Lead Ed

WRONG ANSWER, RIGHT PROBLEM

Diversity Council’s proposals only solve half the issue

Trinity promised to change. Last summer, in response to historic protests and a controversial Instagram post, the Board of Trustees formed the Advisory Council on Diversity and Inclusion. Consisting of faculty, alumni and students, the Council’s chartered goal was to provide recommendations for improving diversity on campus. Despite some skepticism, the measure as a whole was a step forward in a school that, to many, needed it.

On Nov. 2, the Board reported the Council’s ndings, with four key recommendations the Board says it will consider in order to “make the Trinity Experience the best it can be.” e announcement should be a sign of hope.

But a year’s gone by. Last summer is not this summer, and real and lasting change has continued to be evasive throughout the country. Promises have been broken. So have Trinity’s.

Rather than addressing the structural problems of diversity at Trinity, these recommendations have turned diversity into a check-thebox exercise, and as something to be marketed rather than solved. Each of the four recommendations is noble, yet lacking. e rst suggestion involves an “extensive mission review, placing particular emphasis on how the School expects Trinity students to treat one another and others in the world at large.” While these are strong words, they’re also ones we’ve heard before. Last year, hundreds of corporations and businesses promised to place new scrutiny on their diversity and racial equality. But without speci c language, those promises fail to capture the depth of the problem. If Trinity won’t even say the word “race” in an email about racial justice, how can we ever hope to solve it?

“ ere are those here who are ne with things the way that they are, and who would not agree with the changes that the Board is suggesting,” senior and Council member Lilly Nguyen said. “ I think that the Trinity Prep administration is trying to walk that very narrow line between the two.” e second recommendation is yet another corporate approach to a human problem. Although a “Board-level committee on diversity and inclusion” would keep the conversation going, diversity committees put pressure on students and faculty of color to essentially solve an issue that’s never been their fault.

Committees also further separate administration from students — not only did the Council never meet with a current student, but they also boiled down the entirety of the student body into just two representatives. As its charter said, “ e Advisory Council is intended to represent the diverse interests of Trinity Prep’s constituencies.” Ignored interests are ignored problems. ere’s also the issue of time. While the Council rightfully needed time to investigate and formulate its ndings, it’s hard to imagine real change coming when the reaction is always 12 months late. Finding the balance between the two means making diversity e orts clear, instead of hiding them behind meetings and closed doors.

However, the nal recommendation is perhaps the most dangerous of all. By “signi cantly expanding the training that employees and students receive regarding diversity and cultural norms,” Trinity risks turning diversity from a crucial and demanded issue into a dreaded class exercise. ese programs, which can include seminars and mandatory courses, are a favorite of forward-thinking organizations, and last year the Diversity Equity Inclusion sector made over $8 billion. However, from a 2018 Anthropology Now research to a 1990 New York Times review, study after study has shown that these programs are ine ective at best and actively harmful at worst.

Biases are built up over years, and those who are biased often don’t realize it. Attempting to “train away” that bias in a single afternoon or Canvas course is unfeasible, and only bene ts those who would see diversity as a marketing issue rather than a human one. ose who would gain the most from the training are also the least likely to learn from it- numerous studies have shown that mandatory diversity education can reinforce existing bias and lead to people feeling threatened or controlled.

One example of that mismanagement came two years ago, when Trinity and Peace Jam brought in an outside counselor to give a mandatory, 80-minute lecture in the RAC. e reception was not positive. A hostile student body and blundered presentation left most students frustrated, if not completely skeptical. In attempting to counter bias, the training just made it more clear.

Still, the conversation can be important.

“What we’re trying to do is help a segment of our community understand that another segment of the community has reason not to feel safe.” Council member and English teacher Dean Rhoads said. “And so when we talk about training or education, we’re really talking about helping people understand that not everyone has the same experience here.”

Despite these nebulous promises, the third recommendation does include one concrete policy: the retaining of “an additional administrator with experience and expertise in diversity and inclusion matters.” According to the position’s details, labeled as “Assistant Head of School,” the administrator will answer directly to Head of School Byron Lawson and be in charge of making recommendations regarding faculty hiring, especially in regards to inclusion and opportunity.

