Fight racism: Oppose districts for PAUSD | A Pragmatist's Take | Douglas Moran | Palo Alto Online |

Local Blogs

A Pragmatist's Take

By Douglas Moran

E-mail Douglas Moran

About this blog: Real power doesn't reside with those who make the final decision, but with those who decide what qualifies as the viable choices. I stumbled across this insight as a teenager (in the 1960s). As a grad student, I belonged to an org...  (More)

View all posts from Douglas Moran

Fight racism: Oppose districts for PAUSD

Uploaded: Sep 5, 2018
A threatened lawsuit is seeking to enshrine racist attitudes on our School Board elections, and potentially on the policies of the PAUSD. ("^Law firm threatens action over school board elections: Letter alleges district's system 'dilutes' Latino and Asian votes^", PA Online, 2018-09-04). That racist attitude is that people are first and foremost defined by their race. The proposed remedy is one of districts to facilitate the individual elections being dominated, or disproportionately influenced, by members of one race. This, of course, presumes that Palo Alto neighborhoods are so racially segregated that the districts could be drawn to concentrate different racial groups in different districts.

I expect that most of you immediately spotted the absurdities. However, let me try to provide some structure for your communications to the School Board about that potential lawsuit, both principled and pragmatic.

The foundation of the lawsuit is that members of a racial group are so much like each other and so different from members of other racial groups that they need to be treated as a group, not as individuals. (This is a long-established argument and marks some "political fault lines"). The letter threatening the lawsuit argues against itself. It cites the controversy over naming a school after Fred Yamamoto as representing "racial polarization". But wait! That polarization was essentially between Chinese-Americans and Japanese-Americans, and Asian vs Asian is not racial (in the sense of the lawsuit).
(Clarification/emphasis: "not racial" means not INTER-racial -- this instance is INTRA-racial -- because the threatened lawsuit specifies "Asian" as a race)
And within supposed ethnicities, there are great differences, for example Chinese with roots in Beijing vs. those from Taiwan, or Shanghai vs. Hong Kong vs. Guangdong (or so I am told). Similarly for the many regions of India, Southeast Asia, ... Don't spend too much time on this or you will get the "polarization" down to the level of individuals.

If the principles don't convince you, let's look at the practical details.

The School Board has 5 seats, so each district would have 20% of Palo Alto's population. Accord to the news article, Latinos are 7% of the city's population. So even if you managed to relocate all Latinos into one district, under racialized voting, a Latino candidate would lose in a humiliating landslide. So having districts would do nothing about the purported dilution of Latino votes, and could emphasize race in voting, making it harder for Latinos to get elected.

Question: Why are 5 winner-take-all elections more likely to be influenced by smaller groups than an election for 2 or 3 positions where the candidates have more flexibility in creating coalitions?

As to the claim that Asians have trouble getting elected, 2 of the current 9 City Council members are Asian-Americans: 22% vs 31% of residents (citizens, permanent residents, ...). And since both will be on next year's 7-member Council, that is 29%.
Rhetorical question: How would a districting scheme handle families with parents from different races? According to the theory underlying the lawsuit, a couple that is White and Asian would be simultaneously advantaged and disadvantaged by our at-large elections.

One of the common results of districts is that its representative is accorded outsized influence on what happens in that district. For example, San Jose City Council members run "mini City Halls". So what would be the effect of dividing PAUSD into 5 districts. Three wouldn't have a high school. Two wouldn't have a middle school. If a family lives in one of these districts but their child goes to school in another district, who should they approach with problems? The representative that they vote for, or the representative who has primary responsibility for their child's school. Or would both point them at the other?

Since Palo Alto would likely continue to have staggered elections for School Board members -- so they don't all turn-over at the same time -- we would have elections where 40% or 60% of the electorate would have no influence on the result. This could produce a School Board that has less need to be responsive to the residents.

It would be interesting if the School District lawyers could find a way to file a complaint against that law firm for trying to extort the PAUSD to commit an illegal act (casting districting as racial discrimination). However, this law firm as gone after enough other municipalities and school districts that I presume that they would have considered this (plus a pattern of extortion falling under the ^RICO Act^). But since I and most of you aren't lawyers, that would only be wild speculation, and not suitable for discussion here.

----
An ^abbreviated index by topic and chronologically^ is available.

----Boilerplate on Commenting----
The ^Guidelines^ for comments on this blog are different from those on Town Square Forums. I am attempting to foster more civility and substantive comments by deleting violations of the guidelines.

I am particularly strict about misrepresenting what others have said (me or other commenters). If I judge your comment as likely to provoke a response of "That is not what was said", do not be surprised to have it deleted. My primary goal is to avoid unnecessary and undesirable back-and-forth, but such misrepresentations also indicate that the author is unwilling/unable to participate in a meaningful, respectful conversation on the topic.
A slur is not an argument. Neither are other forms of vilification of other participants.

