Fill worksheet

152 Chapter 7

artists1 activists, community organizers, day care parents, board members, and others who use the YWCA facilities, participate in its activities, and enrich its lively culture.

Women in the Y'vVCA community have absorbed more than their fair share of the stresses and strains produced by the collision of hypercapital- ism and neoliberalism They are "those hardest hit by privatization of services in which they were previously employed, those who are in the front line of negotiating for welfare services, and those who voluntarily give their unpaid labor for the collective good" (Ledwith 2001, 172). Because of this position and their experiences with the extractive and exploitative faces of 11; women in the YWCA community were able to develop incredibly insightful analyses of the relationship among technol- ogy, politics, and poverty in the United States.

The research we did together did not simply gather local knowledge. The experiences of women in the YWCA community, many of whom work, play, and live within a tightly circumscribed five-mile radius of the build- ing, nevertheless Jllustrate how the local is enmeshed in transnational processes, and vice versa. As my collaborators pointed out to me, poor and working-class women across the globe serve as the canaries in the coal mine of the information sodety, ·test subjects for social control in an era of government devolution and neoliberalism. They also provide much of the unpaid and underpaid labor-in the service industry, as caregivers, as data processors-on which the megalith of the information economy rests. The experiences of a small group of women struggling to meet their basic needs in a small city in the American Northeast can tell us a lot about the broader relationship between technology and social justice.

Cognitive justice in the information age demands that multiple knowl- edges be recognized as arising from specific social locations and be inte- grated into decision making. \'\lhat is needed for better, more just decision making about technology, as Visvanathan argues, is a parliament of knowl- edges. This parliament will not build itself. Building open and inclusive political institutions is ow· job, all of us. What is needed for high-tech equity is not better public understanding of science and technology or a transfer of technology and knowledge from the haves to the have-nots. Women in the YWCA community understand the impacts of science and technology on their lives perfectly well. What is needed for high-tech equity is an agenda for understanding and transforming tbe real world of information technology that we all share.

Conclusion: A High-Tech Equity Agenda

The information age behaves less like Noah's flood, washing away the evils of industrial capitalism and leaving behind a playing field that is dean, smooth1 and level1 and more Hke Hurricane Katrina. Katrina revealed, with great violence and human suffering, the desperate inequali- ties that underlie American society, inequalities sedimented over decades through bad policy, human indifference, and oppressive institutions. That the blinders of the privileged were only temporarl.ly torn away during the Gulf Coast catastrophe should remind us that the work of social justice must be conscious, daily, personal and collective work. It is ongoing, ter- rifying, glorious, immense. It takes dear vision. We know the flood is coming. We know the levees might break. The rising tide of the informa- tion economy does not lift all boats: it sinks some, destroys others, and drmvns the boatless.

In September 2009, President Barack H. Obama came to Troy to deliver a speech about retooling the American economy for the high-tech future by nurturing innovation, supporting basic research, and increasing college attendance, especially in institutions like Hudson Valley Community College, where he spoke. Acknowledging that regions like upstate New York 11 have been dealing with what amounts to a pem1anent recession for years" (Obama 2009, 2), he laid out a strategy to foster new jobs, new businesses, and new industry. In the speech, he reaffirmed his administra- tion's commitment to investing $100 billion in high-tech dassrooms, health information technology, and sustainahle energy. He laid out plans for an A1nerican Graduation Initiative1 which would increase Pell Grants and tax credits for education, reform the student loan system, create a GI bill of rights, and strengthen community colleges. He promised to bolster entrepreneurship by increasing broadband capability across the nation, keeping the Internet open and free, and investing in basic research in the private and public sectors.

'i I

',1!i, i '! i1 ';'j ':.!!'!

