White Fragility Redux
By Margan Zajdowicz of LWV Pasadena
More than a year ago I wrote a review of Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility for the February 2019 issue of the [LWV Pasadena] Voter. The book is provocative for white people, and my review was frankly designed to engender thought and introspection among League members. As best I can tell, I failed. A few people thanked me for the review and indicated that they intended to read the book. Their interest was greatly appreciated but they were few in number. Not a lot of discussion or introspection ensued.
Now the world has changed. Complacency about race issues is no longer possible. Racism in America is again writ large on our National Landscape, steeped in blood, violence, tears, and death, painfully obvious and not avoidable....
I am blessed to have a close black friend of many years who spontaneously has been guiding me to resources that I might not have otherwise encountered. These have included a Netflix documentary,13th, by acclaimed black filmmaker Ava DuVernay. DuVernay, a native of Southern California and a graduate of UCLA, pulls no punches in showing us what life as a black person has been like since the Civil War. In case you thought that enslavement ended with the Thirteenth Amendment, you would be sadly mistaken. The Thirteenth Amendment provides that “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Many of us thought that slavery was over when the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified in 1865. Not so....
I am a white woman. I read White Fragility more than a year ago. I reread the book after the George Floyd murder. The book makes white people uncomfortable, and hence reviews are not all positive.... From a different perspective, Jonathan Capehart’s review of the book, from the perspective of a black man, appeared just a few days ago in The Washington Post: “Dear white people, please read White Fragility —I implore you to read it.” Capehart was moved to tears by DiAngelo’s honesty and sincerity. In contrast, Kasi Lemons, another illustrious black filmmaker (Harriet), is not quite so forgiving of us white folk: She accuses us of lacking imagination:
Tough stuff, but we deserve it because we white people have enjoyed white privilege from the day we were born. We are still enjoying it, and we didn’t earn it. So what can we do about it? I, for one, am trying valiantly to be more sensitive, more aware of my white privilege, to search my soul, acknowledging my unearned advantages. I am trying to speak up, no matter how uncomfortable, when someone should…. I deserve no kudos, and I would be remiss if I didn’t humbly thank my dear friend Shirley Bowens for her friendship and gentle guidance.
—Margan Zajdowicz, Co-editor, Book Corner
More than a year ago I wrote a review of Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility for the February 2019 issue of the [LWV Pasadena] Voter. The book is provocative for white people, and my review was frankly designed to engender thought and introspection among League members. As best I can tell, I failed. A few people thanked me for the review and indicated that they intended to read the book. Their interest was greatly appreciated but they were few in number. Not a lot of discussion or introspection ensued.
Now the world has changed. Complacency about race issues is no longer possible. Racism in America is again writ large on our National Landscape, steeped in blood, violence, tears, and death, painfully obvious and not avoidable....
I am blessed to have a close black friend of many years who spontaneously has been guiding me to resources that I might not have otherwise encountered. These have included a Netflix documentary,13th, by acclaimed black filmmaker Ava DuVernay. DuVernay, a native of Southern California and a graduate of UCLA, pulls no punches in showing us what life as a black person has been like since the Civil War. In case you thought that enslavement ended with the Thirteenth Amendment, you would be sadly mistaken. The Thirteenth Amendment provides that “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Many of us thought that slavery was over when the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified in 1865. Not so....
I am a white woman. I read White Fragility more than a year ago. I reread the book after the George Floyd murder. The book makes white people uncomfortable, and hence reviews are not all positive.... From a different perspective, Jonathan Capehart’s review of the book, from the perspective of a black man, appeared just a few days ago in The Washington Post: “Dear white people, please read White Fragility —I implore you to read it.” Capehart was moved to tears by DiAngelo’s honesty and sincerity. In contrast, Kasi Lemons, another illustrious black filmmaker (Harriet), is not quite so forgiving of us white folk: She accuses us of lacking imagination:
- Imagine being an unarmed man, three officers holding you down, one with a knee on your neck.
- Imagine that they relentlessly apply force while you plead for your life, while you call for your mother.
- Imagine them choking the life from you, checking your pulse to make sure you don’t have one, then choking you three more minutes for good measure, then waiting three more minutes before calling an ambulance.
Tough stuff, but we deserve it because we white people have enjoyed white privilege from the day we were born. We are still enjoying it, and we didn’t earn it. So what can we do about it? I, for one, am trying valiantly to be more sensitive, more aware of my white privilege, to search my soul, acknowledging my unearned advantages. I am trying to speak up, no matter how uncomfortable, when someone should…. I deserve no kudos, and I would be remiss if I didn’t humbly thank my dear friend Shirley Bowens for her friendship and gentle guidance.
