(These reflections, impressions and opinions are solely those of Kimi Riegel and do not represent those of DTE, the New York City Comptroller’s Office, the Unitarian Universalist Association, Northwest Unitarian Universalist Church or any of their affiliates or subsidiaries.)
For those of you just tuning in, I invite you to read the two earlier blogs: “Report from the DTE Annual Meeting Part One” and “Commemorating May Day.” They might help you understand how I got myself into this.
The first order of business after calling the meeting to order was to elect directors. There are 12 members of the board. Eight of them are men. Eleven of them are white or of European descent. I make those judgments based on dress, skin color and names as printed in the booklet for the meeting- I could be wrong. All of them have resumes full of experience as CEOs and board members of other companies: Meritor, Inc., Federal-Mogul Corp., Comerica Bank, Urenco USA, Duke Energy, Domino’s Pizza, Hennessey Capital, American Red Cross, Masco, Chrysler, Meijer Inc., USAA, and Lear Corp. The youngest among them is the chair of the board, Mr. Gerard Anderson. There was one challenge to the listed nominees. The election of the CEO of Meijer to the DTE board was challenged, as his company uses other energy companies that are in competition with DTE. Mr. Anderson explained that a board member was required to have only a certain percent of his company’s energy from DTE and the Meijer Company met this requirement.
At this time a man stood up and asked, “How much do you pay in taxes, Mr. Anderson?” He was asked to save his questions until the question and answer period. He was joined by another who asked, “How much does DTE pay in taxes?” The police then stepped in and the folks were escorted out very calmly. The meeting continued, and the next order of business was affirming the appointment of an independent accounting firm to complete audits.
Next was a “non-binding vote on executive compensation”. Many people began to rise, individually and in pairs or threes. “We want jobs.” “How much do you pay in taxes?” “What are you paid?” “Pay your fair share.” As each stood they were escorted out and all present were reminded that questions would come at the end of the meeting. At one point Mr. Anderson laughed, “I guess we are going to do this one at a time.” All of those who stood and were escorted out were of African American descent. Several seated people began to shout back. “Get a job.” “Move on, Mr. Chairman.” “Go outside with the other protesters.”
One row stood together and began to ask more of the same questions. “What are you paid?” “What is your percent in taxes?” “We are the 99% and we want jobs.” The seated people became more vocal: “Get the hell out.” At that point, the police officer nearest me pointed in the direction of the seated shouters and said, “You be quiet or I will escort you out too.” The room quieted and Mr. Anderson explained that executive compensation was based on the success of the company. He also clarified that the compensation of the board members and executives was listed in the booklet handed out at the beginning of the meeting.
(Later, I found the listings but find it hard to make sense of them. It seems that Mr. Anderson made over $7 million in 2011. The total for all five executives’ compensation seems to be about $17 million. The retired CEO made $5 million (down from $8.5 million the year before). There are tables explaining deferred compensation, outstanding equity awards and stock options that add up to an additional $8 million for Mr. Anderson. Perhaps the most interesting table is the one about payments upon termination. If Mr. Anderson had terminated his employment on December 31, 2011 he would have received $24.5 million in severance and other benefits. That includes 24 months of medical, dental and vision coverage for him and his family, in addition to life insurance, long-term disability and accidental death insurance.)
Back to the meeting – At this point my attention was drawn to two men near the front. These were two white gentleman probably in their 60s or older. They were not dressed in business attire and instead wore short sleeve Hawaiian shirts and baseball caps. I had noticed them coming in and my first thought was that they had come in with the protesters. One of them shouted, “Was your compensation raised higher than…..” but I couldn’t hear the rest. The police officers approached him. He responded, “Don’t you get in MY face!” Mr. Anderson said, “He’s OK.” The police officer backed off. I never did figure all of that out.
But later in the meeting, when question and answer time finally did arrive, one of these two Hawaiian shirted gentlemen did step to the mike to ask a question. The two were nearly identical to me so I don’t know if it was the same one who shouted. Mr. Anderson addressed him by name. He said something about having attended these meetings for many years but it had never been this difficult to get in. He said, “I didn’t like the process. It was like a circle-jerk to get in here.” There were many nervous laughs. Mr. Anderson stepped back from his mike and seemed to laugh. The gentleman then asked why DTE had moved its billing office to Ohio. Mr. Anderson explained that only part of it had moved and the rest of the billing was being done in the basement of that very building.Much more to come. I haven’t even gotten to the proposal I came to read.