154 Conclusion

I am deeply sympathetic to many of his goals. But, with the exception of a brief comment that true economic recovery must include 11 sustained

growth and widely shared prosperity," President Obama's energizing talk said very little about struggles for justice in the information age. Though public policy during the last three presidencies offered a variety of different

solutions to high-tech inequity, each administration insisted that the problem was the same: poor and working-class people lack access to high- tech products

1 education, and jobs. This assumption is incorrect, and leads

to misguided analysis, policy, and activism. A just information age is not beyond our reach. But we must seek inno-

vation and equity, economic growth and economic justice. Much of the

current high-tech equity policy and scholarship dismisses the resources of poor and working people, either mourning them as inevitable victims of progress or seeking to retool them to "fit" into the new economy. Neither

approach could have unleashed the powerful analysis or considerable resources of women in the YWCA community. Neither will result in an information economy that respects and protects human rights, lessens

inequality 1 and invigorates democratic governance. We must create alterna-

tives. Popular technology can be one resource for defining a high-tech equity agenda that minimizes risks 1 more fairly shares rewards, and ignites

the passion and energy of all people in robust democratic processes. Our existing models of technology education and policymaking sepa-

rate technology from its context and discount the importance of human

experience 1

agency, and decision making. Existing models of technology training, primarily vocational, render structural forces invisible and con-

strain our thinking about the future. Vocational training can be important and useful, but it simply cannot produce the kind of critical consciousness we all need in order to imagine alternatives to the status quo. Popular

technology examines science and technology as deeply embedded in our everyday lives, imbricated in systems of power and privilege and responsive to human values and efforts. Popular technology offers all of us the tools

and opportunity to become more critical in how we think about the rela-

tionship among technology, society, politics, and inequality. While it is difficult to programmatize popular technology, as the central

goal is to be responsive to specific struggles in their social context, it is possible to suggest ways of evaluating technology projects in terms of their ability to foster critical technological citizenship. There are some basic

questions you can ask about your next technological project, action, program, or policy to align it with the goals of creating a technology "for the people, by the people." I hope the handout in box 8.1 will help you

evaluate your own undertakings.

T Conclusion 155

Box 8.1

Is It Popular Technology? Popular technology reminds us that technology is not a destiny but a site of struggle. Inspired by the tenets of popular education, the approach is grounded in the belief that people closest to problems have the best information about them and are the most invested in developing smart solutions. Popular tech- nology sees all people as experts in their own experience of IT and the high- tech economy, and liberates their knowledge, analysis, and activity to create a more just and sustainable technological present for everyone.

Does your technological project, action, program, or policy:

Resist Oppression?

Exploitation Does your undertaking acknowledge and resist the transfer of the benefits of the labor of oppressed groups to other social groups? Marginalization Does your undertaking include the experiences, efforts, and input of people who are excluded from full participation in social life? Powerlessness Does your undertaking explicitly aim to expand the authority and status of oppressed and marginalized groups politically, culturally, eco-

nomically, and socially? Cultural imperialism Does your undertaking resist the impulse to universalize the culture, values, and experiences of one social group as normal, natural,

and correct? Violence Does your undertaking actively discourage violence as a systemic

social practice, whether it is physical, structural or economic?

Draw on Difference as a Resource?

Cognitively Does your undertaking begin from the assumption that people closest to problems know the most about them? Does it include explicit structures and procedures for drawing on a variety of different perspectives,

from different social locations? Culturally Does your project recognize that the collective experiences, beliefs, and values of different groups of people are immensely valuable in analyzing social issues, making good decisions, and building strong organizations? Are you building structures in your project to get beyond "diversity" to learning

and acting for equity and justice for all people? Institutionally Is your organization explicitly committed to protecting human rights and fighting for sexual, racial, gender, and class equity? Do you have explicit goals, policies, and accountability mechanisms in place for ensuring

diversity in your project, organization, or institution?

Engage in Participatory Decision Making?

In agenda setting Who identified the issue that the project is taking on? Might there be ways to broaden the agenda-to establish how collaborators understand and define the issues that most affect their lives?

I'

"'

156

Box 8.1

(continued)

Conclusion

In design Does your project see design as a dynamic process of defining terms and clarifying principles, as well as setting plans for concrete action? Does it

acknowledge, and have processes for dealing with, the conflicting goals and

values that the design process inevitably uncovers? In implementation The impact of your project will largely be determined by those who implement it. Have you included them as full partners in all stages

of the process? Is there a place for their input to feed back into an iterative

design process? In evaluation Action that is not followed by reflection is only half done. Unfortunately, evaluation is often slighted when funding, time, or energy runs out. Do you have an evaluation plan? Have you left enough time, energy,

and space to do vigorous evaluation at the end of each stage of your program?

