I am not a breakfast person. Sometimes I eat a bowl of cereal, but as of late, I spend so much of my time making sure my sons shower, eat, and get ready for the bus in the morning that by the time they leave, I often try to go back to sleep.
During the winter meeting of the DNC, however, I took time to eat breakfast frequently, often because breakfast provided an opportunity to schedule meetings with other activists, issue advocates, state party chairs and elected officials. Such was the case on a Wednesday morning at the Anthem restaurant inside the Washington DC Marriot Marquis.
The story — which I have not written for days because I had concerns about the direction it could go, instead has provided an opportunity to discuss the impact of class, privilege and education that occurs within many communities all over the United States.
What is privilege? What is the right way to set the standard for funding and participation in educational opportunities? Are some conversations off limits? Over the last few days, I’ve had a lot of time to think about these issues as our community has debated them.
Before we get started though, I want to say something up front: every day, many of us live within our own privilege, myself included, and it doesn’t mean that we are terrible people or that it undoes anything we have ever done in the past; it just offers us an opportunity to learn and grow when our own slip is showing. I have said, repeatedly, that I believe Dr. Sopcich to be a good person, and I am in no way advocating for anyone to use his comments to judge him, as an individual, who he is in his heart or what he believes. And, despite the thoughts of some at meetings, at no point, in any interview, comment, or tweet, did I accuse Dr. Sopcich of being a “bad person” or “uncaring” or anything else — I simply posted quotes that were said by Dr. Sopcich, as he puts it in a “spirited conversation” in a public area that had been renamed the Politico lounge that day, thanks to the DNC’s presence.
After a lot of thought, I’ve decided to write about how this has played out locally, and why I think this conversation is good for everyone.
Understanding privilege is difficult as often, it is our life experience as our own reference
Almost everyone has heard the phrase “Until you walk in my shoes”. It is a statement that our different experiences in our daily life influence us in ways that we are often immune to; it makes it harder for us to directly relate to situations of others. Not because we are bad people, not because we are uncaring, but because we just don’t know. I will never know the experience of many people, and the best I can do is try to relate. Because of this, when we go through the making of policy in our local communities, our state and federal government, we have to continue to work on having more diverse viewpoints so that we can build solutions based on everyone having some involvement in the solution.
To that end, I’m actually going to begin this by saying that I would praise Dr. Sopcich for being open about the fact that my quotes as provided on Twitter were accurate, but represented him using hyperbole to make a point, and that, as he said, it was an ‘excited conversation’. This is actually a good thing for our community and for the college, I believe, in that it shows we do have a leader who can acknowledge that things were said, hyperbole was used.
Where we go off track, however, is with the argument that because of past track records, we do not need to discuss these comments, the need to make them, even in hyperbole, or how we can use this moment to help do what the college is built for: to educate the community as a whole about how we can grow to understand each other.
The conversation.
Frankly, several days, nearly a week went by from the time I had posted a few tweets to it suddenly being a part of the nightly news and the front page of the Kansas City Star. Today, it became an editorial for the Star, and last night, in a board meeting, the fact the comments were tweeted was highlighted as akin to “using a peeping hole to look in a women’s changing room”. Before we get to the conversation, I want to reiterate my general viewpoint on public and private commentary by public officials.
I and others frequently meet with, and discuss, issues with elected officials that are private and will never be used in anything I write, post or tweet. I believe that individuals have a right to their private thoughts, meeting spaces, and even to make arguments I wildly disagree with to me that will not be published.
While the comparison to a changing room is interesting, this simply doesn’t meet that criterion. An elected official and a public-paid official meet in a restaurant with activists all over the building and at a certain point argue. If the argument was: “your breath stinks” it is not news, and is not relevant to the community as a whole. To be clear, I never heard either party say that. However, if the conversation is held in a way in which an issue that is a matter of public policy debate is being discussed between officials loudly, then the general advice is: go somewhere private or don’t have the conversation. That’s it.
When you are a highly paid public employee, you represent the college anywhere you go — and we have tons of cases around the country where that debate has roared up and been answered, repeatedly, year after year in case after case.
The raising of the rates.
Of course, much of the discussion surrounding this is about the raising of rates. That Johnson County Community College is going to raise rates $1 per credit hour. That seems small, right? What has created controversy, however, is that in the prior year, Johnson County Community College expressed that they had the problem most schools wish they had: too much money. As a result of increasing property values within the Johnson County market, the mill levy which helps provide for the school was set to bring in more than the school effectively needed, argued several trustees, and in the end, a .5 mil reduction was decided on to help property owners.
This is not a wrong decision; colleges have to be respectful of the homeowners that help support a college through the property tax paid. They also have to be mindful of the impact of property valuation. While those two items are true, a large slice of property tax paid in to the county comes through corporate property taxes. These entities, businesses, property management companies, leasing agencies, and others pay in property tax in part because the services a county and community provides directly benefit their bottom line. A more educated community means a community that can attract better jobs, which means higher pay, which means people have more money to spend. While Republicans dwell on trickle-down economics, the truth is buy-in economics and companies who buy in to financially supporting the community to make it one more prosperous tend to have large impacts.
As a result, many of us were concerned about the increase of any amount on tuition at the same time the college is currently contemplating another reduction in the mil.
This policy of reducing rates, which will significantly benefit those who are in property focused industries, own a lot of commercial land, are buying and selling homes, or have a large amount of their finances in taxable property — but it will in effect penalize those who are renters or have lower income. In prior meetings, trustees have noted “someone pays property tax on those rental units”, well, yes, yes they do. However, the renter themselves will not see anything in the means of a rent reduction thanks to property tax relief. A hot housing market lifts rental rates — the price is what the market can support, period, and property management companies who may realize the benefit are not in the business of reducing rental rates.
