The Kenneth L. Karst Racial Equity Foundation

 

As you can see by the logo, Leslie and I have now created a foundation for racial equity to honor and extend Ken Karst's legacy.  The website is here. The type of projects we plan on supporting will be good for the climate, bring people of all races together, and serve a broad need in poor areas. For instance (pre-foundation), we gave to the project Keep Growing Detroit which helps to address the problem of the food desert that is urban Detroit (though, because of projects like this, that city is moving quickly towards a much better food future.) They are not only farming and raising healthy local food, but they are teaching others to farm or garden and giving them the means to do it. 

What Ken focused on academically was how to ensure opportunity and full citizenship for all, given our country's failure to do so for most of the United States history. This failure left many people behind, and it is those communities who will be the focus of the Foundation. And our vision of racial equity absolutely does include all who were left behind. Many whites have also been the victim of our tax and other economic policies that have hurt all poor people, while giving billions to a small segment of society. The Foundation will support causes that help everyone who has been the victim of these policies, and we are working with other like-minded groups towards broad-base community solutions.

The first initiative of the Foundation has been to endow a scholarship in Ken’s name at the UCLA School of Law, which will exist in perpetuity.  It is important both to us and to the law school that the students selected to receive this scholarship (who must be in need of financial aid) demonstrate those traits possessed by Ken—not only academic excellence and a commitment to racial equity, but also a belief in community, tolerance, civility, openness, listening, generosity, and kindness. As UCLA law professor Adam Winkler said of Ken at his memorial, Ken’s intent as a teacher “was not to mold people to his view, but to open them up to the views of others.”

Good thinkers and writers do matter, particularly if they have the characteristics that Ken possessed. And while I have no expectations that anyone will do so, feel free to contribute to the fund here: Kenneth L. Karst Endowed Scholarship in Law

Coda:

So, that's what I've been doing. I have to admit that it does have a shaggy dog story element. Basically, people often ask what's going on with me. Since the beginning of this decision to make the foundation, I have been very busy working on it, as well as many other already existing pursuits. But a starting a foundation is not something one can casually drop into a conversation. On the other hand, it's hard to tell the backdrop without, perhaps, going on a bit long.  Which is to say, I haven't figured out my elevator pitch.

When I had a car accident in high school, I made copies of the story of why my face was messed up to pass out so I didn't have to recount it over and over again. I have used that as a template from then on. So, for instance, when I got the throat cancer, I told people to just read the blog I'd written about the experience.

So, basically my motivation for this particular blog series was to be able to have this conversation:

“What's going on with you, Robin?”

“I'm very busy.”

And if they pursue the conversation, then I can just send them a link to my blog! Voilà!

And for those who actually read the whole thing, thank you!! Any questions?

Kenneth L. Karst (and how he relates to what is going on with me)

Kenneth L. Karst was my father-in-law and, much more to the point, a legendary UCLA law professor. If you watched the RBG video about Ken, you know he was considered to be quite special in the legal community. To quote UCLA Dean Jennifer Moonkin about his work: “Ken was deeply dedicated to addressing systemic inequities and pursuing societal change through his exceptional body of legal scholarship focused on First, Fifth, and Fourteenth amendments; women's rights; affirmative action; civil rights and discrimination; gay and lesbian rights; lawyers and social change; and land-use reform in Latin America.” Not only that, but Ken's scholarship was both totally readable (unlike many a law review article), and also full of compassion, humor and humility. He was not merely right; he was also passionate, articulate and persuasive.

My wife Leslie and I feel particularly impacted by his ground-breaking work on gay rights. In the 1980 Yale Law Review article,  The Freedom of Intimate Association, Ken first articulated the ideas and arguments that ultimately were restated in Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges (the 2015 gay marriage decision).  (The PDF takes a while to load, but if you want to take the time, it's a great read!) Kennedy's majority opinion fully embraced the logic and compassion articulated by Ken 35 years earlier. We believe that, but for that article, gay marriage acceptance itself would have been pushed some years into the future. Through convincing Kennedy, we won–much faster than anyone (including Ken!) would ever have guessed. The ruling, by the way, was very appropriately handed down on Ken’s birthday, to his great joy in the twilight of his career.