(These reflections, impressions and opinions are solely those of Kimi Riegel and do not represent those of DTE, the New York City Comptroller’s Office, the Unitarian Universalist Association, Northwest Unitarian Universalist Church or any of their subsidiaries.)
Oh my! Oh my! Oh my! I attended DTE Energy’s Annual Meeting in Detroit on May 3. I did this at the behest of the Unitarian Universalist Association, which partners with the New York City Comptroller’s Office to make proposals to companies regarding financial and employment practices as well as practices that impact the environment. The proposal I read was asking DTE to be transparent about political contributions. It was the most amazing cultural experience I have had in a long time. See http://www.gatherinlight.com/?p=208 for information on how I got myself in this position.
When I was in undergraduate school I took a course in subcultures. It was an ethnographic class; one where cultural patterns are described qualitatively rather than quantitatively. In it we looked at the subcultures we participated in; college students, religious affiliations and the like. In his 1973 text, The Interpretation of Cultures anthropologist and ethnographer Clifford Geertz wrote that “man (sic) is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun… I take culture to be those webs, and the analysis of it to be therefore not an experimental science in search of law, but an interpretative one in search of meaning. It is explication I am after. . . ..” (4-5). I wrote a paper on the subculture that was the group of Chicago’s Elevated Train drivers. While I am sure that the study of subcultures has moved far beyond Geertz, I still like that definition. Therefore I would like to write an ethnographic description of the DTE Annual Meeting. It will include and call attention to all the biases I am aware of in myself. I look for you the reader to point out the ones I miss. I would like to describe the patterns of webs I saw and hope in the same breath to examine my own patterns.
I am a white female in my mid 50s. I grew up in Michigan in a very liberal home. My family is supportive of labor unions and suspicious of rich people. Both of my parents are retired public school teachers. My children, however, do not attend public schools. I attended undergraduate and graduate school in Chicago. My husband and I returned to Michigan in 2000 to have our son near his grandparents. I have been in Michigan for the “crash” of 2007 so I have witnessed the fear that has accompanied the layoffs and business decline. I am a Unitarian Universalist Minister and as such, have very liberal religious and social views. I have participated in demonstrations and written critiques of the dominate culture in my sermons. I see myself as middle class, privileged and well educated. I am writing these observations from notes that I took during the meeting a week or more (there will be more than one page on this experience) after the meeting has ended.
I knew that appearance is important in situations like this so I had worn a black suit with moderately short skirt. I was also aware that high heels and jewelry would be expected but I did not wear those. As I got near the DTE headquarters I began to see the protesters. They held signs about taxes, jobs and the environment. MGM Grand provided parking. There were signs in their parking structure directing the shareholders where to park. When I exited my car I was directed to a table where two officers were checking identification and bags. I did not have a particular sheet they asked for, so after they checked my bag I was directed to a woman standing with a clipboard just inside the door. She and I were the only women in the area at the time. When I told her my name, Rev. Kimi Riegel, she said, “That name is familiar. Oh wait. You are not what I was expecting.” I wondered what she was expecting. Often people are surprised when a woman shows up when they are expecting a minister. I didn’t take time to ask because a gentleman in a suit (there were many gentlemen in suits around- I had guessed the attire correctly) was called over and he escorted me past the line, got me a sticker and handed me off to another gentleman also in a suit and tie. I had been given the name of the last gentlemen on the phone two days before. As we walked to the place the meeting would be held, we talked about the demonstrators and how the meeting would be run. There was coffee and snacks. I got myself a cup of coffee and sat down. I soon became aware that I was surrounded by white men in dark suits. There were a few African American men in suits but they mostly stood to the right and were not greeted by the others. There were a few women who had badges that said “ambassador.” At one point a police officer and one of the men who had greeted me were talking. I heard snippets of the conversation – “they are over there;” “I think they have it all planned out;” “see the one in the hat;” “since they are inside we will have to wait until they move.”
I picked up the paperwork and discovered that the very same proposal had been offered each year since 2008. Each year, including this one, the board recommended voting it down. We had obviously not been successful any of those years by a wide margin of more than two to one. Just so you are not held in dispense – the vote went against the proposal (31,516,656 for and 78,165,962 against). I was pretty certain we were going to fail again but I acknowledge the value of being persistent. About now the “10 minutes” remaining announcement came and I took my seat.
I promise to finish this ethnographic description but I won’t put any more of it in the church newsletter. I think the most interesting part comes when the protesters started to shout out. Stay tuned here. (www.gatherinlight.com).
