Berkeley Political Review

Author: Lauren Glasby

  • “Pics or it Didn’t Happen”: California’s Millennials’ Resistance to Voting

    How much would you pay for an avocado? Millennials, even if they refuse to admit it now, will fork up a relatively large amount, such as $12 for avocado toast or $5 for a side of guacamole. Driven largely by millennials, the current 18- to 35-year-olds, avocado consumption has skyrocketed from one pound per person in 1994 to a whopping seven pounds per person today. Despite the stiff prices, the avocado has practically become the poster boy for California millennial lifestyle. This superfood represents their commitment to clean-eating and “athleisure.” Yet the avocado also symbolizes millennials’ detachment from the real people that make possible their trendy lifestyle and social media presence possible.

    The avocado shortage in 2017 sent millennials into a pit of despair, not because the shortage threatened the jobs of thousands of farmers, but because they might have had to pay a few extra dollars for avocados. Severe heat from the previous summer in California’s growing region combined with the continuing drought damaged premature avocados. Additionally, last year’s Thomas fire, which hit the biggest avocado-producing region in the nation, destroyed up to 80 percent of crops on certain farms. California’s avocados never stood a chance last year. Luckily, millennials did not have to suffer much, as imports from Mexico made up for the lost California supply. But others still felt the burn. California farmers started selling their farms, as what remained of their avocados could not get them through the year. Many lost their jobs as crops were ruined and Mexican imports filled the gaps. So while millennials sat cozily in their favorite cafe griping over the two extra dollars for their avocado toast with a forced smile, the farmers, of which nine out of ten are undocumented, and thousands of other low-income California residents, worried how they would continue to feed themselves and their families.

    Avocados have come to represent the very inequality millennials love to hate. The price alone renders avocados a luxury that many Californians cannot afford, but that does not stop wealthy young people from worshipping avocados in all their creamy, green glory. Yet, at the same time, 68 percent of millennials believe the government should do more to reduce inequality in California. They want to have their avocado toast and eat it too, which begs the question of whether their concerns about inequality are any more real than their carefully cultivated Instagram profiles.

    Millennials’ (seemingly shallow) concerns extend beyond avocado prices and inequality. Polls show that 60 percent of this generation prefers an increase in taxes to go towards government services, while 70 percent believes climate change seriously threatens California’s economy and quality of life. Most recently, millennials have taken charge in the campaign for increased gun control. Thus, it is not surprising that this generation identifies as more liberal than any previous one. In fact, younger Californians have led and participated in a whole slew of progressive protests. A poll found that about 24 percent of millennials have participated in a protest, demonstration, or rally, compared to only 10 percent of older generations. However, their support for these issues often fails to extend beyond one or two social media posts. 

    Despite their concern, far fewer millennials vote than those of older generations. Oftentimes, less than 50 percent of eligible voters in this generation actually show up to the polls. In 2016, only 51 percent of millennials voted. Older generations exceeded at least 60 percent. This disparity can in part be explained by the fact that millennials lack faith in the political process. Regardless of party, younger people tend not trust politicians, or other people, and believe money in politics causes many of the existing problems in the United States. Additionally, millennials are wary of formal political institutions, such as voting.  

    Though many millennials avoid the voting booth, they still remain highly politically active. But their engagement feels almost staged. Over 90 thousand people have posted photos on Instagram from Women’s Marches in Los Angeles, and at least another 20 thousand posted from the Women’s March in San Francisco. That represents a lot of support for one issue, but that support quickly burns out once everyone packs up their witty signs and the protest ends. Protests might attract a large group of millennials, as they offer a much more exciting Instagram opportunity than voting, regardless of how cool a selfie with an “I voted” sticker looks. Yet these protests revolve around actual issues that affect real people. Millennials have the potential to make a huge difference for these people, but their social media lives and their apathy towards voting consume them faster than they consume avocados.