Perhaps the most important lesson I learned from popular technology is that we must judge the success and efficacy of our participatory projects by their ability to foster growth, in ourselves and in others who work alongside us

1 rather than their achievement of narrowly defined deliver-

ables. Programs and projects that start from a participatory standpoint often take unexpected turns1 so flexibility and responsiveness are key, as is an ability to take a broad and critical view of ones own process. One of the most surprising outcomes of my work with WYMSM, for example, was how quickly our agenda broadened to encompass justice issues outside the narrow confines of what I originally saw as technological. By broadening our focus beyond developing technological artifacts and skills and under- standing technology and the information economy in the context of participants' everyday lives, WYMSM opened a way to think more broadly about what social justice means in the information age.

When I asked women in the YWCA community what advice they would give the mayor of Troy about building a more just Tech Valley, their answers were not what policymakers might expect. Zianaveva Raitano advised the mayor to seek better information about what was actually happening, saying, "Tech Valley is supposed to be the next big thing, so the press should be reporting regularly on what's actually going on: hiring rates and unemployment ratesJl1 Women in the YWCA com- munity critiqued then governor George Patak.i's "genius plan" to bring high tech upstate, arguing that it was driving up rents and driving out working families. They explained that displacement1 impoverishment/

r

Conclusion 157

unemployment, and environmental destruction are not worth a handful of high-tech jobs benefiting highly educated people. Cuemi Gibson's response was typical:

Virginia: If you had the ear of the mayor of Troy, what advice would you give him

for developing a socially just Tech Valley? Cuemi: Put plants on the bus line! Provide education and training; provide fair employment. Affirmative action! Have some Black supervisors, female supervisors.

Work with an open-door policy. Be fair in what hours people work. Have a day care

center. Try to have stress-free environment. Provide employee assistance, like rehab and counseling for long-term employees. [Z]ero tolerance for racism and sexism.

[F]air employment. I'd like a fair pay rate. Not a minimum wage, a living wage.

Hearing women in the YWCA community's answers, I would try and refocus. "OK, 11 I'd say, 11 so de.finitely more buses, less racism, fairer employ- ment. But what about technology and high-tech development specifically?" And they'd answer, repeating themselves, looking at me as if I had lost my mind, "More buses. Less racism. Fairer employment." Technology is about people's whole lives; it is the house we all live in. It is deeply enmeshed in politics, economics, citizenship, and day-to-day survival. Women in the YWCA community saw technology as so deeply woven into existing struc- tures, systems, and institutions that it could not possibly be extricated from other agendas for social justice and reform. They refused to see IT as sepa- rate from its context. They lived in the real world of information technol- ogy every day, and their advice grew out of their specific, concrete knowledge and needs. In their spirit, I offer the following agenda for creat-

ing equity in the information age.

A High-Tech Equity Agenda

1. Protect Workers in the Lower Tier of the High-Tech Economy The decline in the manufacturing sector and increase in information and service sectors are not bad news because jobs in manufacturing are, in and of themselves, better jobs. The problem is that the rapidly decreasing manufacturing sector has traditionally offered unionized work, relatively stable employment, and a living wage. Work in the information econ- omy-in both the high-tech and the service sectors-tends to be less reli- able and lacks institutions for effectively bargaining on workers' behalf, especially unions. Union members in the United States make 30 percent more than their non-union counterparts and have greater access to health care benefits, short-term disability coverage, and life insurance Gobs with Justice 2009). The current economic crisis makes it all too obvious that

'I\'

i!

158 Conclusion

many workers have lost their power to bargain for fair wages, workplace safety, robust pensions, and job security.

Though consumer service, caretaking1 and other bottom-tier jobs in the information economy have often been characterized as difficult to union- ize, amazing campaigns by and on behalf of these workers have arisen in recent years. For example, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is the largest and fastest-growing union in North America, boasting more than two million members who provide for America's health care1 public services 1 and property services needs. SEIU is also the countrts most diverse union: 56 percent of SEIU members are women, 40 percent are people of color, and SEIU represents more immigrant workers than any other union in the United States (SEIU 2009).