—Margan Zajdowicz, Co-editor, Book Corner
Stanford students carry on the legacy of suffragists, 100 years later
To mark the centennial of the 19th Amendment, Stanford recognizes the students who are following in the footsteps of the suffragists. (Image credit: Andrew Brodhead)
Reprinted courtesy of the Stanford News Service. Article by Alex Kekauoha.
Reprinted courtesy of the Stanford News Service. Article by Alex Kekauoha.
AUGUST 20, 2020
Stanford students carry on the legacy of suffragists, 100 years later
BY ALEX KEKAUOHA
In honor of the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote in the United States, Stanford highlights some of the women students who are continuing the hard work of the suffragists who came before them.
It’s been 100 years since Congress passed the 19th Amendment, giving women the right to vote in the United States. The law was the culmination of decades of advocacy by suffragists who fought hard to expand equal voting rights.
Now, a century later, many Stanford students are building on those efforts – from organizing voting drives to leading the first Iowa caucus at Stanford to litigating gerrymandering. Here are some of the women Stanford students who are carrying on the legacy of the suffragists.
Kemi Oyewole is a second-year PhD student studying education and organizational studies at the Stanford Graduate School of Education. As a member of the social action committee of the San Francisco-Peninsula Alumnae Chapter (SFPAC) of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority Inc., she has helped organize candidate forums, conducted voter registration drives and advocated for issues important to voters, particularly those in the Black community.
...
Reflecting on the centennial of the 19th Amendment, Oyewole noted the often-overlooked history of how illiterate, immigrant and Black people were marginalized in the voting process, including by some suffragists. She said that despite the animus, Black suffragists were engaged in the democratic process, such as in the 1906 elections in Denver, where a greater percentage of Black women voted than their white counterparts.
...
“In the words of legendary voting rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer, ‘Nobody’s free until everybody’s free.’”
Emily Rong Zhang is a PhD candidate in political science and a 2016 graduate of Stanford Law School. Her research focuses on voter suppression, the protection of minority voters in the redistricting process and the enfranchisement of new voters.
Zhang has previously worked as an attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Voting Rights Project in New York, where she worked to protect citizens’ basic right to vote. She and her colleagues, for example, sued to stop Kansas from forcing people to provide birth certificates or passports to register to vote. She also helped sue the state of New York to make it change its voter registration deadline to allow more citizens to vote....
Reflecting on the anniversary of the 19th Amendment, Zhang said it reminds her of the League of Women Voters. The organization was one of her clients in numerous lawsuits filed by the ACLU.
“I loved working with the League because I love scrappy and plucky women!” she said. “In Kansas, members of the League had to go around to folks in their homes carrying a portable photocopier to help them register to vote under the law we challenged....
Jennifer Friedmann is a second-year JD candidate at Stanford Law School. This summer, she is at the Brennan Center for Justice’s Democracy Program working on policy advocacy, research and litigation initiatives in voting rights and redistricting. Her work includes projects related to vote-by-mail ballot signature verification in California and campaign finance influences in state supreme court elections.
...
Friedmann is also encouraged by a progressive vision of the Constitution, which she said is meant to adapt to the lived experience of a growing nation, and therefore can and should accommodate those it initially excluded.
“The 19th Amendment is the only part of the Constitution written by women; its 39 words created the opportunity for half the country to fully participate in civic life. And yet the political strategies employed by prominent suffragists often drew upon racial prejudices,” Friedmann said. “This context must inform our understanding of the 19th Amendment as we strive towards a more inclusive and just society.”
Ria Calcagno is a junior majoring in political science with a minor in computer science. She is co-president of the Stanford Democrats.
Calcagno is a founder of Young Americans for Democracy, a nonpartisan group facilitating civic engagement among the Bay Area’s young voters.... Calcagno also co-founded the Stanford chapter of March For Our Lives....
“Words without votes create little change,” she said. “You can work tirelessly toward a good cause, but if your work isn’t followed up with a vote, your efforts will be significantly hampered by an unsupportive government.”
Calcagno knows this first hand. She said that as a disabled and LGBTQ person, she has witnessed first-hand the impact that civic participation has on peoples’ day-to-day lives, such as when the United States Supreme Court struck down California’s Prop 8, which had limited marriage to one man and one woman, and when the Americans for Disabilities Act was signed into law.
...
Stanford students carry on the legacy of suffragists, 100 years later
BY ALEX KEKAUOHA
In honor of the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote in the United States, Stanford highlights some of the women students who are continuing the hard work of the suffragists who came before them.
It’s been 100 years since Congress passed the 19th Amendment, giving women the right to vote in the United States. The law was the culmination of decades of advocacy by suffragists who fought hard to expand equal voting rights.