    Millennials comprise the largest group of eligible voters in California, which could translate into some serious political clout. In fact, many believe that California and its 10 million millennials hold the key to Democrats winning back Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. Protesting can be an extremely effective political tool, and, in fact, millennials believe it is the most effective way to create change. So millennials should not stop protesting for what they believe in. But, in addition to that, they need to vote. Their support cannot just be part of the latest social media trend. In order to increase the number of millennial voters, some are turning to grassroots outreach in an attempt to inform young people and to persuade them to vote. Politicians and candidates seeking this generation’s support in the 2018 midterm elections could turn their focus on issues concerning California’s millennials, such as student debt, job prospects, unaffordable housing, and technology. A new California law enacted in 2016 enables teens under the age of 18 to preregister to vote, and thus far over 100,000 people have taken advantage of this legislation and pre-registered. California’s youngest generation, “Generation Z,” realizes the important connection between voting and political change. But this connection seems lost on millennials. Ultimately, this generation needs to recognize that the issues they march for and post about on social media have real-life consequences. The implications are far bigger than finding the opportune photo-op or breaking 100 likes on a profile picture. California’s millennials need to vote in order to actually enact change.

    Featured Image Source: East Bay Times

  • To Segregate or Not to Segregate, that is (the Bay Area’s) Question

     

    Children born in East Oakland, California have a life expectancy 12 years lower than those born in Piedmont, California. Oakland Unified School District reports about 1,600 homeless students, whereas Piedmont High reports zero. Residents of Oakland have a median household income of $51,000. In Piedmont, it is over $130,000. Yet less than two miles separate these cities. How can two areas so close together have such stark disparities? On the surface, Alameda County, home to both Oakland and Piedmont, seems like one of the most prosperous counties in the country. But when you dig deeper, something more sinister emerges. African American and Latino people make up about 28 and 25 percent of Oakland’s population, respectively, while 34 percent of the population is white. On the other hand, white people in Piedmont consist of over 74 percent of the population, whereas less than six percent of Piedmont’s residents are Black or Latino. Similar disparities exist all across the Bay Area, not just in Alameda County. A history of discriminatory policies and attitudes has resulted in severe segregation in the Bay Area, trapping African Americans and other racial minorities in cycles of poverty that are almost impossible to escape from.

    The Bay Area is full of long-haired hippies smoking their newly-legalized weed, so many assume segregation could not a problem in such a liberal place. Well, not quite. The San Francisco Bay Area, along with the rest of the country, has a long history of discriminatory housing policies. Richard Rothstein notes in his book, The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America, the Bay Area experienced a huge influx of shipyard and industrial war workers, many of whom were African American, during World War II. This massive wave of migration increased the black population of Richmond from 270 to 14,000 people. However, Rothstein also stresses that housing development in the area failed to keep pace with population growth.

    University of Richmond
    Source: University of Richmond

    The federal government attempted to provide assistance with public housing, but really just worsened the situation. Clear disparities in the quantity and quality of housing existed along racial lines. African Americans received poorly constructed buildings near the water and railroad tracks, while white workers resided in structurally sound houses in white neighborhoods. To make matters worse, the government actually encouraged private groups to segregate the Bay Area. Local governments urged bankers to offer loans to the middle- and upper-class, but not to those buying in poor, non-white neighborhoods. Additionally, the Federal Housing Administration would not insure loans for construction costs if the developments were intended for African Americans or for whites moving into African American neighborhoods, according to Rothstein.

    Source: University of Richmond
    Source: University of Richmond

     

    Government policy protected white residents by preventing African Americans and other minorities from “infiltrating”  their precious neighborhoods. And neither public nor private groups even attempted to hide their blatant racism. In fact, they inflamed fears of a “Negro invasion,” furthering their goals of segregation. Government policies and private attitudes concentrated African Americans in certain cities and neighborhoods across the Bay Area. These divisions persist today and continue to disadvantage the Black population in more ways than mere access to housing.

    Segregation and entrenched racism still plague the Bay Area. This forges a cycle of poverty for the people of color living in and migrating to the region. The people forced into these cities and neighborhoods face higher unemployment and greater economic distress. Additionally, their children receive worse educations. These factors combined perpetuate a vicious cycle and contribute to segregation itself.  

