Government.  One study focused on improving the management of the criminal investigation.  This study focused on community policing and having police officers utilize the resources in the community to deal with specific problems that others were better trained to handle.  To accomplish this reorientation to policing, we trained all the sworn officers and their supervisors over a period of several months.  The outcome was that the officers were more inclined to draw upon those resources and move on to other police-specific issues.  If resources are moved from the police department to relevant community-based resources, then this is an example of defunding certain activity that police spend their time handling.

Another approach to address defunding the police, is to consolidate and integrate specific functions of governmental departments.  It has been reported that there are around 130 jurisdictions throughout the country that have consolidated the police, fire and paramedic functions into a single Public Safety Officer position.  Once staff are trained, this can be a much more efficient use of these resources and much more cost effective.  There are several models of integrating these services and these efforts are often met with various challenges.  Not everyone who is a police office can be a fire fighter nor an EMT.  Similarly, not everyone who is a fire fighter can be a police office or have the medical interest required of an EMT.  A winnowing process would have to be recognized if there was a movement in this direction.  Parenthetically, one of the most expensive components of any jurisdiction is a full-time fire department.  There is a great deal of down time which would be filled with police and/or EMT activity.  To utilize fire personnel in this manner would not minimize the role of the firefighter when specific expertise is needed.  Others would be trained to step in.  One of the biggest hurdles of consolidation and integration are the labor unions representing these various components.  They would need to be included to any negotiations to move in this direction.

In any consideration of modifying the role of the police officer, citizen receptivity is critical.  Another study that I had the privilege to be a part of was assessing the extent to which citizens would be receptive to alternatives to their calls for service.  My specific involvement dealt with the development, implementation, and analysis of a community survey which was conducted in Birmingham, Alabama and San Jose, California.  Six criminal categories were included: burglaries (not in progress), larcenies, vehicle thefts, personal assaults, family disturbances, and environmental problems (i.e., road hazards, animal complaints, disturbances such as loud music or parties, etc.).  The individuals who were included in the survey were victims of the specific category, e.g., a person who reported a vehicle being stolen would be included in the vehicle theft category.  For each category 100 completed surveys were completed by trained interviewers who conducted the interviews by telephone.  Each of the victims had been victimized within the three-month period prior to being called by the interviewer.  Briefly, what we found was that in Birmingham and San Jose, the victims who called for service were receptive to an alternative to a police officer responding, immediately.  Further, the findings revealed that the receptivity to an alternative was category specific.  To be receptive to alternatives would allow the sworn police officers to be engaged in activity that they are trained to handle and focused, specifically on the public safety in the community.

There are ways to reconfigure the functions of a police department and that is what should be the focus of the current debate.  Eliminating choke holds as a technique for subduing a person needs to be done, but there needs to be systemic changes, not piece-meal responses.  Police officers do need to be more community oriented as they carry out their duties.  They do need to be responsive to various demographic realities of the communities.  The officers patrolling a specific community should reflect the racial and ethnic makeup of the community.  The inclusion of more police officers indigenous to the community should become normative for the community policing function.  It is my belief that individuals from the community would have an advantage in handling and diffusing potentially volatile situations.  What I have included certainly does not exhaust the discussion, but, hopefully, it is a beginning that can foster additional discussion and lead to substantive changes.