If you behave like a ^Troll^, do not waste your time protesting when you get treated like one.
Local Journalism.
What is it worth to you?

Comments

Posted by Anon, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood,
on Sep 5, 2018 at 11:01 am

For once, I agree with your line of reasoning. I'm suspicious of the law firm. Is this part of their business model? How do they get paid?


Posted by Get It Right, a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove,
on Sep 5, 2018 at 12:26 pm

"The letter threatening the lawsuit argues against itself. It cites the controversy over naming a school after Fred Yamamoto as representing "racial polarization". But wait! That polarization was essentially between Chinese-Americans and Japanese-Americans, and Asian vs Asian is not racial (in the sense of the lawsuit)."

That's right. Racialism can occur only if whites are involved. All the rest of them are alike.

All good people agree,
And all good people say,
All nice people, like Us, are We
And every one else is They

-Kipling


Posted by Curious, a resident of Crescent Park,
on Sep 5, 2018 at 9:38 pm

"And within supposed ethnicities, there are great differences, for example Chinese with roots in Beijing vs. those from Taiwan, or Shanghai vs. Hong Kong vs. Guangdong (or so I am told)."

Douglas -- I appreciate the points you raise in your blog post, though I am confused by this sentence. What purpose does the phrase "or so I am told" serve? This seems to detract from your point, which is that racial groups do in fact possess diversity within themselves.

[[Blogger: I anticipate that certain readers might be tempted to go off on a non-trivial tangent about this, and I was trying to indirectly preempt this -- tends to be better than a direct admonition ("This is off-topic") when possible.
]]


Posted by Apple, a resident of Atherton,
on Sep 6, 2018 at 9:54 am

You hinted at this point, but it's worth pointing out more directly. Just because Latinos represent 7% and Asians represent 31%, doesn't mean they vote in those percentages. That's just the raw demographic information from the last census, which doesn't measure the electorate.

There are non-citizens, children, eligible voters who are not registered to vote, and people who are registered but don't vote. Voter demographics are very different than the census numbers.

BTW, the reason law firms are filing all these lawsuits is they get paid $30K if the government agency acquiesces to their demands to change to district elections. That's $30K for the cost of writing what amounts to a form letter and doing some internet searches on local demographics and electoral history.

If the government agency opposes the change to districts and loses the trial, then the law firm gets its expenses 100% reimbursed. That's usually in the millions of dollars. It's unbelievably difficult for the government to win one of these lawsuits based on how the law is written.

In essence, it's a shakedown.

Here's an article with more details:
Web Link


Posted by Am I Missing Something, a resident of Midtown,
on Sep 6, 2018 at 8:05 pm

"Just because Latinos represent 7% and Asians represent 31%, doesn't mean they vote in those percentages. That's just the raw demographic information from the last census, which doesn't measure the electorate. There are non-citizens, children, eligible voters who are not registered to vote, and people who are registered but don't vote. Voter demographics are very different than the census numbers."

Doesn't this observation apply to non-Latinos as well? If so, then the point being attempted is pointless.


Posted by Carolyn, a resident of another community,
on Sep 6, 2018 at 10:14 pm

If the PAUSD tries to fight this they will almost certainly lose -- no agency has ever won a CVRA lawsuit. Every single argument here was made in the City of Santa Clara, and continues to be made by those who think there's a way back to Santa Clara's "peculiar institution." Santa Clara is likely on the hook for $5 million+, while facing an $8 million general fund deficit.

This is the reality: The legislature isn't going to repeal the CVRA. PAUSD isn't going to be the David who knocks down the CVRA with some Constitutional sling shot. No judge is going to be moved by parsing the varieties of ethnicity and arguments about how Asians and Hispanics don't vote or prefer to vote for white candidates (all of which were made in Santa Clara and the judge didn't even bother to answer them in his ruling). PAUSD should spend its money on students, not lawyers. Doing otherwise is irresponsible and in itself is reason to remove the board members from office.


Posted by Douglas Moran, a Palo Alto Online blogger,
on Sep 6, 2018 at 11:39 pm

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

RE: Carolyn

Condensing: Accusation equals proof.


Posted by Apple, a resident of Atherton,
on Sep 7, 2018 at 8:24 am

@Am I Missing Something

"Doesn't this observation apply to non-Latinos as well? If so, then the point being attempted is pointless."

