Were the activists right, about Big Tech?

 

In November 2022, Meta (formerly known as Facebook) laid off 11,000 workers and Twitter laid off 3,700.  In January 2023, Alphabet (a parent company of Google) laid off 12,000 workers and Amazon laid off 18,000.  In February 2023, PayPal laid off 2,000 workers and Zoom laid off 1,300.  That’s nearly 50,000 layoffs in Silicon Valley in a three-month time period!  The bottom line? Big Tech is down-sizing, significantly.  

However, just a few short years ago, Big Tech was rapidly expanding.  For example, in 2017, (then) Facebook and Amazon were both expanding into their second leg of development in the Belle Haven and East Palo Alto (EPA) areas.  During an ongoing discussion of the #TechTakeover and subsequent gentrification, those who opposed local activists’ perspective on the topic, wrote them off as folks who were simply, “anti-development,” when in fact, the contrary was true.  The argument that activists were making was that the development of an area should not come at the cost of displacing families and therefore, erasing historically Black and Brown communities in the process.  In other words, activists wanted, “development without displacement.”  They hoped that this mantra might help to mitigate (some of) the negative effects of gentrification (i.e. housing displacement) and give EPA a substantial chance at community preservation.  

Photo: Members of The Real Community Coalition protest in front of Amazon's proposed office building 

in EPA (March, 2017). Josie Lepe/Mercury

In 2018, I recall asking at a public community meeting whether or not Facebook had given any thought to having a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) policy, and Elliot Schrage ‘s (then Facebook’s VP of Communications and Public Policy) answer was, “We don’t have a CSR department because all departments [at Facebook] should be socially responsible.”  I thought that if Facebook created a (CSR) policy, with some level of community buy-in, that this was one actionable way to reach the ultimate goal of community preservation.  Activists and community members alike were aware that with new development came increased property values and increased displacement of long-time residents out of both, the Belle Haven and EPA areas.  Therefore, a CSR policy wouldn’t only list the ethics/values which govern a company’s expansion into our community, it would also (for example) place limits on the Tech giant’s expansion.  If not, the alternative was that we expected corporations to be socially responsible on their own and further still, to expand at whatever rate they desired (as long as they had the money to do so), regardless of the negative impacts on the community.

To contextualize the issue outside of California, in 2019, Amazon pulled out of the plan to build its headquarters in Queens, New York.  It was (estimated) to bring an influx of 25,000 employees, to the proposed location.  Worried about the possibility of gentrification and displacement given the scale of Amazon’s development plan, U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted, “Displacement isn’t community development.  Shuffling working-class people out of a community doesn’t improve their quality of life.”  This fight not to have our communities erased due to the expansion of Big Tech is not simply an EPA problem – it is a problem which similar communities are facing, nationwide. 

                    

                    Photo: Anti-Amazon protesters before a NYC Council hearing (January, 2019). Hiroko Masuike/NYT
 

Now, let’s fast forward to 2023.  As previously stated, Facebook (and Big Tech) is down-sizing, dramatically.  Perhaps this is an indicator that the activists were right (even if for different reasons) to advocate for placing limits on Big Tech’s expansion to begin with.  If we don’t limit their expansion, what happens when the company lays off thousands of their employees (as they are currently doing) and our communities are left with empty office buildings?  How many jobs were locals able to secure before these layoffs began?  It should be stated that as a result of activists pushing for The Catalyst Fund for Affordable Housing (a landmark deal between Facebook and Community Groups in December 2016) a Community Liaison was hired (Bernita Dillard) to create a pipeline so that the EPA and Belle Have communities would have access to jobs at Facebook.  During that time, how was progress being tracked? I never saw any data in the form of Public Impact Reports (i.e., December 2016 to December 2019) on the outcome of these local hiring efforts. At the time this post was written, Juan Salazar, Meta’s current Public Policy Manager, couldn’t be reached for comment.

                                    

Photo: DeAndre Forks (Summer 2020). Protestor: S. Faraji.