Domestic workers have been organizing for their rights in increasing numbers in the past decade, as well. Exempt from most labor protections, hidden away in private homes, and often facing language or immigration barriers, domestic workers are both absolutely central to the information economy and extremely vulnerable to workplace abuse and mistreatment. Domestic workers are explicitly excluded from the National Labor Relations Act and thus are unable to form labor unions. Nevertheless, Domestic Workers United, formed in 2000, has organized hundreds of Caribbean,

Latina, African, and African American nannies, housekeepers, and elder- care workers in New York. DWU provides a stellar example of workers

organizing to protect their rights and assert their dignity, undertaking research in their communities, fighting for justice for exploited workers, and exerting political power. Their proposed domestic worker's bill of

rights seeks to provide basic workplace protections that domestic workers currently lack: overtime pay, days off, advance notice of termination, sever- ance pay, cost of living increases, health care, paid sick days and vacations

(DWU 2009).

2. Take High-Tech Industries off Welfare

Billions of dollars of federal, state, and local money are spent yearly to attract high-tech industry to struggling areas like the Capital Region. But it is unclear what impact these subsidies have on companies' decisions to relocate, and there is even less evidence that these subsidies have a net positive effect on local and regional economies. In the Capital Region, for example, more than $10.5 billion in public and private money has been

promised since 2000 to subsidize a few key high-tech players, including IBM, General Electric, and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD). Much of this money has been allocated for developing or supporting research insti-

Conclusion 159

tutes-Albany NanoTech and General Electric's Global Research, for exam-

ple-or for building or updating chip fabrication plants. New York State has offered AMD/GlobalFoundries a $1.2 billion package

of cash incentives and tax breaks to locate a new chip fabrication plant in Malta, New York. In addition, massive community and public investments in infrastructure have been provided to build Luther Forest Technology Park, where the $800 million plant will be located. After two years of intensive construction work, which will create 1,500 temporary jobs, this plant will employ just 1,400 people, at a taxpayer expense of $857,000 per job. It is quite clear that these massive subsidies are the only thing attract- ing AMD/GlobalFoundries to New York State. Most chip fabrication plants

are built in areas with weak environmental controls and worker protec- tions-one reason why Austin, Texas, was such an attractive option for high-tech manufacturing industries. New York State, with its traditionally

strong labor and environmental regulations, has had to fight hard and spend big to bring these industries to the region by promising mega- incentives, some of the largest public investments in private industry ever

recorded in New York. Many subsidies are justified in hopes that they will draw new businesses

to the area and create new jobs, as in the case of AMD. But most subsidies to high-tech in upstate New York go to General Electric, which is head- quartered in Schenectady, and IBM, which has operated in East Fishkill since 1962. Since 2000, $1.365 billion in public money has gone to keep

IBM at the East Fishkill site and to encourage the company to expand, for example, by creating a research and development center in Albany and a chip packaging plant near Utica. Since 2000, mega-incentive investments

in Tech Valley have netted the area 9,400 jobs, at a cost to taxpayers of roughly $135,000 per job. This does not include the $1.2 billion for AMD's promised 1,400 jobs; if we include the AMD subsidy, the cost per job for

2000-2010 would go up to $225,000. The incentives and tax breaks provided to the high-tech industry in

New York, averaging $1.4 billion a year since 2000, would more than pay

the state's contribution to public assistance and social services, including food stamps, cash assistance, child care subsidies, welfare-to-work program- ming, summer youth employment programs, and domestic violence pre- vention services. We need to do a true cost-benefit analysis of this regional development strategy. Ill-considered business subsidies create perverse incentives. High-tech research and development subsidies sometimes make sense, but before handing over billions in taxpayer money, we should ask a few basic questions: Can the company afford to pay for its own research,

160 Conclusion

development, and expansion? Has the company looked for sources of private funding before attempting to access taxpayer money? Does the price we pay per job make sense? What other benefits are these investments likely to bring to the area? What other burdens do these investments place on our communities?

3. Respect and Reward the Work of Care As Nancy Folbre eloquently argues, "the invisible hand of the free market depends upon an invisible heart of care" (2001: vii). The information economy drives increases in employment in the human and consumer services industries1 amplifies the vulnerability of many American families, and exposes us all to more of the shocks and strains of volatile continuity. Women have traditionally borne disproportionate responsibility for the invisible heart by performing family and community caretaking labor that is traditionally unpaid or underpaid.

