Book Review: "More Than Just Race" by William Julius Wilson

The book that I've been able to read most recently has been More Than Just Race by William Julius Wilson. It is essentially a collection of 3 essays (each as a chapter) concerning various issues of the black experience (especially in cities) in the US, separately considering the conditions of black ghettos, the socioeconomic problems of poor black males, and the breakdown of poor black familial structures. These chapters are bookended by introductory and concluding chapters summarizing and further expounding on these issues. The main purpose of the book is to analyze, through various studies from the social sciences, the complementary roles of structure and culture in explaining why blacks in the US, especially in inner cities, are worse of by many metrics than their suburban counterparts and than people of other races/ethnicities in the US.

It is a relatively recent book (2009), but it isn't recent enough to have touched upon issues of police brutality and exploitation in urban black communities or issues of socioeconomic decay in poor white communities in cities as well as in rural areas (characterized by structural joblessness, opioid addiction, et cetera). The book itself is short, but the main three essays themselves are a bit dry. In particular, the essays are essentially separate from each other and can be read as such, but there aren't many attempts to form an overarching narrative (beyond the idea that structure and culture combine to explain the issues that many black Americans face), and the few attempts that do exist feel somewhat forced; perhaps the issue is that these issues are simply too nuanced to be described in a single broad brushstroke, but while that is clear from the details of the book, it would have been nice to see such a thesis made a little more explicit. Additionally, there are a few arguments that get rather muddled, and some ideas that aren't touched upon much after their introduction, perhaps because they don't fit the local narrative quite as well; I'll discuss these and other issues after the jump. Overall, while the discussion of structural issues seemed to be in line with a lot of what I've read in articles in newspapers and magazines in the last few years (probably because the author is an academic heavyweight in these areas anyway), the discussion of which cultural factors seem more (or less) plausible is relatively new to me, and their combination is much more nuanced than any of the broad stereotypes of individuals or institutions that I have seen previously; I rather appreciate this book for providing that perspective.

Book Review: "Gang Leader for a Day" by Sudhir Venkatesh

Happy new year 2017! My latest book review is of Gang Leader for a Day by Sudhir Venkatesh. The author is a sociologist who has meticulously documented his time in the 1980s as a PhD student in sociology, getting a deep, extended, first-hand look into the world of crack cocaine gangs in Chicago. He describes the progression of his relationship with the leader and close associates of a particular gang, the tenants and managers of the building that gang primarily operated in, the daily activities and quality of life of the gang members and building tenants, and even his own stint at leading the gang (in a very limited and supervised way) for a day. He further goes into the various moral quandaries that he finds himself in as he spends more time with this gang, with regard to when he should report something to the police, when he should step into a situation himself (thus inserting himself into a situation that he should be externally observing from an academic perspective), and whether his research will ultimately be essentially voyeurism writ large if he can't convince himself that publishing his findings will ever lead to measurable improvements in his subjects' lives, given the rampant corruption and cycles of poverty and crime prevalent then in Chicago.

Despite being nearly 300 pages, the book is extremely engaging, and the stories that he has documented have been masterfully crafted into a compelling narrative that flows very quickly and easily. I could really get a sense for the developments in his ability to conduct this research, his relationships with various tenants and gang members, and his comfort in such settings, going from the initial feeling of being very out of place, to the part in the middle where he still feels unsteady directly commandeering the gang (for a day, even in a limited and supervised capacity) despite his growing understanding of the gang's operations from the perspective of an outsider, to the part following that detailing his increasing comfort in seeking out broader perspectives from the community at large given his greater experience in conducting such research over time; I further liked how he ended the book by neatly wrapping up his narrative, mentioning his moves to Harvard University and then Columbia University, while still emphasizing that the story of the cycle of poverty and crime doesn't end so neatly for his research subjects, echoing what he says throughout the book. More than that, given that my upbringing as the son of immigrants from South Asia born and brought up in comfortable middle-class suburbs is quite similar to that of the author (except that he was born in India and brought with his family to this country at a very young age) and given that my family is extremely wary of me going into any situation that would remotely put me in danger (especially given my disability and skin color), this book really resonated with me. It felt thrilling for me to essentially vicariously experience this part of his life in such vivid and moving detail; I especially enjoyed reading about how a man who was fearlessly observing drive-by shootings, participating (however minimally) in gang retribution, and the like would still remain a principled vegetarian through it all, which I found deliciously ironic (and I realized that in a similar situation, I would actually probably do the same). One criticism of this book that I've seen online is that the author can be condescending and self-centered; given that this is a nonfiction book for general audiences, given that the goal is to weave his observations into a narrative, and given that he remarks throughout the book on the idea that there is no true neutrality and that he is inevitably going to be part of the story (on one side or another) that he is trying to document, I feel that anything else would have just been less honest in the end. I would highly recommend this book, and I do wonder how much relevance it could continue to have when considering the state of inner cities now, 30 years following this research, with the renewed emphasis on issues of police brutality, systemic racism from governmental institutions, and so on.