All in all, not only were activists right to advocate for limiting Big Tech’s expansion (so that they aren’t displaced from their community) but also in pushing for local hiring programs, so that members of that same community have an onramp to access the wealth of Silicon Valley. Without a hardwired CSR policy and metrics for accountability, what the community has been left with are a myriad of unanswered questions (due to personnel changes) and a multitude of empty-buildings, as the nature of employment has shifted, and many now work from home.  Perhaps the larger question is not whether or not the activists were right.  Perhaps it is: Are activists a necessity in any community?  As someone who is home-grown and has been covering the #TechTakeover in EPA for the past eight years, it is a resounding, YES! As demonstrated right here in our own beloved city, activists are absolutely necessary to create, implement and sustain positive social-change.

Kyra Brown

Three quick tips to solve gentrification

 I have been following the local/regional gentrification conversations for a little over 5 years and in my opinion, here are some ways to solve this complex issue in real time:

(1) DE-BUNK the myths about gentrification

 

• Myth #1: “Gentrification is inevitable.”  Reason: Because gentrification isn’t a force of nature (such as a hurricane or flood), it can't be inevitable. 

• Myth #2: “Gentrification is insignificant.”  Reason: Based on its definition alone, gentrification is quite significant.  Gentrification: “the buying and renovation of houses and stores in deteriorated urban neighborhoods by upper or middle-income families or individuals, raising property values but often displacing low-income families and small businesses” (www.dictionary.com). 

Description: At least 3+ homes in EPA exceed $2M market value. Source: Redfin website; 12/2021.

(2) DECIDE to house locals otherwise pushed out by gentrification

 

• Solution #1: Are you a renter in East Palo Alto? If you are a local who grew up in the area (pre big-tech) and you want to stay in the area, consider room-mating with other long-time residents. Hint: Use your networks.

• Solution #2: Are you a homeowner in East Palo Alto? If you are a community elder or long-time resident who owns property (pre big-tech), consider opening your home for rent to long-time residents at an affordable price. Hint: The cost to rent a room in your home should not be the same as the cost of a monthly mortgage payment.

Description: Poster designed by Austin Matthews for an Atlanta-based Gentrification TV show. Source: Instagram; 9/2021.

(3) DESIGN policies which lessen housing displacement caused by gentrification

• Solution #1: Attend city council meetings and stay informed about housing issues in the community and in the region.

• Solution #2: Advocate for policies on the ballot which keep EPA’s housing market affordable for renters and homeowners alike, especially for working-class, long-term and/or legacy residents. Maintaining access to affordable housing is one of EPA’s founding pillars.

Description: My mom, (whose been displaced from EPA) wearing Displaced Lane Clothing; 11/2018.

As the saying goes, “If you aren’t part of the solution you are part of the problem.” I believe that the same is true when it comes to the issue of gentrification.  I hope these tips give folks a starting point for solving this problem. 

Kyra Brown is a long-time resident of EPA whose maternal grandparents went to Ravenswood High School. In response to the displacement of many of her friends and family members out of EPA due to sky-rocketing rents, in 2018 she founded Displaced Lane Clothing. Her hope is that the clothing line starts conversations about housing struggles and that those conversations lead locals to create systems change, thereby preserving our community.  For updates on Kyra’s affordable housing/anti-displacement work follow her on Instagram: @displacedlane.

Happy New Year, everyone!

When BIG TECH Makes Promises Who Keeps Track?

I remember I moved back to East Palo Alto (EPA) from Washington, DC in 2015, and when the topic of gentrification came up in conversation, people often said, “Gentrification is inevitable.”  At the time, I gathered that because gentrification wasn’t a force of nature (such as a hurricane or flood), it couldn’t be inevitable.  I gathered that specific factors, even if I didn't know what all of them were, contributed to the process of gentrification overall.  Around 2017 to present, the response to the topic has shifted to, “Gentrification is insignificant.”  According to www.dictionary.com, gentrification is defined as: “the buying and renovation of houses and stores in deteriorated urban neighborhoods by upper or middle-income families or individuals, raising property values but often displacing low-income families and small businesses,” while insignificant is defined as: “too small to be important; of no consequence.”  While some still contend today that gentrification is insignificant, it is my position that based on its definition alone (gentrification), the contrary is true.