As the welfare state is increasingly dismantled and weakened, the health of the free market system relies more and more on nonmarket caring labor performed by families and communities. As women 1s power grows, many are unwilling to accept the unfair bargain of shouldering a double workday. Those families that can afford to escape the increased burden of care do so by displacing these responsibilities down the global care chain, relying on the countrts most vulnerable people-women of color, immigrant women, and poor women-to pick up the slack.

In 1999, the United Nations Development Programme argued that a democratic response to the costs of unfairly sharing care requires a renego- tiation of individual rights and social obligations by striking a new balance between family, state and market to cover the costs and share the respon- sibilities of care (UNDP 1999). The UNDP suggests a number of ways we can begin to strike this new balance. We must begin by acknowledging that care is a human priority, though its outcomes are difficult to quantify and its impacts are difficult to capture. We must challenge gendered social norms that unfairly burden women, creating a culture of "universal caregiv- ers" (Folbre 2001) to share social reproduction labor more fairly. We must create incentives and rewards for care-both paid and unpaid-to increase its supply and quality, and remove the "care penalty" in current policy that impoverishes many women. We should increase the supply of state-sup- ported care, aggressively supporting successful programs like Head Start and building toward providing a national system of free or low-cost child care. We might also institute a parenting stipend or tax credits for care work to decrease the risk that people take when they choose to care for others.

Conclusion 161

Box 8.2 WYMSM Member Profile, Patty Marshall

"I used to be shy when I first came to the YWCA!"

Patty Marshall was born in Albany, raised in Rensselaer, and moved to the YWCA of Troy-Cohoes in August 2000. A small-statured, quiet white woman, Patty loved children deeply and worked for many years as a teacher's assistant in the YWCA's day-care program. She was very active in her church, Sand Lake Baptist, participating in weekly Bible study and vacation Bible school.

She became involved in WYMSM because she was interested in technology and community organizing. "WYMSM impacted people," she told me in a 2004 interview, "especially events like Pavilion. People really enjoyed that. I enjoyed it, too: getting out in the community, talking to different people. I liked doing that-getting to know what other people do, how they feel. I didn't really do that before WYMSM. I used to be shy when I first came to

the YWCA!" Because she was shy, people tended to underestimate Patty, but she was

always paying attention and storing information for later use. She was quick to remind you of a responsibility you had overlooked or a promise that you made and had not yet kept. She was very responsible and steady-she never missed a meeting. She also had a wicked, if quiet, sense of humor. She was a behind-the-scenes powerhouse at the YW, working in housekeeping, the kitchen, and at the front desk, and the YWCA presented her with its Woman

of Inspiration Award in 2008. Patty continued her political work after WYMSM disbanded and became

a member of Our Knowledge, Our Power: Surviving Welfare in 2007. She passed away in November 2008, at the age of forty-six, after a short illness.

She is sincerely missed.

Drawn from an interview on April 6, 2004, and field notes, 2001-2004

162 Conclusion

Finally, single parents should not be required to work outside the home when their children are young. It is bad economic policy, as it costs the federal and state governments much more to pay for child care while single parents seek employment than it does to provide parenting subsidies. The welfare reforms of 1996 made finding paid employment the legal obliga- tion of single parents, negatively impacting their children and repudiating their worth as caregivers (Mink 1998, 103). Though the burden of combin- ing parenting with the expanded work requirements falls mostly on women, single fathers are increasingly feeling its negative impacts as well. If the dual economy is a volatile economy, we must provide destigmatized1 adequate support for those who bear an unequal share of the burdens of its risk and vulnerability. To create a truly just information age, we must depenalize care work and care about caregivers.