Its Wednesday night at Northwest Unitarian Universalist Church. The membership committee meeting has ended. As I move my pile of weekly bags full of food and knitting and paper work from my office to the hallway, the last of the committee members leave the building. I know the door is unlocked but I will be going through it shortly so I don’t holler, “Hey, lock the door as you go out.” I turn to get the last bag to stack in the hallway – I look up and a man, an unknown man, is in the building. I scream! I scream because he scared me. I was not expecting someone. I scream because I do not know him and in an instant I realize the danger I am in. I am completely alone in the building and no one will be there again until near noon on the next day.
He quickly backs out the door and apologizes explaining that he knocked. I lock the door behind him and take a breath. He begins to explain, yelling through the door, that he has just come home from Afghanistan. He says, “I did something stupid. I got myself drunk and drove my ex-wife’s car on to someone’s property. If I get $31 before 10 pm the police officer will tear up my ticket. I tried to wire myself money but the Kroger, where the Western Union is, won’t give me the money because I left my identification in the truck.” “I don’t have any money,” I say. My heart strings have been pulled with the mention of military service. I know from being a mentor for a military Chaplin (thanks David) that it is likely this kid is feeling very disconnected from reality and out of it – if he is in fact telling the truth. Never mind the issues of jet lag – this helicopter pilot (I learned later) has gone from Afghanistan to Southfield which are two very different worlds. He says he doesn’t need money just directions. I decide to give him the benefit of the doubt and call a church member who lives very close. I am not going to continue this on my own. Even if I believe him I am not driving him anywhere by myself – heart strings do not win over common sense. He sits on the wall across the parking lot. I take him a drink of water then return to the building (Probably not smart).
The church member shows up in short order. We sort out that the Recruiters Office, which the young man believes is in Southfield, that he believes would have people who would help him, is closed. I suggest we go to an ATM where I will get money. The church member says he has the money and we drive to the gas station where the “property owner” is waiting for the money. He ran over the owner’s fence and the cost for the fence was $81(they went to Lowes and brought back the receipt), he had had $50 I his sock. He gets his keys which were being held for collateral and we drove him to the local Holiday Inn where he said he would get his vehicle from the tow company. It was towed he explains because he is still drunk and the police would not let him drive.
On the way the young solider tells us he has had 6 tours of duty in the nine years. He was home for a couple years before this last one. He asks about “Unitarian religion” saying he has heard of us. I share the Unitarian story about one God, then the Universalist story about universal salvation and end with a quick explanation of the religious diversity we now have. He says he once met an atheist. He asks me if I am – I say no, but I am not a Christian either. As if those are the only two choices. The church member explains that he is an atheist. To explain why he is not an atheist, the solider talks a bit about the people that have refuted theories of Darwin. When we reach the hotel he shakes our hands and goes to wait.
When the door closes we drive off; back to church to get my car. We are quiet. I say, “I think we did a good deed.” He agrees. There was something about the kid that made me believe him. I wonder if it was true. Were those really keys he got from the guy in the car? Did he really have a truck that was being towed? What will he be thinking of Unitarian Universalists? My husband is quick to point out I could have been dead. The church member explains kindly that if I don’t bring it up he will suggest a church wide policy that no one should be left alone at the church. Was the risk worth it? Will I ever know? He promised to bring the money back to church the next day. He hasn’t, yet.
It is good to take a moment to thank the popular movements that have brought about positive changes for workers in this country and around the world. Celebrate the workers who drive the buses, harvest and cook the food, clean the floors and care for the children.
I am grateful that on this May Day I can reflect on actions taken for all of us; simple quiet actions that might begin the process of change in one small way. I have been given an opportunity to make a statement to a large corporation. On May 3 I will read a statement to the annual meeting of DTE being held in Detroit.
The UUA has been taking part in shareholder activism for over 40 years. Through proposals offered to the annual meetings, we seek to change corporate behavior. Our resolutions have advocated for many issues such as good corporate governance, non-discriminatory employment practices, ending predatory lending programs and reasonable pricing of medications for treatment of AIDS. Our resolutions have helped bring press and public attention to the exploitation of women and children working in cruel labor conditions. http://www.uua.org/finance/investment/sri/shareholderadvocacy/index.shtml
In 2002, the New York City Pension Funds contacted the UUA office asking for assistance with shareholder activism. They wanted to file several resolutions but didn’t have the ability to send representatives all over the country. We have partnered with them for ten years making significant changes in the policies of such organizations Walmart, ExonMobile, Waste Management, and Verizon.
