Issue 20

SFPUBLICPRESS.ORG · NO ADS • READER-SUPPORTED · $1.00 independent

SPECIAL REPORT

nonprofit

in depth

Bilingual Renaissance or Reversal?

DELIVERED IN THE CITY BY BICYCLE WINTER 2017

ISSUE 20

By Jeremy Adam Smith // Public Press

LETTER FROM THE EDITORS

Don’t Take Civil Rights for Granted No Ignoremos los Derechos Civiles del Área de la Bahía

Carta de los editores, página 12 Sentence Starts here on RIGHT side

編輯部的公開信：

勿視灣區民權為理所當然 （請見第 12 頁）

"‫"رﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺤﺮرﯾﻦ‬ "12 ‫"ﺻﻔﺤﺔ رﻗﻢ‬

Young people are becoming politically engaged. High school students marched to City Hall in November after the election of Donald Trump. Photo by Nadia Mishkin // Public Press

After election, we must remain vigilant in exposing threats to free speech, educational opportunity and other San Francisco values

E

education. He has said he will challenge civil rights protections championed by California voters, including religious liberties, gay marriage, affirmative action and due process. We may also have to reexamine our assumptions about federal benefits such as health care and Social Security, as well as the relative burdens of the rich and poor in taxation.

Since we started publishing seven years ago, the Public Press has had the luxury of examining many issues — housing, environment, health, labor, politics and education, among others — with only occasional references to federal policies. We used to assume that our local leaders were ultimately accountable for the well-being of the community. No longer.

The Public Press is committed to watchdogging the new administration from our local vantage. And we’re not alone in grappling with these challenges. The elec-

Photo by Dorothea Lange // Library of Congress

IS RETREAT FROM WATERFRONT THE ANSWER TO SEA LEVEL RISE? Page 10

See multilingual translations on page 12.

BIG SODA SPENT RECORD $20.5 MILLION IN LOSING BID TO DEFEAT TAX Page 3 VOTERS PRESERVE S.F. MAYOR’S APPOINTMENT POWERS Page 4 SHELTER SHORTAGE MAKES IT HARDER TO CLEAR HOMELESS TENTS Page 5 WINNERS AND LOSERS FROM STATE PROPOSITIONS, RACES Page 11

SAN FRANCISCO ADVANCED BILINGUAL EDUCATION BEFORE STATE VOTERS EMBRACED IT When Californians voted for English-only classes in 1998, the city expanded its language offerings — and has graduated more multilingual students than comparable districts. New probilingual state policies could use S.F. as a model. Page 6.

BRIEF HISTORY OF BILINGUAL SCHOOLS IN U.S., CALIFORNIA Timeline tracks key developments, from early U.S. history through November passage of Proposition 58, ending restrictions on language instruction. Pages 6–9.

san francisco public press

When xenophobia came to the Bay Area: A JapaneseAmerican grocer hung this sign on his store at 13th and Franklin streets in Oakland the day after Pearl Harbor. He was later sent to an internment camp.

tion has accelerated conversation in newsrooms around the country about the meaning of the philosophically fraught term “objectivity.” In the new political era, taking that word too literally clearly risks coming into conflict with other principles we hold dear: free speech, the rule of law, the public’s right to know and the democratic process itself.

Journalists are wringing their hands about how they might have enabled, or at least tolerated, the rise of an impulsive, would-be strongman in Washington. Trump has pledged to sue reporters who offend him, block access to government sources and public records, break up media companies that question his policies and crack down on protesters.

The Public Press has always abided by a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy stance — one we intend to maintain. But the changing tenor of national politics has encouraged us to examine our own biases. In our case, we proudly embrace a “pro-public” bias — one that elevates freedom of speech, accuracy, accountability, fairness and truth.

The press has a responsibility not only to tell the truth, however much it makes us uncomfortable, but also to facilitate conversation around solutions to common problems. In the year ahead, we will continue to question those in positions of power and give voice to the voiceless. Though the challenges may be great, and many people are likely to be hurt in the conflicts to come, the need for empowerment and engagement in politics and public life is perhaps greater than ever.

National and local policies are inextricably linked, and local journalism is all the more needed today — to expose problems and conflicts as they happen, document social and economic changes, and expand the range of perspectives considered by policy-makers.

But that will not be enough. The ascension of an antiFirst Amendment administration sharpens the responsibility of the press to call out abuse of power and any hint of a drift toward autocracy. As local journalists, we must be vigilant in defending the public’s right to know — even when that requires open defiance of power structures.

EDUCATION continued on page 7

44 page st., suite 504 • san francisco, ca 94102

ducation or deportation?

That’s one startling question we are grappling with as San Francisco becomes more of a political outlier in the aftermath of the 2016 elections. The imminent need for documenting this divergence makes our jobs as independent local journalists more important than ever.

Our cover story on bilingual education in this issue, which we started reporting this summer, has taken on new relevance. With immigrants — both legal and undocumented — increasingly demonized by our national leadership, the progress that San Francisco public schools have made in extending bilingual education to both newcomers and native-born could be rendered moot if Donald Trump follows through with his threats to deport masses of immigrants.

An estimated 2.3 million undocumented people live in California, with 44,000 residing in San Francisco.

As of early December, we can make an educated guess that the racism, xenophobia and fear that emerged during the presidential campaign will persist when Trump takes over in Washington. These factors don’t just contrast with California’s more inclusive, progressive outlook. They starkly threaten to undermine it, as parents fear they will be racially profiled, targeted for immigration investigation and otherwise denigrated.

The city’s innovative multilingual immersion programs provide academic enrichment and cultural understanding for all students. If some parents worry that someday school enrollment records for bilingual programs could be used by federal authorities to target them for deportation, they might hesitate to take advantage of these programs. That could undercut the ability of local school boards to experiment with and fund bilingual education.

This is just one example of how local governments might endure attacks on immigrants, far beyond the conflict over whether communities may declare themselves “sanctuary cities” — that is, refuse to allow police to enforce federal immigration law.

This is by no means the only attack on San Francisco values. Trump has pledged to defund social services, gut environmental protection and privatize public

I

n 1970s San Francisco, my partner, Michelle, attended Marshall Elementary, a public school in the Mission. Raised by a Cuban-born grandmother and mother, she came to Marshall speaking fluent Spanish.

There she received one year of formal bilingual instruction in Spanish — an experience that she would never have again after she transferred from Marshall to another school in the Castro. As a result, she says, “Today, I speak Spanish like a reasonably bright 8-year-old.”

That’s a loss for the Bay Area, because Michelle uses her Spanish every single workday as a public librarian in Hayward, one of the state’s most diverse cities, which contains one of the Bay Area’s beleaguered workingclass Latino communities. At the library, she helps children learn to read and express themselves in both English and Spanish, and she helps immigrant adults look for jobs, register to vote, sign up their kids for school and, yes, find magazines, books and DVDs both in their first languages and in English.

(The good news is that her Spanish has improved dramatically as a result of her work.)

For six years, I’ve covered education for the San Francisco Public Press. We’ve found that the city’s public schools are becoming more segregated by race and class, which fuels serious achievement gaps.

But in our new report on the school district’s language pathways, I uncovered good news: The San Francisco Unified School District is succeeding in educating students in multiple languages, producing citizens and workers who are better equipped to navigate a cosmopolitan global economy compared with the rest of the country. If Michelle had attended San Francisco public schools in the 21st century instead of the 20th, she might well now speak Spanish just as fluently as English.

During the 2016 election, we often heard that places like the Bay Area are “bubbles,” meaning that political opinion tends to range

2 | SFPUBLICPRESS.ORG | SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC PRESS, WINTER 2017 FROM THE EDITORS

TOWARD A THRIVING INDEPENDENT PRESS

Press do meaningful, critical public policy reporting in 2016. Our editorial team ramped up this summer to produce a comprehensive, nonpartisan voter guide for the November election featuring stories on all 24 local propositions, plus regional measure RR and 14 local candidate races on the San Francisco ballot. The guide highlighted campaign funding sources and provided easy-to-read endorsement charts for each measure and candidate race.

On election night, our assistant editor, Noah Arroyo, was he San Francisco Public Press received a $50,000 invited to join KALW on air for a two-hour local election grant this fall from the Reva and David Logan recap roundtable. You’ll find in this issue several stories Foundation. We are committed to matching this that build on reporting in the voter guide. generous grant with $50,000 in donations from You can help the Public Press continue to produce new sources as well as increased significant investigations in 2017 donations from current supporters. by becoming a member or renewing This foundation gift caps a year of your membership. Our goal in 2017 significant contributions: a donais to raise $350,000 from all sources, tion of $25,000 from the craigslist Online: including membership donations from Charitable Fund; a $35,000 grant individuals. sfpublicpress.org/membership to support community outreach and Over several years, we have raised Mail: engagement from the INNovation the visibility of our small nonprofit San Francisco Public Press Fund, which is administered by the newsroom, built valuable partnerships 44 Page St., Suite 504 Institute for Nonprofit News with and engaged in consistent community San Francisco, CA 94102 contributions from the John S. and outreach. These efforts have helped us Phone: James L. Knight Foundation and reach an expanding audience — read(415) 495-7377 the Democracy Fund; two $3,000 ers like you who value the well-regrants — from the Strong Foundasearched, context-rich locally focused tion for Environmental Values and journalism that we produce for San the Fund for Investigative Journalism — to do follow-up Francisco and the greater Bay Area. reporting on sea level rise in the Bay Area; and a $10,000 Supporting independent news organizations and a free grant from California Humanities for the bilingual educapress is essential to maintaining a healthy democracy. tion project featured in this issue.

We need your help to continue producing award-winning, These grants, combined with membership donations data-driven investigative journalism. from hundreds of individual donors, helped the Public Thank you for your support!

T

TO DONATE:

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC PRESS INDEPENDENT NONPROFIT IN DEPTH

The mission of the San Francisco Public Press is to enrich the civic life of San Francisco by delivering public-interest journalism through print and interactive media not supported by advertising.

Winter 2017 • Issue 20 (Vol. 7, No. 2) Published Dec. 15, 2016

44 Page St., Suite 504 San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 495-7377 info@sfpublicpress.org

BOARD OF DIRECTORS Patricia M. Bovan Campbell • David Cohn • Liz Enochs • Neal Gorenflo • Kari Gray Maryann Hrichak • Lila LaHood • Holly Million • Marc Smolowitz • Michael Stoll

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

PUBLISHER

ASSISTANT EDITOR

DIRECTOR OF DESIGN

SENIOR EDITOR

MEMBERSHIP & OUTREACH COORDINATOR

Michael Stoll

Lila LaHood

Noah Arroyo

Suzanne Yada

Michael Winter

Daphne Magnawa

PARTNERS EDITOR

COPY EDITORS

Richard Knee • Dean Takehara

Michele Anderson

WRITERS

Elizabeth Aguilera (CALmatters) • Sara Bloomberg • Jessica Calefati (CALmatters) • Julie Cart (CALmatters) • Zachary Clark • Audrey Dilling • Hye-Jin Kim • Matt Levin (CALmatters) • Judy Lin (CALmatters) • Nadia Mishkin • Helena Ong • Jeremy Adam Smith • Kevin Stark • Shinwha Whang

PHOTOGRAPHERS

TRANSLATORS

Hyunha Kim • Peter Snarr

ILLUSTRATOR Anna Vignet

Soha Abdou (Arabic) • Gloria Liao (Chinese) • Andrea Valencia (Spanish)

DESIGN CONSULTANT

CROSSWORD

Erika Rae Lawson

Andrea Carla Michaels

BUSINESS & OPERATIONS:

John Angelico • Mineko Brand • Lyndal Cairns • Mark Conrad • Mark Hedin • Olivia Henry • Amanda Hickman • Aaron Kingon • George Koster • Eric Lawson • Glenn Nyhan • Bill Schwalb

WH E R E TO BUY TH E N E WS PAPE R SAN FRANCISCO Aardvark Books 227 Church St. Alexander Book Company 50 Second St. Alley Cat Books 3036 24th St. Bird & Beckett Books and Records 653 Chenery St. Books Inc. 601 Van Ness Ave. 2275 Market St. 2251 Chestnut St.

Book Passage 1 Ferry Building #42

City Lights Books 261 Columbus Ave.

Green Apple Books 506 Clement St.

Mollie Stone's 2435 California St.

Smoke Signals 2223 Polk St.

Farley’s 33 Grand Ave., Oakland

The Booksmith 1644 Haight St.

Dog Eared Books 900 Valencia St.

Nick’s Newsstand 1A Sansome St.

West Portal Daily 36 West Portal Ave.

Issues 20 Glen Ave., Oakland

Book Passage 51 Tamal Vista Blvd.

Corte Madera

Borderlands Café 870 Valencia St.

Farley’s 1315 18th St.

Green Apple Books on the Park 1231 9th Ave.

PENINSULA

Browser Books 2195 Fillmore St.

Fog City News 455 Market St.

EAST BAY

Lucky 7 Shop 1525 Shattuck Ave. Berkeley

Christopher’s Books 1400 18th St.

Good News 3920 24th St.

Church Street Groceteria 300 Church St.

The Grand Newsstand 40 Market St.

The Green Arcade 1680 Market St. Juicy News SF 2181 Union St. Jump Start Coffee & Whole Foods 1192 Guerrero St.

Nick's Super Market 144 Page St. Parkside Market 1600 Hayes St. The Pirate Store 826 Valencia St. Rainbow Grocery 1745 Folsom St.

The Institute for Nonprofit News consists of 120 nonprofit, non-partisan news organizations conducting investigative reporting in the United States, Puerto Rico & Canada. inn.org

California Humanities promotes the humanities in California in order to help create “a state of open mind,” and aims to “inspire Californians to learn more, dig deeper, and start conversations that matter among our dramatically diverse people.” calhum.org

The Reva and David Logan Foundation supports social justice, scholarship, the arts and investigative journalism.

Dedicated to lasting support for the founders' powerful and eclectic mix of grants, our directors contribute their own unique interests to our granting range. loganfdn.org

The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation supports transformational ideas that promote quality journalism, advance media innovation, engage communities and foster the arts. The foundation believes that democracy thrives when people and communities are informed and engaged. knightfoundation.org Democracy Fund invests in organizations working to ensure that our political system is responsive to the public and able to meet the greatest challenges facing our nation. democracyfund.org

The Strong Foundation for Environmental Values makes grants to efforts that instill an ecological ethic in the individual and in our communities, and which encourage grassroots environmental action based on such an ethic. strongfoundationgrants.org

PUBLIC MEDIA PARTNERS AlterNet • Bay Nature • California Health Report • The California Report • CALmatters • Center for Investigative Reporting •Center for Public Integrity • Central City Extra • Commonwealth Club of California • Earth Island Journal • El Tecolote • Grist • KALW Radio’s “City Visions” • KALW Radio’s “Crosscurrents” • KALW Radio’s “Philosophy Talk” • KALW Radio’s “Your Call” • KPFA Radio • KQED News Fix blog • KQED Radio’s “Forum” • KQED Science • Mission Local • Mother Jones • National Radio Project • New America Media • Public Policy Institute of California • Richmond Confidential • Richmond Pulse • RISE • San Francisco Neighborhood Newspaper Association • Shareable • World Affairs Council

MEMBERS DONORS WHO CONTRIBUTED BETWEEN $35 & $5,000 IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS Publisher, Editor and Columnist members: Keli and David Amann • The Eric and Cindy Arbanovella Fund • Barbara and Richard Asche • Emily Beaver • David Brewster, Folio • Jean and Bruce Brugmann • Camille Campbell • Patricia M. Bovan Campbell • Andrew Brown • Lydia Chavez • Megan and David Cohn • Katherine Hodge and Jake Donham • Patricia Franks • Neal Gorenflo • Kari Gray • Great Place to Work, Community Involvement Committee • Oliver Hickman • Don Hoffman • Louise Yarnall and Tom Honig • Jerry Cain and Scott James • Anthony King • Geri Koeppel • Matthew Kuchta • Marquita Bedway LaHood and Alger LaHood • James LaHood • Lila LaHood • Elizabeth Pontikes and Michael LaHood • Mack Lundstrom • Christin Evans and Praveen Madan • Charley Marsteller • Michael McCarthy • Holly Million • Alison Moxley • Craig Newmark, Craigslist.org • Aleksandra Vikati and Edwin Ong • Leslie Guevarra and Richard Pestorich • Patricia and Rowland Rebele • Dennis Richards • Jack Rosenthal • Laurie Schecter • Michael Siani-Rose • Suzanne Skees, Skees Family Foundation • Yves Averous and Marc Smolowitz • Frank Stoll • Michael Stoll • Judith and Stephen Stoll Family Fund • Luis Villa Beat Reporter members: Shinwha Whang and Leon Barnard • Peter Barnes • Rita Beamish • Berit Baumberger • Danna Basson • Rena Bransten • Anna Budayr • Ann Campbell • Martin Chai • Bradley Cleveland • Timothy Covington • Denise D'Anne • Richard DeLeon • Liz Enochs • Steven Fainaru • Moritz Fliedner • Matthew Francis • Yukari and Edward Franzwa • Julia Gallyot • Dan Gelfand, Synergy School • Jim Giles • Ted Glasser • Juan Gonzales • Sean Hunter • Amy and Adnan Iftekhar • Victoria Schlesinger and David V. Johnson • Ambika Kandasamy • Derek Kerr • Marie Libeson • Jennifer Loomis • Robert Lowrey • Andy Lynch • Joe Mathewson • Kevin McKean • Geralyn Migielicz • Herbert Mintz II • Carmen Monedero • Lisa Weinzimer and Glenn Nyhan • John O’Neill • Andrew Parker • Kelly Fortune and David Pascal • Jennifer and Jerome Perarnaud • Rebecca Pontikes •

Kepler’s Books 1010 El Camino Real Menlo Park

Diesel, A Book Store 5433 College Ave. Oakland

Minnesota Nice

The Fund for Investigative Journalism supports investigative reporting projects around the world. fij.org craigslist Charitable Fund provides millions of dollars each year in grants to hundreds of partner organizations addressing four broad areas of interest: environment and transportation; education, rights, justice and reason; non-violence, veterans and peace; and journalism, open source and the Internet. craigslist.org/about/charitable

Compass Books SFO Terminals 2 & 3

Pegasus Books 5560 College Ave., Oakland & 1855 Solano Ave., Berkeley

Mac’s Smoke Shop 534 Emerson St. Palo Alto

Minnesota Nice

INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORTERS The San Francisco Foundation has been the primary funder of the Public Press since 2009 — Philanthropic community foundation for the Bay Area. sff.org

De Lauer’s Super News Stand 1310 Broadway, Oakland 1412 Park St., Alameda

NORTH BAY

Crossword Puzzle by Andrea Carla Michaels Andrea Carla Michaels

ACROSS 1. Gets off the fence 5. Lay low 9. "Lady Marmalade" singer ___ LaBelle 14. Whack 15. At the summit 16. Yearned 17. Serenaders' instruments 19. French river 20. Like unprescribed drugs, briefly 21. "Baby ___ You": Shirelles hit 22. It may keep you up at night 23. Title of respect 24. Brown with a Band of Renown 25. Cough drop ingredient 26. Cabinet dept. concerned with nuclear weapons 28. "Got it" 30. Some SAT takers 31. Japanese noodles 33. Desert sight 36. Attitude of a certain midwestern state?