4. Raise the Floor The recent increases in the federal minimum wage will do much to help women in the YWCA community. In 2007, after being stuck for ten years at $5.15 an hour, the minimum wage was raised to $5.85. In 2008 it was raised again to $6.55, and in November 2009 it was raised a final time, to $7.25 an hour. Under the 2006 minimum wage, an individual working full-time, fifty weeks a year, made only $10,300 before taxes, which put her a mere $500 above the 2006 federal poverty line for a single individual and left her deeply impoverished if she had children. In 2009 the same worker made $14,500 per year before taxes, $3,670 above the 2009 federal poverty line for a single individual. However, if that worker has a child and is the only income provider in the household, her family will remain $70 below the poverty line. A family with two children and two full-time earners, both working at minimum-wage jobs, will make $29,000 a year before taxes, too much to qualify for federal assistance available to those below the poverty line ($22,050 for a family of four) but too little to be able to afford health care, child care, or savings for education or emergen- cies. If growth in the low-wage service sector continues to be a primary feature of the information economy, too many full-time workers will

remain working poor. As Annette Bernhardt and Christine Owens argued in their 2009 Nation

article 1

"Rebuilding a Good Jobs Economy," we are presented with a unique opportunity in the current global financial crisis. They argue that deep and growing inequality is the biggest challenge for America1s economic recov- ery: while a handful of people prosper and workers are more productive than ever, a decreasing share of corporate profits goes to wages, and ben-

Conclusion 163

efits are shrinking. Americans are working harder and working longer hours, but wage inequality keeps many families on the edge of economic disaster. Bernhardt and Owens argue that economic recovery should not focus solely on creating jobs but on building a sustainable and just "good jobs economy. 11 To do this, they suggest four strategic policy initiatives: fully enforce minimum-wage and overtime laws; harness government spending to create living-wage jobs; raise the minimum wage even further to stimulate growth; and enact the employee free choice act, which would guarantee workers protection from intimidation and harassment should they choose to unionize.

Raising the minimum wage and building a good jobs economy should do much to raise the floor for America's poorest workers. But for those unable to participate in the labor market full-time because of caretaking responsibilities1 we must expand and depenalize public assistance. The crucial work of caretaking-raising children, caring for elders, tending the sick and infirm-should not be the fast track to poverty, stigma, and politi- cal disenfranchisement. Welfare should be expanded to truly meet the needs of poor and working-class parents, to help them acquire education, find good jobs, and save for their family's future.

5. Revive a Vibrant Democratic Culture and Expand Cognitive Justice One of the key goals of popular technology is to foster more critical, more inclusive thinking about the relationship among science, technology, social justice

1 and citizenship. Science and technology issues and debates

provide excellent opportunities to enrich democratic culture and expand cognitive justice. There are many intriguing models for institutions that help create more critical technological citizens. Two of my favorites are consensus conferences and science shops.

Consensus Conferences A consensus conference is a process of delibera- tive inquiry that gathers together groups of 11 nonexpert 11 citizens to study and deliberate on a specific scientific, technological or social problem and make recommendations about future actions. The process is in use across the globe-Argentina, Canada, India, Japan, Norway, the United States, and Zimbabwe are among the countries that have held consensus confer- ences-though the process as- it is currently practiced was developed in Denmark. A focus on deliberate inquiry is central to consensus confer- ences, and they share some common elements: (1) panelists are individu- als who do not have a direct stake in the issue being discussed but have an abiding interest in the problem as taxpayers and citizens; (2) the

I

164 Conclusion

diversity of the citizen panel participants reflects that of the larger popula- tion; (3) the deliberative process is informed, ongoing, and facilitated to

identify points of consensus. The Danish example is particularly instructive. 1 After the Danish Board

of Technologies (DBT) formulates a question to be addressed by a consen- sus conference, they send 2,000 invitations to a random sample of Danish citizens. Of the responses, which include a brief statement of background and the respondent's motivations for involvement, participants are chosen to reflect the age, gender, educational, occupational, and geographic diver- sity of Denmark. The group gathers for several informal meetings to receive background information on the question under investigation1 formulate an approach to the topic, and draft questions for the conference itself. The DBT provides a professional facilitator and an advisory/planning commit- tee to aid participants throughout this process. The conference begins when a variety of experts are called to make presentations outlining their understanding and recommendations for the issue at hand. The citizen panel cross-examines the experts based on the questions and concerns they developed in earlier meetings. At the end of the conference, the citizen panel spends several days deliberating, developing points of consensus (bearing in mind that there will always be some disagreement), and prepar- ing a report outlining the issues that bear on the topic and their recom- mendations. The panel then makes a public presentation of its findings and the resulting report to government officials, policymakers, other citi-

zens, and the media.