The statement I will read asks DTE to disclose all contributions to political campaigns and organizations designed to influence political campaigns. This proposal, being offered at many companies, is in response to the Supreme Court ruling of 2010 which some refer to as “the ruling that made corporations people.” While there are other actions by regulatory agencies that will hopefully result in a requirement of full disclosure and transparency, with the help of the UUA the New York Comptroller’s office is asking for voluntary disclosure.
Maybe it feels a bit like serving on jury duty – which I have never done. I got an email offering me this opportunity. I said yes and today I will get the rest of the details of my assignment. I had no idea this work was going on? I am grateful that on this May Day I can reflect on an action taken for all of us; a simple quiet action that might begin the process of change in one small way. When corporations became able to contribute to political campaigns and contribute in secret, every one of us lost a bit of our power to govern ourselves. When we work collectively, through strikes or protests or proposals at Fortune 500 companies, we take back a bit of the power that belongs to the people.
Namaste. I honor the place in you which is of love, of truth, of light and of peace.
Why should my family come to church? Church benefits those who come most often. Ministers love to preach to the choir because they were here last week and the week before. They actively participate as they are connected to the service with their music. Church choirs are full of truly dedicated church goers. They know they are needed because their voice makes a difference. The learn to sing beautiful music with words that remind them what matters. Of course they get the best health benefits from all that deep breathing. They sit next to friends every week and are missed when they are away. Church benefits those who come most often. But you don’t have to be in the choir to get at least some of the benefits.
We need church? Despite what Emerson thought – a “man is better than a town” – I believe we have much to gain by staying connected. Church reminds us we are part of a much larger whole. We belong to the family of humanity. It is easy to sit with the paper on Sunday and feel discouraged by the negative events in the world or to feel superior because you are so much better off than those you read about. At church we are encouraged by the positive efforts of those around us and we are humbled by the courage and strength of the lives we touch.
Church reminds us of the values we wish to live by. We hear music that reminds us to care for our planet and one another. We have a moment of silence to allow the really important feelings to come to the surface. We hear sermons that are thought provoking and encouraging from the minister or our fellow church goers. We can look into the faces of our fellow humans and be reminded that we have much for which to be thankful.
As parents, church is not only essential for our children, giving them a peer group different and more accepting then the one at school, but it is also important for us. At church we can check our parenting concerns and styles with those around us. We can find support and a reality check for our worries.
But perhaps the best reason to come to church for any of us is friends. We are not solitary beings – though some of us like more solitude than others – on the whole we need social interaction other than work. We need to laugh, interact and share our lives and the internet is not enough. We need to feel a common bond and purpose.
So sad. There are sad things that happen all over the world. It seems harder when it comes so close to home. The sad events in our Farmington community, a young man killed his father, are very close to home. The reverberations, echoes, of traumatic events are felt by many. The children who played next to the perpetrators wonder if they missed something. What should we say to the siblings? The parents who know the family wonder how to inoculate their family from such danger. How do we support the family? Therapists, doctors, teachers, police officers and social workers all experience the trauma as well. How do we support one another?
September 11, 2001? Slavery? Family violence? War? Shootings? Holocausts? The list is both personal and historical. The list is both endless and at the same time specific to a locale. Reverberations, ripples of pain and fear, are in many lives at the same time. The center of the pain lies with those most directly affected. Still like an earthquake the damage is most intense but not limited to that center.
The biggest risk is isolation. Stronger words are necessary; the biggest risk is holding the fear, anger and desperation inside. The biggest risk for the society, community or individual is to disconnect from one another. Expression is the answer. Talk, write, read, act, build, create, connect and connect some more. Let us not revictimize one another but let us talk of the pain and tell the story to those who can listen. Let us create rituals of healing to go deeper than words. Let us reconnect to one another and our sense of meaning and purpose. May we create a container for the memories and emotions, allowing them to be shared and mended, but not forgotten. The place of pain will always be present – we will always see the damage – and yet we can assemble up our strength as we lean into one other. Lean in friends, lean in.
Namaste. I honor the place in you which is of love, of truth, of light and of peace.