41. Battle of the ___ 42. First bone transplant donor?

43. Modern music genre 46. "Nebraska" director Alexander 49. "CHiPs" star Estrada 51. Loch Ness dweller, they say 54. Paul Bunyan's tool 56. Genes material 57. Lay into 58. No-goodnik 59. Japanese coin 60. Sugarcoating 61. Members of "The Lullaby League" 64. Cabaret singer Lenya 65. "What's ___ for me?"

66. Ancient pyramid builder 67. Give a damn?

68. "Arrivederci" 69. A very long time DOWN 1. Absorb gradually 2. Gray-white element

Michal Post • Patrick Reilly, Esq. • Julie Rioux and Stephen Revilak • Maria Rivero • Kristina Rizga • David Salaverry • Mark Sanchez • Eric Schoenman • Jane Shabaker • Stephen Silha • Ellen Spertus • Jon Steinberg • Tim Sweeney • Diane Tate • Tracy Grubbs and Richard Taylor • Tina Chiu and Jonathan Toma • Teresa Welborn and Glen Van Lehn • Frances Dinkelspiel and Gary Wayne • Jamie Whitaker • Scott Zimmermann Cub Reporter members: Anonymous • Anita Ahmed • Holly Allen • Michele Anderson • Leslie Arita • Noah Arroyo • Joyce Ashizawa-Yee • Joel Aufrecht • Cristina Azocar • Gina Baleria • Cortney Balzan • Barbara and James Barnard • Nancy Battey • Lynda Beigel • Meghan Blair • Thomas Brown • Eric Burnette • Raymond Buscemi • Lyndal Cairns • Donna Miller Casey • Elise Castillo • Leah Cole • Richard Darrough • Saheli Datta • Catherine De Heer • Sam Dennison • Monica Pereira and Kevin Dolan • Empower Together Consulting • Miles and Jesse Garnier • Gregor Gentschev • Brooke Ginnard • Nathaniel Green • Marge Harburg • Sasha Hauswald • Amanda Hickman • Patrick Hillas • Shirley Huey • Otto Imken • Laura Impellizzeri • Thea Selby and Robert Johnstone • Yukari Kane • Jordan Klein • George Koster • Tatiana Kyriakides • Mary Anne LaHood • Thomas Landry • Rosa Lara-Fernandez • Denise Stavis Levine • Leslie Lombre • Harold Looby • Michelle Lutsky • Donna and Marty Mackowski • Eduardo Martinez • Viki Maxwell • John McManus • Janet Monaghan and Brian McKeever • David Mitchell • Laura Moorhead • Mabel Ng • Henry Norr • Antoine and Beline Obeid • Liz Pallatto • Yvonne Pingue • Ruth and Allan Pleaner • John Clifford Pollard • Rebecca Pontikes • Felisa Preskill • Elizabeth Rapp • Naomi Richen • Mary Ellen and Anthony Riff • Richard Rothman • Beth Rubenstein • Dinah Sanders • Elena Schmid • Laura and Michael Scott • Claudia Smukler • Vivek Sridharan • Susan Stark • Sari Staver • Tom Stites • Paul Switzer • Anthony Ta • Eric Talbert • Ruth Tam • Jason Tester • Lorri Ungaretti • Giselle Velazquez • Claire Veuthey • Rina Weisman • Laura Wenus • Oak and Sok Whang • Selma Wilson • Sue Barnett and Jason Winshell • Michael Winter • JoAnn Yates • Jennifer Nguyen and Tracy Zhu • Olga Zilberbourg Basic Members: Justin Allen • Jan and Santo Alioto • Kris Anderson • Mindy Aronoff • Kevin Bayuk • Ellyn Beale • Charles Belov • Michel Bergh • Barbara Berkeley • Joe Berry • Simon Bertrang • Monica Bhagwan •

1

2

3

4

5

14

6

7

8

9

15

17

18

20

21

23

24

31

44

25 29

30 34

33 37

35

38

39

40

42 46

45 52

51

13

22

41 43

12

19

32

36

11

16

28

27

26

10

47

53

54

57

48

56 59

58 62

50

49 55

60

61

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

© 4/14/16

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

18.

22.

25.

27.

29.

32.

34.

35.

37.

38.

Rossini opera Barrett of "Pink Floyd" Summer wear "You speak the truth" American Pie singer McLean Records somewhat longer than singles, briefly Monty Python member "___ of many colors" (Gen. 37:3) KFC pieces Extreme fear Principles "Mona Lisa," e.g.

It's one step behind vice?

Spam alternative Howard and Reagan Scatterbrained Minneapolis to Duluth dir. '___ New York minute!'

Cut of meat Oust from a university Burn the surface of

39. Concealing a gun, so to speak 40. Cardinal's honorific, after "Your" 43. Communicates with online 44. Bolshoi Theatre locale 45. Kind of inspection or delivery 47. "The Chronicles of ___": Lewis 48. Precise, in Puerto Rico 50. Dorothy's home 52. "Ho ho ho" fellow 53. Calvin's pal Hobbes, e.g.

55. Ending of the Bible?

61. Karaoke singer's need, for short 62. Prefix with cycle 63. Korean automaker that started as a bicycle parts manufacturer

Susan Blair • Barbara Boyle • Lisa Burger • Melissa Burggraff • Larry Bush • Nico Calavita • Peter Caldwell • Robert L. Campbell • Ubreen and Kaizar Campwala • Vincent Chao • Krisann Chasarik • Marian Chatfield-Taylor • Alexis Collentine • Kathleen Coll • Julie Connery • Richard Darrough • Phyllis Deets • Jon Diamond • John Diehl • Carlee Duncan • Andrea Dunlap • Judy Dunworth • Adam Elman • Bonnie English • Jeri Fetzer • Christopher Fisher • Catherine Foo • Lesley Foster • Laura Fraenza • Sanford Gallanter • Martin Gellen • Joseph Gerharz • Amanda Gerrard • Erica Gies • Deborah Gordon • Caroline Grannan • Oliver Graves • Eugene Gregor • Catherine Hagan • Diana Hartman • David Helder • Liz Oliner and Burt Herman • Barry Hermanson • Christopher Ho • Dawn Holliday • Claudia Hottmann • Maryann Hrichak • Amy Huang • Marguerite Hutchinson • Vivian and Paul Imperiale • Christopher Johnson • Guy Johnson • Jaime Lockwood and Jeffrey Johnson • Linda Jue • Josh Kalven • Diane Keaton • Andrew Kennard • Michael Keough • Laura Kilgour • Richard Knee • Vikram Krishnan • Deborah Kwan • Jean Lindgren • Gina Lagomarsino • Susan Shepard and Charles Leoni • Dhyana Levey • Denise Stavis Levine • Linda Leong Lew • Leslie Lombre • Pam Luk • Daphne Magnawa • David Marin • Edward Mason • Susie McKinnon • Stephen McNeil • Mechanics’ Institute • Andrea Carla Michaels • Prashanth Mundkur • William Murdoch • Jim Musselman • Emily Newman • Andrew Page • Jill Patton • Christopher Peak • Maryta Piazza • Michael Poplardo • Megan Prelinger • Nanci Quinn • Jill Redhage • Paul Reeberg • George Ritchie • Allyson and Ed Ritger • Catherine Robbins • Katherine Roberts • Manuel Rodriguez • Geoffrey Rollins • Leslie Rosenbaum • William Ruck • San Francisco Public Library • Stephen Santamaria • Carol Savary • Caroline Sayre • Eric Schaefer • Peter Scheer • Elizabeth Schiller • Sandra Rozmarin and Joseph Schlesinger • William Schwalb • Preeti Sethi • Henrike Siemen • Rebecca Skinner • Leef Smith • Bill Snyder • Mary Snyder • Hitesh Soneji • Nancy Spangler • Marvin Stender • Mike Sullivan • Anne Suskind • Peter Sussman • John Swartley • Lisa Tehrani • Maria Thompson • Lorri Ungaretti • Jennifer Vahdati • Mark Valentine • Eileen Wampole • Mary Washburn • Jerad Weiner • Jonathan Wieder • Jay Wilson • Josh Wilson • Laila Winner • Joseph Wirt • Mie and Dav Yaginuma • Yao Yue

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC PRESS, WINTER 2017 | SFPUBLICPRESS.ORG | 3

Over the beverage industry’s objections, in November San Francisco voters passed Proposition V, which will tax distributors of sugar-sweetened drinks 1 cent per ounce. Photo by Nadia Mishkin // Public Press

New S.F. Soda Tax Could Raise $15 Million Annually, But Funds Not Guaranteed to Go Toward Health Care Total cost of diabetes, obesity in city estimated to approach $1 billion

By Sara Bloomberg // Public Press

I

n November, San Francisco joined a small cadre of cities that have chosen to tax sugar-sweetened beverages in hope of containing astronomical public health costs from diabetes and obesity.

Passed overwhelmingly, Proposition V will levy a tax of 1 cent per ounce on sugary drinks, and is similar to ballot initiatives that were approved in Oakland and Albany in the East Bay, as well as in Chicago and in Boulder, Colorado. So-called soda taxes had already been enacted in Berkeley and Philadelphia.

The San Francisco tax — which will be assessed on distributors and not directly on consumers — is projected to raise $15 million annually for City Hall. The revenue will go into the general fund and is to be directed by a panel of experts toward nutritional, health and exercise programs targeted mainly at children. But there is no guarantee that is how all the money will be spent; it could be used for other city purposes.

The tax, which expires after 2028, will not be levied on diet sodas, infant formula, meal replacements, medical supplies, milk products and nondairy alternatives, 100-percent fruit or vegetable juices, or alcoholic beverages.

BIG SODA SPENT RECORD $20.5 MILLION Proposition V needed a simple majority to pass, unlike the failed 2014 soda tax measure, which required a two-thirds majority. Securing about 62 percent of ballots cast, or more than 237,000 votes, Yes on V prevailed despite the record $20.5 million spent by major beverage companies and trade associations, aka Big Soda, to try to defeat the measure, according to campaign filings at the end of October. A deep dig into that spending reveals that much of it went toward television advertisements that often tried rebranding the levy as a “grocery tax” that would raise food prices.

About $19.3 million came from one contributor: the American Beverage Association, the lobbying arm of giant soda manufacturers. Two years ago, it spent $9.2 million to defeat a similar tax in San Francisco, which, though

Health services that treat diabetes and obesity in San Francisco could benefit from the tax on sugary beverages, but which organizations get funded will be determined by a panel of experts. Across the state, innovative programs work with adults and children to improve diet and exercise. Juan Sifuentes exercises with his son, who has type 2 diabetes, through the PowerPlay obesity management program in Santa Ana. Creative Commons by Flickr user heacphotos

supported by 56 percent of city voters, needed a supermajority to pass.

So why did Cohen pick that number over all others, potentially weakenIf San Francisco — not even the first municipality to start taxing sugaring her case for the tax? She would not say. sweetened drinks — is a bellwether, then Big Soda’s worst fears may soon “Diabetes is a public health crisis. The fiscal impacts of this disease goes be realized. [sic] far beyond costs just attributable to sugary sweetened beverages,” By comparison, the campaign pushing Proposition V spent about $7.5 Cohen said in an email response to questions from the Public Press. “We million, with the largest chunk coming must look at the numbers holistically from billionaire former New York City and consider both the direct and indirect Mayor Michael Bloomberg. costs that the city is incurring due to (The No on V blitz was also more this preventable disease.” than double the amount another big Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, who directs corporate entity spent last year to the UCSF Center for Vulnerable Popuprotect its bottom line against threats lations at Zuckerberg San Francisco from new local regulations: Airbnb General Hospital, told the Public Press single-handedly dropped about $9.1 that indirect costs “should include lost million to kill expanded restrictions on productivity,” and for diabetes, “the cost short-term housing rentals.) associated is not just diabetes. There are In 2014, Berkeley became the first many other downstream costs.”

U.S. city to pass a tax on sugary Bibbins-Domingo was on an interdrinks. In the months after the pennynational team of researchers that per-ounce levy took effect in March published the PLOS study on Mexico’s 2015, consumption of sugar-sweetened sugary-drinks tax and was not involved drinks fell 21 percent in the city’s lowin drafting San Francisco’s sugar income neighborhoods, a University of tax measure or the budget analyst’s California, Berkeley, study reported in report.

August.

Nationally, increased consumption of Sales of sweetened drinks dropped sugary beverages since the 1970s has as much as 12 percent in Mexico a year been linked to a dramatic rise in obesity after it implemented its own tax, which and diabetes rates. And although soda is expected to decrease the number of sales have declined in recent years, Type 2 diabetes diagnoses by 189,300 Americans still guzzle more sugary cases, reduce the incidence of strokes drinks — sport, energy, juice and tea — and heart attacks by 20,400 and than they did 50 years ago.

Malia Cohen, District 10 supervisor prevent 18,900 deaths over a decade, Health experts agree that this is a according to a study published in PLOS growing public health crisis, particuMedicine in November. larly in lower-income communities and The PLOS study also found that Mexico would spend $983 million less on for people of color. health care over 10 years.

Around 13 percent of African-American and Latino adults have been For San Franciscans, savings could far outpace what Proposition V’s diagnosed with diabetes, compared with 7.6 percent for whites, the U.S. authors told voters to expect.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in 2014.

A December 2013 report by the city’s budget and legislative analyst calculated that the annual costs of medical care, insurance and lost productivity 32,000 IN CITY HAVE DIABETES due to diabetes and obesity — from all causes, not just from sugary drinks — range from $749 million to $945 million.

In San Francisco, about 4.4 percent of adults — roughly 32,000 people — Furthermore, a Public Press review of city documents and related health have been diagnosed with diabetes, according to a report released this year studies found that the costs specifically linked to sweetened drinks, when by the Department of Public Health. Hospitalization rates due to diabetes adding up the combined direct and indirect costs of these diseases, range are highest for African-Americans, key constituents in supervisorial Disfrom $48 million to nearly $62 million every year. And because of inflation trict 10, which Cohen represents. and expanded health insurance costs, all of these figures are likely to be More than 126,000 San Franciscans were considered obese or pre-diabetunderestimates. ic in 2010, the budget analyst reported.

To help draft Proposition V, District 10 Supervisor Malia Cohen turned The effect of these health issues goes beyond direct medical care and to the analyst’s report, which examined numerous scenarios. The number insurance costs.

Cohen cited, $87 million, was conservative in one respect, representing the In addition to affecting quality of life, lost productivity from obesity and low end of estimated costs affecting just the city’s budget — not the wider diabetes is an economic drain of at least $348 million annually. economy — and focusing on diabetes alone, omitting obesity. That narUsing studies conducted in Illinois and at George Washington University, rower projection significantly underplayed the public costs of soda and other the analyst’s report concluded that lost productivity from obesity costs San sugary drinks, and was misleading, because it encompassed costs not adFrancisco’s economy more than $191 million “as a result of absenteeism dressed by Proposition V: all causes of diabetes, not just those attributable (sick leave, disability) and presenteeism (lower productivity from being unto sweetened beverages. able to keep up physically at work).” For diabetes, the drain is $157 million.

