Wang 1 David Wang Professor Andrew Tonkovich Writing 39C 3 May 2019 How campus codes of conduct have failed to regulate cyberbullying on campus Abstract: In this paper, I will argue that campus codes of conduct in many universities have failed to regulate and discipline offensive and inappropriate expression on the Internet, which is called cyberbullying. I discussed the insufficiency of campus codes of conducts by referring to the First Amendment and citing an expert’s words that it is impossible to supervise the Internet. Then I utilized the data and figures from several studies of cyberbullying indicating the urgency and scope of this issue. Analyzing the specific campus code of conducts at Cornell university and Hostetler, David R and Philip Lee’s statements, I point that cyberbullying should be involved in the regulation of campus code since it brings harassment to students and destroy their educational well-being which is under protection by campus code of conduct. And I indicated government should provide more instruction and support in addressing cyberbullying issues which is a possible solution of the problem. Wang 2 Campus codes of conduct are policies enforced in universities to manage individuals’ expression and prohibit offensive language which might lead to physical or mental damage. However, codes are not as powerful as a law or an act of the legislature. Since the First Amendment claim absolute freedom of speech, the campus codes can only apply on school level to regulate students’ expression at most. The controversies of whether the speech code violates the First Amendment still exist and different universities have different campus codes depends on their particular situation. For the complexity of creating campus codes of conduct, those codes are insufficient in protecting students from all harmful speech and building absolute clean and safe study environment. Students who express discrimination and improper speech on campus will be disciplined but when they bullied victims on another platform, Internet, will sometime get away from punishment. The problem of campus codes on conduct is the absence of regulation on cyberbullying. According to Kenneth Trump, the president of National School Safety and Security Services, he claims the problem that “Schools can work to set some policies and behavioral expectations, but it's nearly impossible for school administrators to police the internet” (Trump). Campus codes of conduct serve to prohibit protected expression on campus but they are failed to perfectly regulate cyberbullying, which on a more complicated and wider platform. Cyberbullying, defined by an official government website stopbullying.gov, is “bullying that takes place over digital devices like cell phones, computers, and tablets”. It is becoming a serious and growing issue with the development of electronic devices and more usage of the internet. A survey named Teen Online & Wireless Safety Survey indicated that sixty-eight percent of students agree that cyberbullying is a serious problem. According to a recent study “Cyberbullying, Trends and Tubes” accomplished by Chris Moessner, nearly forty three percent Wang 3 of them have been bullied online, which means almost half of people live under the threaten of cyberbullying (Moessner). What’s more, bullying victim are 2 to 9 times more likely to consider committing suicide. The main reason is that bully in the real life always requires exceeding physical power and in risk of being arrested. However, cyberbullying can be done by anyone on the internet; the property of the internet also makes the cyberbullying much harder to trace and punish. Figure 1: Lifetime Cyberbullying Victimization Rates Among Ten Different Studies In Figure 1, it is obvious to notice that there are 27.9 percent of students have experienced cyberbullying among ten different studies from 2007 to 2016 concerning cyberbullying in average. “We have surveyed more than 20,000 students from middle and high schools from across the United States in twelve unique projects”, Justin W. Patchin explained. Wang 4 Based on such number of students, cyberbullying is already in a position that need to be solved as soon as possible. Speech code, defined by Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) on the website, is “any university regulation or policy that prohibits expression that would be protected by the First Amendment in society at large. Any policy—such as a harassment policy, a protest and demonstration policy, or an IT acceptable use policy—can be a speech code if it prohibits protected speech or expression” (FIRE). By the definition, a speech code as a policy regulates inappropriate expression and protect students from harassment on campus, thus, cyberbullying should be involved and under control by the speech code on campus as long as in universities. The campus code of conduct at Cornell university indicated three essential principles, which are “attain their educational objectives”; “the generation and maintenance of an intellectual and educational atmosphere throughout the University community”; and “the protection of the health, safety, welfare, property, and human rights of all members of the University community, and the safety, property, and reputational interests of the University itself”. It informs to the public that any behaviors on campus break the previous principles will be disciplined by the campus code of conduct. Bring mental and physical damage to people and having possibility of destroying a safe educational environment, Cyberbullying definitely violate the speech code and should be regulate completely. However, it leads to another problem that what kind of behavior should be considered cyberbullying, or in other words, how could universities distinguish cyberbullying. According to the First Amendment that the freedom of speech is protected by the Constitution, the supreme court and legislature considered