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial “outside agitator” idea.. And yet that is what is being perpetrated today. “ Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
The time has come for building coalitions across lines of us and them. It is the only way! As long as we continue to believe we are divided in our desire for respect, equality, and justice we will be easy to overcome. As long as we allow ourselves to be pitted against each other our numbers will stay small enough to accomplish little. Every human being of every hue, gender, orientation, and persuasion desires the same things. We all want work that will support us. We all want freedom to determine our own path. We all want fair treatment.
Let us just take for instance the obvious example of racism. One need only step back a few centuries to see that divide and conquer has kept those with power in power. It has been successful for a long time.
Rebellion and revolution were a part of our early history. One needs only to watch the movie Gangs of New York that chronicles life in 1863 to know that for centuries ethnic groups were pitted against each other. The elite in our country soon realized that if the poor were to get together, black, white, yellow… they, the elite, would lose their grip on power and wealth. So it became popular to give lower class whites just a little land after they had served their time. To let poor whites in on just a little bit of the good life, to make it about skin color was just the divide that was necessary to keep both groups working for a living at below subsistence levels. It worked. Rebellions were greatly reduced once blacks became the center of the problem. If “we” stick together against “them,” we effectively keep those with privilege in charge. As a white person, the culture teaches me that I might someday be like those that “have” because I have the right color skin. It’s a false striving. I have no more chance of becoming a member of the elite than most immigrants. But, if I think I can because my skin matches the color of the elite, I will do everything I can to keep the system of oppression going. Having someone else to look down on assures me that I am part of the upwardly mobile group and keeps us both with relatively little power.
This strategy is no more evident than in the politics of today. ”Consider if you will what conservatives attack: (1) women’s reproductive choice, (2) immigration reform [i.e. the Dream Act], (3) health care reform [aka Obamacare], (4) LGB rights [i.e. same-sex marriage], (5) transgender rights [i.e. employment non-discrimination], and (6) worker’s rights [i.e. collective bargaining], to name a few. By unifying these groups under one umbrella, we could develop a nearly unstoppable force. [Jay Morris on March 11, 2011]
Immigrants are pitched as against “us”; blamed for creating the economic woes because “they” have taken “our” jobs. Public sector workers who “have stepped beyond their place” are the reason we have budget issues. Gays and lesbians are blamed for heterosexual divorce rates. Blacks and poor (read less educated lower class people) are blamed for the housing crisis because “they” were irresponsible in their borrowing. Women are killing our children when they want reproductive control over their bodies. Handicapped people and the mentally ill are a drain on our society. Blacks are blamed for taking the positions in universities that might have belonged to “our” children because of affirmative action. If you are deserving you will have health care. The labor unions have taken too much from the rest of “us.” It is all about divide and conquer. As long we believe the rhetoric that keeps us separate we will all continue to lose ground.
Do you believe that if the labor unions are destroyed you will keep the benefits you have? Do you think that if we kick immigrants out of this country you will have a better job? Do you believe that if gays and lesbians are allowed to marry it will destroy your marriage? Do you believe that Health care for everyone will be a bad idea? Do believe that if poor folks didn’t take advantage of the mortgages offered to them that the economic crisis would not have occurred? You get the idea. Even if you believe some of this, I know you do not believe all of it. Any of it buys the powerful more power and the oppressed are kept separate and down.
Mr. Tim Wise suggests that a constant anxiety is created by an us and them world; a place where “we” are afraid of “them,” be it the slaves who would be freed and take our jobs of yester year or the immigrants of today. We don’t see that they, the other, already have “our jobs.” It’s called outsourcing. Even in this country minorities have the jobs of little value because the dominate culture wants it that way. You would not want whites picking cotton beside blacks because then we might figure out who is keeping us both down and then there would be real revolution. You would not want public and private sector workers to be on the same page because it might lower your profits. By promoting an “us versus them” world we are all kept locked in a pathological world view that we are safest if we are separate. Those in power have the money and the control. Why give that up! When we see how much pain there is for us, when we see how we are limited, we just might realize that the game is not worth the price of admission.
Coalition building is the only way. “We” must join “them.” We must begin to see oppression of any one as oppression of many. While this is not an easy solution – we want to believe “our” cause is the only one – we must begin to hold hands. I want balanced budgets but not at the expense of workers. You want health care for everyone. I want equality in wages. You want women to have control over their own bodies. I believe if we understand we all want respect, equality and justice we will be unstoppable.
To keep our communities strong and healthy we do need to sacrifice. However, that sacrifice should not be unduly carried by the most vulnerable – our children.