American Heart Association guidelines say children should consume ‘A PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS’ fewer than 6 teaspoons of added sugar daily. There are nearly 10 teaspoons of sugar in a 12-ounce can of regular Coca-Cola.

The $87 million figure cited by Cohen refers only to one specific scenario about direct medical care and “indirect” insurance costs for diabetes paid Noah Arroyo contributed to this article, a version of which ran online in by the city, which does not include the additional indirect costs of lost proearly November. ductivity. That discrepancy is clarified deeper in the report.

“Diabetes is a public health

crisis. ... We must look at the numbers holistically and

consider both the direct and indirect costs that the city is incurring

due to this preventable disease.”

4 | SFPUBLICPRESS.ORG | SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC PRESS, WINTER 2017

Vacancies occur frequently on the Board of Supervisors — on average every 20 months, according to city records. That has often enabled mayors to influence the board’s legislative direction. Photo by Nadia Mishkin // Public Press

With Proposition D Failure, Mayor Retains Appointment Power Mayor Lee’s next Board of Supervisors pick could shift political balance away from left-leaning coalition ballot measures that would have taken powers away from the mayor’s office. Voters rejected all of those measures in November.

Though he never served as a supervisor, Lee exemplifies the power of appointments, having several former mayors to thank for his political career, starting with Agnos. He made Lee the first investigator for the city’s Whistleblower Ordinance and later deputy director of human relations. Next, he served as executive director of the San Francisco Human Rights Commission under Agnos, Jordan and Brown, who later put him in charge of city purchasing.

But it was Newsom — whom Brown appointed to the Board of Supervisors — who set up Lee for his eventual ascent to the mayor’s office. In 2005, a year after becoming mayor, Newsom appointed Lee city administrator and reappointed him to a second five-year term in 2010. That November, Newsom was elected lieutenant governor, and in January 2011, after political maneuvering, the Board of Supervisors appointed Lee to fill out the remaining year of Newsom’s term after he promised not to stand for election. Lee later reneged on that promise, and in November 2011, he became the city’s first elected Asian-American mayor.

By Zachary Clark // Public Press

A

lmost every San Francisco mayor since Harry Truman was president has appointed at least two supervisors while in office, affecting politics long after their own terms ended.

And now that trend will continue, after a proposition designed to temper that mayoral power narrowly failed in November.

Six seats on the Board of Supervisors were up for grabs in that election, and voters filled them with enough political moderates that the faction may now outnumber its comparably progressive counterpart.

Though often at odds, both sides consist entirely of Democrats.

If it had passed, Proposition D would have altered that political balance in January by limiting the mayor’s next appointee to serving a shortened term. But now the board’s new composition will remain in place until after the next regular election in November 2018.

Ahsha Safai, supervisor-elect for District 11, is likely to shift the board to a 6-5 moderate majority going forward. He got his start in San Francisco politics under former mayors Willie Brown Jr. and Gavin Newsom, widely considered pro-business moderates by city standards. And Mayor Ed Lee, who has received the same label, endorsed him in the election. Safai’s background includes stints in the Clinton White House, the San Francisco Housing Authority, the Mayor’s Office of Community Development and the Department of Public Works.

He has been repeatedly at odds with the man he will replace, progressive Supervisor John Avalos, who is termed out.

But Safai has strong labor ties — he is the political director for Service Employees International Union Local 87 — so it is unclear how he will come down on key issues. A Public Press analysis found that of 17 local political groups backing him, almost all opposed propositions D, H, L and M, which were branded as a concerted attempt to weaken the power of the mayor’s office. By comparison, nearly all the groups that took positions on ballot measures and supported Safai’s chief opponent, Kimberly Alvarenga, who was considered more progressive, supported all four propositions.

SAFAI REJECTS MODERATE, PROGRESSIVE LABELS Alvarenga also supported the four propositions, whereas Safai supported only D and opposed the rest, according to the candidates’ responses to questionnaires from the District 11 Democratic Club.

But Safai rejected the “moderate” and “progressive” labels after he was declared the winner in late November. “I don’t think I fit neatly into either category,” he told the San Francisco Chronicle, which noted that progressive supervisors Norman Yee and Jane Kim had endorsed both Safai and Alvarenga.

In January, Lee will make his fourth board appointment. Supervisor Scott Wiener defeated Kim for the 11th Senate District seat of termed-out Democratic state Sen. Mark Leno, who represents San Francisco and portions of San Mateo County. With the board split down the middle, Lee’s pick should prove decisive, at least until the next election.

AVALOS SOUGHT TO GIVE VOTERS MORE SAY

Mayor Ed Lee appointed Christina Olague (right) to the District 5 seat on the Board of Supervisors in 2012.

During her term, Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of falsely imprisoning his wife, spurring Lee to seek his ouster. But Olague cast a crucial vote to let Mirkarimi keep his job, and in the subsequent election Lee switched his support to London Breed, who defeated Olague for the district’s seat.

Photo by Volker Neumann // San Francisco Bicycle Coalition

If history is a guide, Lee’s pick would be favored to retain his or her seat, based on city election outcomes since the 1940s. Backed by incumbency, mayoral influence and a network of donors, appointed supervisors have had a nearly 80 percent success rate in retaining their seats. Expectations are that appointees will carry political water for the mayor.

There is little surprise then that opposition to Proposition D was led by four of five former mayors, all Democrats. They were responsible for placing 19 people — two had been elected already — onto the Board of Supervisors between 1978 and 2010, before Lee came into office.

“Proposition D sounds appealing, but it will really result in costly special elections and the installation of temporary ‘caretaker’ Supervisors who have NO accountability to their constituents for the time they are in office,” said the official opposing argument. “Please join us, along with former Mayor and Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, in opposing Proposition D.” The signers were former mayors U.S. Sen. Dianne Fein-

stein, Brown and Frank Jordan. They were joined by Angela Alioto, the daughter of former Mayor Joe Alioto, a former president of the Board of Supervisors and an unsuccessful mayoral candidate.

But Larry Bush, who was special assistant to Mayor Art Agnos during his term from 1988 to 1992, said the former mayors might have had another reason for their opposition.

“Each of the mayors who oppose Prop. D have enough influence with Ed to appoint someone they like,” he said before the election, referring to Lee. “These mayors are looking for someone who owes them.”

Agnos was the only ex-mayor to support the measure.

He was an anomaly during his one term: the only mayor in 38 years who did not appoint a supervisor.

Lee rose to power through a series of appointments going back to the late 1980s. He took no official position on Proposition D. But, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, he viewed it as a “power grab,” and two of Lee’s chief advisers, Tony Winnicker and Ace Smith, took leaves to fight Proposition D and the three other

Avalos wrote this year’s Proposition D in an effort to give voters a bigger voice in choosing their local representatives. In addition to the supervisors, Proposition D would have applied to the assessor-recorder, city attorney, district attorney, public defender, sheriff, treasurer, the Board of Education and the community college Board of Trustees.

Under the defeated proposition, a mayor could appoint a temporary replacement within 28 days — currently there is no time limit — but the appointee would serve a maximum of six months, except in special circumstances. If a regular election was not scheduled within six months, a special election would then be called to fill the remainder of the term. The mayor’s pick would not be allowed to run in that election but could in the following one.

Avalos spent years crafting the legislation. He first proposed a version that failed to make it onto the 2014 ballot and that was in response to Lee’s decision to seek election rather than step aside.

Sometimes using Lee as an example, Avalos has argued that appointees’ brief stints in office give them the unfair advantages of increased name recognition and access to donors, assets needed to win in subsequent elections and remain in power.

The data bear this out. Out of all the supervisors appointed since 1948, 78 percent were subsequently elected. Since 1978, that figure is 75 percent.

But if the appointment power is indeed a tool for influencing politics for years to come, then recent mayors have wielded it with varying degrees of success, and Lee himself has largely failed.

Feinstein appointed six supervisors while mayor from 1978 to 1988, and five won election when their appointments concluded. Jordan appointed two supervisors while in office from 1992 to 1996, and one retained her seat. All but one of Brown’s six appointees were elected.

Newsom appointed three people before leaving office in

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC PRESS, WINTER 2017 | SFPUBLICPRESS.ORG | 5

By Appointing Supervisors to Vacant Seats, S.F. Mayors Influence Politics for Years to Come

Since 1948, mayors have hand picked 43 supervisors to replace elected board members. Eighty percent of the time those temporary stints became years-long political careers.

Appointees have name recognition and other advantages over their competitors in subsequent elections.

2011, and all retained their seats.

Out of Lee’s three appointees, only Katy Tang prevailed later at the ballot box.

Asked if she thought the current appointment system is problematic, Tang, who represents District 4 and is a former board president, pointed out that there is “no ‘industry standard’ for how vacancies are filled.” She called San Francisco’s process “a solid one” because appointees who intend to run in subsequent elections must keep voters happy to keep their seats.

Proposition D would have theoretically reduced that level of accountability by forcing appointed supervisors to wait an election cycle before running again, Tang said by email, calling that “worrisome.”

“I don’t care how long a supervisor is sitting in office,” she said. “I want them held accountable to voters.”

BEHOLDEN SUPERVISORS, SINCE 1948 There have been 43 appointments to the Board of Supervisors since 1948, the earliest year for which the city possesses complete data. (Two others were appointed by Brown after their election but before they would have otherwise been sworn in.) That means that, on average, someone was appointed approximately every 20 months.

Republican Elmer Robinson, who served as mayor from 1948 to 1956, holds the modern record, naming seven to the board. Successors appointed fewer and fewer supervisors until 1978, when Feinstein, the president of the Board of Supervisors, came to power through the assassination of Mayor George Moscone. She appointed six people during her tenure, which ended in 1988 when she was elected to the U.S. Senate. The first vacancies she had to fill came when ex-Supervisor Dan White assassinated Supervisor Harvey Milk and Moscone.

Source: San Francisco Board of Supervisors Photos courtesy of the San Francisco History Center, San Francisco Public Library Graphic by Noah Arroyo // Public Press

After Feinstein came Agnos, who lost reelection to Jordan, a former police chief. During his single term (1992 to 1996) Jordan filled two seats on the board.

Then came Brown, the former speaker of the California Assembly, who defeated Jordan. During his administration, from 1996 to 2004, he, like Feinstein, placed six people on the board. By the end of his first term, Brown had appointed a majority of the board.

Agnos pointed to one factor that explains why so many appointments occurred after 1990: term limits on state legislators. Ambitious city supervisors ran for those positions while still in office, with winners vacating their board seats.

“And this election cycle will create another round of vacancies for the current mayor to make appointments that can ‘shape’ the Board of Supervisors to suit his agenda,” Agnos said by email.

Journalists and political pundits have alleged that Brown’s appointees were beholden to him, voting however he wanted them to and essentially allowing him to control the city’s legislative agenda.

Brown seems to have admitted as much during a recent episode of his radio show, “Will & Willie.”

“You are free to vote any way you wish once you get elected,” he said. “But if I appoint you, you only have one constituent, and that’s me.”

Tang disputed that notion and said it can create “baggage” for an appointed supervisor.

“Many will believe that you are someone who will only vote how the mayor tells you to vote or that you are in the pocket of the mayor,” Tang said. “This is far from reality, at least in my case.”

Despite sharing many of Lee’s values, she said she had disagreed with him and his office on many occasions.

Tang also justified her appointment by citing her six years of prior work as a legislative aide, as well as having grown up in District 4. She said those qualifications “were sometimes overlooked simply because I was an appointee.”

STRATEGIC APPOINTMENTS During Brown’s tenure, the Board of Supervisors fought to limit his power. In 2002, the board put several initiatives on the ballot, including one that would limit the mayor’s ability to appoint people to the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals. The board voted 9-2 to put it on the ballot. Leno voted for the proposition; Newsom and Leland Yee (the former supervisor and state senator who is in prison for racketeering) were the dissenting supervisors.

Larry Bush, founder of the watchdog group Friends of Ethics, said that when Brown was in office he “orchestrated getting vacant seats on the Board of Supervisors, and I believe Newsom did as well.”

After taking office in 2004, Newsom persuaded political rival Tony Hall to resign from the board and take over as executive director of the Treasure Island Development Authority. Newsom then installed Sean Elsbernd, one of his former staffers.

Agnos said Jordan, another opponent of Proposition D, also orchestrated a vacancy on the board. Jordan appointed then-president of the Board of Supervisors Doris Ward as the assessor in 1992, filling her vacant seat with Annemarie Conroy, his goddaughter and a political unknown.

Deviating from the mayor’s politics can be costly for appointed supervisors. Lee appointed Christina Olague in 2012, and soon after that she voted to reinstate Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, whom Lee had suspended after

Mirkarimi’s wife accused him of abuse. In the election that followed, Lee shifted his support from Olague to her opponent, London Breed. Tony Winnicker, Lee’s adviser at the time, sent Olague a series of text messages, saying, “I will work night and day to defeat you.” And Ron Conway, the tech venture capitalist and one of Lee’s top donors, financed attack ads aimed at Olague. She lost the District 5 seat to Breed, who eventually became board president.

The appointment power of the mayor’s office has launched the political careers of some of today’s heaviest hitters. Brown appointed Leno to the board in 1998, and he went on to represent San Francisco in both the state Assembly and Senate. And Brown actually appointed Newsom twice: in 1996, to the Parking and Traffic Commission, and the following year to the Board of Supervisors, filling the seat vacated by Kevin Shelley, the son of former Mayor John F. Shelley.

Besides Newsom and Leno, several other appointed supervisors have later been appointed to other key positions in government.

Leslie Katz, another Brown appointee, was put on the Port Commission by Lee and served as its president from 2014 to 2015. Brown appointee Amos C. Brown became Newsom’s choice for commissioner of the Housing Authority, where he eventually served as president from 2008 to 2013.

Former Supervisor Carmen Chu was appointed by Newsom in 2007 and went on to be elected and reelected before Lee tapped her as assessor-recorder in 2013, when voters sent Phil Ting to the state Assembly. The next year, Chu was elected to a full four-year term.

Political observers see Sacramento in her future.

A version of this article ran online in early November.

Lack of Shelter for Homeless Collides With Voters' Wish to Clear Tent Encampments

By Helena Ong and Noah Arroyo // Public Press

S

an Francisco voters narrowly passed Proposition Q in November, creating new policies for how the city clears tent encampments where homeless people live.

But that law may be a nonstarter, because there is not enough indoor shelter available to get tent dwellers off the street.

Proposition Q requires that before confiscating someone’s tent and belongings, city workers must give a 24-hour warning and tell that person where to find temporary shelter. If no shelter is immediately available, the tent may not be taken.

In reality, shelters are essentially at capacity every day, leaving hundreds out in the cold.

Many articles and op-eds have not thoroughly explained the crux of the situation: The shelter system is filled every night by people who have waited in line for either same-day or more permanent beds.

Proposition Q’s authors have said that homeless people may also be shepherded into supportive-housing units when appropriate. These are homes where someone generally works on-site to provide case management, medical assistance or other services for tenants.

But the supportive-housing system is full, too.

“We’re going to continue our work on addressing the capacity,” said Jess Montejano, legislative aide to Supervisor Mark Farrell and coauthor of Proposition Q. “We claimed from the onset that Q was not a panacea but a tool the city could use.”

On any given night about 7,000 people are homeless in the city, with about 4,000 of them sleeping on the streets, Jeff Kositsky, the city’s director of homelessness, said on KQED-FM in early December.

Kositsky had told Mission Local the month before that an estimated 800 homeless people live in tents.

The emergency shelter system contains about 1,500 beds. To reserve one for 90 days at a time, someone must put his or her name on a waiting list and typically wait weeks. In early December, the list contained 939 names.

Still, there are no-shows, which leave beds empty. Every day about 70 people do not show for their reserved shelter beds, according to a city report in June.

Those beds then go to others for same-night or weekend stays. Demand is strong, and shelter staff report

turning people away.

On a typical day, an “estimated four to five” people seeking same-night or weekend stays are turned away from Glide Walk-In Center in the Tenderloin, said Robert Avila, director of communications. “It was five last night, for instance.”

Glide and the Mission Neighborhood Resource Center are two of the four locations in San Francisco where people can go to check whether any shelter beds have become available for one-night or weekend stays; the other two are United Council of Human Services Resource Center in the Bayview and the Multi-Service Center South of St. Vincent de Paul Society in SOMA. People must make the request in person, at which point staff check a database for available beds on-site or elsewhere. If the latter, the shelter-seeker must get to the alternate location, a challenge for people with physical disabilities.

Jennifer Friedenbach, executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness, said that because so few sameday shelter beds are generally available, city staff might try to make space for former tent dwellers by setting beds aside for them, making them unavailable to other applicants.

“Logistically, there’s no way to make it work unless you take beds from other people who are trying to get shelter,” she told the Public Press.

Montejano said that City Hall would not take this approach. But the San Francisco Homeless Outreach Team already reserves beds for homeless people who might accept their services.