Check out this short clip which opens the 1993 movie The Pelican Brief, with both Julia Roberts and Cynthia Nixon arguing Ken's positions re sodomy laws. When the Cynthia Nixon character says the word “intimate”–bingo–that came directly from Ken. He created the constitutional concept that Justice Brennan lifted and used four years later in the Supreme Court opinion Roberts vs. U.S. Jaycees, thus becoming part of Supreme Court doctrine.   And yes, the Julia Roberts line at the end of the clip is correct: The Supreme Court was wrong in Bowers v Hardwick, and they later overturned all sodomy laws in 2003, which was certainly the most important precondition to gay marriage becoming law in 2015.

I could go on and on about Ken's great work, but how does it relate to what the hell is going on with me? 

When he got this appointment at UCLA, Ken and his wife Smiley, naturally, looked for a nice neighborhood near the university with good schools for their four children. They paid $69,000 in 1965, which was a stretch for their budget but, given his tenured position, they figured they would be ok. This was the sort of neighborhood that was segregated by design, as I discussed in my last blog post. There were no blacks in the neighborhood; they had long since been pushed into the ghettos of LA and would not have been accepted in that community at that time even if some had had the resources to buy there.

Ken and Smiley both passed away in the last few years, and the house sold for a bundle, of which Leslie and I received a quarter in an inheritance. It's not at all fair, as I wrote about earlier in this series. I already expressed that I want to consume less due to climate change in the future. I already addressed  that these housing price excesses exist mainly due to the forced segregation of the 20th century, and the zoning laws that came with the white enclaves.   Leslie (and I) already received financial and other sorts of other help from Ken and Smiley before their deaths. 

This is what is meant by accumulated white privilege. Therefore, we believe it's not really legitimately ours, and that we need to do something toward racial equity with this money. 

What exactly we are doing is coming in the next blog! 

My Moral Awakening

 I believe it might be the insane level of housing wealth that mostly-white people hold in America which finally woke me up to the issues of structural racism that is embedded so deeply in our country.

This post is going to focus on Black history and its consequences. Obviously, other people of color, particularly indigenous communities (and some white folks, too), have been totally screwed-over as well.  There's caste and class and race, and it is a complicated story. Can't write about it all! I will just show you this partial chart for a snapshot of the problem in terms of wealth. 

The wealth gap is continually growing larger–it's doubled since 1989.

But first, confession time–my moral reawakening and, even, reckoning. As a girl and young women, I worked actively on issues of racial equity in the left-wing movement of the '60s and '70s. But then, as the New Left fell apart, I turned my attention to my job and working towards my retirement. And, damn, I just didn't do a thing anymore related to what a shit-show existed for people of color in urban ghettos and in rural areas of poverty, as I had when I was younger. I am sorry I disappeared as an ally; I am ashamed. I am not going to disappear again.

The film that really set me down the path of re-engaging my younger activist self was Bob Herbert's film about the making of the Black middle class, Chasing the Dream. I know I posted it several years ago at the time it came out. I was struck at the time–and remain struck–by how heroic every single Black person who clawed their way into the middle class in the mid-20th century was, given the so-called racial discrimination of the time. 

I say “so-called” because that is just too weak a term. It was very close to South African apartheid or the Nazi Nuremberg laws against the Jews. I am not just talking about the beyond-horrific Jim Crow South. I mean the nation-wide federal, state and local governments' efforts–and success–to maintain the Black population as a lower caste, trapped within urban ghettos or in poor rural areas with extremely poor schools, with virtually no access to credit, no access to mortgages, little access to higher education or well-paying jobs. The suburbs, or "exclusive parts" of cities were planned and executed to be white, with well-funded schools, parks, trees, etc.–with plenty of access to credit and mortgages and good jobs. The plan was–and succeeded in being–to keep whites as the dominant caste. 

If you don't know the history how forced segregation happened, I strongly urge you watch the 17 minute film I posted yesterday on Facebook, or watch it here: Segregated by Design 

The ending of these laws and practices happened gradually as the civil rights movement grew in the mid-20th century. The tide started to slowly turn with Supreme Court cases in the late '40s and '50s and  through the Civil Rights legislation in the mid to late '60s. But the damage had been done already, via slavery followed by the caste-based apartheid. And there was little help at all after the recognition of our grievous transgressions (except for a brief period of time during which there was “affirmative action”). There were no reparations for slavery (or even an apology!). No promised 40 acres and a mule. No remedies for the unconstitutional and unconscionable government policies that ensured and enshrined urban ghettos in the first half of the 20th century. Given the scope of the wealth stolen from Black people, this is an outrage.