On Tuesday, February 15, the Farmington Board of Education voted to take bids for Privatization of Custodial, Food, and Transportation services. I oppose the move to privatize services in schools for many reasons. In nearly all cases the potential for corruption is increased [Washington Times January 26, 2010], the savings is minimal if it exists at all [AFSC.org], our children receive an inferior product, and we create ill will among devoted employees.
Most of these outsourced services are provided by large companies that are subsidiaries of Fortune 500 international companies. The bottom line, profit, is what is most important to these companies. They operate with the motto, “How can we do the minimum requirement for the minimum amount while collecting the maximum profit for our investors?” Is that what we want for our children?
When profit is the motive, we find big business turning to the lowest paid employees to bear the burden of the cost savings. In this case we are asking people who take low paying jobs to make them even lower paying. This is not the way to achieve good will in the community. Many of our service staff live in our community. Their children attend the same schools and live in the same neighborhoods. They will undoubtedly be offered jobs by the “new” company but not at a living wage.
For some custodial services seems like a no brainer – “anyone can clean.” A statement like this does not take into account the scope of the job of a custodian. In my experience, as a minister and manager of staff, those employees that are invested in the building and its mission are the ones most likely to perform above and beyond the call of duty. I have never been satisfied with the cleaning job a service has done for any church I have served. They may clean the toilets but they don’t shine the place and make the small repairs necessary to create an appealing physical space. They don’t “care” about the community. A cleaning service does a job; a district-employed custodian contributes to our communities. Who comes when a child had vomited in the classroom – the custodian? Who comes when a locker is stuck on those first days of middle school? Who makes an extra trip around the building just to be sure it is safe? Who lets in the last child of the morning whose parent was in too much of a hurry to stop and walk in the late child? These are the jobs of the custodians who know the school, who feel well served by the school district, and who therefore do an exemplary job of serving our children. A cleaning service will not allow a child, who needs a connection to an adult, help with clean up. A cleaning service will not welcome the children in the morning with a smile because they are there to get their minimal paycheck and complete their minimal responsibilities.
For some food service seems like the logical place for privatization. With this move, we lose control over the most important aspect of our children’s lives – the food they eat. We need plenty of private enterprise in our food system. We don’t need the government running restaurants, or monopolizing liquor/wine sales, or growing veggies. A healthy food system is composed of a variety of small, interlinked businesses that are grounded in communities. But school lunches are a classic example of market failure. Companies like Revolution Foods (a small US company that serves organic school lunches) have their place–but in a privatized system that values cheapness over other factors, they’ll always be a niche in a world dominated by Tyson and its ilk. Let us invest in the health of our kids, and not outsource their lunches to the lowest bidder. [Grist October 2009] A study from the University of Michigan found that in schools with privatized food service students had 3 % lower scores on the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP tests for grades 3-9). This is especially true for students in grades 3-5 and with the English, reading, and writing tests. [U of M News March 2008] We teach our children that good food is essential and then we pass on the control it takes to provide for those values.
Sodexo , one of the major players in the food service industry, supplying food to the Birmingham schools, is a Multi-national organization located in France. They have been uncooperative when parents have questioned the nutritional value of the food [Grist October 2009]. They offer sugar cereals for lunch to boost the number of served students, thus justifying their existence. Some parents, for lack of resources, are forced to take these lunches because of the subsidized lunch program. Once again we are balancing the budget on the most vulnerable at risk people in our society. In addition, they treat their workers very poorly with low wages and no benefits [cleanupsodexo.org]. This change will hurt our students and send money overseas that rightfully belongs in our state.
In the area of transportation, the bottom line is once again sited as the need to make this change. Yet in example after example the cost per pupil goes up, the cost per bus run goes up, and the reimbursements from the state and federal government for these costs go down[Taking Them for a Ride: An Assessment of the Privatization of School Transportation in Ohio's Public School Districts] Please take time to look at the facts. The transportation companies have a difficult time keeping employees. Throughout the year, we will see strangers greeting our kindergarteners as they board. We will have unknown people correcting our students and attempting to the keep the environment on the bus safe for everyone. While the companies promise compliance with background check requirements, we will need to track this to assure its getting done. Once again, we are balancing the budget by potentially putting our children at risk, creating ill will in the community and often not realizing the savings we had hoped.
Supporters of these moves sight “sound economic policies” and “free market capitalism,”. which I understand as “the bottom line is all that matters.” Accusing the staff that has served us well, often for decades, of being “greedy” because they want benefits and fair wages for their families ignores where the money goes in these privatizing moves. Large corporations make money and you and your neighbors lose money.