The city also has about 6,500 supportive-housing units for single adults, and about 70 units turn over every month, said Randolph Quesada, spokesman for the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing. In addition, there are about 500 supportive-housing units for families, and those turn over less frequently.

“The vacancy rate would be very low — probably 2 percent, 4 percent,” Quesada said. “And those are the apartments that are waiting for their new tenants.

They’re not just sitting idle.”

Under Proposition Q, unless caseworkers developed rapport with people before taking their tents, it is unlikely that supportive housing would be forthcoming. As it stands, city staff get to know their homeless clients thoroughly before placing them to make sure the housing satisfies their needs. But Proposition Q promises —

City workers dismantle and remove a Mission District homeless encampment. Photo by Michael Stoll // Public Press

unrealistically — housing within 24 hours.

Montejano did not respond directly about whether Farrell’s office had pinpointed where tent dwellers displaced under Proposition Q would be housed or how many beds or homes had been allocated for them.

He said the new law is “functional in limited circum-

stances now,” and would have wider application as the shelter system expands.

New beds will also be created in the city’s third “navigation center,” where homeless people receive prolonged one-on-one assistance to get off the streets. It was scheduled to open in late February.

6 | SFPUBLICPRESS.ORG | SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC PRESS, WINTER 2017

How San Francisco Paved the Way for California

By Jeremy Adam Smith // Public Press

I

n 1998, California Proposition 227 tore the state apart. Requiring English-only instruction to discourage schools from teaching immigrant students in their home languages, the measure passed by a wide margin.

Fast-forward to 2016. Donald Trump won the presidency, with a promise to build a wall between Mexico and the United States. But just as the country seemed to turn against its immigrants, California went in a different direction. On Nov. 8, nearly three-quarters of voters neutralized Proposition 227 with a new measure, Proposition 58, called the “California Education for a Global Economy Initiative.”

Proposition 58 not only encourages immigrants to retain their home languages while learning English.

It also opens to the door to teaching more U.S.-born children other languages, often through dual-language immersion programs that put them in classrooms with immigrants.

The timing of Proposition 58 could not be better for the San Francisco Unified School District. Demand for language education is rising, but not because of increased immigration — in fact, the number of Englishlearners is slightly lower than it was when Proposition 227 passed. It is because so many parents want their U.S.-born children to learn another language.

For almost two decades, San Francisco Unified largely ignored Proposition 227. It changed the names of its programs and expanded, instead of limited, its language offerings, especially the dual-language immersion programs. Today in San Francisco, thousands of students are learning English alongside Spanish, Mandarin, Cantonese or Korean.

The result? According to academic studies and California Department of Education data, English-learners are likely to be reclassified as proficient more in San Francisco than in districts of similar size and composition. Over time, their academic achievement tends to be greater than that of immigrants in other kinds of programs, including those pushed into English immersion. San Francisco Unified also seems to succeed in producing more multilingual students, both immigrant and native-born.

But there is a catch: The rest of the state may not be ready for the shift toward more bilingual education. For 18 years, the state has actively discouraged language education at its schools. This means that even as demand for bilingualism is growing, the state lacks teachers, standards, curricula and reading materials.

“It’s potentially a real win-win for our kids, for our economy,” said Patricia Gándara, co-director of the Civil Rights Project at UCLA. “But legislators need to get behind public policy that would support this shift.”

THE RISE OF DUAL-LANGUAGE IMMERSION Christina Wong was an organizer in San Francisco’s Chinese community the year Proposition 227 passed.

“At that time, it was like, oh, wow, yet another anti-immigrant initiative,” she recalled. “We were really fearful that the rhetoric out there was so anti-immigrant.”

Ron Unz, the Silicon Valley entrepreneur and Republican activist who bankrolled Proposition 227, said that

At Fairmount Elementary School in the city’s Glen Park neighborhood, librarian Maureen Sullivan conducts classes in Spanish and English. Photo by Nadia Mishkin // Public Press

his measure was never intended to be anti-immigrant — and that he adamantly opposed Proposition 58.

“My views haven’t changed at all,” he said before the election. Programs that provide instruction to immigrants in their first languages discourage English acquisition and cultural assimilation, he argued, and that as a result of efforts like his, “bilingual programs largely disappeared throughout the United States.”

Programs labeled “bilingual” may have declined, but dual-language immersion and other pathways to bilingualism are flourishing. In 2000, there were around 260 programs in the United States. This put English-

learners in classrooms with native English-speakers to learn two languages. While no one knows quite how many there are today, 39 states (and Washington, D.C.), offer dual-language programs. Recent estimates put the number of programs at more than 2,000.

California has 312 of those schools. Twenty-seven are in San Francisco, which also has a similar number of schools that offer “biliteracy pathways” targeted at only English-learners.

Today, Wong oversees language pathways for San Francisco Unified. When Proposition 227 passed, many districts in California stopped offering dual-language

immersion and support to English-learners, according to Wong and other educators.

That was not the case in San Francisco. The district grappled with the new law by changing the names of its programs — from “bilingual” to “biliterate” or “duallanguage immersion” — and requiring parents to sign waivers for children to enter them. The waivers were a provision of Proposition 227 that Unz explicitly described as a bureaucratic hurdle to discourage parents from sending their children to multilingual programs.

Waivers added significantly to staff workload and the district’s bureaucracy, Wong said. Of the 15,000

LANGUAGE EDUCATION EVOLVES IN U.S., CALIFORNIA Pre-1800s

private and Roman Catholic. Most of these religious schools’ courses are taught by Spanish priests at missions to students who receive bilingual instruction.

Bilingual education in German and French exists in Philadelphia as early as 1694. Though bilingual schools are common, the lack of many state and federal laws addressing non-English instruction suggests that they are not controversial.

1864

1839 Ohio passes the first state law allowing bilingual education in German and English. Louisiana passes a similar law in 1847 allowing schools to teach in French and any other language requested by parents, and in 1850 the New Mexico Territory permits Spanish and English. By the end of the 19th century, over a dozen states pass similar laws, and many localities informally provide bilingual instruction in Norwegian, Italian, Polish, Czech and Cherokee.

Instructions in English and German for keeping prisoners in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, on July 14, 1776. Library of Congress

1850 When California officially becomes a state, 18 percent of all education is

As part of a national policy of assimilation, Congress prohibits Native Americans from being taught in their own languages. NativeAmerican children are forced to attend off-reservation, English-only schools and are punished harshly for speaking their native tongues. “The first step to be taken toward civilization, toward teaching the Indians the mischief and folly of continuing in their barbarous practices, is to teach them the English language,” the Commissioner of Indian Affairs writes, upon ordering English-only instruction.

1868 The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is ratified. By guaranteeing due process and equal protection, it establishes a constitutional basis for the educational rights of students who are not native-English speakers.

Class in English or penmanship for Native American children at the Carlisle Indian School in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, in 1901.

Photo by Frances Benjamin Johnston // Library of Congress

1917–1920 Bilingual schools, particularly those teaching German, face backlash during and after World War I. Thirty-four states — 15 between 1919 and 1920 — enact laws that declare English as the basic language of instruction.

1923 In Meyer v. State of Nebraska, U.S. Supreme Court rules state laws prohibiting foreign-language instruction to elementary students are unconstitutional. Schools begin to lift bans on German programs.

1888 After a backlash against non-English speakers — especially Germans — Wisconsin and Illinois mandate English-only instruction.

WORLD WARS FUEL NATIONALIST, XENOPHOBIC POLICIES

1900 About 4 percent of all elementary-school children in the United States are being taught entirely or partly in German. (That’s more than the percentage of students enrolled in Spanish-English programs in the early 21st century.)

1906 Mission Dolores, San Francisco, c. 1898.

Hand-colored image by Detroit Photographic Co. // Library of Congress

The Naturalization Act of 1906 requires applicants for U.S. citizenship to be fluent in English.

A pile of German textbooks from Baraboo High School burns on a street in Baraboo, Wisconsin, during an anti-German demonstration near the Sauk County Courthouse in winter or early spring 1918.

Photograph by E.B. Trimpey // Library of Congress

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC PRESS, WINTER 2017 | SFPUBLICPRESS.ORG | 7

to Embrace Bilingual Education students learning English in any given year, about 10,000 needed waivers. This was often the result of intensive one-to-one outreach to immigrant parents, who needed to hear their options in a system that is notoriously difficult for all parents to navigate.

The most immediate effect of Proposition 58 is to eliminate the layer of bureaucracy created by the waiver system that Proposition 227 created, said Wong.

But it will do something else, she suggested: open the door to more support from the state for multilingual education as well as collaboration with other districts in establishing statewide standards and sharing best practices. Seven states, including Utah, Washington and New Mexico, have specific policies to support dual-language education.

Because of Proposition 227, California lacks such policies. With the passage of Proposition 58, that stands to change. After almost two decades, districts like San Francisco Unified will get help in meeting demand for language education — if the state is willing and able to provide support.

PARENTS PUSH FOR DUAL-LANGUAGE IMMERSION Like many university-educated San Francisco parents, Alex Wise and Moira deNike have treated parenthood like a research project.

“We looked at the data that showed some real benefits to having a bilingual education at a young age,” Wise said. One 2012 study, for example, found that bilinguals are better at solving both word and math problems.

He and deNike also had a personal motivation: Both are multilingual, and she was one of the first students in the 1970s to be part of the Japanese Bilingual Bicultural Program, which today makes its home at Rosa Parks and Clarendon schools in San Francisco. Like Wise, she wanted her own daughter to learn another language — and she argued for Spanish. Today, their daughter is a fourth-grader

“We have kids entering education systems with enormous assets. But rather than cherish that asset, and strengthen it, and promote it, our schools devalue it, shame students for it, and take it away from them.”

Ilana Umansky, University of Oregon at Fairmount Elementary, a dual-language immersion school in Glen Park.

Given the state’s demographics, she said, “being able to speak Spanish in California is part of helping to ensure a more seamless California, to have more cultural competency in a state that is increasingly Spanish-speaking.”

To Unz, that is the problem.

In a series of essays published since Proposition 227 passed, Unz laid out a subtle case against a multilingual, multicultural California. In a 1999 essay for Commentary titled “California and the End of White America,” Unz wrote that the state’s future depended on its ability to assimilate immigrants into the dominant white, English-speaking culture. To not do so, he wrote, risked an identity-based backlash from whites. Seeming to anticipate Trump’s successful campaign for president, he concluded, “There are few forces that could so easily break America as the coming of white nationalism.”

ABOUT THIS REPORTING PROJECT In addition to interviewing educators, parents, children and researchers for this special report, the Public Press compiled and compared outcomes for immigrant students in the largest school districts in the Bay Area and districts of similar size throughout California. Readers can find more reporting on bilingual education on our website.

REPORTING: Jeremy Adam Smith, Hye-Jin Kim, Nadia Mishkin, Shinwha Whang PROJECT EDITORS: Noah Arroyo, Michael Stoll, Michael Winter PROTOGRAPHY: Nadia Mishkin ONLINE: John Angelico This project was made possible by a grant from California Humanities, a reporting award from the Education Writers Association and donations by Public Press members.

MORE ONLINE: sfpublicpress.org/bilingualschools

The campaign for Proposition 227 was careful to enlist Latino supporters dissatisfied with the state of bilingual education. Today, Unz, who ran unsuccessfully for U.S. Senate as a Republican in the June primary, continues to argue that it is immigrants who are hurt the most when schools try to preserve their native language and culture.

“The problem with these programs is that they don’t really help the Latino students learn English,” he said.

Unz is critical of how most programs — as is the case at Fairmount — start with the immigrant language and then gradually introduce English. This, he said, is actually to the benefit of the native-born.

“Anglo parents want more dual-immersion programs, but I think what is probably happening is that they want a copious supply of unpaid Spanishlanguage tutors to help their children learn Spanish,” Unz said, equating Latino children with “unpaid tutors.”

Diana Vasquez does not see it that way. She left Mexico in 2005, hoping that her children would have more educational opportunities. At Fairmount Elementary, her two boys have already achieved fluency in English. Vasquez has not, but she is nonetheless bilingual, speaking Spanish as well as Tzeltal, an indigenous language in the southern Mexican state of Chiapas.

To her, English fluency is one of her children’s “great accomplishments.” But she also values the formal instruction they receive in Spanish grammar, vocabulary and writing. “It’s better than what they would have gotten in Mexico,” she said. “This is the best thing that could have happened for them.”

(On Nov. 8, San Francisco voters also passed Proposition N, which will allow noncitizen parents like Vasquez to vote in Board of Education elections.)

To deNike, Vasquez’s two boys do indeed have a lot to teach her daughter.

“Part of what we hoped for was that putting our daughter in a school like Fairmount might teach her some cultural humility,” deNike said. “We are very happy that our child has a chance to learn another language in a public school setting, yes. But we are equally happy that it affords her the opportunity to meet peers with different experiences and to recognize that the world is a lot bigger than our single country.”

PROGRESS, BUT INEQUALITY PERSISTS When Proposition 227 passed, even proponents of bilingual education admitted that their programs left much to be desired. At the time, the California Association of Bilingual Education found that less than 10 percent of the state’s programs were effective. For outcomes like graduation rates and English proficiency, California seemed to be failing its immigrants.

Today, outcomes for immigrants vary wildly from district to district in the Bay Area. Among the five largest districts, San Francisco leads the way in the breadth and diversity of its programs, as well as the BILINGUAL continued on page 8

Renaissance or Reversal?

EDUCATION continued from Page 1 from liberal to progressive, with few conservative voices. That’s certainly true, and I suspect few readers would disagree with me when I say that the Bay Area was shocked by the election of Donald Trump.

We may indeed live in a bubble, but it’s a bubble that contains a dizzying variety of people: immigrants from all over the planet; people of every conceivable gender and sexual orientation; Americans of every race and education level; and Christians, Muslims, Jews and people of many other faiths — or no faith.

We don’t live in Utopia, as everyone knows. There is inequality, as well as tensions and fights between and within groups. But, day to day, the people of the Bay Area navigate differences with laughter and gentleness, not hate and fear. That’s what I see among parents, children and teachers every time I visit a San Francisco school, especially one with a dual-language immersion program, where immigrant and native-born kids learn each other’s tongues.

This kind of experience shapes our values and shows up in our collective political decisions. For decades, the pattern of voting in the United States has stayed the same. Places like the Bay Area vote for candidates and laws that seek to support diversity. The places that voted for Trump are almost all racially and culturally segregated, sometimes frighteningly so.

We live in a bubble, but it’s a bubble worth defending.

And that’s what the Bay Area did in the 2016 election. I started this project with few opinions about bilingual education. But after talking with parents, kids, teachers, administrators and researchers — and after having seen bilingual instruction in action — I became convinced that the district did the right thing by expanding its language pathways when, in 1998, the rest of the state seemed to reject both a cosmopolitan future and our immigrants with Proposition 227, which tried to erase the first languages of people like Michelle. With the 2016 election, California showed that it has caught up with San Francisco. There may come a day when the rest of the United States will as well.

In the meantime, the Bay Area and the state appear to be on a collision course with the president-elect, who has promised to cut federal funding to cities like San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley that have a “sanctuary” policy of not cooperating with deportation efforts.

In San Francisco’s case, this amounts to $1 billion each year. The fear among the city’s immigrant, LGBTQ and minority populations is palpable, which may have the long-term effect of undermining policies intended to support them. For example, although Californians voted in November for Proposition 58, which lifts restrictions on language education, some undocumented parents may be afraid that enrolling children in bilingual or dual-language immersion programs will make them targets. And even though San Francisco voted to give undocumented parents a voice in Board of Education elections, these parents might stay away from the polls for fear of becoming more visible to authorities.

That might be why many San Francisco schools — including Fairmount Elementary, the one profiled in my article — responded to the election of Trump with sanctioned “marches against hate,” which were intended to show the city’s diverse families that they would not be abandoned in the face of threats from Washington or other hostile parts of the country.

The San Francisco school district faces many difficulties. But what has impressed me the most through the years is that parents and educators alike are working every single day to create a world in which many different kinds of children of diverse backgrounds can live and work together. It will never be perfect, but it will always be better than the alternative.

1924 Strictest immigration quotas in U.S. history take effect with the Immigration Act of 1924, which excluded Asians and restricted European migration. No limits are placed on immigration from Latin America, but only whites and people of African descent remain eligible for naturalization.

President Calvin Coolidge at a signing ceremony at the White House that included the Immigration Act of 1924. Library of Congress

1930s–1940s As immigration trickles, so does enrollment of non-native English speakers in public schools. Bilingual classrooms dwindle along with demand. The Nationality Act of 1940 replaces the 1906 Naturalization Act but still requires basic verbal English proficiency. As during the First World War, bilingual education is seen as a threat to national security and unity during World War II, with speakers of German, Italian and Japanese falling under suspicion.

1942 Japanese-language schools close after the Dec. 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor. Between 110,000 and 120,000 Japanese Americans are forcibly relocated to internment camps in the Western U.S.

CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT GIVES VOICE TO IMMIGRANT STUDENTS

1950s–1960s U.S. Supreme Court rules in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education that school segregation is illegal. In 1963, the first large-scale bilingual program since World War II is instituted at a school in Dade County, Florida. The 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits racial discrimination in all federally funded programs, including public education. Immigrants’ public education enrollment soars. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 ends the quota system based on national origin.

