Saturday, August 20, 2016

Equal Access to Pools

     At the beginning of summer, I realized I didn't know where a community pool was near where I lived. Throughout my commutes to and from work I would think about this as I passed various neighborhoods with their own pool houses and the YMCA with an indoor pool. I kept wondering where the city's public pool was. The more I thought about it, the more I started wondering when neighborhoods started building their own pools and whether it was a suburban thing, as I don't remember seeing such private pools in the smaller town I grew up in. I thought about the divisive nature of these private pools, how they allowed those who could afford in such neighborhoods to insulate themselves from those different from them, and how those different people were more likely to be black or Hispanic.
     With the recent success of Simone Manuel at the Summer Games in Rio and the discussion of racial segregation at the pool, I've started thinking about this topic again. Finally doing some research into the subject I wasn't surprised by what I found. Prior to the 1950s private pools were very rare but were generally racially as well as gender segregated. Shortly after the mid-century point, communities started to allow men and women to swim together, but insisted on separate facilities for black people. In some places the racial division was done through the laws, which were eventually challenged, while other places allowed its residents to enforce unofficial segregationist policies while looking the other way during the violent encounters that ensued.
     As the civil rights movement gained momentum and courts overturned the laws keeping pools racially separated, more and more pools were built on private lands in ways that mirrored white flight out of the cities and into the suburbs. Some of them were back yard pools, but many were behind the gates of country clubs and neighborhood associations. This privatization of pools allowed their users to maintain a homogeneous group of users without running afoul of the law. In a few cases, the move from public to private occurred to the same pool. Cities that owned and operated the pools and who were in support of segregation would sell their pool to private organizations who would continue to restrict access based on race.
     This divestment of public interest in pools has had a lasting effect for poor and disadvantaged groups. The number of public pools per capita is smaller than it was 60 years ago, and those that do exist are often in whiter middle class parts of town making it more difficult for those less well off to access them. The diminished access helps explain the large number of black and Hispanic children who don't know how to swim – they simply do not have anywhere to learn.
     Simone Manuel winning gold medals for swimming is certainly a seminal moment in US history, but her success does not mark the end of racially motivated policies in America. We still have plenty of work to do if we believe it important that all children should have the ability to learn to swim and enjoy a hot summer day in the pool. Perhaps a move back to community or city pools can provide a place where people can come together and recognize the humanity and fundamental sameness in one another rather than fear each others' differences in ways that play out on city streets where cops disproportionately respond to black citizens with violence and targeted communities react with riots.

Sources:


Sunday, August 14, 2016

On Equality of Opportunity

      I read an article today by Melissa Winkler with the Society of St. Vincent De Paul concerning the percentage of income that the least well off spend on necessities as compared to those in higher income brackets. The information seemed very obvious; people with low incomes by definition have less money. Since prices of staples are not income dependent (e.g. gas, food, clothes), it follows that these people are spending larger percentages of their income on them. It is possible for those to with greater incomes to be buying more of these things or to buy items of higher quality and therefore higher price, so the information is not simply a tautology. Still, it doesn't surprise me in the least.
      I was on the verge of chiding myself for wasting my time reading something that I basically already knew, but then I found the value in the article. The author did a great job following the facts with their ramifications. When someone spends 40-50% of their income on housing and another 10% on electricity, not to mention any other utilities, the bills quickly pile up such that it can be very difficult to have anything left over for things like schooling or job training programs.
      That idea made me think about the resources available to people to improve their circumstances and employability. The main tool people utilize in education, business, and even their personal lives is the loan. But loans are not free money. Banks and other financial institutions need to be convinced the money they are lending is likely to return to them. They also want collateral so that should one default on the loan they can salvage some of the lost funds through the sale of whatever was put up against the loan. In the most common cases, the item placed against the loan is the item(s) bought with the loaned money, for instance houses, cars, or business equipment and property.
      Education and skill training is different. The borrowed money isn't buying an object, but knowledge. The money is often used not only to pay for the classes and certification exams but also the basic necessities as those classes don't often leave enough time for one to earn a wage great enough to pay for such. Thus many of the loan programs for education and training are through government programs rather than private banks. There simply isn't an obvious profit incentive for private firms to loan money for education. The drop-out and incompletion rates are too high and having a degree or certification does not guarantee a job that pays enough to cover one's bills and the loan itself.
      So it appears our society recognizes that there are market short comings in providing the means for improvement and has programs in place to compensate for these shortcomings. But are the programs enough? Are people from the bottom quintile in income or those below the poverty line able to utilize these programs to move out of poverty? What would be a good metric for determining if these programs are doing enough to say economic mobility is not only possible but actively taking place in the United States? Does it have to be seen through a single generation or would parents laying the ground work for their children to lead more economically stable lives be enough? Who is using government loan and grant programs? Is it the least capable of paying or are more people from the middle utilizing such programs to compensate for the continuously growing cost of higher education?
      I'm not sure the answers to any of these questions are out there, but I'd like to try and find them. If the United States is going to be labeled as a land of opportunity, it should be proven to be so and not just for a select few who's evidence is anecdotal but for any and all willing to take the necessary steps and risks to make their lives better and in the process this country as well.