    Economic Innovation Group
    Source: Economic Innovation Group

     

    The above map of Oakland and Berkeley reveals distinct areas of distress and segregation. Strikingly, the zip codes facing the most economic anguish align closely with those that were deemed “hazardous” or “definitely declining” through redlining processes in the 1930s and 40s (if it was not clear, “hazardous” and “definitely declining” meant high or increasing numbers of minority residents). San Francisco rests comfortably among the top 10 most prosperous cities in the United States. On the other hand, Oakland and a handful of other Bay Area cities struggle to keep their heads above water as a result of historical and continued patterns of segregation. These divisions have permeated beyond housing guidelines to areas such as education.

    Wealthier, whiter people have entrenched segregation and the cycle of poverty by encouraging policies that ensure their children go to schools with greater resources and larger percentages of white students. In the United States, residents pay housing taxes to help fund K-12 education in their school district. In turn, school districts with a higher percentage of low-income families receive fewer resources to provide an education for their children than those in wealthier school districts. The low-income districts just so happen to be those with larger African American and Latino populations, as people of color are disproportionately poor.

    Source: SF Gate
    Source: SF Gate

    This map draws attention to the stark segregation that exists among school districts (the darker the purple, the higher the percentage of Black or Hispanic students). Again, these divisions do not stray much from those of housing discrimination in the mid-20th century or from the areas suffering greater economic distress today. And this is not an accident. Those with political clout, or the whiter, wealthier residents of the Bay Area, have pushed policies that benefit themselves and their children, but hurt low-income and minority communities. The school districts with larger African American and Latino populations obtain fewer resources to educate their students. Thus, people of color graduate at lower rates than their white counterparts. Further demonstrating the divisions, merely 64.9 percent of students in Oakland, which has a higher percentage of students of color, graduated in 2017. So, not only are these disparities constructed by discriminatory policies, but they contribute to the perpetuation of segregation in the Bay Area, as well.

    Funneling people of color into this cycle of poverty also reduces their chances of receiving a college degree. Wealthier people receive much greater access to higher education. For example, 17.5 percent of Stanford’s student population comes from the top 1 percent of income earners, whereas only 18.6 percent comes from the bottom 60. (UC Berkeley, on the other hand, has less than 4 percent from the top 1 percent and more than 29 percent from the bottom 60.) And while many colleges have rendered their universities affordable, especially elite private schools as they can offer generous financial aid, they fail to meaningfully increase access to low-income students. Even if higher education suddenly becomes affordable, lower-income, and thus minority, students do not receive offers as frequently as richer students. And a fancy financial aid package is not worth much if not one can take advantage of it. Additionally, even when lower-income students are just as high-achieving as richer students, they are less likely to apply to selective colleges. As a result, less than half of the bottom fifth of American families attend any university at all, thereby perpetuating segregation and continuing the cycle of poverty. A college degree can create a world opportunities for upward mobility. However, African American and Latino students do not receive equal access to universities, thereby diminishing their chances of breaking free of the cycle. As a result, most students who grow up poor remain poor, and those who grew up wealthy remain wealthy. Thus, segregation in the United States, and the Bay Area trickles from housing discrimination, into K-12 education, and all the way up to higher education.

    Those with a college degree often migrate to denser cities, like those in the Bay Area, once they graduate, thereby contributing to segregation. Less than one percent of people with less than a high school diploma, and just over 1 percent of those with solely a high school diploma, leave their communities. On the other hand, individuals who receive a higher education migrate twice as often as those who do not. Thus, wealthier, whiter individuals migrate at a much higher rate. The Bay Area attracts this top talent, as it offers an array of high-paying jobs and an exciting culture. In turn, the region had a positive net migration rate of young college graduates between 2000 and 2015. In fact, over 40 percent of the population in most Bay Area counties now have Bachelor’s degrees. Yet when these young, educated people move to the Bay Area, they often do not choose to live in the areas with the highest poverty rates or the worst crime. And when they do, those neighborhoods quickly become gentrified, thereby forcing the low-income residents into even more distressed areas.