the cyberbullying unconstitutional. One of the news reports on FIRE said “Supreme Court of North Carolina Finds Cyberbullying Wang 5 Law Violates First Amendment”. The failure leads to an absence of specific laws to prohibit cyberbullying. Only in the situation that cyberbullying bring physical damage or threats of violence, then those behaviors are unlawful and turn into a crime which will not be protected by the First Amendment anymore. The campus code of conduct has purpose of protecting students from harassment. However, since most of the cyberbullying will remain anonymous and operate on electronic devices, it is hard to determine whether it is under control of campus code of conduct. In the Off-Campus Cyberbullying: First Amendment Problems, Parameters, and Proposal, written by David R. Hostetler, he claimed that “Cyberbullying can threaten victims' educational wellbeing both on and off campus because of its debilitating emotional, social and other consequences. Nevertheless, few courts have addressed the legally complicated problem of off-campus cyberbullying. The extent, therefore, to which schools can effectively address this problem without running afoul of First Amendment free speech rights is unclear” (Hostetler). From the quotation, even the Supreme Court cannot address this problem due to the protection of free speech from the First Amendment. In order to prohibit cyberbullying, campus code of conduct will be a good method protecting students’ educational well-being but require the university to distinguish what behavior should be considered as cyberbullying and involved in the regulation of the speech code. A professor from the University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law named Philip Lee indicated that when the cyberbullying creates a hostile learning atmosphere by spreading rumors, harms students’ educational well-being and disturb the regular teaching process then it should be prohibited by the campus code of conduct. He claimed that “if a student’s online cyberbullying is likely to reach the school and the school can show that preventing this speech protects a student’s wellbeing, the school should be able to Wang 6 regulate the speech”. (Lee) Lee is providing the guidance to help universities addressing cyberbullying. His offers a complete and deliberate solution of the cyberbullying issue. Another problem of cyberbullying is that people cannot easily distinguish whether those behaviors were happened on campus or off campus. Justin W. Bathon claims that campus code “cannot regulate off-campus speech, the power to regulate is achieved by effectively bringing the speech on campus.” (Bathon) And when it breaks the principle that bring harassment to students “the off-campus speech is considered on-campus under the eyes of the law.” (Bathon). It can help university regulate cyberbullying better since any cyberbullying that negatively affect universities educational atmosphere or harm students can all be considered “on campus” even though it was not physically happened on campus. Refer to the official government website stopbullying.gov, cyberbullying “includes sending, posting, or sharing negative, harmful, false, or mean content about someone else”, and “It can include sharing personal or private information about someone else causing embarrassment or humiliation. Some cyberbullying crosses the line into unlawful or criminal behavior”. It implies that any bullying or harassment that occurs online is a form of cyberbullying. However, under the protection of free speech by the first amendment, only behavior that have potential threat to people or bring actual harm to victims will be punished because those behaviors were treated unlawful; those minor cyberbullying behaviors includes sneering at others’ sexual preference, express inappropriate words about race and disturb studying environment. Sometimes they can escape from punishment since the consequence are not serious enough to attract attention from university. Wang 7 The indifference to regulating cyberbullying lead to a result that the majority of the states do not even have such law to protect students from online violence. The stopbullying.gov, an official government website indicates that “Although all states have laws requiring schools to respond to bullying, many states do not include cyberbullying under these laws or specify the role schools should play in responding to bullying that takes place outside of school”. This quotation implies that most of the states government cannot address the issue of cyberbullying on campus perfectly under the condition of not breaching the first amendment; even though some states do have cyberbullying law but without certain instruction informs the school how to deal with cyberbullying, they do not have clear demarcation on cyberbullying to determined whether it should be punished or not. Moreover, due to several pervious examples that schools were sued by excessive punishment on cyberbullying cases, the administrators will not take too much attention on this issue until the legislature passed the cyberbullying law with particular guidance. According to what Justin W. Patchin claimed in Cyberbullying Laws and School Policy: A Blessing or Curse, “To be sure, schools should bring their bullying and harassment policies into the 21st Century by explicitly identifying cyberbullying as a proscribed behavior, but they need to move beyond the behaviors that occur on school grounds or those that utilize school-owned resources. But in order to do this they need guidance from their state legislators and Departments of Education so that they draft a policy and procedure that will be held up in court”,(Patchin) the school, which is a place to educate people, have no ability to address the issue alone; the support from the government in many forms including passing a law and providing specific instruction is necessary during the process of restraining cyberbullying. Wang 8 Works Cited Bertin, Joan E. “NCAC Analysis: The First Amendment and School Policies on Harassment and Bullying.” National Coalition Against Censorship, ncac.org/resource/ncac-analysis-the-firstamendment-and-school-policies-on-harassment-and-bullying. Bathon, Justin W. Basic Student Rights: Off Campus Speech and Cyberbullying, d2wldr9tsuuj1b.cloudfront.net/2802/documents/Middle School/MS Counselors/Cyber Bullying.pdf. “Campus Code of Conduct.” Cornell University, 20 June 2018. Hostetler, David R. “OFF-CAMPUS CYBERBULLYING: FIRST AMENDMENT PROBLEMS, PARAMETERS, AND PROPOSAL.” Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal. Koebler, Jason. “Cyber Bullying Growing More Malicious, Experts Say.” U.S. News & World Report, U.S. News & World Report, 3 June 2011, www.usnews.com/education/blogs/highschool-notes/2011/06/03/cyber-bullying-growing-more-malicious-experts-say. Komsky, Jane. “How Should Schools Regulate Cyberbullying?” The Regulatory Review, www.theregreview.org/2017/04/25/komsky-schools-regulate-cyberbullying/. Moessner, Chris. “Cyberbullying, Trends and Tudes.” Http://Www.ncpc.org/Resources/Files/Pdf/Bullying/Cyberbullying Trends - Tudes.pdf., 10 Feb. 2014. Patchin, Justin W. “Cyberbullying Laws and School Policy: A Blessing or Curse?” 10Sep. 2010. Wang 9 Patchin, Justin w. “2016 Cyberbullying Data.” Cyberbullying Research Center. "Teen Online & Wireless Safety Survey." Cox Communications. Accessed February 14, 2014, http://ww2.cox.com/wcm/en/aboutus/datasheet/takecharge/2009-teensurvey.pdf?campcode=takecharge-research-link_2009-teen-survey_0511 “What Are Speech Codes?” FIRE, www.thefire.org/spotlight/what-are-speech-codes/. “What is cyberbullying.” Stopbullying.gov, www.stopbullying.gov/cyberbullying/what-isit/index. Zoeller, Mary. “Supreme Court of North Carolina Finds Cyberbullying Law Violates First Amendment.” FIRE, 16 Oct. 2017, www.thefire.org/supreme-court-of-north-carolina-findscyberbullying-law-violates-first-amendment/. Do 1 Christine H. Do Lecturer Andrew Tonkovich Writing 39C 03 December 2017 Addressing Racial Discrimination Against Section 8 Minorities: Improve Funding to the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) ABSTRACT In this essay, I propose two possible solutions in order to address the racial discrimination and its consequent segregation against Section 8 minorities due to racially discriminating Section 8 landlords and local housing authorities. The first solution is to improve the funding to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)’s Office of Fair Housing of Equal Opportunity (FHEO) so that the organization can effectively enforce the Fair Housing Act of 1968 in order to protect the Section 8 minorities. Another solution that could potentially assist Section 8 minorities is to aggressively implement the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Final Rule (AFFH), which allows local governments to reduce segregation in their community by proposing goals or actions that will help their community become more integrated. After reviewing the promises of these two solutions, the best solution to address racial discrimination against and the resulting segregation of Section 8 minorities is to improve funding of the FHEO because it will be a more direct way to solve the problem and is a more feasible initiative to pass according to the political climate of Congress today. 2760 Do 2 According to Rebecca Tracy Rotem, who earned a J.D. from Fordham University School of Law, “[t]he goals of the FHA [Fair Housing Act of 1968] and the Section 8 voucher program are aligned to end segregation on the basis of race and income level in housing” (2008). However, research suggests otherwise. In Vargas v. Town of Smithtown of 2007, the town of Smithtown, New York deliberately practiced illegal housing advertising that discriminated against Section 8 minorities from living within their community. The Fair Housing Testing and Survey Project, conducted by the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law in 2010, recorded landlords racially steering, a practice of selling homes where landlords would “steer” renters away from the housing area, potential Section 8 minority tenants from renting homes in areas that offered Section 8 housing. In 2015, United States v. The Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles, City of Lancaster, California, and City of Palmdale, California involved Section 8 minorities being racially discriminated by the Housing Authority of Los Angeles; the Cities of Lancaster and Palmdale; and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) by unfair enforcement policies. A common trend among these events is that Section 8 landlords and local housing authorities who racially discriminate against Section 8 minorities caused these populations to become segregated. The failure to address this issue lies on the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)’s Office of Fair Housing of Equal Opportunity (FHEO)’s failure to enforce the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which is meant to protect people from being discriminated against based on their “race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability” from “direct providers of housing (landlords and real estate companies)” (“1968: Federal Fair Housing Act”). The problem’s urgency is exemplified in Figure 1 (New York Times). In this figure, the red circles represent the minority voucher holders whereas the blue represent the white voucher holders. The numbers that point to Do 3 Figure 1: Figure 1: “Families Stuck in Poor Neighborhoods despite Vouchers | Manhattan’s New Residential Sales Record.” furmancenter.org/thestoop/entry/familiesstuck-in-poor-neighborhoods-despite-vouchers-manhattans-new-reside the circles show how clustered these voucher holders are. As observed in these maps, there is not much integration within these communities. If this segregation continues, then it