Now, a century later, many Stanford students are building on those efforts – from organizing voting drives to leading the first Iowa caucus at Stanford to litigating gerrymandering. Here are some of the women Stanford students who are carrying on the legacy of the suffragists.
Kemi Oyewole is a second-year PhD student studying education and organizational studies at the Stanford Graduate School of Education. As a member of the social action committee of the San Francisco-Peninsula Alumnae Chapter (SFPAC) of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority Inc., she has helped organize candidate forums, conducted voter registration drives and advocated for issues important to voters, particularly those in the Black community.
...
Reflecting on the centennial of the 19th Amendment, Oyewole noted the often-overlooked history of how illiterate, immigrant and Black people were marginalized in the voting process, including by some suffragists. She said that despite the animus, Black suffragists were engaged in the democratic process, such as in the 1906 elections in Denver, where a greater percentage of Black women voted than their white counterparts.
...
“In the words of legendary voting rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer, ‘Nobody’s free until everybody’s free.’”
Emily Rong Zhang is a PhD candidate in political science and a 2016 graduate of Stanford Law School. Her research focuses on voter suppression, the protection of minority voters in the redistricting process and the enfranchisement of new voters.
Zhang has previously worked as an attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Voting Rights Project in New York, where she worked to protect citizens’ basic right to vote. She and her colleagues, for example, sued to stop Kansas from forcing people to provide birth certificates or passports to register to vote. She also helped sue the state of New York to make it change its voter registration deadline to allow more citizens to vote....
Reflecting on the anniversary of the 19th Amendment, Zhang said it reminds her of the League of Women Voters. The organization was one of her clients in numerous lawsuits filed by the ACLU.
“I loved working with the League because I love scrappy and plucky women!” she said. “In Kansas, members of the League had to go around to folks in their homes carrying a portable photocopier to help them register to vote under the law we challenged....
Jennifer Friedmann is a second-year JD candidate at Stanford Law School. This summer, she is at the Brennan Center for Justice’s Democracy Program working on policy advocacy, research and litigation initiatives in voting rights and redistricting. Her work includes projects related to vote-by-mail ballot signature verification in California and campaign finance influences in state supreme court elections.
...
Friedmann is also encouraged by a progressive vision of the Constitution, which she said is meant to adapt to the lived experience of a growing nation, and therefore can and should accommodate those it initially excluded.
“The 19th Amendment is the only part of the Constitution written by women; its 39 words created the opportunity for half the country to fully participate in civic life. And yet the political strategies employed by prominent suffragists often drew upon racial prejudices,” Friedmann said. “This context must inform our understanding of the 19th Amendment as we strive towards a more inclusive and just society.”
Ria Calcagno is a junior majoring in political science with a minor in computer science. She is co-president of the Stanford Democrats.
Calcagno is a founder of Young Americans for Democracy, a nonpartisan group facilitating civic engagement among the Bay Area’s young voters.... Calcagno also co-founded the Stanford chapter of March For Our Lives....
“Words without votes create little change,” she said. “You can work tirelessly toward a good cause, but if your work isn’t followed up with a vote, your efforts will be significantly hampered by an unsupportive government.”
Calcagno knows this first hand. She said that as a disabled and LGBTQ person, she has witnessed first-hand the impact that civic participation has on peoples’ day-to-day lives, such as when the United States Supreme Court struck down California’s Prop 8, which had limited marriage to one man and one woman, and when the Americans for Disabilities Act was signed into law.
...
Public Meetings
City Council
Each agenda will have information on how members of the public can participate. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube, and live on the Midpen Media Center website. Members of the public who wish to participate by computer or phone can find the instructions here.
Watch the live stream on YouTube
View the city calendar
School Board
Board meetings will be accessible to the public by internet or telephone. Meetings will be broadcast on local cable television, live-streamed on the internet, and video recorded for playback. Visit Midpen Media Center for details. Public comment opportunities will be available through the virtual meeting. Meeting access instructions are provided on the PAUSD website.
Human Relations Commission
Until further notice, meetings of the Human Relations Commission will be held by teleconference. Regular meetings are at 7:00 pm on the second Thursday of each month and are cablecast live on Government Channel 26. Each agenda will have information on how members of the public can participate. Agendas and minutes are available in the lowermost portion of the HRC webpage, To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest calling in or connecting online 15 minutes before the item you wish to speak on.
Please check the Schedule of City Meetings for exact dates, times and location.
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, issued on March 17, 2020, certain meetings of the Board of Supervisors and Board Policy Committees will be held by teleconference only. No physical location will be available for these teleconference meetings; however, members of the public will be able to participate in the meetings as noted below, and online streaming will continue as normal in the following forms:
Agenda Portal: Board of Supervisors
YouTube Channel
Live Audio Stream
For Public Comment Instructions, see this page.