    The Bay Area, along with the rest of the nation, struggles with severe segregation. African Americans, and other minorities, clearly suffer disproportionately, but the rest of the Bay Area suffers as well. The distance created sparks increased racial polarization, as well as political and social conflict. As Rothstein notes, this polarization enables corruption. Politicians can inflame whites’ sense of racial entitlement and gain support for policies that perpetuate segregation. As we have seen more recently, political leaders or candidates can mobilize white voters who have been “disenfranchised” by attempts to level the playing field; and the results of this certainly hurt everyone in the Bay Area. (Take the war between Jerry Brown and Donald Trump, for example.) Additionally, racial segregation harms both the distribution of national wealth as well as the generation of that wealth, according to Rothstein. Social psychologists found that whites gain a false sense of their own superiority due to racial separation. As a result, they perform worse and do not feel the need to challenge themselves. More diversity on teams, Rothstein points out, can actually heighten creativity and reduce the number of errors. Thus, decreasing segregation increases productivity and innovation, which benefits everyone. So Google, it might be worthwhile to increase the number of African Americans in your workforce to more than two percent. Eliminating segregation, which policy has deeply entrenched in society, will take more than just a change in attitude. Numerous organizations and people are working towards ending housing discrimination every day, and achieving this goal would have widespread, positive impacts for everyone in the Bay Area.

     

    Featured Image Source: 7X7

     

  • This One’s For the Boys (and their Sexual Transgressions)

    A woman known by the public as Grace went out with Aziz Ansari last September on what is now the most controversial date of the 21st century. Ansari repeatedly pushed sex on her and failed to recognize, or chose to ignore, her attempts to express her discomfort. She ended up walking out. No, he did not sexually assault her, and many were confused as to why Ansari got caught up in the #MeToo movement in the first place. But, at the same time, Grace did not publish a story that might have ruined Ansari’s career solely because she was “disappointed” with a sexual experience. Rather, she felt violated and wanted to speak out about the incident as countless other women have. In fact, this dismissive attitude distracts from the bigger issue: this behavior happens all the time. Countless men, especially those with power, have forced women into sexual situations that make them uncomfortable. Our culture tells men they should be having as much sex as possible and that it is acceptable to push women until they, reluctantly, agree. This culture has especially manifested itself in California. Several men, and some women, in Hollywood and the State’s Capitol have been accused of sexual assault and misconduct. Many careers have been ruined, but two have managed to remain intact. Gavin Newsom and Antonio Villaraigosa both had extramarital affairs that have recently been revisited in the context of the #MeToo movement. This behavior had previously threatened to end their political careers, yet one of these men is likely to be elected governor of California this fall.

    Both Newsom and Villaraigosa, the two frontrunners in California’s 2018 gubernatorial race, have had at least one damaging extramarital affair. Newsom claims his relationship was consensual, yet he slept with a subordinate. With a workplace relationship that has such a large disparity in power dynamics, one has to question if true consent is even possible. Additionally, the woman in the affair was married to one of Newsom’s top aides and formerly a good friend, which is ethically unsound in itself. Villaraigosa, on the other hand, has admitted to two extramarital affairs. Many have suggested that voters forgave both candidates, as these were “one-off” incidents. However, it is not clear that Villaraigosa has learned his lesson. After how many affairs should we begin to question his character or whether he is really capable of respecting women? This behavior could have ended the candidates’ careers years ago, and some argue any sexual transgression should disqualify anyone from holding public office. Yet Newsom and Villaraigosa still command a strong lead in the race for governor.

    So far, Newsom and Villaraigosa have managed to mitigate the damage their extramarital affairs could have done to their campaigns. Both candidates currently have top advisors and strategists on their campaign teams that used to work closely with the other. These advisors know the darkest details of each affair. Thus, attacking the other candidate about their affair will backfire significantly. Both are likely keeping quiet and are trying to keep any mention of the affairs out of the headlines. Additionally, it seems that voters have accepted the men’s apologies, as they believe Newsom and Villaraigosa have learned from their mistakes and proven themselves to be strong leaders.

    Both candidates have worked to strengthen their holds on the lead by supporting the #MeToo movement. Newsom applauded the women who have come forward and spoke out against the culture of “toxic masculinity” plaguing California, even though he directly contributed to that exact culture. Villaraigosa also expressed his support for the movement and has said it is important to include women from all lines of work in discussions about workplace sexual harassment. Villaraigosa presents himself as a “family man.” But just because he has a happy marriage and two children, should we give him a pass on past sexual transgressions? Perhaps not, but their lukewarm support for the movement they have been personally caught up in has only bolstered their campaigns.