     Source: Stanford University Bob Fitch Photography Archive & www.creatingculturalcompetencies.org

For example, one of the homes that my great-grandmother owned in the Gardens, when I was a child, sold in 2004 for $660,000.  This was before Facebook HQ was located in the Belle Haven neighborhood of Menlo Park and long before Amazon was located in EPA.  Although my great-grandmother’s home was built in 1947 and she bought it much cheaper than $660,000, it is currently valued at over $1M, some 17 years later.  Moreover, for East Palo Alto to have become a city where houses are hitting the $1M mark, when it was one of the first cities in the Bay Area to enact Rent Control to ensure affordable housing for its residents – is anything but insignificant!  In my experience, the sky-rocketing cost of housing in EPA is one of the reasons the city has been and continues to become gentrified.  EPA is the home of Ravenswood High School, Nairobi Day School and Nairobi College.  EPA is the home of a former Black Panther Party Chapter (see image below).  It is a community having been redlined into existence, yet seeking to govern itself so much so that the case for Incorporation went to the Supreme Court.  Growing up, I remember hearing stories about a group of Black folks known as “The Floating Crap Game” who organized themselves and made it their mission to incorporate the city.  This begs the question: What happens to our beloved community of East Palo Alto, when the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of those who incorporated the city, can no longer afford to live here, because of gentrification?  Answering this question is a matter of colossal significance.  

                                            

                          Black Panther Party Newspaper clipping -- September 9, 1972; Source: Twitter 

While rising housing costs is one indicator that the process of gentrification is well underway, I submit that the expansion of the Tech industry is another.  To be fair, over the last few years, Big Tech has responded to the criticisms of locals and activists that its expansion has exacerbated the Bay Area’s housing crisis, therefore contributing to the gentrification of the Bay Area more broadly, and the shrinking of the Bay Area’s historically black communities, more specifically.  In 2016, Facebook, in coalition with community groups announced its investment of $20M into the Catalyst Fund for Affordable Housing.  In 2020, Google announced a $250M investment into affordable housing projects.  This begs yet another question: If Big Tech has committed to building mass housing in the region but not undergoing mass hiring of Black and Latinx people from the region, who is actually going to be around to benefit from these housing investments, in the first place?  Will there be any locals left?  This isn’t to insinuate that Facebook and/or Big Tech must fix every social problem in Silicon Valley.  However, it is to underscore that Big Tech’s expansion and subsequent gentrification/displacement of historically disenfranchised Black and Brown communities is one problem which has a ripple effect.  For this reason, our collective solutions to Silicon Valley's social problems must be as well-rounded and multifaceted as our American social fabric is complex.  In other words, there are no easy answers.

Tech companies are microcosms of larger society.  This is why I raised both issues of housing and hiring in my Open Letter to Mark Zuckerberg in 2016 (http://writetoliveblog.blogspot.com/2016/10/an-open-letter-to-mark-zuckerberg.html).  Between then and now, I have observed that (1) when (many) Tech companies hire Black people and people of color, it is often a matter of time before they are pushed out of these companies, (2) in the same ways that we are systemically pushed out of our neighborhoods via the process of gentrification -- to make room for Big Tech’s expansion (See Figure 1 and 2).  

It is my hypothesis that systemic racism is the culprit in both situations and left unaddressed, it encourages and maintains the status quo.  In other words, the tide of systemic racism (in the form of gentrification) washes away our historically Black communities and communities of color.  The tide of systemic racism, which shows up as punishing and/or firing the few Black and Brown Tech workers who speak up about their experiences with racism in the workplace, washes away even the small numbers of "diversity hires" within these companies. 