undermines the purpose of the Fair Housing Act and the Section 8 program: to provide equal housing opportunities for everyone. There are two possible solutions for this problem. The first solution, recommended by the National Fair Housing Association (NFHA); Professors Robert Mark Silverman and Kelly L. Patterson; and the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), who are all experts in urban studies and advocacy, is to improve the funding for the FHEO in order for the agency to be more efficient in enforcing the Fair Housing Act of 1968. The second solution would be to aggressively implement the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Final Rule (AFFH). Proposed by the HUD during the Obama administration, the AFFH would end Do 4 segregation against Section 8 minorities by “tak[ing] meaningful actions to overcome historic patterns of segregation, promote fair housing choice, and foster inclusive communities free from discrimination” (“AFFH Rule Guidebook” 12). After comparing the feasibility of these two solutions based on observing Congress’ present political climate, I believe that funding for the FHEO is a better solution than aggressively implementing for the AFFH because the former is not a politicized issue in comparison to the latter. In order to address the initial problem of mitigating the effects of housing discrimination against Section 8 minorities, the federal government must address the internal issue that the FHEO is facing: underfunding. The FHEO is able to enforce the Fair Housing Act of 1968 through two funding programs: the Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) and the Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) (Silverman and Patterson 127; Soto 1). Under the FHAP, the FHEO lends grants to certified state and local governments in order for them “to enhance complaint processing, special enforcement, training and other fair housing efforts” (Silverman and Patterson 127; Soto 1). On the other hand, the FHIP allows the FHEO to assist private nonprofit fair housing organizations through three specific programs: the Private Enforcement Initiative (PEI), which allows the private nonprofit fair housing organizations to conduct their own complaint investigations; the Education and Outreach Initiative (EOI), which provides educational resources about fair housing laws; and the Fair Housing Organizations Initiative (FHOI), which provides funds (Silverman and Patterson 129; Soto 1). The activities done under these programs require a lot of money; thus, without it, as it is currently, the FHEO fails to fully enforce the Fair Housing Act (Abedin et al. 71). Do 5 There are many experts who agree that the FHEO is underfunded. For example, in their report The Case for Fair Housing: 2017 Fair Housing Trends Report, the NFHA states that the “FHEO must be placed center stage at [the] HUD, receive the appropriate level of support, and have the appropriate level of influence,” which calls to attention the fact that the FHEO needs money (49). The report also complains that without the proper funds, the FHEO will continue to fail to do the following: conduct complaint investigations “in a timely manner”; “meet quality standards” in investigations; “charge meritorious cases”; provide “enough comprehensive quality training of FHEO staff”; and provide “supervision and oversight of…staff” (Abedin et al. 71-72). Another expert opinion is from Professor Robert Mark Silverman and Kelly L. Patterson, who both make a compelling comparison in their scholarly article titled, “The Four Horsemen of the Fair Housing Apocalypse: A Critique of Fair Housing Policy in the USA,” which basically conveys that if the FHIP and FHAP are continuously underfunded, then the Figure 2: Table 1 - Congressional appropriations for FHAP, 2004-8 (in 2008 dollars) implementation of the fair housing http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.9 36.935&rep=rep1&type=pdf policy would fail (124). In Figure 2, their study recorded that the FHAP experienced a reduction in funds since 2004 (Silverman and Patterson 128). On the other hand, Figure 3 shows that the FHIP became underfunded by having Figure 3: “Table 3. Congressional appropriations for FHIP, 2004–8 (in 2008 dollars).” http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.936.93 5&rep=rep1&type=pdf Do 6 unevenly distributed funds across its various programs (Silverman and Patterson 130). In Figure 4, the Congressional Research Service, a think tank for the United States Congress, traces the trends of funding of the FHIP and FHAP since 1996, and despite a peak funding experienced around the Fiscal Years of 2010 and 2012, the level of funding becomes stagnant and somewhat decreases after this slight period of success (“The Fair Housing Act: HUD Oversight, Programs, and Activities”). Furthermore, the evidence provided by the NLIHC shows that the FHEO still faces underfunding, even today. In their 2017 Advocates Guide, Jorge Andres Soto, who is the Director of Public Policy at NFHA, compares the amount of money that former President Barack Obama proposed to give to the agency to what they actually received for the Fiscal Year of 2017 versus what the NLIHC proposed the FHEO actually needed to function properly (Soto 2). More specifically, the Obama administration’s 2017 Budget Figure 4: "Figure 1 - FHAP and FHIP Funding Trends, FY 1996-FY2017" www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R44557.html#_Toc482025334 Proposal would give the FHIP $46 million and the FHAP $23 million (Soto 2). However, what the FHEO actually received during the Fiscal Year of 2017 was $39.2 million for the FHIP and $24.3 million for the FHAP (Soto 1). Even so, the NLIHC highlights that the agency is underfunded since it suggests that the FHEO must be given “at least $57 million, including $5 million for a systemic testing program [for FHIP], and funding for FHAP should be $40 million going forward” (Soto 