No, field research significant differences in vote percentages among racial groups compared to their expected census percentages, except for African Americans. From the Public Policy Institute of California:

"Today, according to US Census estimates, non-Hispanic whites make up 42% of the state's adult population, but our surveys find that they make up 59% of the state's likely voters. In contrast, Latinos represent 34% of the state's adult population but account for only 21% of those most likely to vote. Asian Americans comprise 15% of the adult population and 11% of likely voters. The share of African American likely voters matches their representation in the adult population (6%). Our surveys over the past year indicate that 50% of Asian American adult citizens, 53% of Latino adult citizens, and 58% of African American adult citizens are likely to vote, compared to 75% of white adult citizens."

Web Link


Posted by the_punnisher, a resident of Mountain View,
on Sep 10, 2018 at 8:24 pm

the_punnisher is a registered user.

[[ Off-topic. History that is only vaguely connected to the question of the threatened lawsuit.]]


Posted by Anon, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood,
on Sep 11, 2018 at 9:52 am

Unfortunately, this story has an actual bottom line. The current state law generally favors district elections rather than at-large elections. PAUSD stands to lose more money if it fights. So, we need to ask ourselves if there is a reasonable way to create districts that will likely lead to a more effective school board. If there is, then, let's do it and save the money.


Posted by Douglas Moran, a Palo Alto Online blogger,
on Sep 11, 2018 at 2:42 pm

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

The cost to the School District is not just potential lawsuit, but the cost of a School Board that has a lesser collection of skills and energy.

As was pointed out in the comments on the news article, two of the current Board members live in Barron Park (Todd Collins and Ken Dauber). In this election, at least two of the candidates come from Barron Park.

Elections in Palo Alto typically see 20-25K ballots cast, although some of these may not vote for the "down ballot" offices such as School Board and City Council, and especially judges.
A 5 district system would have 4-5K ballot-casters in each.
You could easily elections where at least one of the districts had very weak candidates and another that had multiple very strong candidates.

District elections mean that the School District is unlikely to get the best combination of candidates elected (from random distributions).

The money saved by caving in to the threatened lawsuit could be lost to bad governance in subsequent years.


Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood,
on Sep 12, 2018 at 8:40 am

I made this point in the news thread but will repeat it here.

If we had a Little Italy, a Chinatown area, or other specific ethnic areas around town, it might be something to think about. However, this is not the case. We are a diverse town with various ethnicities living in nearly all neighborhoods.

Also, just because people have the same skin color, it doesn't mean they all think the same way culturally. There are enormous differences between Chinese/Japanese, Indians/Pakistanis, Australians/New Zealanders, French/German, British/Irish, etc. even though they may look the same.

We have to celebrate our diversity and enjoy the fact that there are no distinct ethnic neighborhood enclaves. Yes, certain traits may be the same among certain groups, but those certain groups are spread out. I doubt very much a border could be drawn to change the demographics of the BoE.

I also can't see it would make us get a more diverse group of candidates. We tend not to have a huge number of choices whenever there is an election and I remember a few years ago that we had no election due to no candidates running.


Posted by head stuck in sand, a resident of Adobe-Meadow,
on Oct 16, 2018 at 7:15 pm

That's all great. Don't do district elections.

However, what's YOUR plan for getting a board that isn't 100% caucasian and better represents the diversity in the district?


Posted by Douglas Moran, a Palo Alto Online blogger,
on Oct 16, 2018 at 7:42 pm

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

@ head stuck in sand

What is your evidence that non-Caucasians have problems being elected?
The original post pointed out that non-Caucasians have been elected to both School Board and City Council (similar electorate). Shounak Dharap is likely to be elected to the School Board this year (based on endorsements and word of mouth). And for City Council, Pat Boone, an African American, may have a chance despite not having done aggressive fund-raising.

The Chinese-American community has several times shown its muscle in elections. For example, Greg Tanaka (Chinese-Japanese American) was elected despite being recommended again by the local newspapers.

Non-Caucasian candidates have a higher success rate in election than Caucasians, even after the non-serious candidates are excluded.

So again: What is your evidence that non-Caucasians have difficulties being elected?

And again: Why is ethnic origins the most important factor?


Posted by head in sand, a resident of Adobe-Meadow,
on Oct 17, 2018 at 6:38 am

See, Doug, this is where we differ. You, obviously, have no problem with a completely unrepresentative board. You've offered no solution for why non-caucasians aren't running or a model to at least attempt to make the board representative.

Perhaps it's money and districts may help, perhaps not. No one's bothered to try to increase the diversity on the board.

When you have a 100% caucasian board when they make up a minority of the district, you have a problem. We do know that there is institutional racism in the district as shown by the achievement gap and overrepresentation in special ed.

Districts may not be the solution but sticking your head in the sand certainly isn't.


Posted by Former PA resident, a resident of Mountain View,
on Oct 17, 2018 at 9:29 am

At a distance from this particular election, I see the main way the two last comments differ here: it's in what they presuppose.