    Noticeably, there is a dearth of women running for governor. Furthermore, these men already have a strong backing. Both Newsom and Villaraigosa are high-profile men who have established themselves well in California politics. They have greater connections and superior financial support, in part because they are men. As Christine Pelosi, chairwoman of the California Democratic Party Women’s Caucus, noted, “Women don’t give [donations] to women candidates, and men don’t vote for women candidates.” Thus, the women candidates, who are less well-known, have a much harder time garnering the same support even in light of Newsom’s and Villaraigosa’s past sexual transgressions.

    So why does it matter if one of these men wins the election? Newsom and Villaraigosa have been forgiven, they have done great work for other minority communities, and they have recognized the importance of women’s rights. However, neither candidate has much of a track record pushing for women’s issues while in office. Additionally, neither of these men include these issues in their lists of key campaign issues. Newsom even has the nerve to rely on his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, and her work with feminist issues and sexual harassment to prove he is a champion of women’s rights. But that is not good enough. These men have not proven that, if elected, they will push for change. It is not clear that we can trust them to alter the culture of “toxic masculinity” when they have personally taken part in it.  

    If we want to see women’s issues advanced in California, we need women in power, not more men contributing to the existing culture. Issues specific to women are far more likely to be brought up and advanced by women, and sexual harassment has disproportionately impacted women. Despite all the traction the #MeToo movement has gained, women candidates are still “running at the margins”. One of the female candidates, Delaine Eastin, is only polling at four percent, women account for solely 26 out of 120 state legislators, and no woman has ever been governor of California. This is especially striking as California attempts to spearhead social change for a variety of other issues. However, Amanda Renteria, a former Hillary Clinton aide, filed her paperwork to run for governor in early February. While many are skeptical that Renteria will be elected, she is giving women an additional chance to win the race. She is only increasing the chances that progress on women’s issues will gain serious traction in the future. If we want to see change, we need more women in power. We will not make progress on changing the culture around sexual harassment if we elect the men who create the problem.

    Featured Image Source: Anna Ho

  • Redefining Homelessness: The Struggle for Recognition

    The sudden rush of people cramming onto BART is Brittany Jones’s alarm clock every morning. Since the age of 19, Brittany has been uncertain of where she will sleep each night, bouncing between BART, relatives’ and friends’ houses, group homes, and shelters. She is merely one of California’s thousands of homeless people trying to find a quiet place to catch a few hours of sleep each night. In an attempt to create more homes for these people, Governor Jerry Brown recently signed into law bill AB 932. This allows certain cities and counties to bypass hurdles and quickly build shelters for the homeless. He stated that these individuals deserve “decent shelter and a place for dwelling, not abandonment.” However, a place to sleep is just one of the many problems Brittany faces as a homeless student at Laney College in Oakland.

    Brittany also has to worry about studying and surviving simultaneously. She constantly questions whether she will be able to afford dinner each night or whether she will be able to maintain her job and keep her grades up at the same time. And Brittany is not alone. A 2017 study showed that about one-third of community college students experience some form of housing insecurity. Additionally, over 200,000 K-12 students in California are homeless, and one in five California State University students does not have access to enough food.

    Homeless students feel tremendous pressure to excel in school, as they want to raise their parents, and themselves, out of this position of poverty and insecurity. These students feel motivated to go to college, get a good job, and rise out of homelessness. Those facing food and housing insecurity are more likely to have the goals of updating their job skills or achieving certifications than other students. But, the exhaustion, stress, and hunger make it harder for them to do well. These students are often too tired to go to school, are embarrassed because they had nowhere to shower, or feel ashamed because of their position. Homeless students tend to feel less confident in their academic abilities, but teachers frequently do not understand the situation they are in. As a result, these kids fall further behind. Alison, a 14-year-old Colombian immigrant, goes to school every day yet has difficulty concentrating. Without adequate sleep, she feels, “When you’re that tired it affects your personality. You feel like … not much.”