Science Shops Science shops2 are "university-based organizations that do pro bona or low-cost research for community groups ... solicit[ing] ques- tions from community groups and then find[ing] university researchers to conduct research in the natural1 technical, or social sciences" (Farkas 2002, 3). Science shops arose out of Dutch student movements for social justice in the 1960s and 1970s and aim to reach both from science out to the community at large, and from the community into the practices of science. Science shops are basically matchmaking institutions that mediate between community organizations, which have specific questions and needs1 and university students and faculty members 1 who have research agendas to fill. Science shops play an important translational role, helping community members frame problems in ways that are amenable to academic research and helping academic researchers shape their agendas to fit real-world problems and concrete community needs. Science shops aspire to more widely distribute the knowledge production capacities of universities,

Conclusion 165

provide civil society with usable knowledge, and increase public access to science and technology. In doing so1 they create institutions for producing equitable and supportive research partnerships1 enhance understandings among policymakers and universities of the research and education needs of broader society, and enhance the skills and knowledge of all partners in research projects.

In the United States, the Loka Institute (http://www.loka.org) stands out as an exemplary organization attempting to kindle popular participation in decision making about science and technology. Formed in 1996 in Amherst, Massachusetts, Loka holds conferences and produces publica- tions about community-based researchi organizes citizens 1 panels on tele- communications policy, genetic testing, and nanotechnology; connects science shops in Central and Eastern Europe; and tracks consensus confer- ences on science and technology policy worldwide. The Data Center (http:// www.datacenter.org) in Oakland1 California, also stands out as an excep- tional model of democratized research and decision making. The organiza- tion provides research support and technical assistance for social movements undertaking their own research agendas. They are vocal and tireless advo- cates for creating a culture of 11 research justice/' where all communities are 11 able to reclaim, own and wield ALL forms of knowledge and information as political leverage in their hands to advance their own change agendas 11

(DataCenter 2007, 1).

6. Spread It Around There are certainly pressing reasons to follow distributive paths along the road to high-tech equity. Though women in the YWCA community had a great deal of interaction with technology in their everyday lives, they did not always have the resources and information they needed to become active producers of technology and media. Though access-based solutions to inequality, such as community technology centers (CTCs), can solve only a few of the important high-tech equity concerns I address in this book, they nevertheless fulfill important community needs and may act as 11 centers of gravity// for citizen engagement and political organizing. CTCs can provide access to IT, deliver support and training1 and help clients create community content. Many CTCs are in locations aiready dedicated to com- munity building and providing social services1 connecting the goals of technology access and community building, and explicitly linking techno- logical goals to social movements. Community technology centers may be freestanding or located in libraries1 community centers1 and public housing, adding value to the public services offered at those sites.

166 Conclusion

I have been honored to work with some great CTCs in my time, among them Plugged In in East Palo Alto (http://www.pluggedin.org). Plugged In faced serious struggles, including haviog to lay off most of its staff, after being removed from its original Whiskey Gulch home. The organization fell victim to many forces that converged in the mid-2000s: neighborhood gentrification, the waning of high-tech philanthropy, and the erosion of federal digital equity programs under the Bush administration. Another organization that I much admired was the Low Income Networking and Communications Project (LINC). Rather than making poor and working- class people come to a central site for technology access and training, LINC, a project of the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, sent mobile technology "circuit riders" to help grassroots organizations build technological capacity. The project lasted for eight years, ending in August

2006.3

Too many innovative, nationally recognized community technology organizations folded as political sympathies and philanthropic priorities shifted in the mid-2000s. We should recommit to federal programs for building technological access that have languished over the last decade: the Technological Opportunities Program, the Community Technology Center Program, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Neighborhood Networks Program, for example. These programs help tech- nology access points build infrastructure, create community~centered pro~ gramming, and provide continuity. If you are interested in high-tech equity and not sure how to contribute, volunteering in a CTC is a great way to start.

7. Protect Our Rights to the City The information economy is not placeless. It is taking place in cities, towns, and communities like yours and mine across the country and across the world. Place matters; we should not think of our geography as primar- ily mutable. Though cosmopolitanism has its benefits, it is not equally available to all people, and it cannot fully replace a sense of home. There are many fine policies and institutions that exist to stop gentrification, create and maintain livable communities, secure the benefits of economic change for the communities where development is undertaken, and protect the cultural rights of existing residents in areas undergoing rapid change.