 

Serve the People San Jose & De-Bug Silicon Valley Banner Drop at Google, Summer 2018

In February 2021, MarketWatch published an article stating that Big Tech is pledging to diversify their numbers (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/facebook-twitter-bank-of-america-and-other-large-companies-pledge-to-hire-diverse-leaders-11613759174).  Yet, this is said every few years and the numbers don’t seem to have hit a tipping point.  In fact, last summer, and in the wake of George Floyd's state-sanctioned murder, Bloomberg published an article entitled, “From Apple to Facebook, Tech’s New Diversity Pledges Follow Years of Failure (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-23/apple-amazon-facebook-google-microsoft-data-on-black-hiring).”  According to the article, 3.1% of Facebook’s senior leadership is Black and 1.5% of the company’s Black employees hold technical roles.  Sheryl Sandberg insinuated that she is, “Committed to have 30% more Black people in Facebook’s leadership positions by 2025.”  As for Google, their numbers are even lower -- only 2.4% of their employees are Black.  Numbers don’t lie.  I am in the process of researching the numbers of Latinx employees in the Bay Area’s Big Tech companies across the board.  The gentrification of historically Black and Brown communities is no insignificant matter.  Nor is the relegating of Black and Brown people strictly to menial positions and seldom to senior leadership positions within these Tech companies.  We need more than pledges.  We need progress.  When Facebook and Google pledge money for housing and pledge positions for hiring, who keeps track? Something has got to give.

Do #BlackLivesMatter Only In Wakanda? (In Loving Memory of Chadwick Boseman)

While #BlackLivesMatter became a "trending topic" on social-media with time, advocating for black life and a better quality of life for black people is not a trend – it is the work which everyday people, activists, and/or community organizers have been engaged in for centuries.  Black Lives Matter is more than a slogan for a social-change movement.  It is a core belief rooted in black people's right to exist with dignity (in private space, public space and cyberspace), which does not (on any level) merit a debate, and must be followed with action. 

                                   

                                         George Floyd Mural (East Palo Alto, CA) | Artist: Unknown 

This summer, as protests over the killing of George Floyd received wide spread media coverage, thousands of posts flooded social-media timelines.  For example, I remember seeing an Instagram post that read: "What is it called when there are more “Black Lives Matter” signs in windows and on lawns than there are Black people living in the neighborhood"?  I think the concern raised accentuates the rapid gentrification erasing historically black communities from Harlem, NY, to East Palo Alto, CA to South Central, LA.  In other words, "Do black Lives really matter if one can't find any black people living in the neighborhood?"  These questions underscore that there's often a stark contrast between how people tend to say they believe black people should be treated in theory, versus how they actually treat black people, in practice -- especially in private space, public space and cyberspace.  In my experience, on the one hand, I have watched colleagues put “Black Lives Matter” signs in the windows of their private homes or in their front yards.  Yet, on the other hand, I have watched some of these same individuals post racist comments about black people online in public Facebook groups.  It is my position that if one’s private politics on racism (in any form) differs from their public expression, this is a contradiction.  My hope is that the young people who are rising up and protesting in the streets during this time of social unrest continue calling out such contradictions and raising questions not only about the state-sanctioned murder of unarmed black people by the hands of police officers (Ahmaud Arbery, George Floyd, and Breonna Taylor), but to also interrogate the lack of actual black people living in the very same gentrifying cities where many of these Black Lives Matter marches are being held.

Another example of the Black Lives Matter movement seeming to become a "trend" was this summer, during an online conversation I had in a Facebook Group called East Palo Alto (EPA) Neighbors.  I was accused by a white male, who happened to also be a Page Administrator of "trolling" after calling out a racist comment.  For context, an Asian woman posted an educational video about the unjust killing of George Floyd one week and in response to a separate post the following week, entitled: "Facebook says it will permanently shift tens of thousands of jobs to remote work," she wrote, "EPA will go back to be [ing] one of the highest crime rate cities in the nation."  After reading this comment, I paused for a moment.  I then asked myself the following questions: “What assumptions were being made about my community? Did the same woman who posted about George Floyd last week do so because #BlackLivesMatter was a social-media trend?  Or did she simply change her mind in one week's time and  suddenly believe that if Facebook as a company down-sized, that black and brown people in East Palo Alto would resort to killing one another and regain our 1992 status of being the nation’s murder capital?  Which post was I to believe?"  Shortly thereafter, I came to the conclusion that regardless of which belief the woman held personally, in that moment, the racist statement that she made needed to be addressed. Furthermore, it should be stated that the time period she was referring to in EPA’s history was when it was a predominantly black city.  Therefore, I had no choice but to see her comment as inherently anti-black.