    Many of these homeless students are often not homeless in the conventional sense that they live out on the street. Many younger homeless students live in houses with several other families. Some students, especially college students, are transient or couch surf. Others, like Brittany Jones, are constantly looking for a place to sleep. Brittany will sleep on a friend’s couch or floor when they are offered. The rest of the time, she will sleep on BART or buses. All of these situations restrict the student’s privacy and their ability to get adequate sleep and make it difficult to find a quiet place to concentrate on their studies. Thus, homeless students are far more likely to drop out of school than other students. Sadly, schools neglect to consider students in these situations as homeless.

    By not including transient students as part of their homeless population, these schools actively restrict access to necessary help and funding for thousands of students across the state.  Students facing homelessness are also disproportionately people of color and come from poorer families, such as Brittany. Black and Southeast Asian students disproportionately suffer from food and housing insecurity. Many of those affected are also either undocumented immigrants or are the children of immigrants. Homeless children of undocumented parents face additional challenges. Sometimes their parents are working in fields for over 12 hours a day and are unable to take their kids to school or attend parent-teacher meetings. This makes it even more difficult for homeless students to get to school, especially if they are unable to afford public transportation. Additionally, some of their parents did not receive a formal education and cannot speak English. Consequently, they are unable to help their children with their homework. People of color and undocumented families experience a cyclical nature of poverty, with deeply ingrained societal structures creating a glass ceiling that many homeless students struggle to break. This also makes it harder for these students to receive adequate help. California schools are required by law to identify homeless students and provide them with services, such as school supplies and additional tutoring. Yet many schools fail to report any homeless students, either because they have a limited definition of homelessness or they do not prioritize the needs of their undocumented students or people of color. Thus, these students do not receive the tools needed to succeed. Students of color and undocumented students are more likely to be homeless and suffer more in school as a result.

    Ultimately for these kids to succeed, they need a stable place to live. However, California housing costs continue to rise and make that need all the more inaccessible. The median home in California is 2.5 times more expensive than the national median home. Many Californians are unable to rent, let alone buy, a place to live in the state. As housing prices become increasingly unaffordable, the number of homeless people also grows. California is now home to about 20 percent of the nation’s homeless population. Many of those people are students. While schools need to do a better job of identifying and helping their homeless students, local communities also need to fight for affordable housing in order to adequately help these children.

    However, schools and other organizations are trying to provide homeless students with these missing tools. College leaders have started to find ways to reduce costs for tuition and academic resources, such as textbooks, as well as to create shuttle services to reduce transportation costs. Non-profits, such as the Fighting Back Partnership, help parents understand American schooling system and provide adult literacy classes. Others, such as Central Coast Future Leaders, want to get students into college by assisting with applications, financial aid, and career decisions. Homeless students often are “invisible” in schools and do not receive the support they need. But, as people become more aware of the issue, schools and organizations are beginning to fight the housing insecurity faced by thousands of students across the state of California.

    Featured Image Source: Pexels

     

  • Dear California, We Said Enough: Sexual Abuse in California’s Capitol

    Nancy Kathleen Finnigan opened the door to her boss’ apartment and discovered him with pants open, exposed. Shortly after, she was fired from her job. Unfortunately, Finnigan is not alone. Her experience reflects a broader trend in California’s Capitol. Over 140 female legislators, legislative aides, lobbyists, and staff signed an open letter in October of this year calling out the widespread sexual misconduct in the Capitol. This letter was released following the widespread allegations of sexual assault by Harvey Weinstein, a Hollywood producer. The allegations made against Weinstein felt very familiar, and empowered women in California’s Capitol to speak out about their own experiences. One might not expect this situation in a state that prides itself as a leader in justice and equality. But considering 80 percent of California’s lawmakers are men, those in the Capitol work in a patriarchal environment that does not take sexual assault as seriously as it should. In turn, men misuse their power and threaten or mistreat women without fear of retaliation.