High school recess for Japanese-Americans at the Manzanar Relocation Center, 1943.

1968

Photo by Ansel Adams // Library of Congress

First federal law on bilingual education passes. The Bilingual Education Act (Title VII of the broader Elementary and Secondary Education Act) mandates that public schools provide students with “limited English-speaking ability” an equal education alongside their fluent peers. It undermines English-only laws in some states.

The federal government begins awarding competitive grants to school districts for bilingual programs.

TIMELINE continued on page 8

Decision in the Lau v. Nichols lawsuit.

8 | SFPUBLICPRESS.ORG | SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC PRESS, WINTER 2017

Elva Reyes-Espinosa addresses a meeting of the parent-teacher association at Fairmount Elementary, a dual-languageimmersion school in Glen Park.

Meetings are conducted in Spanish and English.

Photo by Nadia Mishkin // Public Press

BILINGUAL continued from Page 7

level of student achievement.

Three-quarters of San Francisco English-learners graduate, compared with 69 percent for California and just half across the bay in Oakland, the Bay Area district closest to San Francisco in size and demographic mix. Last year, 37 percent of San Francisco English-learners achieved proficiency in English, but in West Contra Costa, it is 29 percent and in San Jose, 32 percent.

In 2014, two Stanford University researchers worked with the district to evaluate the effect of all its language pathways on immigrants. Using 12 years of data, Ilana Umansky and Sean F. Reardon found that, over time, San Francisco’s language pathways produced both greater English fluency and higher academic achievement for immigrant students. In addition, district data suggest that those who went through dual-language programs were better able to retain their home languages.

Seals of Biliteracy — approved in 21 states and the District of Columbia — are awarded to students who have mastered at least two languages. San Francisco was one of the first districts in California to start giving the award to students, and last year 517 earned one. Of those, 324 were originally classified as Englishlearners. In Oakland, an only slightly smaller district, 65 students did. In Sacramento, also similar in size, 321 students received a seal, 126 of whom came to the district as English-learners.

These numbers, like any education statistics, cannot tell the whole story.

In her annual report to the San Francisco Board of Education, for example, Wong described how speakers of Cantonese, Mandarin, Tagalog and Vietnamese were much more likely than Latinos to be reclassified as proficient in English. Spanish-speakers — who make up almost half of the student body and are, by far, the largest language group — are also less likely to meet or exceed testing standards. This feeds a significant academic achievement gap among language groups within

LACK OF BOOKS, TEACHER SUPPORT When California voters passed Proposition 227 nearly 20 years ago, it discouraged the training and career paths for bilingual teachers, as well as the development of statewide standards and curricula.

“Today, we have a third as many teacher candidates preparing to be bilingual teachers as when Prop. 227 passed,” said Gándara, of the Civil Rights Project.

“Why would anyone prepare for a job that doesn’t exist?” As a result, she does not expect “a dramatic impact” from the passage of Proposition 58, “because the state does not have enough trained bilingual teachers to immediately mount a whole bunch of new programs.”

Wong agreed. At any given time, she said, the district has two to three positions unfilled.

The teacher shortage is just one long-term effect of Proposition 227. Another involves teaching material.

Since demand for dual-immersion books and other classroom resources was suppressed by Proposition 227, publishers have avoided taking them on.

In addition, the measure discouraged the development of curricula and standards for dual-immersion classrooms, which affects the quality of the teaching.

“There are English-language-arts standards, and they’ve developed Spanish-language-arts standards based on the English-language-arts standards,” Wong said. “But what about all of the other languages?”

Even in Spanish, classrooms often lack basic resourc-

1980

TIMELINE continued from Page 7

California Assembly Bill 507 makes bilingual education mandatory in schools with 20 or more English learners who speak the same primary language and are in the same grade.

1970 Lau v. Nichols, a class-action lawsuit, claims the San Francisco United School District denied more than 1,800 Chinese students an equal education because of their limited English skills. Though lower courts disagree that education is being denied, the U.S. Supreme Court overturns their rulings in 1974. The final Lau decision says the Civil Rights Act is violated and demands school districts take affirmative action to prevent unfair learning opportunities. “There is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities ... for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education,” the court’s unanimous ruling states.

CONSERVATIVE PUSHBACK AGAINST BILINGUAL EDUCATION

1981 Declaring them “harsh, inflexible, burdensome, unworkable and incredibly costly,” President Ronald Reagan withdraws the “Lau regulations” proposal from the Carter administration. Those regulations had required schools to offer bilingual education if they were attended by at least 25 English learners who were native in the same language. Reagan considers federally mandated bilingual education an intrusion on state and local responsibility. School districts are permitted to serve the needs of English learners in any way.

1976 In response to Lau v. Nichols, the California Legislature passes, and Gov. Ronald Reagan signs, the Bilingual-Bicultural Education Act (Chacon-Moscone Act), which mandates school districts provide students with equal educational opportunities despite limited English proficiency. The act explicitly declares bilingual education as a right of English learners, replacing Assembly Bill 2284, which offers competitive grant funding but does not require districts to have bilingual programs.

the district, one tightly linked to the education levels and financial resources of the parents.

Indeed, the gap in graduation rates between Englishlearners and everyone else is troubling. In San Francisco, even though the graduation rate for English-learners is well above the state average, it is still almost 15 points lower than that for non-English-learners.

In lifting statewide restrictions on language teaching, Proposition 58 will allow California school districts to follow San Francisco’s lead in offering more customized programs to their families. That may create a new set of problems for districts for educators and parents, said researchers and administrators.

1986 Proposition 63, or the “English only” initiative, passes by a 2-1 ratio.

This proposition declares English as California’s official language.

Six Chinese children who had recently arrived in New York City in 1964 with their teacher. The placards show their Chinese names, in ideographs and in transliteration, and the names to be entered in official school records. Library of Congress

1978 Castaneda v. Pickard is filed by a Texas father claiming that his children were placed in a segregated classroom that did not provide “equal educational opportunities” to English learners. In 1981, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules in his favor and sets

standards for all bilingual programs: 1) based on sound educational theory; 2) implemented effectively with resources for personnel, instruction materials and space; and 3) proven effective in overcoming language barriers after a trial period. These criteria are still used.

1987 Chacon-Moscone Act sunsets under Republican Gov. George Deukmejian. Although existing programs are unaffected, this signals a decline in statewide support for bilingual education. Meanwhile, national interest in bilingual curricula is on the rise.

1988 The U.S. Department of Education presents findings from a fouryear study showing that bilingual classrooms are just as effective as English-only classes in teaching English learners.

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC PRESS, WINTER 2017 | SFPUBLICPRESS.ORG | 9

Alex Wise and Moira deNike sent their daughter to Fairmount Elementary in Glen Park to learn both Spanish and “cultural humility.” Photo by Nadia Mishkin // Public Press

es, said Ericka Shoemaker, the president of the Fairmount Elementary School Site Council, a governing body of parents, teachers and administrators. She said that math curriculum translations often leave much to be desired and that schools like Fairmount lack reading material in Spanish.

“It’s really hard to find good chapter books in Spanish,” said Shoemaker, whose parents were Mexican immigrants. During the past three years, the school’s Parent-Teacher Association raised $25,000 to buy grade-level Spanish-language books, which the school’s literacy specialists had to find themselves. Wong confirmed that the lack of state support means that schools often lack curricula and resources in multiple languages.

A new nationwide report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-of-center think tank, found that since the start of the Great Recession in 2008, education spending per student by California has fallen 20 percent. Though the economy has recovered, education spending has not: In the 2016-2017 school year, perpupil spending rose by less than 1 percent.

Even when the teachers, curricula and standards are all in place, districts need the funding to train teachers from year to year.

“If a teacher cohort needs professional development,” then the district has to ask if “the curriculum and instruction department of our district have enough capacity to support that language,” Wong said. “All of those things are taken into account before we would approve anything new.”

OPENING THE DOOR TO MULTILINGUALISM But Proposition 58 promises to open the door to better multilingual education in California, at least in the long run. Wong said Proposition 58 will “really allow us to open up the possibility to be truly multilingual” — specifically, creating more resources for teaching Spanish and expanding programs for San Francisco’s major Asian languages.

The demand from parents is there.

“There is a lot more demand than there is supply,” Wong said. “We’re always asked to start something new.

If we were to analyze our wait pools, we probably could create more classrooms.”

More support from the state for bilingual teachers and language instruction may enable San Francisco to meet demand from parents and students for its highly competitive dual-immersion and world

1989 The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules in Teresa P. v. Berkeley Unified School District that no federal law, including the Bilingual Education Act, mandates that schools offer bilingual programs.

1990 Repudiating past federal policies, the Native American Languages Act of 1990 passes, declaring that Native Americans are entitled to use their own languages.

1994

language pathways.

At UCLA, Gándara said that bilingual education in California has evolved since Proposition 227 tried to ban it: Educators in the U.S. have a much clearer idea of what works and what doesn’t in teaching languages to children, and many U.S.-born parents see why it is important for their children to become citizens of the world.

“All over the country, there is a push to establish more of these programs because the middle class is now demanding them,” she said. “And I expect the demand will grow in California as well.”

Gándara, Wong and Umansky, who is now at the University of Oregon, agreed that the most important thing a district can do is treat the native languages of immigrant students as a strength, not a weakness.

“We have kids entering education systems with enormous assets,” Umansky said. “But rather than cherish that asset, and strengthen it, and promote it, our schools devalue it, shame students for it, and take it away from them.” She said that is harmful not just to students — “It’s harmful to our country.”

“Bilingualism is beneficial for all of us, economically and politically,” she said. “We need to see bilingualism as a gem that we are protecting and cultivating.”

2005

2001 No Child Left Behind Act by the Bush administration significantly amends the Bilingual Education Act. Renamed the English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement and Academic Achievement Act, it replaces the focus of maintaining a student’s culture and home language with an emphasis on English-language instruction and assimilation into regular classrooms as quickly as possible.

High-stakes testing is also introduced.

California Proposition 227, or “English in Public Schools,” passes

A study funded by the California Department of Education on the impact of Proposition 227 shows that there is no significant difference between test scores of students in English-only programs versus bilingual classes.

2010 California adopts Common Core standards to replace the No Child Left Behind Act. Common Core emphasizes integrating language and literacy into content-area instruction. Although the standards imply this will be taught in English, no clause prohibits it from being applied to bilingual education.

2011–2013 California sees a wave of bilingual-friendly reform. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson begins his administration by developing “A Blueprint for Great Schools,” which includes a recommendation to ensure biliteracy through a statewide campaign. In 2012, the California State Seal of Biliteracy, which recognizes high school graduates who are highly proficient in a second language, is adopted by the Democratic-controlled Legislature and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown.

1997

1998

Photo by Nadia Mishkin // Public Press

CALIFORNIA REVIVES BILINGUAL EDUCATION

with 61 percent of the vote and discourages bilingual classes in most districts. Districts can get around the new law through waivers from parents requesting that their children be enrolled in bilingual programs.

The Bilingual Education Act is amended to prefer grant applications that develop bilingual proficiency.

The U.S. Department of Education affirms the value of bilingualism to both English learners and native speakers.

San Francisco Unified School District institutes a “Language Academy” consisting of four programs: total immersion, two-way development, dual-language enrichment and bilingual. They emphasize the importance of acquiring language skills in English plus one other language. With the exception of total immersion, all these programs are at least partially targeted at helping language-minority students.

Christina Wong oversees language pathways for San Francisco Unified School District.

President George W. Bush signing the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

White House photo

2014–2016 State Legislature passes Multilingual Education for a 21st Century Economy Act mostly along party lines. The measure would repeal Proposition 227, allowing districts to implement bilingual programs without parents’ waivers. Signed by Brown, it is placed on the November 2016 ballot as Proposition 58, rebranded as the California Education for a Global Economy Initiative. It is approved by 73 percent of voters.

10 | SFPUBLICPRESS.ORG | SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC PRESS, WINTER 2017

FOLLOW-UP Read more about bay shoreline planning in our Issue 17 cover story: “Sea Level Rise Threatens Waterfront Development” sfpublicpress.org/ searise

Levees are effective only until they fail. Will local governments encourage people to move away from rising waters?

Developers have started construction on what will eventually be a residential neighborhood of 8,000 homes on Treasure Island. Regional planning agencies warn that much of the 300-acre site in San Francisco Bay is likely to be permanently underwater — unless the waterfront is fortified with levees and seawalls.

Photo by Peter Snarr // Public Press

Researchers: Avoid Flood Zone to Limit Sea Level Rise Exposure Understanding the sociology and politics around the word ‘retreat’

Rice suggested that by the end of the century, many of the new waterfront developments in Brooklyn, Queens and Manhattan would increasingly be flooded and rendered unusable, as they were dramatically in Hurricane Sandy in 2012. Rice wrote:

By Kevin Stark // Public Press

But Rice cited another researcher who said that approach was unrealistic — “because the land that we would need to retreat from happens to be worth hundreds of billions of dollars.”

Writing in Grist, the environmental news website, Ben Adler concurred:

S

an Francisco is partway through a years-long process of proposing elaborate — and incredibly expensive — engineering fixes to the looming prospect of sea level rise. But the current sketches of a future city buttressed by dikes, levees and seawalls, which could cost tens of billions of dollars over coming decades, overshadow an increasingly accepted alternative: moving away from the waterfront.

Some experts in climatology, urban planning and demographics argue that physical barriers offer only the illusion of protection and that cities should accept that some neighborhoods will need to be abandoned.

Karen O’Neill, a Rutgers University sociologist who studies “climate migration” worldwide, argued that city planners should entice people to move away from vulnerable areas where flooding could be exacerbated by climate change.

The “protect your way out of the whole thing” approach is folly, she recently told an energy reporter at Bloomberg View.

While O’Neill declined to use the word “retreat” in her research, Klaus Jacob, a research scientist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, used that kind of language liberally regarding his hometown, New York City. In an interview with New York Magazine’s Andrew Rice, Jacob said city officials should not be allowing development in areas that will see dramatic flooding in just a few decades. Rice wrote: “I have made it my mission to think long term,” Jacob said. The life span of a city is measured in centuries, and New York, which is approaching its fifth, probably doesn’t have another five to go, at least in any presently recognizable form. Instead, Jacob has said, the city will become a “gradual Atlantis.”

As an example, he cited the Hudson Yards development, just one of many waterfront megaprojects that the city has continued to enthusiastically promote, even after Sandy.

He thought that the government should instead rework its policies to relocate assets away from the water.

A ban on waterfront development would also be impossible politically: The real estate industry practically owns City Hall, through its campaign contributions and large economic footprint. ... Voters are attuned to what might harm their property values or quality of life next year, but not the high societal cost of bailing out unwise development projects a few decades down the line.

Here on the West Coast as well, water threatens to subsume much of the urban shoreline. San Francisco Bay is rising, and city officials have officially adopted climate scientists’ scenarios, the “most likely” of which is that permanent flooding will reach 3 feet above current high tide by the end of this century. Models developed by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission in 2015 show occasional flooding as high as 8 feet above current high tide during bad storms.

In early 2016, studies of ice melt in Antarctica push that worst-case prediction to as high as 9 feet.

A 2015 data-driven investigation by the San Francisco Public Press found that since 2010, city officials have approved new homes, businesses and other development on nearly 50 waterfront parcels below the 8-foot level.

This includes Treasure Island, a new basketball arena for the Warriors and mega-developments at Mission Rock and in Hunters Point.

Around the bay, according to planning documents from cities and press reports, at least 27 large developments were approved or under construction on thousands of acres of prime waterfront land that could be

underwater by 2100, totaling more than $21 billion in development costs.

And yet the city seems to be doubling down on San Francisco’s southeastern waterfront as the place for a massive amount of new development. The Southern Bayfront Strategy encourages developers to build 20,000 new homes and up to 5 million square feet of offices on open space in Mission Bay, Dogpatch, Hunters Point, Candlestick Point and other neighborhoods on the city’s eastern waterfront.

Even if society mitigates sea level rise by reducing emissions, the water of the bay could threaten these places. Early plans for the construction of a seawall to protect Mission Bay are already circulating in the offices of the city’s top planners.

O’Neill, the Rutgers researcher, did not argue that society give up on the shoreline altogether. She said the word “retreat” seems to “indicate defeat” and discourage coastal communities from proactively engaging with the problem. Instead, she said, city planners should focus on developing attractive spaces inland so that people have a reason to move to higher ground.

Environmental consultants for San Francisco have offered one proposal that would turn Mission Creek into a lagoon around which housing could be built.

“There’s been an ongoing war that dates back at least 200 years between people who favor building engineered structures versus critics who say you’re overpromising,” O’Neill said. “That’s the ‘protect’ strategy — it can be a wall, which is what most people are familiar with. Almost always, that’s the top preference; it sounds good.”

But levees are effective only until they fail. Will local governments encourage people to move away from rising waters? “I think it’s going to be town by town — some concerned mayor or emergency manager who just decides this is what they’re going to do,” O’Neill said.