2). With the right amount of funding, only then could the FHEO function more properly and, therefore, be able to Do 7 directly assist the Section 8 minorities by enforcing the Fair Housing Act fairly against racially discriminating Section 8 landlords and local housing authorities. The second solution to assist Section 8 minorities from racial discrimination is to aggressively implement the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Final Rule (AFFH). Advocated by the HUD under the Obama Administration, local governments can turn their previously segregated communities into integrated communities by accessing geographical data to survey how ethnic populations have been distributed (Aleem, “The Fair Housing Act: HUD Oversight, Programs, and Activities”). Consequently, local governments can collaborate with the public by “taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity[;] replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns[;] transforming racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity[;] and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws” (“AFFH Rule Guidebook” 5). In order for the AFFH to work, the community must go through an assessment called the Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). Through this test, the community can check if they have been experiencing the following four “fair housing issues:… segregation or lack of integration…racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty…significant disparities in access to opportunity… [and] disproportionate housing needs” (“The Assessment of Fair Housing,” “The Fair Housing Act: HUD Oversight, Programs, and Activities”). Figure 5 summarizes the AFFH process, which begins with the community participating in the AFH test and then collaborating with the HUD on a plan to change its landscape according to fair housing laws. Since this program also involves public participation, the AFFH would be useful to the Section 8 minorities in Figure 1 by allowing them Do 8 to indicate to their local communities that they have been segregated and can thus, influence the community setting to benefit their population. Figure 5: The Assessment of Fair Housing https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/affh/overview/ There are many experts and politicians who have voiced their opinion for and against the implementation of the AFFH. Supporters of the program include Solomon Greene and Erika C. Poethig, who are both from the Urban Institute; Margery Austin Turner, an expert in Urban Studies; and Democratic Party Representative of Minnesota Keith Ellison. Greene and Poethig believe that the AFFH can help local communities become more proactive in the fight against segregation by allowing the communities to make their own decisions on how they want to change their community without having to be forced to adapt to the federal government’s “cookie-cutter approaches” which would ignore each community’s unique composition. Turner agrees with their statement saying that the AFFH permits local governments to “identify the primary factors undermining fair housing outcomes and [to] set goals for addressing them.” In essence, by surveying maps such as the ones provided in Figure 1, these communities can realize for themselves that Section 8 minorities are being segregated and become driven to fix the Do 9 geographical problem together through the AFFH. Ellison states that the program’s advantage lies in the fact that local communities are investing their own funds to benefit the segregated populations, allowing the limited federal funds to be allocated to other fair housing programs (Jost). On the other hand, opponents to this ruling come from the conservative side of the political spectrum including Stanley Kurtz, a writer for the conservative magazine National Review, and Republican Representative of Arizona Paul Gosar. Kurtz believes that the AFFH radically engineers neighborhoods, causing them to be “forced to import population[s] from elsewhere, at their own expense and in violation of their own laws” (Kurtz). Gosar adds on by mentioning that the AFFH would cause the federal government to interfere with local government affairs and cause taxes to be increased (Jost). Figure 6, provided by the conservative online journal Patriot Post, reflects Gosar’s concern of an ever more influencing federal government. More specifically, this editorial cartoon satirically illustrates that the federal government, which is represented by Figure 6: Allyne Caan https://patriotpost.us/articles/36284 President Obama’s photo-shopped face, will cause harm rather than providing any sort of help by forcing neighborhoods to be integrated in contrast to the kind Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood television show’s star Mr. Rogers, who kindly asks “Won’t you be my neighbor?” (Rogers) and actually gives people “the option” to choose for themselves who their neighbors are. Unfortunately, the conservative side has a bigger influence over the AFFH and its ability to be implemented. Do 10 In order to decide which solution is better in addressing racial discrimination against Section 8 minorities, it is imperative to consider the feasibility of these solutions according to the political climate in Congress. Today, there are 240 Republicans who fill the total 435 seats of House of Representatives whereas there are 52 Republicans who fill the total 100 seats of the Senate (“Party Breakdown”; “Party Division”). The fact that over half of Congress is Republican makes it difficult for the AFFH Final Rule to be implemented because it has ties to the past Obama administration. In fact, Republicans from both the House of Representatives and the Senate have proposed numerous bills in the past two years to “prohibit federal funds from being used to administer, implement, or enforce the AFFH rule” (“The Fair Housing Act: HUD Oversight, Programs, and Activities”). One bill in particular, H.R. 