Photo credit: EPA Neighbors Facebook Page

When I brought this incident to the Page Administrator’s attention, I was accused of "trolling," and later told that I was removed from the group because "people complained" that I had broken a group rule of keeping discussions in this Facebook Group, private.  It didn't seem to matter that I'd observed a racist remark being made about the very same community that the page claims to represent, or that I had witnessed racist remarks being made in the group previously, and that I, as a black woman, was voicing my concern.  Simply put, I was removed from the East Palo Alto Neighbor’s Group for speaking up about racism, during a global movement of Black Lives Matter, no less!

This online incident made me ruminate on how my experience in this group was non-unique.  As I shared my experience, others came forward in the comments and told me that they had also been removed from this particular group or similar ones, for the very same actions.  I began to draw a parallel between how many white people hold some level of "institutional power" (outside of cyberspace) within their own spheres of influence which allows them to silence black people from speaking up about our experiences with racism, in real life.  As a result, white people are able to create realms where they can become dismissive of topics of race in general and go on about their daily lives, without consequence.  It is my position that black people and other people of color do not have such luxury -- we must constantly deal with the trauma of racism, because doing so is often a matter of survival.  What happened in this Facebook online community is a microcosm of what happens within the larger society: white people who do not experience racism become the gatekeepers of discussing and therefore dealing with the topic in private space, public space and cyberspace.  Choosing to address racism or not, directly impacts community morale.  It is my position that when people demonstrate micro-aggressions on a community page it is incumbent upon members of that same community to address the issue and not be penalized for doing so.  If community members continue to be penalized for speaking up about racism, it is time to create a new space which shifts the current online culture from its current state, to a place of building positive community morale, rooted in respect for multiculturalism.  Furthermore, whether a social-media page itself is public or private has no bearing on whether or not we address racism when it rears its ugly head. If the current social uprising has taught us anything, it is that public racism requires a public response.  

                                                                   Photo credit: Google.com 

George Floyd and Ahmaud Arbery were publicly executed by police officers and ex-police officers.  Breonna Taylor was murdered by a police officer, in the privacy of her own home.  Upon further investigation, all three murders were believed to be racially motivated.  To that end, racism can occur within the public space, private space and even cyberspace -- and must be dealt with in all three realms when harm is done.  To put it another way, there is no space where the topic of race should be barred from discussion.  This in and of itself is a racist act.  My hope is that the young people marching in the streets, not only continue to challenge anti-Black racism in their own physical communities, but also when it surfaces in online communities (Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Tik-Tok etc).  In this particular instance, my experience with racism can be viewed as "not as extreme" as an unarmed black person being murdered by the hands of police, but it is no less racism.  A blanket statement was made about the community of EPA, yet it was dismissed as me wanting to start trouble (or "trolling").  However, in the East Palo Alto that I know and love, we do not skirt around issues of race.  That is not what our community is about.  In fact, if we take a look at the history, our community was redlined into existence because white people in surrounding cities (such as Palo Alto) were adamant about keeping black people out of their neighborhoods and cities.  The East Palo Alto that I know and love, celebrates young people, like 16-year-old Alanna Stevenson for lifting her voice, organizing a community protest and sending a unified message to the world (with pride!) that Black Lives Matter.  My hope is that other young people will follow in her footsteps, organize around issues of social-change within their own communities and realize that their personal experiences with and reactions to racism are valid.  I hope that our young people continue to stand up to say that racism (in all of its forms, including on social-media platforms) must be addressed, and addressed with urgency.  This summer, I was inspired by young people who chose not to sit and argue about racism online, but instead, chose to pour into the streets with their feet, in protest of the long-standing killing of black people by police!  The current social-change movement has finally hit its tipping point.  This next generation makes me believe that the justice movement is in good hands.

Photo credit: Snapchat 

As the backdrop to the simultaneous Black Lives Matter movement and a global pandemic that is killing black and brown people in record numbers, this summer, we also experienced the grief of losing Chadwick Boseman -- the star of the Marvel Movie Black Panther.  In the same way that Black Panther was more than just a movie, the Black Lives Matter uprising is more than a slogan for a social-change movement.  It is a core belief rooted in black people's right to exist with dignity (in private space, public space and cyberspace), which does not (on any level) merit a debate and must be followed with action.