Above: Construction in the Mission Bay neighborhood — much of which could be permanently below sea level by the end of the century — continues as corporate offices, residential towers and medical campuses rise. Adjacent to the future site of the $1 billion Golden State Warriors basketball arena, construction workers upgraded utilities and sidewalks at Agua Vista Park.

Photos by Peter Snarr // Public Press

Q&A With Nate Kauffman: History Will Condemn Today's Leaders for Ignoring Sea Level Rise

By Audrey Dilling // Public Press

W

e recently caught up with Nate Kauffman, a landscape architecture and urban planning consultant whose work focuses on sea level rise adaptation, at a presentation at the Exploratorium on how cities can better manage development along the waterfront. The talk’s setting was apt: The science museum focused on children’s education sits on stilts just a few feet above the San Francisco Bay along the Embarcadero, a facility almost sure to be flooded within 100 years.

Kauffman, who does 3D visualizations of the bay for a startup called Owlized, the San Francisco Estuary Institute, the Bay Institute, the California Coastal Conservancy, Bay Nature Magazine and other local groups, is now focusing more on public education and outreach to warn leaders about the need to get an early start on environmental change that is expected to accelerate in coming decades. This is a lightly edited version of our conversation.

Public Press: What are some of the things that could happen to the Embarcadero as water encroaches?

Nate Kauffman: On a king tide, even today, you will see water lapping up onto the Embarcadero. When it becomes a problem for drivers, people are going to start hearing a lot more about it. But what is probably going to happen is we’re going to have a storm surge on top of one of those high tides and then the road will literally become impassable. The other major impact that everybody is dreading is that if we start getting that combined sewer and storm water outflow full of water, we’re going to have raw sewage in the streets. We’re going to have people’s toilets backing up and folks are not going to like that for long.

What are the challenges you see coming for Mission Bay?

I call Mission Bay “the low-hanging fruit that was half rotten,” because not only has San Francisco decided to clear development for enormous projects like the new Golden State Warriors arena and the hospital down there, but there was no comprehensive strategic plan for how to deal with floodwater and rising tides. So I really think at this point we’re looking for ways to kind of cram a fix — reverse-engineer one back into a broken system. And I think it’s really unfortunate, because we’ve essentially created a public nuisance by wanting to attract people to an area that’s going to be highly inundated in the future.

I have a lot of the respect for SPUR as an agency. I thought that that particular report was very sloppy, and I did not think that it included the most innovative or well-articulated, cutting-edge concepts. I think as a broad framework for sketching out some of the big ideas it did a decent job, and I also respect the difficulty in releasing a report like that that is not intended to be prescriptive. It is really trying to generate a conversation. But, yeah, I think they fell a little bit short on some of the design solutions proposed.

What are the best solutions you see for how to prepare for these problems?

I think living with water is really the future. And that means getting wet sometimes. That means streets getting wet sometimes. That means the ground floor of your building gets wet sometimes and that’s not the end of the world. Moreover, until we make peace with that, we’re not going to be able to leverage the development and developer resources to pay for those projects. And until we rethink the institutional relationships between developers that are raking it in and what gets paid for in the public realm, we’re going to have a massive problem.

The goal is, you get the critical infrastructure out of the way. It’s very easy to elevate architecture. It’s very easy to elevate buildings, but if your roads and your power and your sewer and your gas line are in the ground, that’s a dangerous place to be when there’s saltwater also.

What are your thoughts on the recent San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) report commissioned by the city to present solutions for sea level rise in these areas we’re talking about? Do you think that the ideas in there are the most imaginative ones available to us?

Do we need a moratorium on development in these areas until we figure this out? Or do you think that there is perhaps a way to keep building but also protect it?

Does sea level rise have to be our enemy?

Nate Kauffman, urban planning consultant.

Photo by Hyunha Kim // Public Press

The architect half of my brain says that every challenge is really an opportunity. And I think sea level rise is a major opportunity for us to rethink how we live, and what we intend our legacy for the future to be. I really do think that the leaders of today are going to be absolutely crucified by history for their inaction, for their ignorance, their intransigence, and their bowing to basically the inertia of the generations that came before them. I think we need really, really bold, visionary leadership that’s not afraid to step on people’s toes, because if we don’t start testing and trying progressive and controversial things to build a better bay, we’re hosed.

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC PRESS, WINTER 2017 | SFPUBLICPRESS.ORG | 11

Unfunded or Undone:

How a Trump Presidency Could Affect California Policies

I

C

I

S

A

I

S A

M O N

S

N E I

S

A X E

T E E

R

X E

N N E L

R

I

I

M A N D O L L A Y T

S

Minnesota Nice

I

S

S

R N A

I

R

I

K

I

C E

S S

R V

N

S

A T O P H

N R

S

M E N T H O L

S S

I

A D A M

O A E

N C A Y E N

E

S O T A N

T

S

S

R O G E

R

O T C O P

I

R A T

U D O N E

T

P A Y N E S

I

I

L

I

E M O M

N

M U N C H K

N G

D E

I

A G R A

L O

I

R E

A C H E D P A T T

I

California’s $2.4 trillion economic engine, the sixth-largest economy in the world, has outpaced the rest of the nation on multiple fronts: job growth, wages and housing prices. The technology industry continues to flourish and exports are up 31 percent from the recession.

But Beacon Economics released a report warning that Trump’s pledge to slash taxes would widen the federal deficit; bowing out of U.S. commitments to free trade would disrupt supply chains and drive up consumer prices; and deporting millions of immigrants without legal documents would cause massive disruption, let alone trigger a “human tragedy.”

“Any of these three issues, if pursued vigorously, has the potential to cause a recession,” writes Christopher Thornberg, one of the authors.

California business interests are gearing up to push anew for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an agreement among 12 Pacific Rim countries to expand trade. The deal is touted by supporters for boosting sales of everything from laptops to almonds, and adding jobs in a state that already exports $71.6 billion of goods to those partner countries.

Peter Leroe-Munoz, vice president of technology and innovations at the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, said trade-related jobs pay 15 to 18 percent higher than those for workers whose companies sell only domestically. “As Silicon Valley adjusts to the new political reality, we’re still hopeful,” he said. “We’re working to make sure President-elect Trump has the full picture of the innovation economy. … We’re fully aware this is going to be a big political lift.”

L O T T E

The Economy

A version of this article ran online in early November. Reporting by Elizabeth Aguilera, Jessica Calefati, Julie Cart, Judy Lin and Matt Levin of CALmatters.org, a nonprofit news venture devoted to covering state policy and politics.

S

and will remain in place once Trump takes office,” said Carlos Amador, lead organizer for the California Immigrant Policy Coalition, a nonprofit advocacy group based in Los Angeles. Still, he urged undocumented students to “organize and push back” should any challenges to state law crop up.

Seeking to quell students’ anxiety, University of California President Janet Napolitano released a statement with UC’s chancellors pledging to root out intolerance. “In light of yesterday’s election results, we know there is understandable consternation and uncertainty,” Napolitano wrote. But “diversity is central to our mission” and “we remain absolutely committed to supporting all members of our community.”

A G E

California made college accessible and affordable for undocumented immigrants when Gov. Brown signed legislation in 2011 granting them access to in-state tuition and financial aid. Fear that Trump would try to roll that back — not to mention pursue deportation — coursed through college campuses across the state.

Activists insist that he can’t touch any protections for immigrants enshrined in state law.

“We feel these protections are sound

Immigrant advocates are mobilizing to challenge the promises of Trump, who, during the campaign, vowed to create a deportation force to expel up to 11 million undocumented immigrants.

“Our state has long been a leader in working to protect rights of immigrants in the face of harmful federal policies,” said Cynthia Buiza, executive director of the California Immigrant Policy Center.

“Thus, we call on Gov. Brown and all of the leaders in our state — and all people of conscience — to demonstrate bold leadership and do everything in their power to protect each and every immigrant who calls our state and our nation home.”

After Trump appointed Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach to his transition team, California Secretary of State Alex Padilla released a statement calling it “a deeply troubling message that telegraphs an imminent assault on our collective voting rights and civil rights. His participation is a threat to diverse communities throughout our nation.” He cited Kobach’s support for an Arizona law, found unconstitutional, that would have required police to demand proof of citizenship if they suspected someone of not being a citizen.

Advocates are especially worried about the 4-year-old Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which allows young people brought to the country as children who meet certain requirements to work legally without fear of deportation. It currently protects nearly 800,000 young people — nearly half of them Californians.

President Obama created this program through an executive order. Trump has promised to “immediately terminate” it.

A O

Education

Immigration

I

The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, hangs in the balance after the sweeping win by Trump, who called it “a catastrophe” and promised to kill it immediately.

GOP leaders continued to cite its repeal as their top priority.

That has big implications for California, a state that enthusiastically embraced the federal expansion and relied on federal dollars to pay for it.

“Can he effectively limit the program as of the first day or early in the administration? Absolutely,” said Gerald Kominski, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. “He’s not going to be able to have any credibility with his constituents if he starts waffling on Day One.” Kominski said the Trump administration could begin to dismantle the program almost immediately by taking away federal funding for the program through a budgetary process. California receives $20 billion a year through the program — both for subsidies that allow some 1.2 million people to purchase health insurance on the Covered California state exchange, and to fund its expansion of Medi-Cal health care to cover an additional 4 million people who can’t afford to buy health insurance on their own.

Of course, Trump hasn’t just promised to repeal Obamacare — he’s vowed to replace it.

But other than extolling the virtues of “the free market,” Trump’s health care plan is vague — there are no details about a complete replacement plan that would provide insurance options for those who would be dumped from the exchange.

Kominski said in California up to 3 million people could lose coverage.

Gov. Jerry Brown issued a statement on Trump’s victory, saying Californians “will do our part to find common ground whenever possible” but will also protect the precious rights of our people and continue to confront the existential threat of our time — devastating climate change.”

By way of contrast, candidate Trump tweeted and often repeated his view that climate change is a hoax invented by China.

But could the new president unspool many of the state’s signature climate policies?

Trump has reportedly tapped Scott Pruitt, a wellknown climate skeptic, to lead his Environmental Protection Agency transition team. The agency has a broad portfolio: overseeing federal air and water laws, regulating toxic substances and setting national emissions standards for automobiles and industry.

As such, it is frequently in the crosshairs of business interests and Republicans in Congress who perceive it as an overlord issuing onerous regulations.

When California attempted to exercise special authority to regulate tailpipe emissions, it initially tried and failed to get a waiver from the federal EPA to do so under the Bush administration in 2005. Only after President Obama’s election and intervention in the process in 2009 did the EPA grant California its waiver. That episode underscores the federal government’s authority to override state intentions.

It would be a “nightmare scenario” if the Trump administration imposed national rules to override state climate policies, said Ethan Elkind, director of the Climate Program at UC Berkeley School of Law. “Congress could preempt most of California’s climate agenda if they had the political support to do that,” he said. “Once the federal government takes an action on an issue, they could preempt the field.”

The governor seems determined to forge his own path for California — undertaking independent agreements with other states and nations to form carbon-trading markets and agree to emissions limits.

C

Health Care

The Environment

S W E A R

A

s a state bluer than Lake Tahoe in sunlight, California has adopted progressive policies that drive Donald Trump nuts. They combat climate change, protect undocumented immigrants, evangelize for Obamacare and more.

In November — as candidate Trump morphed into President-elect Trump — uncertainty swept the state. While protesters hit the streets and the hashtag #Calexit spiked with state residents semiseriously advocating the state’s secession, policy makers scrambled to identify state programs at risk in the coming Trump administration.

The Legislature’s top leaders, both Democrats, issued a rare joint statement promising to “maximize the time during the presidential transition to defend our accomplishments using every tool at our disposal.”

“We will be reaching out to federal, state and local

officials to evaluate how a Trump presidency will potentially impact federal funding of ongoing state programs, job-creating investments reliant on foreign trade, and federal enforcement of laws affecting the rights of people living in our state,” said Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon of Los Angeles and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon of Paramount.

The politically savvy were warning not to expect any special favors from the president-elect, given this reception by California. Although some Californians cheered him as an overdue antidote to what they see as their state’s foolhardy liberal excesses, voters statewide rejected Trump by a 28-point spread — only Hawaii and Vermont gave him a colder shoulder.

In California, Democrats control the statehouse — powerful Republican politicians are about as endangered a species as the Delta smelt. But with Republicans poised to take control of everything in Washington, here’s a look at key things experts say are in jeopardy of being unfunded or undone.

© 4/14/16

By CALmatters Illustrations by Anna Vignet // Public Press

Solution to crossword puzzle from page 2.

12 | SFPUBLICPRESS.ORG | SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC PRESS, WINTER 2017

‍لمات‏ ŮŽ ‍ال ŘŞŘŞŘŽŘ° Ř§Ů„Ř­Ů‚ŮˆŮ‚ المدني؊ لمنءق؊ ال؎لي؏ من‏ ŮŽ ‍المس‏ ‍يؚد االحتعاس ŘŁŮƒŘŤŘą أهمي؊ من اي ŮˆŮ‚ŘŞ م؜ى Ů„Ů„ŮˆŮ‚ŮˆŮ ŘšŮ„Ů‰ تهديدات‏ ‍ ŮˆŘ§Ů„Ů‚ŮŠŮ… األ؎عى لمدين؊ سان Ů ŘąŘ§Ů†ŘłŮŠŘłŮƒŮˆâ€ŹŘŒ ‍ ٠عؾ Ř§Ů„ŘŞŘšŮ„ŮŠŮ…â€ŹŘŒâ€ŤŘ­ŘąŮŠŘŠ التؚبيع‏

‍التؚليم ام التعحيل Ř&#x;‏ ‍لؚل هذا Ů‡Ůˆ السؤال المحيع الذي Ů†ŮˆŘ§ŘŹŮ‡Ů‡ لما تؚانى منه سان Ů ŘąŘ§Ů†ŘłŘłŮƒŮˆ من انحعا٠سياسى Ů ŮŠ أؚقاب انت؎ابات ؚام‏ .‍ Ř­ŮŠŘŤ ي؏ؚل مهمتنا ŮƒŘľŘ­Ů ŮŠŮŠŮ† مستقلين ŮˆŮ…Ř­Ů„ŮŠŮŠŮ† من ؎الل ŘŞŮˆŘŤŮŠŮ‚ اؼل؎تال٠ات ŘŁŮƒŘŤŘą ؼلحاحا ŮˆŘŁŮ‡Ů…ŮŠŘŠ من Ř°ŮŠ Ů‚Ř¨Ů„â€ŹŘŒ 2016 ‍ ŮˆŘ§Ů„Ř°ŮŠ بدأنا Ů ŮŠ اؼلؚالن ؚنه هذا الؾي٠قد اؾبح ذات أهمي؊ ŮƒŘ¨ŘąŮ‰â€ŹŘŒ ‍ان Ů…ŮˆŘśŮˆŘš الؚدد ؚن التؚليم Ř§Ů„Ů…Ř˛ŘŻŮˆŘŹ للغات‏ ‍ ان التقدم الذي احد؍ته‏.â€ŤŮˆŘ°Ů„Ůƒ Ů…Řš زياد؊ اؼلساإ؊ للمها؏عين ŘłŮˆŘ§ŘĄ الشعؚيين Ř§Ůˆ غيع الشعؚيين من قبل قيادتنا Ř§Ů„ŮˆŘˇŮ†ŮŠŘŠâ€Ź ‍مداعس سان Ů ŘąŘ§Ů†ŘłŘłŮƒŮˆ الؚام؊ من ؎الل Ř§Ů„ŘŞŮˆŘłŘš ٠ى التؚليم Ř§Ů„Ů…Ř˛ŘŻŮˆŘŹ للغ؊ Ů„ŮƒŮ„ من Ř§Ů„ŮˆŘ§Ů ŘŻŮŠŮ† ال؏دد Ř§Ůˆ من Ů…ŮˆŘ§Ů„ŮŠŘŻ البالد‏ ‍ Ů…Ů„ŮŠŮˆŮ† ش؎ؾ‏2.3 â€ŤŘłŮˆŮ ŮŠŘľŘ¨Ř­ Ů…ŮˆŘśŮˆŘšŘ§ للنقاش ؼذا ن٠ذ ŘŻŮˆŮ†Ř§Ů„ŘŻ تعامب تهديداته بتعحيل أؚداد المها؏عين بما ŮŠŮ‚ŘŻŘą Ř¨Ů†Ř­Ůˆâ€Ź

.‍ مقيمين Ů ŮŠ سان Ů ŘąŘ§Ů†ŘłŮŠŘłŮƒŮˆâ€Ź44ŘŒ000 ‍ منهم ما يقعب من Ů†Ř­Ůˆâ€ŹŘŒâ€ŤŘ§Ů„ ŮŠŘ­Ů…Ů„ŮˆŮ† ŮˆŘŤŘ§ŘŚŮ‚ ŮˆŮŠŘšŮŠŘ´ŮˆŮ† Ů ŮŠ ŮˆŘ§Ů„ŮŠŘŠ ŮƒŘ§Ů„ŮŠŮ ŮˆŘąŮ†ŮŠŘ§â€Ź