Each agenda will have information on how members of the public can participate. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube, and live on the Midpen Media Center website. Members of the public who wish to participate by computer or phone can find the instructions here.
Watch the live stream on YouTube
View the city calendar
School Board
Board meetings will be accessible to the public by internet or telephone. Meetings will be broadcast on local cable television, live-streamed on the internet, and video recorded for playback. Visit Midpen Media Center for details. Public comment opportunities will be available through the virtual meeting. Meeting access instructions are provided on the PAUSD website.
Human Relations Commission
Until further notice, meetings of the Human Relations Commission will be held by teleconference. Regular meetings are at 7:00 pm on the second Thursday of each month and are cablecast live on Government Channel 26. Each agenda will have information on how members of the public can participate. Agendas and minutes are available in the lowermost portion of the HRC webpage, To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest calling in or connecting online 15 minutes before the item you wish to speak on.
Please check the Schedule of City Meetings for exact dates, times and location.
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, issued on March 17, 2020, certain meetings of the Board of Supervisors and Board Policy Committees will be held by teleconference only. No physical location will be available for these teleconference meetings; however, members of the public will be able to participate in the meetings as noted below, and online streaming will continue as normal in the following forms:
Agenda Portal: Board of Supervisors
YouTube Channel
Live Audio Stream
For Public Comment Instructions, see this page.
Study finds universal vote-by-mail doesn't provide advantage to either GOP or Democrats
BY ZACK BUDRYK - 04/16/20
Although most opposition to implementing a nationwide vote-by-mail option has come from Republican circles, such a system would not advantage either major party, according to a study from Stanford University’s Democracy and Polarization Lab.
Several states, including Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington and Utah, have mail-in voting as an option, while California gives individual counties the option to implement it. With public health experts recommending against large gatherings during the coronavirus pandemic, advocates have called for the expansion of mail-in voting.
As most states phased the system in on a county-by-county basis, researchers compared results in counties that adopted a program to those within the same state that did not. They did not measure any partisan effect.
“By comparing counties that adopt a vote-by-mail program to counties within the same state that do not adopt the program, we are able to compare the election outcomes and turnout behavior of voters who have different vote-by-mail accessibility but who have the same set of candidates on the ballot for statewide races,” they wrote.
Comparing county-level election results and public party registration data for California and Utah voters ranging from 1996 to 2018, researchers found “a truly negligible effect” on partisan turnout rates with the addition of a vote-by-mail option, with turnout slightly up across the entire voting-age population.
“Vote-by-mail causes around a 2-percentage-point increase (estimates range from 1.9 to 2.4 percentage points) in the share of the voting-age population that turns out to vote,” the study says.
Although earlier studies have had similar results, the Stanford research “permits a stronger research design than was previously possible and ... our data set runs through the 2018 midterm elections, allowing for the most up-to-date analysis available,” the authors wrote.
Opponents of voting by mail have frequently argued it would disadvantage Republicans. President Trump, one of its most vocal opponents, has said it would mean “you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again,” and Georgia House Speaker David Ralston (R) said it would be “extremely devastating to Republicans and conservatives in Georgia,” according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Although most opposition to implementing a nationwide vote-by-mail option has come from Republican circles, such a system would not advantage either major party, according to a study from Stanford University’s Democracy and Polarization Lab.
Several states, including Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington and Utah, have mail-in voting as an option, while California gives individual counties the option to implement it. With public health experts recommending against large gatherings during the coronavirus pandemic, advocates have called for the expansion of mail-in voting.
As most states phased the system in on a county-by-county basis, researchers compared results in counties that adopted a program to those within the same state that did not. They did not measure any partisan effect.
“By comparing counties that adopt a vote-by-mail program to counties within the same state that do not adopt the program, we are able to compare the election outcomes and turnout behavior of voters who have different vote-by-mail accessibility but who have the same set of candidates on the ballot for statewide races,” they wrote.
Comparing county-level election results and public party registration data for California and Utah voters ranging from 1996 to 2018, researchers found “a truly negligible effect” on partisan turnout rates with the addition of a vote-by-mail option, with turnout slightly up across the entire voting-age population.
“Vote-by-mail causes around a 2-percentage-point increase (estimates range from 1.9 to 2.4 percentage points) in the share of the voting-age population that turns out to vote,” the study says.
Although earlier studies have had similar results, the Stanford research “permits a stronger research design than was previously possible and ... our data set runs through the 2018 midterm elections, allowing for the most up-to-date analysis available,” the authors wrote.
Opponents of voting by mail have frequently argued it would disadvantage Republicans. President Trump, one of its most vocal opponents, has said it would mean “you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again,” and Georgia House Speaker David Ralston (R) said it would be “extremely devastating to Republicans and conservatives in Georgia,” according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