In contrast to every other recommendation, diverse hiring practices build change from the ground up. According to data analysis group Harver, the odds of hiring an applicant from an underrepresented group are 79.14 times greater if there are at least two underrepresented candidates in the nal pool, and in a recent study by the National Association of Colleges and Employers, 79% of graduates said a diverse workforce was “very important” to their consideration. Diverse hiring practices aren’t ashy or marketable, but they’re e ective.

“If the board thought this would be a one o , where we’d be teaching this year, and never have to do anything about it again, it’d be foolish to pay out that salary,” Rhoads said. “ at position is being put there on the understanding that there’s a certain segment of the population that is always going to have trouble dealing with understanding people who are not like them.” e Council is an important rst step. It can’t be the last. A more diverse environment is a more accepting environment, but true diversity doesn’t come from a committee. Change can’t either.

HOW WE HURT THE HOMELESS

Anti-homeless legislation should be banned

Article by Taylor Riley Graphic by Sarah Lin

In downtown Orlando, many benches that line the sidewalks have statues obstructing the seat. e sole purpose of a bench is for sitting, so why did the city planners commission such pointless structures?

Defensive urban design, also known as hostile architecture, is a form of city planning that restricts behavior and targets those who use public spaces the most, such as the homeless. Hostile architecture can be seen all around us: boulders along sidewalks, spikes under bridges and even statues or bars obstructing benches are all considered hostile architecture. e purpose of these structures is to discourage “undesirable” members of the public from residing in public spaces.

Tactics like this are common in highly populated cities such as Orlando. In a 2019 survey, the National Homeless Law Center found that in the United States, anti-homeless laws such as prohibiting loitering and/or vagrancy had increased by 103% since 2006. ese policies can be seen frequently in Florida, since our state has the third largest homeless population in the country.

According to NBC News, o cials in West Palm Beach created a sound blockade to prevent homeless people from sleeping around the Lake Pavilion Patio. Songs generally considered repetitive and annoying, such as ‘Baby Shark’ and ‘Raining Tacos’ were played on repeat in order to keep the homeless population from sleeping there.

Anti-homeless legislature has also begun to target groups who help the homeless. In 2006, Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer supported the ordinance which made distribution of food to more than 24 people in public parks illegal. Members of organizations attempting to feed the homeless were arrested repeatedly for their e orts. It seems you’re allowed to feed ducks at the park, but not other people.

In June, Texas Governor Greg Abott signed a statewide ban for taking up residency or storing personal belongings in public spaces, punishing violators with up to $500 in nes. is law tells the homeless population that they’re not welcome to exist in the only spaces they have to do so. is also begs the question, if public property is not meant to be used by the public, then who is it meant for?

“In my opinion, the justi cation for this type of stu is misguided,” social science teacher Brandon Burmeister said. “You’re looking at people who don’t like the look of having homeless people in their cities so they’re trying to move them out rather than looking at what is the root cause.”

Anti-homeless policies are used to systematically drive out the homeless so the city can avoid facing accountability for its underlying issues that lead to having large homeless populations in the rst place.

One cause of homelessness is that our government continually fails to support its most vulnerable populations. Veterans returning from war, non-white people, people struggling with mental illnesses, the LGBTQ population and those struggling with addiction are the most likely people to su er homelessness.

According to Forbes, 39.8% of homeless individuals are African-American, despite only making up 13% of the overall US population. In a study conducted by Street Kids, 40% of homeless kids identi ed as LGBT. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration stated that 20% to 25% of the homeless population su ers from severe mental illness. e National Coalition for the Homeless found that 38% of homeless individuals have substance abuse issues. Homelessness isn’t random, and it can be prevented by funding programs to protect populations subject to losing their homes.

“ ere’s stigmas around things like alcoholism and mental illness, and we have to get over that and start really taking those issues seriously if we want to solve those problems,” Burmeister said.

Another leading cause of homelessness is the di erence between our minimum wage and what would be considered a livable wage. Housing costs are rising at a much higher rate than wages, making it extremely di cult for many to a ord housing. A report by the National Low Income Housing Coalition states that an Orlando area worker earning minimum wage would need to work 117 hours a week in order to a ord the average rent.

“A ordable housing is not only a necessity but it’s also a boon for developing your economy,” Burmeister said.

Homelessness will continue to exist for as long as we view housing as a commodity rather than a necessity and criminalizing the homeless population does nothing to solve this problem. In what world would the solution to homelessness be putting bars on benches?

DO NOT SIT