Confirmation Bias
Dear Confirmers:
We all fall prey to confirmation bias. When we speak only with people
we agree with, we find that everyone agrees with us. It is deemed by the
politically correct and perpetually aggrieved among us that all American
Indians are offended when a sports team is named after them, and are
particularly offended by the name of the Washington Redskins. That
controversy erupts every few years, and the same predictable argument is
rehashed. That argument is demonstrated most recently by Patrick Pexton
in his ombudsman column, "Listening to Native Americans,"
http://tinyurl.com/b2vwf7p. Pexton writes
that he spoke with Native American activists who are demonstrating
against and suing sports teams for using Indian names and symbols, and
found that they uniformly are offended. Quod est demonstrandum.
Well, no, it isn’t proven. Pexton spoke only with people who hold a
certain opinion, and found that they hold that opinion. That proves
nothing.
The best opinion survey that I am aware of that actually asked a
broad cross-section of American Indians what they thought about the name
of the Washington Redskins was taken by the National Annenberg Election
Survey in 2004. Its finding is summarized by the headline of its press
release: "Most Indians Say Name of Washington ‘Redskins’ Is Acceptable,
While 9 Percent Call It Offensive, Annenberg Data Show,"
http://tinyurl.com/b72a2vs. (Ninety percent
of American Indians found "Redskins" acceptable; one percent was
undecided.) Eugene Volokh did a good discussion of this poll’s findings
and its limitations in the Volokh Conspiracy,
http://tinyurl.com/alyslmk. This doesn’t
settle the matter, but it does mean that we should throw a flag on the
play when an activist Indian claims that he speaks for all Indians, and
even more so when a white or black activist says that Indians should be
offended, whether or not they actually are, and that they probably just
aren’t educated enough on the issue to be properly offended.
#####
Confirmation bias is also running rampant in the DC Office of
Planning and the DC Department of Transportation, which are sponsoring a
series of "Idea Exchanges" called "Move DC,"
http://wemovedc.org.
This past Saturday, for example, there was a Move DC meeting at the
Martin Luther King, Jr., Library. It was less about being an exchange of
ideas and more about being a structured propaganda event, at which
converts spoke to converts. It brought together a crowd of white twenty-somethings
wearing spandex and carrying bike helmets to agree that, as one of the
Office of Planning’s handouts was headlined, "Walking — It’s the New
Driving." As at past OP/DOT events, people with different viewpoints
were discouraged from speaking out and forbidden from passing out their
handouts. After this series of meetings the OP and DOT will conclude —
it’s predetermined — that everyone agrees with them that cars are evil
and should be banned in the city as much as possible.
How do we convince our elected and appointed officials to listen to,
respond to, and represent the interests of all of our citizens, rather
than to just the small portion of those who are advocates for the
anti-automobile cause that they advocate?
Gary Imhoff
themail@dcwatch.com
###############
Smart Growth in the "Fly-by-Our-Pants City of
Doom"
Sue Hemberger, Friendship Heights,
Smithhemb@aol.com
That’s Harriet Tregoning’s characterization of DC,
http://tinyurl.com/ayaknbg, not mine. And the
gloss her interviewer puts on that sound bite is that Tregoning likes
working here because it’s an environment where thirteen councilmembers
wield the power of both state and local government. Which makes DC a fun
place to be for someone who sees herself as a visionary and wants a
high-profile city in which to showcase her theories. To hell with actual
planning — no one in DC is going to demand that. So Tregoning will just
do what she thinks is best, trumpet its progressivism, and, if need be,
move on before people realize what a mess she’s left in her wake. Hey,
it worked for Gabe Klein.
For the rest of us, though, the question is are we willing to bet our
city on Tregoning’s theory? And to be more specific, are we willing to
make this wager at a moment when DC is already on the rise and when her
theory — Smart Growth — is increasingly facing critique from within?
Personally, I’m not. And I’m not precisely because I am a car-less urban
dweller who is eager to see more people live in cities. The dispute here
isn’t about ends — it’s about means.