    As they attempt to represent their constituents or do their jobs, these women frequently face groping, inappropriate or demeaning comments, and threats. Christina Garcia, a California State Assemblymember, said men commonly make comments about her appearance while she is discussing legislation, and senior lobbyists and lawmakers have grabbed her breasts and butt. Similarly, Pamela Lopez, described an instance when a male lawmaker locked himself in a bathroom stall with her, undid his pants, masturbated in front of her, and asked her to touch him. Yet once he left, she forced herself to remain calm and act as if nothing had happened in order to avoid causing a scene. These men do not show Garcia, Lopez, or any other women in the Capitol the respect they show their male colleagues. And since they are the ones in charge, they believe they can get away with their actions.

    Such an imbalance of men in power in California allowed for this situation to arise. Unfortunately, less than 26 percent of California’s legislators are female, and they have increasingly been losing political ground every year. This allows male lobbyists and legislators to threaten women’s positions if they do not remain silent or compliant with the harassment and assault they face. Many express how crucial their relationships with other lobbyists and legislators are for their own careers and success. Yet those positions are overwhelmingly held by men. Men recognize this power and abuse it to get what they want. The men trade sexual favors for legislation or threaten to end political relationships if they do not get their way. Male politicians hold the women’s careers in their hands. In turn, females in California’s Capitol feel forced to comply or remain silent.

    Women often refuse to speak out because of fear and shame and due to the lack of viable channels to voice their complaints. Finnigan had taken her grievances with former State Assemblymember Steve Fox to the Assembly Rules Committee, but rather than addressing Fox about the issue, the Committee acted as if she were the one on trial. The internal panels, such as the Assembly Rules Committee, and the rest of the men in the Capitol, force the blame onto the victims. Those who are supposed to be helping the women become hostile and make the accuser “the bad guy.”  To make matters worse, members and house leadership oversee these panels, which generates increased fear of retaliation for the victims. Garcia explains the members of the panels act as if the women are crazy or they were asking for it because they are hypersexualized. However, men are the ones hypersexualizing these women. Due to the imbalance of males in power, men see the women as objects of desire or exploitation. It has nothing to do with the women’s clothes or even their own attitudes. There are also drawbacks to publicly calling out their perpetrators, which makes it harder for women to fight this sexualization. Garcia suggests people will avoid these women’s future events if they are too open about the subject of sexual misconduct. Additionally, women complain they see little results from these panels, as no useful formal pathways exist for women to express their grievances. Thus, victims in the Capitol resort to more discreet options, such as sharing tips with other women. Yet, sharing tips does not prompt structural change. As a result, women in the Capitol feel as if bringing their experiences through internal avenues is unsafe or useless.

    However, the tides are changing for women in California’s Capitol. An independent outside law firm is taking over investigations and future complaints to ensure women feel comfortable that filing a complaint will be effective and not prompt retaliation. Additionally, they are sparking change with the letter and their advocacy to get more women into the Capitol. The letter sheds light on how far sexism and sexual misconduct has permeated government culture in California, that women are ready to tackle to widespread abuse and the current complaint protocol, and that women need a larger role in politics. The letter states, “Until more women hold positions of power, our future is literally dependent on men.” Not only would more female lawmakers have a huge impact on sexual assault, it would also create channels for other women’s issues to be addressed. In legislatures and Congress, issues specific to women are far more likely to be brought up by women than men. Men and women have different priorities. The issues women care about likely will go unaddressed by California’s lawmakers, as 80 percent of them are men. Adama Iwu, senior director for state and local government relations at Visa and one of the coordinators of the letter, hopes increasing female representation can stop the abusive culture. She was prompted to bring this to the public’s attention as she recognizes, “Talking among ourselves is not going to move the needle on this issue.” But, as the letter recognizes, the publicity will not be enough either. The letter is the spark that ignited the fire, and now California is fighting for more women in politics to continue fueling the flame.