Photo credit: Google.com 
  

If you are reading this post, please know that it's okay to grieve that your friends and family members have been displaced because your community is rapidly gentrifying.  Let's be clear that structuring our neighborhoods in a way where black people cannot afford to live there anymore is racism (e.g. gentrification).  If you are reading this post, it's okay to grieve the gentrifying of conversations about race which deem white people the experts on something they will never experience.  Let’s be clear that punishing Black people for speaking up about racism is racism (e.g. many people's experience on the East Palo Alto Neighbors Page).  If you are reading this post, it's okay to grieve that we're in a global pandemic and police have not ceased killing unarmed black and brown people and are getting away with it.  If you are reading this post, it is okay to grieve the loss of Chadwick Boseman, a cultural icon, who reminds us that representation is both important and necessary.  Let's be clear that one questioning the violence superheroes display in the fictitious world of Wakanda, yet raising zero questions about the everyday violence that white dominance (in the form of structural racism) inflicts upon communities of color, is part of the problem.  When watching mainstream white superheroes who exhibit violence in films like Superman or Batman, I never heard such a critique.  At the end of the day, and in the midst of so much loss in 2020, one thing that we can celebrate from the movie Black Panther is that there were a different set of realities for black people in Wakanda.  For example, in the storyline, there is no gentrification of black communities, no land-grabbing, no redlining, no police brutality, no centering white people's voices as the sole authority on the topic of race or on black people's experiences with racism, no centering only white people as the heroes in our stories and having black people play subservient roles, if represented at all.  In Wakanda, Black Lives Matter.  But I hope it isn't the only place that they do.   In Wakanda, we are allowed to be black. And free. And determine our own destinies -- much like the black people with the initial vision to incorporate EPA as a city.  In such a grief-stricken time, that in and of itself is a cause for celebration.

In Loving Memory of Chadwick Boseman, Ahmaud Arberry, Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, and all other black people, known and unknown killed by way of police brutality. #WakandaForever  

Protecting ourselves from unhealthy connections

While some may disagree, it is my position that it matters who we are connected to emotionally, mentally, physically and spiritually in our everyday lives.

When online

In this current time, we find ourselves at a place where we are unable to physically gather for worship services at our churches, gurdwaras, mosques and temples.  In this current time, we find ourselves dealing with the Coronavirus global pandemic.  We have been instructed to Shelter-In-Place and only leave our homes for "essential" items (i.e. food, water etc.) in order to minimize the spread of what medical authorities are calling a "novel virus."  Not only have many religious services transitioned to online platforms as a result of an unprecedented time, we have transitioned everyday activities such as: schooling, working out and gathering for work meetings to online platforms as well.  

As a result of increased time online, some contend that publicly exposing hard facts surrounding the murders of #AhmaudArbery, #BreonnaTaylor and #GeorgeFloyd would not have made global headlines and sparked a social-justice movement in the streets, had we not been under this particular set of circumstances.  Beloved community, I urge you, that while online, to be sure that you are severing any unhealthy connections.  This might look like, people on social media platforms “blacking out” their profile pictures this week to demonstrate solidarity with the #BlackLivesMatter movement, but having said something racist on their timeline last week. Delete them. This might look like people sending messages into your inbox wanting to engage in a debate with you that it should be “All Lives Matter” as opposed to “Black Lives Matter.”  Block them. You are under no obligation, as a black person in America to defend the value of your black life – online or in person.

          

                                                                    Photo courtesy of: Google.com 

 

Others say that you should maintain unhealthy connections on your timeline so that you, "Know who you are dealing with."  Some say that we should be posting and re-posting images and videos of black people being brutalized and killed at the hands of law enforcement in the name of "raising awareness." I disagree on both points.  We are under no obligation, as black people to take on the labor of studying and/or educating white people worldwide, at the cost of ourselves.  It is 2020, white people and non-black people need to study and educate themselves about racism in all of its forms!  Who we are connected to online, matters.