‍ ŮŠŮ…ŮƒŮ†Ů†Ř§ Ř§Ů„ŘŞŮƒŮ‡Ů† بأن الؚنؾعي؊ ŮˆŮƒŘąŘ§Ů‡ŮŠŘŠ األ؏انب ŮˆŘ§Ů„ŘŽŮˆŮ Ů…Ů†Ů‡Ů… ŮˆŘ§Ů„ŘŞŮŠ ظهعت ŘŹŮ„ŮŠŘ§â€ŹŘŒâ€ŤŮˆŘ§ŘšŘŞŘ¨Ř§ اع من مءلؚ ديسمبع ال؏اعي‏

‍ ŮˆŘŞŘšŘŻ هذه Ř§Ů„ŘšŮˆŘ§Ů…Ů„ ؚلى النقي؜ Ů…Ů†â€ŹŘŒâ€ŤŘŽŘ§Ů„Ů„ Ř­Ů…Ů„ŘŠ االنت؎ابات الع،اسي؊ ŘłŮˆŮ ŘŞŘłŘŞŮ…Řą ؚندما ŮŠŘŞŮˆŮ„Ů‰ تعامب مهامه ٠ى ŮˆŘ§Ř´Ů†ŘˇŮ†â€Ź ‍النظع؊ Ř§Ů„Ř´Ů…ŮˆŮ„ŮŠŘŠ التقدمي؊ Ů„ŮˆŘ§Ů„ŮŠŘŠ ŮƒŘ§Ů„ŮŠŮ ŮˆŘąŮ†ŮŠŘ§ ŮˆŘ§Ů„ŘŞŮ‰ تهدد Ř¨ŘŞŮ‚ŮˆŮŠŘśŮ‡Ř§ Ř¨Ř´ŮƒŮ„ ŮƒŘ¨ŮŠŘą مما ي؏ؚل اآلباإ ٠ى ŘŽŘ´ŮŠŘŠ من استهدا٠هم‏

. â€ŤŮˆŘŞŮ…ŮŠŘ˛Ů‡Ů… ؚنؾعياً ŮˆŘ§ŘĽŮ„ŘłŘ§ŘĄŘŠ لهم من ؎الل Ř§ŘłŘŞŘŹŮˆŘ§Ř¨ اله؏ع؊‏

Don't Take Civil Rights For Granted Translations by Andrea Valencia (Spanish), Gloria Liao (Chinese) and Soha Abdou (Arabic)

‍ان بعام؏ اللغات المتؚدد؊ ŮˆŘ§Ů„Ů…Ř¨ŘŞŮƒŘąŘŠ ال؎اؾ؊ بالمدين؊ من شأنها ان ت؍عي الءالب ŘŁŮƒŘ§ŘŻŮŠŮ…ŮŠŘ§Ů‹ ŮˆŘŞŘšŮ…Ů„ ؚلي المزيد من‏

‍ ŮˆŘ§Ř°Ř§ شؚع اآلباإ بالقلق ٠ى ŮˆŮ‚ŘŞ ما بأن التس؏يل لاللتحاق بالمدعس؊ ذات البعام؏ Ř§Ů„Ů…Ř˛ŘŻŮˆŘŹŘŠ اللغ؊ ŮŠŮ…ŮƒŮ† Ř§Ů†â€ŹŘŒâ€ŤŘ§Ů„ŘŞŮ Ř§Ů‡Ů… ال؍قا٠ى‏

‍يستغل من قبل السلءات ال٠يدعالي؊ لتعحيلهم ٠ؼن هذا ŘłŮˆŮ ŮŠŘšŮŠŮ‚ من اؼلست٠اد؊ من هذه البعام؏ ŮˆŘ¨Ř§Ů„ŘŞŘ§Ů„Ů‰ Ů‚ŘŻ ي؜ؚ٠من‏ . ‍قدع؊ م؏الس المداعس المحلي؊ لت؏عب؊ ŮˆŘŞŮ…ŮˆŮŠŮ„ التؚليم Ř§Ů„Ů…Ř˛ŘŻŮˆŘŹ للغ؊‏

â€ŤŮˆŮŠŘšŘŻ هذا م؏عد م؍ال ؚن مدى مها؏م؊ Ř§Ů„Ř­ŮƒŮˆŮ…Ř§ŘŞ المحلي؊ للمها؏عين مما يؤدى ؚلى المدى البؚيد الى احتمالي؊‏

.‍اؚالن هذه الم؏تمؚات" ŮƒŮ…ŘŻŮ† للمالذ" Ř­ŮŠŘŤ تع٠؜ السماح للشعء؊ بتءبيق Ů‚Ř§Ů†ŮˆŮ† اله؏ع؊ ال٠يدعالي‏

‍ Ů Ů‚ŘŻ ŘŞŮˆŘšŘŻ تعامب بقءؚ Ř§Ů„ŘŞŮ…ŮˆŮŠŮ„ ؚن Ř§Ů„ŘŽŘŻŮ…Ř§ŘŞâ€ŹŘŒâ€ŤŮˆŮ‡Ř°Ř§ ال يؚني انه Ř§Ů„Ů‡ŘŹŮˆŮ… Ř§Ů„ŮˆŘ­ŮŠŘŻ ؚلي Ů‚ŮŠŮ… مدين؊ سان Ů ŘąŘ§Ů†ŘłŘłŮƒŮˆâ€Ź ‍ Ř­ŮŠŘŤ قال انه ŘłŮˆŮ ŮŠŘŞŘ­ŘŻŮŠ حماي؊ Ř§Ů„Ř­Ů‚ŮˆŮ‚ المدني؊ Ř§Ů„ŘŞŮŠâ€ŹŘŒâ€Ť ŮˆŘŽŘľŘŽŘľŘŠ التؚليم Ř§Ů„ŘšŘ§Ů…â€ŹŘŒâ€Ť ŮˆŘŞŮ‚Ů„ŮŠŘľ الحماي؊ Ř§Ů„Ř¨ŮŠŘŚŮŠŘŠâ€ŹŘŒ ‍اال؏تماؚي؊‏

‍ لذا‏.‍ ŮˆŘłŮŠŘ§ŘłŘ§ŘŞ التمييز االي؏ابي ŮˆŘ§Ů„Ů…ŘšŘ§Ů…Ů„ŘŠ Ř§Ů„ŘšŘ§ŘŻŮ„ŘŠâ€ŹŘŒâ€Ť Ř˛ŮˆŘ§ŘŹ Ř§Ů„Ů…ŘŤŮ„ŮŠŮŠŮ†â€ŹŘŒâ€ŤŮŠŘŻŘ§Ů Řš ؚنها Ů†Ř§ŘŽŘ¨Ůˆ ŮƒŘ§Ů„ŮŠŮ ŮˆŘąŮ†ŮŠŘ§ بما Ů ŮŠ Ř°Ů„Ůƒ الحعيات الديني؊‏

â€ŤŮˆŮ‚ŘŻ يتؚين ؚلينا ؼؚاد؊ النظع Ů ŮŠ تقديعاتنا Ř­ŮˆŮ„ اؼلستحقاقات ال٠يدعالي؊ Ů…ŘŤŮ„ العؚاي؊ الؾحي؊ ŮˆŘ§Ů„ŘśŮ…Ř§Ů† اؼل؏تماؚي ٠؜الً ؚن‏ .‍الؚبإ النسبي لل؜عا،ب ؚلي ŮƒŘ§Ů‡Ů„ ال٠قعاإ ŮˆŘ§ŘŁŮ„ŘşŮ†ŮŠŘ§ŘĄâ€Ź

‍ Ř§Ů„ŘłŮŠŘ§ŘłŘŠâ€ŹŘŒâ€Ť Ř§Ů„ŘšŮ…Ů„â€ŹŘŒâ€Ť Ř§Ů„ŘľŘ­ŘŠâ€ŹŘŒâ€Ť Ř§Ů„Ř¨ŮŠŘŚŘŠâ€ŹŘŒâ€ŤŮ„Ů‚ŘŻ ŮƒŘ§Ů† ل؏عيد؊ الؾحا٠؊ الؚام؊ الحعي؊ Ů ŮŠ دعاس؊ الؚديد من الق؜ايا Ů…ŘŤŮ„ Ř§ŘĽŮ„ŘłŮƒŘ§Ů†â€Ź

‍ Ř­ŮŠŘŤ ŮƒŮ†Ř§â€Ź.‍ Ů…Řš بؚ؜ Ř§Ů„ŘŞŮˆŘľŮŠŘ§ŘŞ الؚع؜ي؊ للسياسات ال٠يدعالي؊ منذ ان بدأت ال؏عيد؊ النشع من سبؚ ŘłŮ†ŮˆŘ§ŘŞâ€ŹŘŒâ€ŤŮˆŘ§Ů„ŘŞŘšŮ„ŮŠŮ… ŮˆŘşŮŠŘąŮ‡Ř§â€Ź .‍ن٠تع؜ ؼن قادتنا المحليين ŮƒŘ§Ů†ŮˆŘ§ Ř§Ů„Ů…ŘłŘ¤ŮˆŮ„ŮŠŮ† األساسيين ؚن سؚاد؊ الم؏تمؚ ŮˆŮ„ŮƒŮ† Ů„Ů… يؚد ŮƒŘ°Ů„Ůƒâ€Ź ‍ ŮˆŮ„ŘłŮ†Ř§ Ř§Ů„ŮˆŘ­ŮŠŘŻŮŠŮ† Ů ŮŠ Ů…ŮˆŘ§ŘŹŮ‡ŘŠâ€ŹŘŒâ€ŤŮˆŘŹŘŻŮŠŘą Ř¨Ř§Ů„Ř°ŮƒŘą ؼن الؾحا٠؊ الؚام؊ ملتزم؊ بمعاقب؊ Ř§Ů„Ř­ŮƒŮˆŮ…ŘŠ ال؏ديد؊ من Ů…ŮˆŮ‚ŘšŮ†Ř§ المحلي‏

‍ Ř­ŮŠŘŤ ؼن االنت؎ابات ؾؚدت من Ř§Ů„Ř­ŮˆŘ§Řą دا؎ل الغع٠اؼل؎باعي؊ Ů ŮŠ ŘŹŮ…ŮŠŘš أنحاإ البالد Ř­ŮˆŮ„ المؚني Ř§Ů„Ů Ů„ŘłŮ ŮŠâ€ŹŘŒâ€ŤŮ‡Ř°Ů‡ التحديات‏ ‍ ŮˆŘ§Ů† من شأن المعحل؊ السياسي؊ ال؏ديد؊ أن ŮŠŮƒŮˆŮ† Ů‡Ů†Ř§Ůƒ م؎اءع؊ ŮˆŘ§ŘśŘ­ŘŠ Ů ŮŠ تؾاعؚ هذه‏."â€ŤŘ§Ů„Ů…Ř´Ř­ŮˆŮ† لمؾءلح "Ř§Ů„Ů…ŮˆŘśŮˆŘšŮŠŘŠâ€Ź . ‍ Ř­Ů‚ الؚام؊ Ů ŮŠ المؚع٠؊ ŮˆŮ†Ů‡ŘŹ Ř§Ů„ŘŻŮŠŮ…Ů‚ŘąŘ§ŘˇŮŠŘŠâ€ŹŘŒâ€Ť سياد؊ Ř§Ů„Ů‚Ř§Ů†ŮˆŮ†â€ŹŘŒâ€ŤŘ§Ů„ŮƒŮ„Ů…ŘŠ Ů…Řš المباد، األ؎عى التي نؚتز بها أال ŮˆŮ‡ŮŠ حعي؊ التؚبيع‏

‍ان الؾح٠يين االن Ů ŮŠ حيع؊ من امعهم ؚن Ř§Ů„ŮƒŮŠŮ ŮŠŘŠ التي Ů…ŮƒŮ†ŘŞ من تؾؚيد Ů…ŘŤŮ„ هذا Ř§Ů„ŘŞŮ‡ŮˆŘą ŘĽŮ„ŮŠ ان ŮŠŮƒŮˆŮ† زؚيم ٠ي‏ ‍ ŮˆŘ­Ř¸Řą Ř§Ů„ŮˆŘľŮˆŮ„ ؼلى المؾادع Ř§Ů„Ř­ŮƒŮˆŮ…ŮŠŘŠ ŮˆŘ§Ů„ŘłŘŹŘ§Ů„ŘŞâ€ŹŘŒâ€Ť Ř­ŮŠŘŤ تؚهد تعامب بمقا؜ا؊ الؾح٠يين الذين ŘŁŘłŘ§ŘĄŮˆŘ§ ŘĽŮ„ŮŠŮ‡â€ŹŘŒâ€ŤŮˆŘ§Ř´Ů†ŘˇŮ†â€Ź .‍ ŮˆŮ…Ů‚Ř§ŘˇŘšŘŠ Ř´ŘąŮƒŘ§ŘŞ اؼلؚالم التي ŘŞŘ´ŮƒŮƒ بسياسته باؼل؜ا٠؊ ŘĽŮ„ŮŠ Ů‚Ů…Řš Ř§Ů„Ů…Ř­ŘŞŘŹŮŠŮ†â€ŹŘŒâ€ŤŘ§Ů„ŘšŘ§Ů…ŘŠâ€Ź

‍ ŮˆŮ„ŮƒŮ† ŘŞŘşŮŠŘąâ€ŹŘŒâ€ŤŮˆŮ„ŘˇŘ§Ů„Ů…Ř§ التزمت الؾحا٠؊ الؚام؊ دا،ماً Ř¨Ř§Ů„Ů…ŮˆŘśŮˆŘšŮŠŘŠ ŮˆŘšŘŻŮ… التحيز ŮˆŮ†Ř­Ů† ŘšŘ§Ř˛Ů…ŮˆŮ† ؚلي الح٠اظ ؚلي Ř°Ů„Ůƒâ€Ź

‍ هذا التحيز الذي يع٠ؚ من‏. "‍ مما نت؏ ؚنه ٠؎عنا بتحيزنا ؼت؏اه "Ř§Ů„ŘšŘ§Ů…ŘŠâ€ŹŘŒâ€ŤŘ§ŘŞŘŹŘ§Ů‡ السياس؊ Ř§Ů„Ů‚ŮˆŮ…ŮŠŘŠ د٠ؚنا ؼلؚاد؊ ŘŞŮ‚ŮŠŮŠŮ… Ů…ŮˆŮ‚Ů Ů†Ř§â€Ź

.‍ ŮˆŘ§Ů„ŘšŘŻŘ§Ů„ŘŠ ŮˆŘ§Ů„Ř­Ů‚â€ŹŘŒâ€Ť ŮˆŘ§Ů„Ů…Ř­Ř§ŘłŘ¨ŘŠâ€ŹŘŒâ€Ť ŮˆŘ§ŘĽŮ„ŘŞŮ‚Ř§Ů†â€ŹŘŒâ€ŤŘ´ŘŁŮ† حعي؊ التؚبيع‏

‍ ŮˆŮ„ŮƒŮ† أي؜اً لتسهيل Ř§Ů„Ř­ŮˆŘ§Řą ؼلي؏اد Ř§Ů„Ř­Ů„ŮˆŮ„ Ů„Ů„Ů…Ř´Ř§ŮƒŮ„â€ŹŘŒâ€ŤŘĽŮ† Ů…ŘłŘŚŮˆŮ„ŮŠŘŠ الؾحا٠؊ Ů„ŮŠŘł ٠قء ؼظهاع الحقيق؊ مهما ŮƒŘ§Ů†ŘŞ مزؚ؏؊‏

‍ ŮˆŘšŮ„ŮŠâ€Ź.‍ ŘłŮˆŮ Ů†ŘłŘŞŮ…Řą Ů ŮŠ ŘĽŘłŘŞŘŹŮˆŘ§Ř¨ القا،مين ؚلي السلء؊ ŮˆŮ…Ů†Ř­ ŘľŮˆŘŞ لمن ال ŘľŮˆŘŞ Ů„Ů‡Ů…â€ŹŘŒâ€Ť هذا ŮˆŮ ŮŠ الؚام المقبل‏.â€ŤŘ§Ů„Ů…Ř´ŘŞŘąŮƒŘŠâ€Ź ‍ ؼال ان ŘśŘąŮˆŘąŘŠ Ř§Ů„ŘŞŮ…ŮƒŮŠŮ†â€ŹŘŒâ€ŤŘ§Ů„ŘąŘşŮ… من ان التحديات Ů‚ŘŻ ŘŞŮƒŮˆŮ† ŮƒŘ¨ŮŠŘąŘŠ ŮˆŮ‡Ů†Ř§Ůƒ Ř§Ů„ŮƒŘŤŮŠŘą من الناس Ů‚ŘŻ تت؜عع من الؾعاؚات القادم؊‏

.â€ŤŮˆŘ§Ů„Ů…Ř´Ř§ŘąŮƒŘŠ Ů ŮŠ الحيا؊ السياسي؊ ŮˆŘ§Ů„ŘšŘ§Ů…ŘŠ Ů‚ŘŻ ŮŠŮƒŮˆŮ† مءلباً ملحاً ŘŁŮƒŘŤŘą من Ř°ŮŠ قبل‏