The last commenter takes for granted that the most important feature of a school board membership is ethnicity. That the board must be "representative" of a larger population in a tribalistic quota-result sense. Note that this is precisely the same argument Harvard U. currently advances to defend *excluding* Asian-American students from admission in numbers reflecting their academic qualifications, but disproportionate to "representation" in the US population. Both arguments meet the generic, dictionary, non-politically-spun definition of racism. Whereas the last commenter "head in sand" taking also for granted a presupposition that school achievement gap implies "institutional racism" (refusing to consider any of the many other factors active) does not meet that standard definition. So once again, in the service of unexamined ideology, terms like "racism" lose their basic meaning, and devolve to rhetorical labeling, i.e. name-calling.

The blogger, though, stuck to the word's classic meaning (judging people by their ethnicity) and asked the real, embarassing, non-ideological questions: why should a board member's ethnicity be their most important qualification; and what is the *evidence* that people from any particular ethnicity, who choose to run, have trouble being elected?

No amount of dodging those questions alters their penetration and relevance.


Posted by head in sand, a resident of Adobe-Meadow,
on Oct 17, 2018 at 5:59 pm

Hey, "former resident", straw-man much?

I really shouldn't need to explain the benefits of diversity. Fortunately you're in a minority (sic).

Previous school boards recognize the value in diversity when they wrote the board policy for committees: "“[T]he membership of citizen advisory committees should reflect the diversity of the community and represent a diversity of viewpoints." BP 1220 (Web Link

The current board ignored this requirement when approving the renaming committee and we all saw the result of that!

Even the Weekly listed diversity as a reason for choosing a candidate: "This is also a unique opportunity to diversify the board by adding a younger resident of Indian heritage who graduated from the district just a decade ago." "We would prefer a candidate, like Dharap, who brings greater diversity to the board."(Web Link

Can Shounak count on your votes?


Posted by Douglas Moran, a Palo Alto Online blogger,
on Oct 17, 2018 at 6:20 pm

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

RE: Head in sand

> "I really shouldn't need to explain the benefits of diversity."

Which typically means that you can't.
The research is that a certain amount of diversity is very important, but after a certain threshold, it becomes disruptive and then destructive. "Tower of Babel" territory.
Diversity advocates routinely ignore the existence of that threshold.
And note that this research was on the broad range of diversity, not the ethnic diversity that you see as the only relevant form.

> policy: "[The membership of citizen advisory committees should reflect the diversity of the community and represent a diversity of viewpoints."

Notice that viewpoint diversity is the only category mentioned, making it a top priority. If ethnic diversity was to have been a top priority, it too would have been explicitly called out.

"Even the Weekly listed diversity as a reason for choosing a candidate: 'This is also a unique opportunity to diversify the board by adding a younger resident of Indian heritage...' "

The Weekly has routinely endorsed candidates because they are young. This has worked out poorly. Cory Wolbach is very immature for his age (as the Weekly recognized in the current endorsements). Adrian Fine rarely displays the ability to think beyond his slogans.

It is racist to treat candidate Shounak Dharap as someone whose primary accomplishment in life was to be born to parents who are ethnically Indians. I would start with his being a lawyer and presumably having better training in critical analysis and thinking than a generic candidate.


Posted by head in sand, a resident of Adobe-Meadow,
on Oct 17, 2018 at 8:37 pm

"I would start with his being a lawyer and presumably having better training in critical analysis and thinking than a generic candidate."

I'll leave you with Shounak's words on this topic (Web Link

"Unity in the community will stem from representation on the board with respect to the school. One area we talked about is the lawsuit on the voting rights act. Well, breaking the district up to have district elections is one way to build that representation. It's statistically much harder for younger people, for minorities and for working professionals to actually run for a board seat because of the money involved and because of the number of doors you have to knock on. That prevents people like me but like many others who would be more able to represent the diversity of our community from running for the board in the first place."


Posted by Douglas Moran, a Palo Alto Online blogger,
on Oct 18, 2018 at 3:11 pm

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

Yikes. So he started to give himself as an example of people are prevented from running, caught himself, and backed off to it being people like him.
That is real dedication to dogma in the face of facts.

Thanks for pointing this out. He lost my vote.


Follow this blogger.
Sign up to be notified of new posts by this blogger.

Email:

SUBMIT

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Palo Alto Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Holiday Fun in San Francisco- Take the Walking Tour for An Evening of Sparkle!
By Laura Stec | 8 comments | 2,663 views

Pacifica’s first brewery closes its doors
By The Peninsula Foodist | 0 comments | 2,308 views

Premiere! “I Do I Don’t: How to build a better marriage” – Here, a page/weekday
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,706 views

 

Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund

For the last 30 years, the Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund has given away almost $10 million to local nonprofits serving children and families. 100% of the funds go directly to local programs. It’s a great way to ensure your charitable donations are working at home.

DONATE TODAY