I hold a soft grudge against Ivy-League graduates; maybe not
so much a grudge, but more of an incredibly high expectation. One of my good
high school friends had the opportunity to attend a school at the level of
above and beyond that many people so highly esteem. And, knowing how diligent
of a student he was, I think that my high standard for Ivy grads is somewhat suitable.
That being said, I find that some forms of higher education, me not to be
excluded, can involuntarily distance a college student from the “real world.”
Somehow, in my instance, my food just happens to be magically paid for when in
fact there are quite a few sacrifices being made. My parent’s financial and
moral support, the kitchen staff that seemingly lives in the back of the
cafeteria, the university for overseeing that our tuition goes to the right
places so we can we eat better. I say all of this because I, as a university
student, like to immerse myself in what the “real world” dubs as the real world. What I mean by that is
attending something along the lines of a seminar on youth violence in
Philadelphia. I find that being informed on my surrounding community keeps me
in touch with reality, which includes my thankfulness for being able to attend
college. So to connect my points: acknowledging sacrifices, seeing the
opportunity to hear about the “real world” from the real world, I feel like it’s my role to hear what people have to
say. And then form my own opinion on it, of course.
Dr. Felton Earls sees himself as a witness. He says he wants to become an ally, a
potential partner with Philadelphia. His soft spoken demeanor suggested he retains
experience in his field; he has been to Tanzania. He possesses credible data from
his studies and has many awards tagged to his name. He has even created a new term called collective efficacy.
While in
Chicago, Dr. Earls measured the disorganization of 343 neighborhoods in the
city limits. Collective efficacy was a scale that he established that used a
universal rating system to determine how safe neighborhoods really were. His
discoveries from investigating neighborhood responses to illegal activity broke
social norms; Hispanic and middle class black neighborhoods apparently ranked
very high on his scale. He also drew an interesting, yet not incredibly
profound, correlation between death rates and low birth weight. I think it was unbelievable
that collective efficacy was such an efficient means to measure this statistic;
kudos to Dr. Earl. But I was at a loss when I started to think, “How could what
we would already have been inferred without
collective efficacy, now presented to us in data, be any more useful and
applicable to the unsolved issue?”
Between
1995 and 1999, Dr. Earls worked in Tanzania during a severe outbreak of
HIV/AIDS. While working among two and three thousand population pockets, Dr.
Earl found that 10-14 year old age groups worked the most effectively in
conveying how to prevent the spread of HIV, educate the community on the
biology of the disease, as well as become what he keyed “active citizens.” (Here’s
where I got somewhat hung up on his titles and awards.) In essence, yes, as the
opening speaker at this seminar, his story gave evidence to what the audience,
panel, and community wanted to hear: children are capable of being more than
violent, uneducated beings.
But what I personally found
misleading was the veiled hope that a biased data collection from a rare pocket
of two to three thousand population groups in Tanzania (of all places) was
somehow grounds to promote the idea that collective efficacy was to be applied
to American cities. Still, I did not see the connection between the data
collected in Chicago or Tanzania to the positive results that Dr. Earl
sheepishly denied had any relationship to his “work.” In the instance of
Chicago, shortly after the data from his collective efficacy came in, the
homicide rate dropped. I do not know if I did not catch the relationship
between the data and the aftereffects, but I personally do not recall in his
retelling how the raw data brought about change. Similarly in the Tanzania
example, even when he explained that he was educating the masses, I could not
figure out how whatever data he drew from the limited population groups linked
to his effectively educating teenagers. I think that the data enabled for him
to see where more education on diseases was needed. Certainly. But could he
have not looked at the HIV/AIDS count and have said the same thing?
I thought the panel to follow his
opening remarks would fill the missing link between the raw data and the
resulting application of that knowledge. What I listened to instead was the
hardships reality imposes on theoretical concepts. The panel included many
prominent figures, much to my Virginian-boy surprise. It was the first time I
had ever been to a seminar where the Deputy Philadelphia Police Commissioner, Acting
Superintendent of the School District of Philadelphia, Deputy Mayor of
Philadelphia-and others-sat together and spoke plainly and pragmatically about
the issue at hand.
What followed inevitably cut and
dried the lofty concept of collective efficacy. While each member of the panel
agreed with the idea of collecting data, it seemed pointless to use time and
resources to establish what they had already known. Youths are in danger.
Youths are the future. Youths need to be protected in order to secure a better
future. Data was not needed in order to convince any member on the panel to act
now. They already were. And in the instance of the Police Department of
Philadelphia where community policing has begun, collective efficacy was too late,
or rather, it was already applied.
I spoke with a woman I work under
that also attended the seminar the next day. When Ms. Jill asked what my impression
was, I said it was coordinated and informative. Especially since my hometown
experiences violence on a much smaller scale, the seminar brought me up to
speed on Philadelphia’s current events and issues. Nevertheless, I told my
employer that at the end of the session, something did not sit right inside me.
While there was a positive flow of energy, there were no calls to action or any
commitment or proposal put forward to initiate action against youth violence. Ms.
Jill informed me that while we were in the lecture, four kids were shot and two
later died from their wounds.
At that point, my optimistic
sentiment took a turn for the worse. I feel like my cynical point of view
expressed in this review of the seminar was created as a result of that
startling reality. While it was important to acknowledge accomplishments and
hear new ideas, the luxury of stopping to study and analyze is just too slow
and impractical in this instance.