482, was sent by Gosar himself, receiving a total of 25 sponsors (Gosar). With this mounting opposition against the AFFH, it would be hard to convince a Republican-dominated Congress to invest in the program. There is no doubt that the AFFH is a great option for a solution, but it may not be implemented, or even considered, as soon as possible to address the urgent needs of the Section 8 minorities because of the current political climate. However, giving the proper funding to the FHEO is not a politicized matter. If advocates can persuade Congress on how to spend the federal budget wisely, then there is hope that the FHEO could one day recuperate back to its proper functioning and, consequently, bring immediate assistance to Section 8 minorities who are being racially discriminated. According to the Center for American Progress, a progressive public policy advocacy group, Trump plans to reduce funding to the FHEO by 3% in order to fund for his immigration enforcement policy (Gruberg et al.). This will result in the FHEO “failing to handle 225 complaints of housing discrimination” (Gruberg et al.), which may include possible complaints sent in by Section 8 minorities. Even if Trump wanted to use $4.5 billion dollars for Do 11 his deportation program (Gruberg et al.), he has highly underestimated the cost of his enforcement policy. In fact, building a wall along the border between the United States and Mexico would actually cost “between 15-25 billion dollars” (Conover), which is three to four times more costly than what the deportation policy is reportedly being funded for. Additionally, border crossing from Mexico to America has decreased drastically in the last fifteen years, from “1,676,438 in 2000 to 337,117 in 2015” (Conover), which justifies that this type of budget spending is frivolous and quite unnecessary. From these facts alone, it may be possible for advocates to use these statistics to their advantage when trying to persuade Congress from diverting funds from the FHEO to Trump’s deportation policy because “fewer than 25% of Republicans [are] willing to stand up for [building the wall]” (Singer). It is also important to stress to Congress that “private fair housing organizations [are] investigating more than twothirds of all fair housing complaints each year—[which is]twice as many as all government agencies combined” (Soto 2). If advocates succeed in persuading Congress about the importance of this issue, then it is possible for Congress to consider increasing the funding for the FHIP and FHAP, according to NLIHC’s calculations, to $62 million and $40 million, respectively, so that the FHEO can function successfully (Soto 2). As a result, the FHEO can solve racial discrimination against Section 8 minorities directly and appropriately. The goal of this paper was to investigate the best possible solutions to reduce the prevalence of racial discrimination and the consequent segregation against Section 8 minorities from racially discriminating Section 8 landlords and local housing authorities. The first solution proposed is to give the proper amount of funds to the FHEO. As a result, the organization will be more proactive in addressing complaints and enforcing the Fair Housing Act of 1968 against those who break the law, such as those Section 8 landlords and local housing authorities. On the Do 12 other hand, the second solution proposed is to aggressively implement the AFFH. This program would allow local governments to work with its constituents to geographically survey their community and resolve segregation by making their communities more integrated. As a result, cities such as those represented in Figure 1 can reduce the amounts of segregation of Section 8 minorities. In comparing the two solutions, funding for the FHEO seems like a more viable solution because the AFFH is a politicized policy that the heavily populated Republican Congress would not likely pass. Even so, these proposed solutions will not resolve segregation against Section 8 minorities in an instant. However, these solutions, especially improving funding for the FHEO, are considered the first, correct steps in reversing it. Do 13 Works Cited “1968: Federal Fair Housing Act.” Historical Shift from Explicit to Implicit Policies Affecting Housing Segregation in Eastern Massachusetts, Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston, www.bostonfairhousing.org/timeline/1968-Fair-Housing-Act.html. Abedin, Shanti, et al. “The Case for Fair Housing: 2017 Fair Housing Trends Report.” National Fair Housing Alliance, Apr. 2017.http://nationalfairhousing.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/04/TRENDS-REPORT-4-19-17-FINAL-2.pdf “AFFH Rule Guidebook.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 31 Dec. 2015. https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/AFFH-Rule-Guidebook.pdf Aleem, Zeeshan. “Obama Is Cracking Down on One of the Worst Forms of Modern-Day Segregation.” Mic, Mic Network Inc., 8 July 2015, mic.com/articles/121974/howpresident-obama-is-cracking-down-on-housing-segregation#.qF2MPdsVN. Caan, Allyne. “Obama's new race-Based housing rules could change a lot of communities.” ECONOMY, REGS, & TAXES, The Patriot Post, 9 July 2015, cachedassets.patriotpost.us/images/2015-07-09-fcdbda97_large.jpg. Conover, Adam. “Why a Wall Won't Stop Immigration.” YouTube, CollegeHumor, 28 Sept. 2016, www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_P9PR5ckFk. Greene, Solomon, and Erika C. Poethig. “Creating Places of Opportunity: HUD's New Data and Community Driven Approach.” Urban Institute: Housing and Housing Finance, Urban Institute, 8 Sept. 2015, www.urban.org/urban-wire/creating-places-opportunity-hudsnew-data-and-community-driven-approach. Do 14 Gosar, Paul. “H.R.482 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Local Zoning Decisions Protection Act of 2017.” Congress.gov, Library of Congress, 12 Jan. 2017, www.congress.gov/bill/115thcongress/house-bill/482. Gruberg, Sharita, et