 

                                                                     Photo courtesy of: Google.com

 

When in-person

Next, there are some ministers that in order to live stream their services, had to come into the church building to preach and post their sermons.  However, other faith leaders are having people come into the building and lead worship for their live streamed services, during a global pandemic, not standing 6-feet-apart.  This is a problem.  We have to use wisdom when medical issues arise, especially at the pandemic level.  In these troubling times, there were pastors that still decided to have in-person church services exceeding the allotted amount of people, because they "did not believe that the virus was real," or believed that if they were taking any precautions that they somehow "did not have strong enough faith in God." This is also problematic, and I want to challenge these kinds of notions. Jesus being a miracle worker does not mean we ignore the advice of medical professionals.  It seems that millennials have been trying to communicate something before the virus, but it has become even clearer now:  sometimes, we have unhealthy connections to our faith communities.  We must remember that the church, gurdwara, mosque and temple is bigger than the building, meaning that ministry and fellowship with the Divine is not limited to the four walls.  Connecting online for worship during a global pandemic is a healthy practice.  Please remember that, you are under no obligation as a person of faith to compromise your own health and safety in the name of praising the Lord.  

After we remove ourselves from unhealthy online connections and then unhealthy in-person connections when it comes to our faith communities, we can find safe ways to fellowship during these unprecedented times.  We can free ourselves to engage in activities such as: yoga, meditation, reading, walking or other physical exercise, listening to sermons, podcasts or inspirational speeches, and creating art etc.   All of these are methods of connecting with and offering worship to God in healthy ways.  Who we are connected to in-person matters.

                                                                     Photo courtesy of: Google.com 

When in government

 

Lastly, when we have government officials categorizing all Black Lives Matter protesters as “looters” and encouraging police to enact violence upon protesters, this is highly questionable to say the least.  When Donald Trump asserts, “There could have been something that happened that wasn’t captured in the video” when referring to Arbery’s unjust murder, these kinds of statements can add more trauma or stress to already stressful situations.  For example, we are stuck inside, we are unable to physically attend houses of worship in the community of our faith tradition, we are wanting to engage in a social-justice movement by protesting in the streets, all while ingesting hate-filled speech from the President of the United States.

                                                                    Photo courtesy of: Google.com  

Beloved community, while it may be harder to sever unhealthy connections with governmental officials because you want to keep up with the news during these political times, maybe limit your news intake in the course of a day (take a break from reading the headlines), take a break from arguments in online posts/comment sections (give your Twitter fingers a rest), unplug (log out of all social-media accounts) for 3 days at at time, and replace time spent online with finding things that bring you joy.  If you decide to stay online, block videos on your timeline of black people being brutalized and murdered, instead of sharing them. Don’t feel pressured to keep contributing to our collective trauma as black people in America and abroad. How we engage our government, matters.  Remember to tend to your emotional, mental, physical and spiritual health during these troubling times.  Remember that time, Jesus found a way to rest during a storm?  The scripture reads: "A furious squall came up, and the waves broke over the boat, so that it was nearly swamped. Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion" (Mark 4:38, NASB).  I invite us to do the same. To rest in the midst of this tumultuous storm.

 

                                                                     Photo courtesy of: Twitter (@TheNapMinistry) 

But before we can rest, we must cut unhealthy ties.  After we sever unhealthy connections from our everyday lives, in the words of @NapMinistry, we must remember that: "Rest is part of our resistance."  Jesus invites us to take a break, with these words: "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest" (Matthew 11:28, NASB).  As the Gospel song goes, "There’s an army rising up. To break every chain."  There is a social-justice movement happening right before our eyes.  But before we get on the front lines of this current political movement, we must take a personal moment of rest.

#WholyGroundSpiritualCenter #WholisticFaith #BlackLivesMatter #COVID19 #Race #SocialJustice #RestAsResistance #TheNapMinistry #AhmaudArbery #BreonnaTaylor #GeorgeFloyd 

Dear Stanford, what about MLK?