Over the past decade, Washington, DC, has been one of the strongest
job markets in the United States and the city has been a magnet both for
people and for investment. New buildings, new residents, new
neighborhoods, and new public spaces have brought energy and optimism to
the District — as well as a new appreciation for the historic building
stock, public transit, walkable neighborhoods, natural beauty, and
cultural amenities that long-term residents have always treasured.
On the one hand, we’re in an enviable position, compared to many
other cities in the US. On the other hand, we still face many
challenges. Even though we’ve begun to reverse our population decline,
DC captured only a small fraction of the region’s growth between 2000
and 2010 — less than 4 percent. And we still lose more residents to MD
and VA each year than we attract from those states. Fairfax County now
rivals DC as a regional employment center. Within DC itself, progress
has been uneven. Many neighborhoods that have suffered from
disinvestment and population loss have not seen those trends reversed.
As we plan for our future, we need is to focus on the things that
actually keep people in (and drive people out) of DC. So why have zoning
rewrite efforts ignored Comprehensive Plan mandates and focussed on
sideshows like accessory dwelling units, elimination of parking
minimums, and corner stores?
Honestly, I think few, if any of us, have ever heard people say
things like "I’d happily take a job (or rent an apartment or shop more)
in DC if only there were less parking." Or, "My husband and I would stay
in DC rather than move to the ’burbs if only we could rent a cottage in
someone’s backyard." Or "I’d love to age in place and I’d be able to do
it if only I could move into my basement and rent out our house without
having to go to the BZA for a special exception." OP is obsessed with a
few planning fads and using the zoning revision process to write them
into law, rather than doing the careful planning and problem-solving
necessary to sustain and build upon our successes, to fix what’s broken,
and to steer growth and investment to the places where it will do the
most good. And to do so in ways that make the city more attractive and
affordable for people at all ages, stages, and income levels. That’s a
big challenge — but it’s the crucial one. And OP (and DDOT, for that
matter) are too focused on vanity projects to tackle it head on.
[See also the piece by Sue Hemberger and Lon Anderson in today’s
Washington Post, DC’s Plan to Make It Even Harder to Park,"
http://tinyurl.com/acpanlm: "It’s clear that
current parking requirements are not hampering growth and development in
the city. The Office of Planning’s logic is that if parking is scarce
and driving difficult, we’ll attract fewer cars. Maybe so. But that also
means we’ll attract fewer people. At a time when the District’s downtown
and its neighborhoods are increasingly seen as exciting places to be,
let’s not seize defeat from the jaws of victory by making parking so
time-consuming and expensive that the District becomes a place drivers
avoid. Our planning needs to be realistic. The District’s wealth of
transportation options is one key to the city’s appeal. But even as we
walk, bike and use mass transit, most of us will continue to use cars
because, for some trips, driving remains a necessary option. And our
parking policies can’t focus exclusively on city dwellers. In fact, most
vehicles here on any given weekday were brought here by nonresidents —
commuters, tradespeople and tourists. There’s a stark choice: Should we
use zoning policy to make it difficult for people to drive into the
city? Or should we use it to accommodate cars in ways that preserve a
walkable urban fabric while minimizing the hassle, congestion, and
emissions associated with finding parking?" — Gary Imhoff]
###############
Ward 3 Vision’s Flawed Field of View
Karl Jeremy,
mayandkarl@gmail.com
Ward 3 Vision recently posted its views on government control, land
use, the environment, and the neighborhood on its web site ( http://ward3vision.org/2013/02/07/thinkglobally).
Global direction is taken from bureaucrats at EPA and local direction
from agency head Harriet Tregoning. It’s a "members only" club that
advocates social engineering over sound planning practices.
Many of the group’s members believe they are "special." They are
entitled on so many levels. Instant gratification is a necessity. The
rules don’t apply. They know it all. Unlike their predecessors, who
entered adulthood with a desire to change the world, the vision driving
this group is very short sighted; it’s all about them and winning at any
cost.