al. “The Trump Budget Neglects Basic Protections and Funds a Deportation Force Instead.” Center for American Progress, Center for American Progress, 23 May 2017, www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2017/05/23/432848/trumpbudget-neglects-basic-protections-funds-deportation-force-instead/. HUD Congressional Budget Justifications for FY1996-FY2017. “Figure 1. FHAP and FHIP Funding Trends, FY1996-FY2017.” The Fair Housing Act: HUD Oversight, Programs, and Activities, Congressional Research Service, 5 May 2017, www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R44557.html#_Toc482025334. HUD Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (TEAPOTS). “Table 1. Congressional Appropriations for FHAP, 2004–8 (in 2008 dollars).” The Four Horsemen of the Fair Housing Apocalypse: A Critique of Fair Housing Policy in the USA, 1st ed., vol. 38, Critical Sociology, 2012, p. 128. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.936.935&rep=rep1&type=pdf HUD Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (TEAPOTS), and IRS Form 990. “Table 3. Congressional appropriations for FHIP, 2004–8 (in 2008 dollars).” The Four Horsemen of the Fair Housing Apocalypse: A Critique of Fair Housing Policy in the USA, 1st ed., vol. 38, Critical Sociology, 2012, p. 130. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.936.935&rep=rep1&type=pdf Jost, Kenneth. “Housing Discrimination.” Housing Discrimination, CQ Press, 6 Nov. 2015, library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2015110606. Do 15 Kurtz, Stanley. “Attention America's Suburbs: You Have Just Been Annexed.” The Corner - The One and Only, National Review, 20 July 2015, www.nationalreview.com/corner/421389. New York Times. “Families Stuck in Poor Neighborhoods Despite Vouchers | Manhattan’s New Residential Sales Record.” NYU Furman Center, Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy, 11 Aug. 2015, furmancenter.org/thestoop/entry/families-stuck-in-poorneighborhoods-despite-vouchers-manhattans-new-reside. “Party Breakdown.” House Press Gallery, House Press Gallery, 23 Oct. 2017, pressgallery.house.gov/member-data/party-breakdown. “Party Division.” U.S. Senate: Party Division, United States Senate, 19 Jan. 2017, www.senate.gov/history/partydiv.htm. Rogers, Fred M. “Won't You Be My Neighbor?” Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, PBS Kids, 2009, pbskids.org/rogers/songLyricsWontYouBeMyNeighbor.html. Rotem, Rebecca Tracy. "Using Disparate Impact Analysis in Fair Housing Act Claims: Landlord Withdrawal from the Section 8 Voucher Program." Fordham L. Rev. 78 (2010): 1971. http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4522&context=flr Silverman, Robert Mark, and Kelly L. Patterson. "The Four Horsemen of the Fair Housing Apocalypse: A Critique of Fair Housing Policy in the USA." Critical Sociology 38.1 (2012):123-140. DOI: 10.1177/0896920510396385 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.936.935&rep=rep1&type=pdf Singer, Paul. “Exclusive: Less than 25% of Republicans in Congress endorse border wall funding in USA TODAY survey.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 20 Sept. 2017, www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/09/20/trump-border-wallsurvey-congress-republicans-billions/640196001/. Do 16 Soto, Jorge Andres. “Chapter 5: Fair Housing Programs.” National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2017. http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/AG-2017/2017AG_Ch05-S01_FairHousing-Programs.pdf “The Assessment of Fair Housing.” HUD Exchange, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, www.hudexchange.info/programs/affh/overview/. “The Fair Housing Act: HUD Oversight, Programs, and Activities.” EveryCRSReport.com, Congressional Research Service, 5 May 2017, www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R44557.html Turner, Margery Austin. “How HUD's Latest Fair Housing Rule Could Expand Access to Opportunity.” Urban Institute, Urban Institute, 12 May 2014, www.urban.org/urbanwire/how-huds-latest-fair-housing-rule-could-expand-access-opportunity. The Advocacy Project: A Multi-modal Composition Three weeks from now, you will turn in the final version of this assignment. Like the HCP Project, the main assignment here is a multi-modal composition that uses various rhetorical positions and different types of evidence to make an argument, to persuade, to advance both a critique and a possible answer/solution you have located, identified and support. This one, however, is a bit different from the first in that over the course of these next few weeks, as you research and evaluate various sources, and as you draft, craft and organize your thoughts and evidence, you will at some point have to make a decision to become an advocate for solutions to your central problem in at least one of the following three ways: 1) you might advocate for one or more specific solutions to the significant and current public policy problem at the center of your focus; 2) you might locate the next steps to potentially solving your project’s central problem; or, 3) you might argue for why the current solutions do not work and introduce revisionist thinking or new definitions as offered by experts, scholars, activists, others. In other words, your arguments for advocating solutions in combination with the analytical reasons you provide for why you have chosen to focus on particular solutions will after weeks and weeks of diligent engagement become a richly-textured thesis statement, one that deepens your articulation of the problem at hand and argues for convincing ways to move forward. When we think of the act of advocating and when we imagine a person or an organization who is an advocate for a cause, we think of strongly held analysis and critique delivered with intensity from a rhetorical position that appears unshakable, deeply confident in the ethical rightness of its