May I suggest that we make an across the board cut in wages and supplies. May I suggest we go to the unions and the workers that have served us well and suggest ALL employees take a percentage wage and benefit cut. Good will is created when we truly, fairly carry the burden. Will the principals, teachers, and other administrators take such a cut? A ten percent wage cut for everyone would more than make up the deficit. We have already realized a nearly 1 million dollar savings in closing schools. We are already doing better than last year. I understand that we all want what is best for our children. Farmington/Farmington Hills is a unique community with strong schools. We want it to stay that way. The people who greet our children every day, and the people who serve our children lunch are important to the learning environment. Let us not sacrifice our children at the altar of big business profit.
Each morning at approximately 8:15, in Warner Upper Elementary School, the school stops and faces the American flags found in each room. The students, teachers, custodians and visitors place their right hand over the left side of the chest and say the pledge of allegiance. I have mixed feelings as I stand there with the others, my hand over my heart reciting the words I have known for as long as I can remember.
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”
In 1892 Francis Bellamy, a Baptist preacher, was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its chairman, he prepared the program for the public schools’ quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this public school program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute – his ‘Pledge of Allegiance.’
His original Pledge read as follows: ‘I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’ He considered placing the word, ‘equality,’ in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ][i]
As one can see, the original pledge has changed over the years. In 1923 the words United States of America were added. These words were added to clarify to which flag one was pledging allegiance. There was concern that immigrants might pledge allegiance to “my flag” and it would be the flag of their home country. Part of my problem is that the picture I have in my mind is of children of Mexican ancestry pledging allegiance to the flag of a country that wishes they weren’t here; or Native American children pledging to the flag of the people who destroyed them.
Last week as I walking down the hall at school, just as the pledge was starting, I stopped and joined a woman who was also in the hall. We both faced the flag in the cafeteria and said the words. She had a huge grin on her face. In between chasing her little one, she explained that she had just gotten her American citizenship papers. She was delighted to be able to say the pledge as a citizen. I asked her why. She said, “America is a great country. Certainly better than where I came from. When my daughter gets bigger I will be able to get a job.” The pledge for her is an affirmation of all the work she has done. There was great pride in her voice and I thanked her for telling me. OK, so some immigrants are delighted to say the pledge.
One change that we have all been keenly aware of is the phrase “under God.” The history states that the addition was to echo the words of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. These words it was suggested were what made our country different from other countries. With President Eisenhower sitting in the pews, George MacPherson Docherty, delivered a sermon based on the Gettysburg Address titled “A New Birth of Freedom.” He argued that the nation’s might lay not in arms but in its spirit and higher purpose. He noted that the Pledge’s sentiments could be those of any nation, that “there was something missing in the pledge, and that which was missing was the characteristic and definitive factor in the American way of life.” He cited Lincoln’s words “under God” as defining words that set the United States apart from other nations.
President Eisenhower, though raised a Jehovah’s Witness, had been baptized a Presbyterian just a year before. He responded enthusiastically to Docherty in a conversation following the service. Eisenhower acted on his suggestion the next day and on February 8, 1954, Rep. Charles Oakman (R-Mich.), introduced a bill to that effect. Congress passed the necessary legislation and Eisenhower signed the bill into law on Flag Day, June 14, 1954.[ii]
The pledge and the flag have been part of major controversies over the years. As recently as 2010 there have been court cases to determine issues around the pledge. Those most recent court cases have determined that saying, “under God” does not constitute a religious statement. Thus saying it does NOT violate a child’s rights.
This is where it gets sticky for me. I love the fact that the whole school stops and says the pledge. I love that for a few seconds we are all together speaking. We each take a breath and say the same words; then the minute it is over we go back to our conversations and work. For those few seconds are voices are together. It feels like a collective gathering moment before the day begins. It reminds us all where we are and the work that lies ahead.
And yet, and yet …. There is so much wrong with those words. For instance, I wish equality were in there. Wouldn’t that be a radical idea? Liberty, equality and justice for all; now there are some challenging words! The announcements at the school are followed by a closing each day, “Vikings (the school mascot) treat the school with respect, Vikings treat each other with respect and Vikings treat themselves with respect.” Why don’t we recite that?