At the same time that this is true, supporters of the policy note that Johnson County Community College maintains a low rate in comparison to other Kansas community colleges, and many of them offer fewer services. This comparison, though, lacks all context and it highlights a problem with the way we think about educational opportunities.
Other colleges in Kansas are in areas with far fewer resident, less valuation in property, and fewer businesses to contribute. While Johnson County has hundreds of thousands of residents and businesses, those who support, say, Finney County has a fraction of the population, far lower property values. Still, the college has to make sure that their programs are viable to be accredited, and that means everyone has to put in far more in order to have a viable program. As a result, the comparison is a bit like saying: "We collect too much on a Sherrif's department when a county 1/8th collects far less on theirs".
We are at a point in time where students need a path to success. Whether you are an older student, a younger student, or a high school student looking to get a start in a community college, the ease of going to it should not be impeded. This is why I have been in favor of a path to free college; to provide the workforce we will need in the future without incredible debt. It is why I do believe that when the opportunity is available, you work to build that workforce. You reward the parents who live in a community and have children. Whereas, a tax relief program that impacts some - while you claw back even a fraction without a cause on the group that simply has children, strikes me as a morally questionable proposal.
America needs a sale on tuition.
While we may be a ways from free college, Americans desperately need a sale on tuition. Our minimum wage has not risen in a decade and is unlikely to with Trump in the White House. As part of the logic for raising the rate — an increase going to no specific expenditure — boards like JCCC call for an impending financial recession. While I, too, wonder about the erratic nature of Trump potentially resulting in significant negative economic impacts, the idea of raising rates to offset Trump seems to go against the conservative idea which has always been: cut costs, and more people will come.
I hear that message in the state house every time I attend — lower taxes, businesses will come. Lower fees, people will relocate.
But lower student fees? Why, that is a bridge too far.
Over the past decade, fewer students find a way to attend a degree earning program according to the US Department of Education. In response to this, private colleges have lowered tuition, and even some public universities — why? Because when things are seen as “getting cheaper” people think they are getting a better deal. When you go to the grocery store, how often do you look for things “on sale”? Pretty often. Even if two items are at the same price, if one is “on sale”, many individuals feel they might be getting a better deal.
There is a psychological impact of raising rates beyond one dollar or fifty cents or any amount. This is why you see new products offered at $3.99 instead of $4.00. Study after study has shown the human mind looks for ways to compare costs to what they know. A tuition bill that started about the cost of a monthly food bill now is pretty close to the same. Maybe you put it toward better food instead.
Many people don’t see these items that way. Sitting down to eat with friends in DC, it is not uncommon to spend $90 on a meal. But in the crash of 2008, there were moments where $90 in my pocket could be the difference between me making a credit card payment or having good food.
Dr. Sopcich’s comments were unfortunate. Very, in fact, unfortunate. They were an excited conversation where he, from my perspective, just got frustrated over the fact two votes on his board didn’t want to “go along”.
Since posting the comments, however, I have heard more vile accusations about the Trustee present, myself, and others which have nothing at all to do with the situation. At one point, I was asked whether or not President Sopcich was “setup”. Well, I may be many things, but I do not have powers to organize that chance meeting or the mind powers needed to force someone to say things. I just don’t.
But I also know that we have an opportunity here. To look at our board and realize that individuals like Dr. Sopcich — who has done a lot of good work for the college — are not bad people. They are good people who, thanks to sometimes under-appreciated privilege don’t get input they need to see things from a different perspective.
I have argued here and in community forums in other states that many of these institutions, like community colleges, school boards, and city councils suffer most because they lack a diverse opinion. I took some time, since the meeting of ACCT and the DNC occurred in the same building at the same time to talk to many trustees from other states and communities. Numerous were well connected, politically oriented figures who, well, aren’t exactly poor. Numerous attorneys and doctors. They had the resources to be appointed or to run an election.
But what wasn’t present that often were people who had been directly touched by poverty; individuals who served on boards and yet, worked every day to make their own ends meet. I did meet one trustee, from another state, who talked about the struggle of their own struggles, as well as Trustees of color who talked about the poor attitudes of potential donors to their colleges and the issues they faced as a youth.
We are at a point where we need to step back and think about what we say when we are in public loudly. I have been asked repeatedly if I believe that Dr. Sopcich should resign. My answer is easy: no. Dr. Sopcich has advocated positions I agree with far more than not. The question more people should ask is — when the job is education, shouldn’t we all be open and admit that we can learn every single day and that we can be wrong, do the wrong thing, and still fix things? Can we improve our institutions by inviting more people in?
At next week’s Kansas Democratic Party state committee meeting, I will be calling for the creation of a Poverty Council — one that mirrors an effort highlighted by Susie Shannon at the Democratic National Party. We don’t often understand the struggles of poverty because we do not allow ourselves to think about it, to deal with it, to recognize it. Even as someone who grew up in some poverty, but later found a good, middle class life as a kid and do fairly well now in my life, I cannot forget the struggle I had; but even I struggle at times to make sure I think about how things are for others around me.
I would encourage colleges like JCCC to think about that too. I hope that an apology is possible for Trustee Lawson, who’s only misfortunate was thinking she could eat breakfast on her own and read a copy of “For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Politics” or whatever the book was she had with her. I hope that the students know that past actions can show who we truly are as people, but utterances provide us an acknowledgment that even good people can make mistakes, and saying “I’m sorry” should not be so hard, nor do the words define or harm us — instead, they welcome a conversation.
And the time for that conversation is now.