Isn't this Urban Systems?: The CLIME Conference

Every now and again, I attend events with the potential to allow me to gather data. Sometimes the data aligns to what I am working on and sometimes it doesn't. In either case, I will share what I got from the event.

Today Nicole and I went to a conference at the Center on Law in Metropolitan Equity (CLIME) to see David Rusk Speak. David Troutt introduced the conference and talked about CLIME. To our shock (sarcasm), this program is Urban Systems in law. As a GA/TA, I wondered, "Why haven't we been invited to work together?  Can we teach in the program?"

David Rusk was the main speaker.  He noted that his priority is people but, place is related to people, thus is important.  It was immediately obvious to me that engagement was the name of his game. He invited the audience to have a conversation with him rather than simply listening to him lecture. Already I was intrigued. He spoke about ways to measure regional inequity and also posed interventions that might address the problem. I captured some highlights from his talk, but you can check out his report here: http://rutgers.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=c53659eeaae0efe17e7cf2c77&id=2cc5ff6385&e=6114cb3890

He began by asking, "What is the role of regional equity to reduce social, racial and economic inequalities and between places and people? How do you evaluate what's done? Traditionally it was about inputs. Rather than focusing on need, which the Feds do, we should focus on opportunity. This is why there is more than the necessary share public housing in selected places and now public housing in other places. He noted also that there are little box places (e.g.East coast, Midwest) and big box places (e.g. Nevada).  Being from "little box" or "big box" states influence one's institutional framework. This framework shapes how you see urban problems. 

He continued to outline what seemed to Nicole and I as concepts in Urban Systems and we wondered more and more why our program had not been included in this. He laid out racial, place-based, and economic inequalities extremely well. He also linked the urban disciplines of environment, education, health and housing together quite nicely. But he seemed to address the macro-social issue alone. The comment/question that kept popping up for me was this:

I appreciate the data and analysis that delve into these macrosocial structures such as race, economic and housing inequities, and I think a few people touched on this, but how do you address the tension between the micro and the macro? What are the suggestions regarding more micro social interactions between groups people. For instance, in terms of integration, Lemann (1991) shows us that avoiding social interaction between their children and black children is one reason as to why whites historically didn't want their children to go to school with blacks. Perceptions like that would prevent the most liberal integration polices from being effective. How do we address personal relationships among individuals to decrease these kind discriminatory perceptions we have towards one another? And how do you do this in a way that can be sustained over time to give the intervention time to potentially be effective?

Elise Boddie was the the discussant. Last year she gave a talk on campus about the legalese behind the Fisher vs Texas AM tria. She emphasized that poor whites will always push back when comparing poor minorities' circumstances to theirs. This line of discussion seemed to address my comment. She asked if there is some kind a mechanism we can foster to introduce diverse students into diverse school systems. She brought up a redistribution of education resources in places to ensure fairness to all. My comment remained relevant as I listened to the audience skirt around the issue. I had to get up, and ask my question. I watched several people avoid around my question and finally one woman talked about how the micro-social interventions are very necessary, they are challenging and must be deliberate, referencing efforts that occur in South Orange-Maplewood.  Nicole and I looked at each other and smiled. Following this was a short break during which two women who were part of the effort described by the woman above came over to talk about their programming. I asked them if they were open to students coming to working with them. They said Yes! Holla! Does anyone need a project?!

Following the break. David Troutt read selections from his book. In his book, The Price of Paradise, he argues that a lack of equity across regions, as it pertains to local decision making, has contributed to the inequity facing many urban areas. He called this "localism". During the talk he argued more specifically that "localism" became the more durable successor to Jim Crowism. He continued emphasizing that he considered the notions of Sampson, Massey, Brown, McEwen, and Kefalis among others to come up with his ideas. I know many Urban Systems students will recognize these scholars...so I ask again...is there a collaborative dimension to be considered between CLIME and the Urban Systems program?