Of course, I have issue with under God. Whose God? I am not interested in pledging allegiance to a vengeful God that damns people. I am not interested in pledging to the God of the anti-gay Kansas church. I am not interested in pledging allegiance to the sexist God that believes women are second-class citizens. I know that I can pledge myself to any Gods or Goddesses I want, and anyone else can do the same – it’s hard for me to stand there knowing that that “other” God is getting carried around in some kid’s heads. In addition, what about our Indian friends who are Hindu? What do they think about “under God”? I disagree with the courts that saying “under God” is not a violation of rights. For many of us saying “under God” is a lie. We don’t think it is true.
My conception of God is of one that doesn’t rule over people, so under doesn’t work for me. My conception of God is of one that co-creates the world with humans and other beings so with might work for me. My conception of God is not as something or someone that can be understood or comprehended so under God is in fact offensive and reduces God to a knowable entity. My God does not favor some nations and not others. My God is best summed up as Love.
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation indivisible with love, liberty equality and justice for all”
There! I like that better – think I have any luck getting it changed?
[i]The Pledge of Allegiance A Short History by Dr. John W. Baer http://oldtimeislands.org/pledge/pledge.htm
Every day I encounter people who seem to believe that the laws of nature and society simply don’t apply to them. OK maybe its my crankiness that doesn’t want to honor their self-centered, blinders-on way of going through the word. Still it seems that the individualism and situational ethics of our time has run amok. Governments and corporations are collectives of individuals that also have become so absorbed in self-interest and improving their standing that our environment and our species suffer.
May I offer a suggestion? Its not a new idea in fact Immanuel Kant came up with it. Kant was an 18th century German philosopher who did such things as critique the limits of our faculty of reason. He called my idea a moral imperative – but I think of it much simpler. Look Kant up on Wikipedia if you would like to know more about his ideas. Kant felt there should be rules that govern our lives. One such rule could be used to examine our behavior. “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law,” said Kant.
I say, ask yourself, “Would this be OK if everyone did it?” If I turn left where there is no left turn – what would happen if everyone did that? When I drop a Kleenex out my window – what would happen if everyone did that? When I let someone who has fewer items move ahead of me in the grocery line – what would happen if everyone did that? It simplifies so many of our daily interactions. It makes it easy to make a decision about the best thing to do.
While self-serving has its place – in the grand scheme of life it is not always the best choice. Perhaps it comes from our evolutionary past. In order for our species to survive maybe we had to have a “me and my family first” way of looking at the world. It was a dog eat dog world to some extent. That subsistence way of life still exists in many parts of the world today where there is not enough water or food for everyone. Yet when we look into subsistence cultures prior to their modernization, we find a collective attitude. Tribes as they were called by outsiders seem to have a group mentality; a “needs of the many” style of using resources and distributing wealth. When there was a shortage of wealth in the form of food or water – essential needs – there were often wars between tribes. Sometimes offspring were left to die if there weren’t enough resources for survival. Again the question could be asked, “Would this (war or letting a child die) be OK if everyone did it?” The answer would be yes. It would be OK if everyone acted that way. It would be OK if each person decided for the greater good to sacrifice their life or the life of their offspring.
However I am not referring to such weighty questions. More simple questions get on my mind. Should I walk across the grass or stick to the sidewalk? Should I ignore the red light by church at 10:00 at night when no one is around? Should I pick up the poop from someone else’s dog at the dog park? What if everyone did? What if no one did?
You could of course apply this standard to the behavior of corporations, governments and even financial institutions. I have even used it to evaluate the policies of our embattled President. If everyone were to be as compromising and consolatory as he seems to be the world would be a better place. Just think if the more conservative politicians were to be as compromising as Mr. Obama appears to be? Just think if the global mega corporations were to consider their policies based on the universal application of their actions? Just think if financial institutions considered what their actions would create if everyone did the same thing? We would live in a very different world if we all just asked that one question, “How would it be if everyone were to act like me?”
Criticism of Kant came from many fronts. Mostly folks like Kierkegaard said that humans are not tough enough on themselves. We tend to let ourselves off the hook too much. Reminds me of a mom dropping off her kid the other day at school; she pulled right up on to the sidewalk. “I know the rules and I never break them.” She said as I approached her car with a frown on my face. Hard to ask her, “What if everyone did this?” because she wasn’t doing anything odd or unusual from her perspective. From her perspective, she was not breaking any rules. Sure, everyone can be in complete denial of his or her behavior.
So while not a perfect solution to all the world’s evil it would make the world a “lighter brighter” place if we just asked ourselves, “What if everyone did what I am about to do?”