Homeless Radio Announcer Video Taken Down

If you've been keeping up with the news around the Internet, you know that there's a viral video of a homeless man named Ted Williams who has a great radio-announcing voice. The video spread everywhere, and within a day or two, he got dozens of offers for both local and national announcing gigs.
Unfortunately, as Mike Masnick of TechDirt reports, that video has been taken down from YouTube at the request of the Columbus Dispatch, an employee of which shot the original video.
The person who shot and posted the video online specifically asked for viewers to forward this to friends and contacts to spread the word and help the gentleman land a job. And yes, all the good things that happened to Ted Williams happened because of the video going viral and people taking notice. So now the employee's company is claiming copyright infringement/DMCA violations? What?
This is a huge slap in the face of all the people who did the right thing and let other people know to help this man. I have a feeling that someone higher up in the company said something along the lines of "the video served its purpose, so it's no longer needed, and keeping it up any longer would be copyright infringement." (I think the reason they can claim that is because anything the employee creates is the company's copyright (as it is a work-for-hire or something like that).) It reminds me of the part of Animal Farm by George Orwell where Napoleon the pig and new leader abolishes the old anthem (which extolled freedom, equality, and the like) and replaces it with a new anthem (extolling Napoleon, Napoleon, and Napoleon) for the reason that the animals are already free from the dictatorial farmer so it no longer serves a purpose.
If there are any readers from Ohio, can you please send the Columbus Dispatch polite angry letters asking for the video to be reinstated?

FOLLOW-UP: Is the National Honors Society still about Honor[insert suffix here]?

I intended to include a promise at the end of the original post about the certainty of a follow-up. I forgot to include that line, but here it is anyway.
I am staying in NHS. I asked the coordinator (in a strictly nonconfrontational way) my questions and got satisfactory answers.
First, the membership fee is nothing new. Apparently, the membership fee and the second (spring) Cookie Dough sale are needed to cover operating costs, and even then, we barely keep any of the money.
Second, there is no requirement to actually bring a friend to the Mini-Walk. The only requirement is that said friend pay the same fee to participate. Bringing a friend is just strongly encouraged, but there is no punishment (explicit or otherwise) for not doing this.
Next, I got the impression that the coordinator and the professional liaison only wanted focus on money rather than the actual target of charity. This is because the target actually isn't specific. The first (fall) Cookie Dough sales will go through KenyaConnect (as it always has) to go to villages in Kenya. Last year, they could give specifics because conditions were alright to commit to specific projects (i.e. school chairs and tables, water tanks, gates and fences). This year, with the drought and famine (for the last 8 months) in Kenya, it is still unclear to even KenyaConnect as to how exactly the money will be allocated. That's why the focus was more on actually raising the money itself.
Finally, I did not get a chance to ask about Windows on used computers, but I plan to later on.
Also, some other things that the NHS does is help out with the Children's Inn at NIH, various senior nursing homes, and other things.
This all is enough to convince me that the NHS is a (mostly) charitable fundraising organization, and that's enough to make me stay.

Is the National Honors Society still about Honor[insert suffix here]?

Today there was a National Honors Society meeting in our school after school.
NHS is supposed to be an organization dedicated to (from the website) "Scholarship, Service, Leadership, and Character".
(From the website,) Members must be morally upright, set an example for peers, and perform service for the betterment of the community without regard to money.
Yet this is not what I saw on display at today's meeting. All I saw was talk about money, moolah, and more bucks.
For one, this is the first year that the NHS at our school has instituted a $10 membership fee. Why? Have operating costs skyrocketed so much that fundraisers explicitly for the club (i.e. the Spring Cookie Dough sale) can't cover them? If so, that's understandable. If not, I'm wondering if NHS is any longer about service, charity, or being non-profit.
While the next thing is nothing new, I am still puzzled as to why the coordinator and executive board members require those participating in the Mini-Walk for the homeless to bring another non-member student and that those non-member students should also pay fees.
First of all, what's wrong with just bringing a friend who doesn't want to go to the Walkathon in DC? It's great to encourage friends to also come to the Walkathon, but I think mandating friends to come for this is going a bit too far.
Second, why must a non-member friend come too? Again, encouraging people to bring friends and donate to the homeless is great, but a lot of people I know who are going are already in NHS. What's wrong with walking with them?
While all of the funds go to the actual Walkathon, I am still suspicious about this sort of authoritarian attitude towards this event. It's supposed to be fun, but it's starting to look less like that now.
Next, the attitude displayed by the coordinator and by the professional liaison for fundraising was a bit disappointing. Rather than focus on the target of the fundraising (i.e. Kenyan schools and villages), the focus was just on the fundraising itself and the prizes. Why?
The only other beef I have is with the computer drive in that the computers have Windows on them. My problem is that they are quickly going to break down, and the recipients of these computers will have very little skills to fix them and will probably have to pay exorbitant prices to computer professionals to have the job done. This, of course, is only based upon what I know about the program; I'm unsure of all of the details, so this is a story for another day. This is just a preliminary thought (i.e. about the old computers).
Thus, it seems to me that the NHS is being motivated more by profit than by actual community benefit. It's making me doubt the philosophy behind the organization.
I'm planning to get all of these questions answered tomorrow before giving the checks for NHS fees and for the Mini-Walk. If the answers are satisfactory, I'll stay. If not, sayonara, NHS!