arguments and the accuracy of its knowledge. If we look at advocacy in such ways, we can understand why it takes time to become a convincing advocate, and that advocacy, even when it is delivered in the form of a thesis-driven composition, is a form of argumentation and persuasion (!) that can be quite different from the balanced arguments we often think of as academic writing even if it is as rigorous in its presentation of evidence. This is not to say that academic writers are not advocates. They are, and over the course of this project, you will become such an advocate—one who uses academic research and methods to deliver persuasive arguments convincingly to a public of one’s peers. Academic writers in many disciplines often write with the purpose of advocating for solutions to political/social/cultural/environmental problems. Think of Matthew Desmond, who took his scholarly research, including personal engagement, re-framed it, and wrote a bestselling popular book, albeit using scholarly techniques (research, historical analysis, policy considerations) and carefully citing in the manner of a scholar. When academic writers do advocate, implicitly or explicitly, they are expected to consider and present positions that run against theirs in various ways – call them counter arguments – in order to meet the expectations of their academic audience. They must demonstrate their mastery of established arguments and knowledge in areas of discourse and recognize the legitimacy of other perspectives, even if the author seeks ultimately to dismiss them. My own rule of thumb is that the reader, and perhaps the opposition, is at least as smart as me, but may not have seen the evidence I have located, or been given the opportunity to consider a particular analysis. I have to present it, fairly but aggressively, and trust that they will accept the rules of logic, engagement, discourse, and then make a sincere judgment --- guided by me! In the realm of public advocacy, arguments and persuasion can look, feel, and sound quite different. Public advocates deliver strong and impassioned arguments by undermining counter arguments. By winning the debate! They do so by choice and with knowledge about the various perspectives and pieces of evidence that may potentially undermine their case. That's right. We have to be honest, an admit weak(er) parts of our own research and argumentation. When putting forth arguments in academic or public settings, the most convincing advocates do not simply put forward solutions without first comprehending the informed debates in which these solutions are situated. Rather, successful advocates draw from a deep well of knowledge when carefully selecting the evidence and rhetorical appeals that will make their case about how to address the profound social problems they put before their audiences. They indeed try to "win" the argument by making it strong, and by not resorting to tricks like ad hominem attack or "straw man" arguments. This assignment challenges you to become that strong advocate, one who delivers convincing solutions as offered by credible players. You cannot, in all likelihood, be this advocate at the beginning of the project. You will need to spend even more time researching and evaluating sources; you will need to explore various arguments and perspectives as you write proposals and drafts despite having done some great work on the HCP. At some point, however, after deepening your knowledge and maybe even after writing a full draft or two, you will need to choose a position to advocate. Note that you cannot make one up. The position, answer, policy response you advocate must be real, sincere, and part of the existing discussion and literature. The written and visual elements (graphic) of the AP should work together but not like they do in a conventional presentation in which the visual elements simply restate what you are delivering orally. You can deliver lots of information and analysis with a couple of good visuals but need to remind us why they work and what they prove, argue or advance. 1112 10 Honda 3 14 5 TED TALK cal Channel 6 UC.TV THE CALIFORNIA REPORY KPE THE NYER Politic & MORE THE DAILY - NY TIMES WHY IS THIS HAPPENING? 2 " THE PIROGRESSIVE IN THESE TIMES MOTHER JONES 16 HUFF RO VOY 7 Start MAKING SENSE - J. W. 12 WALL ST JOURNALI PORTS10€ AUTERNET TO THE POINT-OLNEY SCHEER INTELLIGENCE BACKGROUND BRICA RISING up w/SONALI 89.9 90.7. THROUGHLINE DEMOCRACY NOW! ! FORBES 17 GUARDIAN UK MARKETPLACE KPFK FM - NPR NY TIMES LA TIMES 3 3 8 NATIONAL REVITA NEW REPUBLIC 13 CHRON OF HIGHER ED INSIDE HIGHER ED 18 ATLANTIS HAPPEU IM NY DEV OF BOOKS THE NATION 9 THIS AM LIFE REVEAL IPR BOOK FORUM NY TIMES BOOK REVIEW SAUBIN 19 THE DIG THE INTERCEPT KPFA - MITCH JESENICH -CS SONG ISASHA LILLY 1 A 4 IS OTM DEADLINE LA COUNTER SPIN RADIO 10 BETWEEN COVERS OC Weekly LA WEEKLY SF CHRONICHE OC REGISTER SAC BEE 5 BIB Bookwory POLITICS & PROVE LARS AP pitch Submit Assignment S Due No Due Date Points o Submitting a file upload File Types doc and docx Practice assembling a pitch (like an "elevator pitch") in which you complete all the tasks required of our AP. See pgs 244- 246 AGWR..Use Keith Danner's video as a model. Identify and define the problem. Show its significance through quantification and "size, scope, urgency." Quote an expert. Indicate when, why, how it began (recently!) and, yes, point to a failure. THEN offer your best position supporting a viable proposal. Consider causation, coverage, cost/benefit, feasibility and comparison to other proposals. Why is yours best? Who says? Will it offer an immediate, small, short- term solution OR is it a long-term, visionary proposal which might take years to adopt, pass, fund or implement? YOUR choice. But either way, you must frame the problem and consider in context. Feel free to share your DRAFT pitch here. But definitely bring it to class! S < Previous Next ons
Purchase answer to see full attachment