‍ ŮˆŘ§Ů„ŘľŘ­Ř§Ů ŘŠ المحلي؊ هي Ř§ŘŁŮ„ŮƒŘŤŘą ؼحتيا؏اً Ř§Ů„ŮŠŮˆŮ… Ů„ŮƒŘ´Ů Ř§Ů„Ů…Ř´Ř§ŮƒŮ„â€ŹŘŒŮ‹â€ŤŘĽŮ† السياسات المحلي؊ ŮˆŘ§Ů„Ů‚ŮˆŮ…ŮŠŘŠ معتبء؊ ؼعتباءاً ŮˆŘŤŮŠŮ‚Ř§â€Ź

‍ باؼل؜ا٠؊ ŘĽŮ„ŮŠ ŘśŘąŮˆŘąŘŠ ŘŞŮˆŘłŮŠŘš ŮˆŘŹŮ‡Ř§ŘŞ النظع Ů„ŘŁŮ„ŘŽŘ° Ů ŮŠâ€ŹŘŒâ€Ť Ů…Řš ŘŞŮˆŘŤŮŠŮ‚ التغيعات اؼلقتؾادي؊ ŮˆŘ§ŘĽŮ„ŘŹŘŞŮ…Ř§ŘšŮŠŘŠâ€ŹŘŒâ€ŤŮˆŘ§Ů„ŘľŘąŘ§ŘšŘ§ŘŞ Ů ŮˆŘą Ř­ŘŻŮˆŘŤŮ‡Ř§â€Ź .‍االؚتباع من قبل Ů…ŘŞŘŽŘ°ŮŠ القعاع‏ ‍ Ř­ŮŠŘŤ ان تؾاؚد االت؏اه Ř§Ů„Ř­ŮƒŮˆŮ…ŮŠ الم؜اد للتؚديل Ř§ŘŁŮ„ŮˆŮ„ ŮŠŘ´Ř­Ř° من مسؤلي؊ Ř§Ů„ŘľŘ­Ř§Ů ŘŠâ€ŹŘŒŮ‹â€ŤŮˆŮ„ŮƒŮ† لن ŮŠŮƒŮˆŮ† هذا ŮƒŘ§Ů ŮŠŘ§â€Ź

‍ ŮˆŮƒŘľŘ­Ů ŮŠŮŠŮ† محليين ٠ؼنه يتؚين ؚلينا ان نحعؾ‏.‍ؼلظهاع ؼساإ؊ ؼست؎دام السلء؊ Ř§Ůˆ اي ؼشاع؊ Ů„Ř§Ů„Ů†Ř­ŘąŘ§Ů Ů†Ř­Ůˆ االستبداد‏ .‍ؚلي Ř­Ů‚ الؚام؊ Ů ŮŠ المؚع٠؊ Ř­ŘŞŮŠ اذا تءلب Ř°Ů„Ůƒ ŘŞŘ­ŘŻ ؾعيح أل؏هز؊ السلء؊‏

Editor Roy Takeno reading a copy of the Manzanar Free Press in front of the newspaper office at the Manzanar War Relocation Center in the Owens Valley, California, in 1943. He was among more than 110,000 JapaneseAmericans who were sent to government internment camps for the duration of World War II after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941.

Photo by Ansel Adams // Library of Congress

���3��� 4�����

�������� ďż˝ �������������������4���������������� ����4���������������������������4��� ����������������������� ďż˝ ���������������������������������� ������������������������������������ ������������������������������������ �������������������������������������� ������������� ďż˝ ����������������������������������� ������������������������������������ ������������������������������������ ďż˝4���������������� ďż˝ ���������������4������������������� ������������������������������������ ������������������������������������ ������������������ ďż˝ ���������������������������������� ����3�������������������������������� ������� ďż˝ ���������������������������������� ������������������������������������ ������������������������������������ ������������������������������������ ���� ďż˝ Public PressĂ“ĹŚ ´ #ǭÌƙǂ Ă— Ĺ ~ 0Âş R­ Üļ øŽŊ Ƥ„ƊǤǭŝNJÜŪb1ĺê^ Ă”*Ç‚\ Ĺ? ľǭvýÜ¡ǣ¼ŸĜƣ‰ Ç­ Ä†Ĺ­ÇŒÄ‡Â¤ĹšWĹŒĹœĹ›Ć°ĆśĂ‘Ä‰ĹŒĆł Äżu >Ä Â‰Ä›

Public PressÛƼǭ¢ÆŚWĹœĹ›ĹŒĆ”Â¸Ç­Ć°ĆśĹŽĹ•ĂťĂśÂˇĹŒĆł Ă”* Ä p ĆƒĆž Ă¤Ă–ĂœÄšĹŒx¹ǭƞę†LJ°Ź½Ŋ9tÂ?Ǩ¤6Ä°o”Ă?lĹŒ šƓ Ă? Ć?ǀƊÌƙ uÝÜļĂ ǭ‰Ä?‡ǎƑƞ)Ć?à ‘Ç&#x; ĹŒĂ?ĹśÇ­Ä‡ĆƒĂ” * iÄžĆ‘ĹŒ[Gǭ‰ƖƣƂń ÄŚÄĽ ÄĄĹ”Ĺ–ĹŒÄ˜M ÄĄ Ç€ĹĄÄŽĆšÄ‰Ă˜ĆŒĹĽ

ÝźĹ&#x2026;ÄżuÄ&#x161;uĂ&#x161;Ć 8Ĺ&#x2019;Ç­ *¤ƞ)Ć&#x152;PwĂ&#x20AC; Ĺ&#x152;|ÂĽĂ&#x2022;Â&#x17E;Ă&#x160;Ç­Ä jÄ Â˘ ĆźÇ&#x20AC;Ć&#x2020;Ĺ?ǢĹ&#x152; s ÂŤÄ&#x192;°ŹÍĆ&#x2013;Ć?¤?Äť Ĺ&#x152;Ć&#x161;Ÿêk ÂĄÇ&#x2019;Ü¡ƴįm:;ĹŹ Ç&#x2018;ĹŤÇ&#x192; Ă&#x2122;ƸƾĹ&#x2C6;<ÜŪĹ&#x152;Â?Ǩǭ Ç&#x201C;Â&#x20AC;Ă&#x153;ĆŠĆ&#x160;P

ÄśÇŞÄśÄ¨Ä Public Press iĹ&#x17E;âĹ&#x152;ĹŚ}Ç­ Ä Â˛Ä&#x2039;ſųŴ{âĹ&#x152;Ĺ&#x20AC;Ă&#x2039; t Â?ÜļĹ&#x152;ĆŤVÇ­"Ă&#x201D;*Ä&#x2014;Ć&#x2018;@Ä&#x17D;ĆšÂ&#x2019;uĹ&#x152;.Ć? uÄ&#x203A;Ç­Ă&#x201D;*Ć?Ć&#x201A;ĆŻvĆ?Ĺ&#x2122;Ç­Ă&#x201D;*Ă­ Ă? Ć&#x192;ÄĄĹ&#x201D;ŧug Ç&#x2014;Ų Ĺ&#x152;.Ć?Ç­ )ĂŞ,Ć&#x2013;ĆŁĆ&#x201A;Ĺ&#x201E; Ä&#x161;Ĺ&#x2DC;Ă? qĆłF :ÂłĂ? Ć&#x192;Ĺ&#x201C; Ă?Ĺ&#x152;.Ć?

Ýź­!Ĺ&#x152;Ćł 4Ä |ÂĽ  ǍZ"Â&#x2020;Ç&#x2039; Ĺ&#x152;  Ç&#x152;ĆŹ Ç&#x203A; çaÇŹÇ­gÄ&#x201A; Ç&#x2C6;Ć?èPĆ&#x2022;ĢĹ&#x161;W;gqǤĹ&#x152;¤Ć&#x17E; Ä?# ´ǭĂ&#x201D;*¢ųŴ¤Ĺ&#x2021;Ä&#x2DC;ŸêqǭľĤÄ&#x2030; Ĺ&#x160;Ć&#x2013;ĹŤÇ&#x192;Ĺ&#x152;žSÄĄĹ&#x201D;Ĺ&#x160;Ĺź Ć&#x203A;Ă&#x201D;*Ç&#x;¤Ĺ&#x152;äĂ&#x2013;XBĆ&#x2026;ÂŽÇ­ Ć&#x203A;Ă&#x192;Â&#x201E; Ä&#x2021;sÄľĆ&#x152;ĹĽ aE2Â&#x153;Ç­ Ă&#x20AC;ÄĄĹ&#x201D;]Ć&#x192;ÜļĆ&#x192;:;Ĺ&#x201A;ħĹ&#x152; MÇ­Â°ĹąÄ Ă&#x201A; Ä&#x201A;+Ç&#x152;Ä&#x2026;ĆťC Ç&#x153;Ć?

tÂ?mvýÜŪ cBKÇ­ÄżuÄ&#x2026;Ç&#x153;Ć?Ç&#x17E;výÝź­!ŸÏÇ?eŢqǤmĆ&#x152;ĹĽ Ć&#x161;Ç&#x2018;Ĺ&#x161;Ä&#x2021;mŹIJĹ&#x152;óƍ ĂąÂ&#x2020;ĢŪŸšĂ?Ĺ&#x152;Ć&#x2018;Ç?

Ä Ç­ĆžÇ&#x2C6; Â&#x2026; Ĺ&#x201E;Ăž_¤Ũ (Ä&#x161;Ä&#x201C;Ĺ&#x152;Ć&#x160;ĂśĹ&#x2021;¨Ä&#x2DC;M ßêYǭÝźĹ&#x2026;Ä&#x2030;Ćł Â&#x2020;şã@Ä&#x2DC;MÄłĹ&#x192;Ĺ&#x152;qǤǭm Ä&#x201E;Ć&#x2030;ÂŁF3iĹ&#x152;Ć&#x160;P ƚľvýÝź­!Ÿǭ Ă&#x201D;*Ă&#x2030;ÇĄÇ&#x2DC;Ä&#x201A;'âƨĆ&#x2019;Ç­ 'ĆŞ:Ĺ&#x201D;Ĺ&#x2013;Ĺ&#x152;Ä&#x2DC;DÇ­Z&Ć?Ă&#x201D;*:ġ_Ă&#x153;Ä&#x2DC;MǨF

â&#x20AC;ŤŘ§Ů&#x201E;Ů&#x2026;Ř­Ů&#x20AC;Ů&#x20AC;Ů&#x20AC;ععŮ&#x2C6;Ů&#x2020;â&#x20AC;Ź

No Ignoremos los Derechos Civiles del Ă rea de la BahĂ­a Hoy mĂĄs que nunca es importante estar alerta para evidenciar las amenazas contra la libertad de expresiĂłn, las oportunidades educativas y demĂĄs valores propios de San Francisco ÂżEducaciĂłn o deportaciĂłn?

Esta es una cuestiĂłn alarmante con la que estamos lidiando a medida que San Francisco se vuelve un elemento en la periferia polĂ­tica como consecuencia de las elecciones de 2016. La inminente necesidad de documentar esta divergencia hace que nuestra labor como periodistas locales independientes sea mĂĄs importante que nunca.

Nuestro reportaje de portada acerca de la educaciĂłn bilingĂźe en este nĂşmero, el cual comenzamos este verano, ha adquirido una nueva relevancia.

Dado que con frecuencia nuestro liderazgo nacional sataniza a inmigrantes, tanto indocumentados como legales, es posible que el progreso que las escuelas pĂşblicas de San Francisco lograron para que las personas reciĂŠn llegadas y originarias tuvieran acceso a la educaciĂłn bilingĂźe se vea amenazado si Donald Trump cumple con sus amenazas de deportar a millones de inmigrantes.

Se calcula que en California habitan 2.3 millones de personas indocumentadas, de las cuales 44,000 residen en San Francisco.

A comienzos de diciembre, pudimos suponer con justificaciĂłn que el racismo, la xenofobia y el miedo que se generaron durante la campaĂąa presidencial continuarĂĄn una vez que Trump asuma el poder en Washington.

Estos factores no solamente contrastan con la visiĂłn cada vez mĂĄs progresista e incluyente de California, sino que amenazan gravemente con subestimarla, ya que los padres y madres de familia temen ser discriminados por su color y que puedan ser objeto de investigaciones migratorias o, en Ăşltima instancia, denigrados.

Los innovadores programas de inmersiĂłn multilingĂźe que ofrece la ciudad proporcionan a todos los estudiantes un mayor desarrollo acadĂŠmico y comprensiĂłn cultural. Si los padres y madres de familia se preocupan por que algĂşn dĂ­a las autoridades federales puedan utilizar los datos de inscripciones escolares a programas bilingĂźes para ser objeto de deportaciĂłn, es posible que duden en tomar dichos programas. Eso podrĂ­a

socavar la capacidad de las mesas directivas escolares para poder innovar y financiar la educaciĂłn bilingĂźe.

Esto es solo un ejemplo de cĂłmo los gobiernos locales pueden lidiar contra las agresiones que sufren los inmigrantes, mĂĄs allĂĄ del conflicto de si las comunidades pueden declararse â&#x20AC;&#x153;ciudad santuarioâ&#x20AC;?; es decir: no permitir que la policĂ­a implemente la ley migratoria federal.

Por supuesto que este no es el Ăşnico ataque a los valores de San Francisco. Trump ha prometido eliminar el financiamiento a servicios sociales, hacer recortes al presupuesto para protecciĂłn ambiental y privatizar la educaciĂłn. Trump ha dicho que reestructurarĂĄ las protecciones de los derechos civiles obtenidos gracias a los votantes de California, incluidas la libertad de religiĂłn, matrimonio gay, acciĂłn afirmativa para minorĂ­as ĂŠtnicas y el debido proceso. Es posible que tambiĂŠn tengamos que volver a analizar lo que sabemos sobre los beneficios federales tales como el cuidado a la salud, la seguridad social y la brecha fiscal entre ricos y pobres.

Desde que comenzamos a publicar hace siete aĂąos, Public Press ha tenido la oportunidad de analizar en materia de vivienda, medio ambiente, salud, trabajo, polĂ­tica y educaciĂłn, entre otros y al hacer pocas referencias a polĂ­ticas federales.

SolĂ­amos suponer que nuestros lĂ­deres locales eran, a fin de cuentas, responsables por el bienestar de la comunidad pero, ya no es asĂ­.

Public Press se compromete a examinar la nueva administraciĂłn desde nuestro punto de vista local.

Lo que es mĂĄs, no estamos solos para afrontar dichos retos.

La elecciĂłn agilizĂł la discusiĂłn en las salas de prensa de todo el paĂ­s con respecto al significado del tĂŠrmino filosĂłficamente escalofriante que es la â&#x20AC;&#x153;objetividadâ&#x20AC;?. En esta nueva era polĂ­tica, entender esta palabra de forma literal claramente presupone el riesgo de contradecir los principios que valoramos: libertad de expresiĂłn, estado de derecho, el derecho a la informaciĂłn y el mismo proceso democrĂĄtico.

Los periodistas se lamentan al tratar de entender cĂłmo permitieron, o al menos toleraron, el surgimiento de un impulsivo

y pronto poderoso hombre en Washington. Trump ha prometido entablar demandas contra periodistas que lo ofendan, restringirå el acceso a fuentes gubernamentales y registros públicos, disolverå las compaùías de medios de comunicación que cuestionen sus políticas y tomarå medidas contra manifestantes.

Public Press siempre se ha acatado a tener una posiciĂłn imparcial y sin apoyo polĂ­tico y es una postura que queremos mantener. Sin embargo, el cambio de tono en la polĂ­tica nacional nos ha motivado a examinar nuestras propias predisposiciones. En nuestro caso, orgullosamente aceptamos la predisposiciĂłn en favor de la gente porque fomenta la libertad de expresiĂłn, exactitud, rendiciĂłn de cuenta, justicia y verdad.

La prensa no solo tiene la responsabilidad de decir la verdad, por mĂĄs incĂłmoda que sea, sino tambiĂŠn de facilitar una discusiĂłn entorno a las soluciones a problemas frecuentes. El aĂąo que viene, continuaremos cuestionando a aquĂŠllos en posiciones de poder y daremos voz a los que la carecen. Aunque los retos pueden ser mayores, y aunque es posible que mucha gente salga lastimada en conflictos futuros, la necesidad de empoderamiento y participaciĂłn en la polĂ­tica y la vida pĂşblica es tal vez mĂĄs importante que nunca.

Las polĂ­ticas locales y nacionales estĂĄn inexorablemente conectadas. Hoy, el periodismo local es aĂşn mĂĄs necesario para exponer problemas y conflictos conforme surgen; asĂ­ como para documentar cambios sociales y econĂłmicos; y, ampliar el rango de perspectivas que consideran los legisladores.

Pero eso no serĂĄ suficiente. El ascenso de una administraciĂłn que estĂĄ en contra de la Primera Enmienda agudiza la responsabilidad de la prensa para seĂąalar el abuso de poder asĂ­ como cualquier matiz que resulte en autocracia.

Como periodistas locales, debemos velar por la defensa del derecho del pĂşblico a estar informado, incluso cuando esto signifique desafiar abiertamente a las estructuras de poder. â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Los editores