    Featured Image Source: Jeff Turner, Flickr

  • California’s Other Water Problem

    Carolina Garcia and her family live in a vibrant, close-knit community about a mile outside of Sanger, California. She has fresh fruit trees flourishing in her backyard, chickens and sheep frolicking outside her house, and four beautiful children with another on the way. She seems just like you or any other Californian; except for the fact that her family, and most of her neighborhood, is exposed to unsafe drinking water. And her community is not alone. Small, rural areas exist in almost all of California’s 58 counties, and nearly all experience contaminated water. About 300 communities across California have lacked access to this right for over a decade. Shamefully, officials have hardly addressed this issue until recent years. Flint, Michigan’s lead contamination problem, which has been grabbing headlines for years, has recently been declared resolved. Yet over one million rural Californians, more than 10 times the population of Flint, still lack access to potable water. The problem is, hardly anyone knows about the issue.  

    California deemed access to safe and affordable drinking water a human right in 2012, but the state continuously fails to provide this basic necessity to many residents. While the rest of the state worries about the “little things”, like the grass in their front lawn going brown, affected communities such as Carolina’s worry about not having water to drink. Particularly in rural areas, high levels of arsenic and nitrates contaminate the water. These chemicals are shown to cause “cancer, nervous system decline, miscarriages and reduced mental functioning in children.”

    Unlike large urban areas, rural communities often lack the resources to maintain and operate water supply systems. Rather than large utility districts, which can serve thousands, even millions, of people, treating and providing water for multiple cities, people living in rural areas typically use personal wells to distribute water to their neighbors. The well owners are unable to properly treat the water and remove the harmful chemicals without the funding of a large utility district. As a result, much of the water from these wells exceeds the maximum contaminant levels set by the Environmental Protection Agency.

    Despite the fact that farming plays a large role in contaminating the water, California state officials seem to prioritize the returns of large-scale agricultural production over the burdens placed on these rural populations. Cash receipts for California agriculture totaled over $47 billion in 2015, and exports totaled almost $21 billion. But the nitrates from the fertilizers and livestock production runoff seep into the groundwater and ultimately into the wells of rural Californians. As a result, people like Carolina Garcia, a hard-working Californian, are denied a fundamental human right.

    In brushing the clean-drinking-water issue under the rug, California politicians disproportionately hurt low-income farmers. To make matters worse, rural residents are least able to deal with this issue. They do not have the resources to treat their groundwater, so they are forced to spend high portions of their income on bottled water in order to safely drink, wash, and cook. The expenses paid for bottled water compound the bills they already pay for contaminated water. The Community Water Center found that some families in these areas are paying up to 10 percent of their income on water alone. This resource ultimately becomes unaffordable for these families with already limited finances.

    The tainted water affects more than just families at home. Schools are forced to spend already limited resources on bottled water. By not being able to invest resources in books, school supplies, and teachers, Carolina Garcia’s four children, and the other children in these communities, are denied the quality of education received by children in urban areas served by large utility districts. This further limits their ability to move away from the unsafe drinking water into cities where economic opportunities are more abundant. Garcia’s children will be trapped in the same situation as their mother, and their human rights will continue to be violated.

    California officials also neglect to prioritize the issue of contaminated water due to the race and legal standing of those impacted. Most of the communities affected are small, poor, farming communities whose population is up to 95 percent Latino. Many of these communities also have large numbers of undocumented immigrants. Communities can attempt to resolve their situation by applying for federal funds under the Safe Drinking Water Act, but without legal status, these people are unable to apply for the funding. Additionally, California has failed to properly distribute these funds. Rural communities have received no guarantee that they will receive the funding they applied for from the government. To make matters worse, since many of those affected by the contaminated water are poor, rural Latinos and illegal immigrants, they lack the political power to win the battle against big agriculture and to pressure the government to incite change.

    However, Latino political power is growing, and people have started to take notice of the clean drinking water crisis in California. The government has started to take action with Senate Bill 623 that would tax farmers for fertilizer use and add a modest fee to urban water bills. The California Water Foundation recently found that almost three-quarters of Californians would be willing to pay an extra dollar on their water bill every month to help fix these contaminated systems and provide potable water to these communities. California has the sixth-largest economy in the world and the highest concentration of billionaires. A state with as much wealth as California should not continue to deny Carolina and a million other residents this fundamental human right. But, without strong support from the government and voters, over one million Californians will continue to bear the burden of unsafe drinking water, something the rest of the population takes for granted.

    Featured Image Source: Pexel