White people have much more wealth than they should because of this history. It's called historically accumulated white privilege–and I have it for sure. Currently 86% of the household wealth is held in white families, who make up 60% of the population. To dismantle it, we need to start with big tax initiatives such as ending the stepped-up basis for assets at death, reinstating estate taxes at lower levels, eliminating the social security cap, increasing the tax on capital gains, and other such policies that currently keep the rich richer. This will help all poor people, regardless of color.

That said, we seem a long way from fixing it through our government. But I can, at least, do my part and encourage others to do theirs. We are in the process of the “great wealth transfer” as baby boomers offload their money to their heirs. I believe we need to rethink inheritance, which by law and custom is designed to keep the “haves” with a disproportionate share of wealth. I already blogged about that here.

Next post: what Leslie and I are going to do with our money.

 

Moral Change Number One

As I said in my facebook posts, I have had a change in my focus in life for personal moral reasons. For most of my time with Leslie, my focus was to invest our money so we could have a comfortable retirement. I have never been a fan of capitalism, but my desire for early retirement led me to use the tax laws and investment opportunities that existed for wealth acquisition. (I feel compelled to point out that those laws and opportunities are available only for those in a position to take advantage of them, which many are not). And,  of course, it is the only game in town. Without investments, there is no way we would be retired today.  And I do like being retired very, very much.

So, what has changed?

Climate change is one of the two big drivers of my change of heart about what I should be doing with my life and money. Even though I have certainly been aware of the science, and the dire situation we are in, for decades, I really didn't change anything in my behavior to reflect that. A lot of it is my deep pessimism about people–that most would not do the right thing, so why should I sacrifice myself when I was already better in carbon-using behaviors than many–maybe even most–equally well-off folks? And what would denying myself possibly do in any case, given that it would be like a drop of water in an ocean? And of course, I know that change primarily has to come from governments and corporations.

Leslie and I have never been big consumers–some of that is just in our nature, but a lot of that was related to our desire to retire early, which we accomplished. But, my decisions were never driven with climate change as a key factor.

Then I read–upon (my brother-in-law) Doug Peterson's suggestion–The Story of More by Hope Jahren.

Basically, she just made me wake up to the fact that it is the morally responsible thing to do to use less, fly less, drive less, eat less “bad” food like meat that has a big carbon footprint, and so forth. I have no illusion that individual action is the key to solving climate change. What can I say? I just now feel compelled to consume less for moral reasons.

The big reason I came to this moral underpinning is the innocent victims of our capitalism run amuck–the world's poor–who did absolutely nothing to create the problem, but whose lives are now greatly affected due to the effects of climate change–be it ocean level rise, increased flooding or increased heat and droughts. Real people have suffered greatly while I had just floated through life in a world of plenty. And, clearly, it's going to get much worse for them. I will, it's true, continue to float.

Let me say, I am not trying to be holier than thou. Leslie might disagreed as I have done some arm-twisting with her, but she is my partner in life. We had to come to an understanding. That said, this is a personal thing, and I get totally why other people (including Leslie, to some degree) say “fuck it.”

And it doesn't mean that I will become a hermit and give away all my worldly possessions. I am just a selfish Westerner like most of the rest of us. It's ok to think I am a hypocrite! I think I am. That said we are doing less. Less meat. Less gasoline. Less flying. In other words, I do sacrifice things that I did not used to. It is now a conscious factor on my mind in a way it did not used to be.

The thing that I feel most bad about, but am keeping it as it is, is having a second home where flight is necessary. I was–I said to Leslie–willing to sacrifice having a second home here in Hilo to align my morality with my actions. I was hoping, I am afraid to admit, that she wouldn't call my bluff as I love Hilo so much. (And she did not.) Now, I would leave Santa Cruz and just live in Hilo, but I know Leslie would never do that. So, for now, I will fly twice a year–and try to keep any other flying down to once every, say, five years.

So, obviously, if I travel less, and consume less–I will need less money, right?

I realize all posts need at least one picture.  So, here is the used Prius we bought from our friend Julie when she left the island.  Less gas!

The other big driver of my life change next time...