      “Action expresses priorities.”  This quote comes from nonviolent leader, Mohandas Gandhi.  This past Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, as I read a “San Jose Mercury News” article entitled: “At Stanford, King’s legacy lives in what was supposed to be its temporary home,” by Lisa M. Krieger (https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/01/20/at-stanford-kings-legacy-lives-in-what-was-supposed-to-be-its-temporary-home/), I realized that Gandhi’s words still ring true.  Dr. Clayborne Carson, History Professor at Stanford University and Director of The Martin Luther King Jr., Research and Education Institute and The Martin Luther King Papers Project (since 1985), is interviewed in the article.

  

Photo credit: kinginstitute.stanford.edu

The mission of “The Papers Project” is this: “To publish the definitive fourteen-volume edition of The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr., a comprehensive collection of King's most significant correspondence, sermons, speeches, published writings, and unpublished manuscripts.”  As I did a little more research, I learned that “The Papers Project” is not only an arm of the The King Center, in Atlanta, Georgia, but that the late Coretta Scott King, personally invited Dr. Carson to lead the initiative (https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/about-papers-project)!  In short, the Mercury news article documents the anxiety that Dr. Carson feels (with his own retirement on the horizon) in wondering what will become of the Project.  Simply stated, “The Papers Project” has been “temporarily” housed in a portable on Stanford University’s campus, for the past 34 years.  I am in agreement with Dr. Carson, that “King’s legacy deserves better.”

Photo credit: SCOPE2035 (Student protest signs, February 2018)

Photo credit: Google.com

As I began to process this reality, I came to realize that the current state of affairs regarding “The Papers Project” perpetuates racial inequality as it pertains to access of university resources. Therefore, it is undoubtedly a looming example of both structural and institutional racism, in the United States, no matter how subtle.  I find it hard to believe that I would be writing this article if a white male were the subject of conversation.  And yet, just two months earlier, Stanford withdrew its application for a 17-year expansion plan, the largest proposed development in the history of Santa Clara County.  I submit that if a university has the financial means to expand its campus at this magnitude, it certainly has the resources to properly house The Martin Luther King, Jr. Papers Project.  In fact, “The Papers Project” has been in existence double the amount of years that it would have taken Stanford to expand their campus, had the university not withdrawn its development application this past November.  This fact alone is most certainly appalling, to say the least! 

In summary, Stanford proposed to build 550 units of on-campus housing with an estimated 9,500 person increase in its student population.  However, student advocacy groups such as Stanford Coalition for Planning an Equitable (SCOPE) 2035 (https://scope2035.weebly.com/), aimed to push the university to not only increase the number of student housing units within its development application, but to also contribute their “fair share” of housing to largely overlooked populations in the housing discussion such as Stanford’s service workers and some of the most vulnerable populations in surrounding cities in the region (such as East Palo Alto residents) – who would no doubt be displaced, had this 3.5 million square foot project received a green light from the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors.  

Photo credit: SCOPE2035 (Student activist speaking to Palo Alto City Council January 2019, about Stanford's proposed expansion and its housing impacts)

As I expanded my research on “The Papers Project” being “temporarily” housed in a portable on Stanford’s campus, I realized that there was a link between this situation and the university withdrawing its application for a 17-year expansion plan.  I realized that at the crux of both of these issues was/is Stanford’s unwillingness to build sufficient housing, much less its unwillingness to prioritize the needs of the most vulnerable populations within their reach.  

Photo credit: SCOPE2035 (Student protester)

For this reason, I submit that perhaps Stanford can currently ignore the needs of the marginalized people which King fought for (like service workers and historically disenfranchised communities), because for decades, they have ignored the legacy of Dr. King, himself. If one does not honor a leader of marginalized people, he or she will not honor marginalized communities—for they are one and the same.  The reason that the building where “The Papers Project” is located can sit neglected for 34 years, is because it is indicative of the university’s priorities.  Dear Stanford, Dr. King needs adequate and dignified housing, now. And so do the communities for which he fought.

With urgency,

Kyra Brown, M.Div., East Palo Alto

#SCOPE2035 #EastPaloAlto #HousingCrisis #StanfordUniversity #MLKPapersProject #KingInstitute