Dim-sighted vision is unworthy of admiration, particularly when the
rush to change is designed to meet the needs of a few at the expense of
so many.
###############
US Department of Education Faces Pushback on
School Closures
Candi Peterson,
saveourcounselors@gmail.com
On January 29, 2013, activists arrived in Washington, DC, for what
has been described as a "Journey for Justice." Seventeen cities were
represented, including Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland,
District of Columbia, Detroit, Eupora (Miss), Hartford, Kansas City
(Mo.), Newark, New York, LA, New Orleans, Oakland, Philadelphia, and
Witchita (Ks.). Among their chief demands is a call to the US Department
of Education’s civil rights office to end top down discriminatory
closings of public schools, phase outs and turnarounds nationally and
the sabotage and disinvestment of public schools.
In an AP article titled "SchoolTurn-arounds Prompt Community
Backlash," Christina Hoag wrote on February 5 that, "The US Department
of Education’s (DOE) civil rights office has opened investigations into
33 complaints from parents and community members, representing 29
districts ranging from big city systems such as Chicago, Detroit, and
Washington, DC, to smaller cities. . . , said spokesman Daren Briscoe."
Complaints allege that the criteria and methods used in deciding school
closings and turnarounds are discriminatory. Eleven cities testified at
the DOE hearing. EmpowerDC, a well-respected grassroots organization
from Washington, DC, was represented by Julianne Robertson-King, Esq., a
DC Public Schools parent who has a daughter who attends Phelps Senior
High School. King represented EmpowerDC, as well as Washington, DC, at
DOE hearings.
According to a Huffington Post article, members of the Obama
administration were present for the hearings. US Secretary of Education
Arne Duncan remained for 45 minutes despite the chants of protesters
demanding to know where Mr. Duncan was once he exited the hearings.
Obama Education Advisor Roberto Rodriguez was also present. The
overarching theme of the hearings from students and parents included
testimony on how the closing of minority neighborhoods displaced
students of color without a neighborhood school and destabilized entire
communities. While US Secretary, Duncan proffered to participants that
he has no control over local school closings, Journey to Justice
activists saw it differently. Their January 2013 press release sums up
their beliefs this way, "Despite current research showing that closing
these public schools does not improve test scores or graduation rates,
closings have continued primarily because current federal Race To The
Top policy has incentivized the closing and turn around of schools by
supporting privatization. However, the privatization of schools has
resulted in unchecked actions and processes where the primary fallout is
those low income minority communities. The devastating impact of these
actions has only been tolerated because of the race and class of
communities affected."
Other demands of Journey for Justice include the implementation of a
sustainable community driven school improvement process as national
policy. Daniel del Pielago, Education Organizer of EmpowerDC states that
moving forward, "Communities are planning national days of action and
pushing for a meeting with President Obama on this issue. This movement
has allowed us to see that we (individual cities) are not in this fight
alone and that we will use People Power to continue to organize to bring
an end to unjust/discriminatory school closures." Following the DOE
hearings, students, parents, and community activists marched down
Independence Avenue with police escorts alongside of them to the Martin
Luther King, Jr., Memorial on the Mall chanting, "We won’t take it no
more, we’re fired up," donning T-shirts that read "No schools + no jobs
= death." I’m glad Journey for Justice came to DC, and honored to have
been among the participants.
###############
themail@dcwatch is an E-mail discussion forum that is published
every Wednesday and Sunday. To change the E-mail address for your
subscription to themail, use the Update Profile/Email address link
below in the E-mail edition. To unsubscribe, use the Safe Unsubscribe
link in the E-mail edition. An archive of all past issues is available
at http://www.dcwatch.com/themail.
All postings should be submitted to themail@dcwatch.com, and should
be about life, government, or politics in the District of Columbia in
one way or another. All postings must be signed in order to be
printed, and messages should be reasonably short — one or two brief
paragraphs would be ideal — so that as many messages as possible can
be put into each mailing.
|