Oniy the District of Columbia and a few cities in four states-California, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey-have rent control or stabilization laws. These laws limit how much and when rent can be raised and create a rent control board that, among other things, decides the maximum

Conclusion 167

amount a landlord can charge for rental units and conditions under which a tenant can be evicted. Rent control and rent stabilization protect indi- viduals and communities in times of rapid economic change, guarding long-time and low-income residents against displacement during specula- tive real estate booms. Most small cities, like Troy, lack rent control, and are thus especially vulnerable to rapid gentrification.

Like rent control, community benefits agreements (CBAs) protect exist- ing residents in times of volatile economic change. CBAs are legally enforceable contracts signed by community groups and developers that set out a range of benefits communities can expect for hosting and providing resources to a private development project. These benefits may include securing grocery stores, funding job training or providing apprenticeships, developing youth centers, targeting workforce outreach to minorities and other disadvantaged groups, constructing affordable housing, meeting living-wage requirements, or a wide range of other benefits negotiated between community representatives and developers.4

Public housing is a crucial institution for promoting family and com- munity health that is increasingly under attack. Like the city of Troy, too many communities are allowing public and affordable housing to deterio- rate. Once blamed for the decline of the American city, public housing is now being forced to the edges of American urban space, as middle-class individuals and families return to small cities across the nation. In Troy, we have seen a slow but steady move of public housing out of downtown and into the suburbs, where residents have less access to community resources, public transportation, and social networks that can provide resources for political action and mutual support. Increasingly geographi- cally and socially marginalized, public housing residents bear more than their fair share of the burdens of community change, being forced to travel farther for work and school, lacking effective and adequate community services, and living in desolate and stigmatized locations. Everyone deserves safe and affordable housing, and public housing must be protected as one of few alternatives for poor and working-class families, the elderly, and the

disabled. Gentrification and poorly planned growth do not merely threaten eco-

nomic rights, they threaten human, cultural, and political rights as well. The attempt to urbanize human rights in the United States, demonstrated by members of the Right to the City Alliance and other organizations, recognizes that issues like transportation, housing, and education in urban centers are linked, locally and globally, to economic justice1 democratic participation/ cultural protection and expression, and the right to public

168 Conclusion

space for marginalized groups-women, people of color, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, the transgendered, the working class, the poor, and indigenous people (Perera 2008). As David Harvey has persuasively argued,

The question of what kind of city we want cannot be divorced from that of what kind of social ties, relationship to nature, lifestyles, technologies and aesthetic values

we desire. The right to the city is far more than the individual liberty to access urban

resources: it is a right to change ourselves by changing the city. (Harvey 2008, 23)

The right to the city movement provides an important challenge to high- tech development boosterism and neoliberal governance, connecting an analysis of the rise of the two-tier information economy and gentrification with a commitment to building collective political power among dispos- sessed communities in global cities.

In my hometown, ARISE (A Regional Initiative Supporting Empower- ment) stands out as an organization undertaking the hard day-to-day work of building just communities in the information age. This loosely affiliated group boasts more than 12,000 members from a mix of faith-based and community organizations. ARISE has task forces on youth and education/ criminal justice, regional renewal, workforce development, civil rights of immigrants, and voting. Its comprehensive and thoughtful "equity agenda" 5 helped me imagine high-tech equity as encompassing a wide variety of citizenship1 political, and economic rights. The group is currently negotiating the first CBA in the Capital Region, and has worked tirelessly in favor of affordable housing and just regional growth. 6

8. Clean Up after Yourselves

Despite its clean image, the high-tech economy, particularly high-tech manufacturing, has proved extremely toxic to the natural environment and dangerous to human health. Municipal and business strategies that aggressively court high-tech industries often result in regional 11 ecocide.'17

According to the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, Superfund sites in Silicon Valley are disproportionately located in communities of color, immigrant communities, and poor communities, which continue to suffer the costs of high-tech legacy pollution after manufacturing moves to areas with less citizen resistance, weaker environmental regulations, and fewer labor pro- tections. Low-paid service workers in high-tech areas like Silicon Valley or Silicon Gulch have little choice but to live in the most environmentally degraded neighborhoods, travel extremely long distances for work, crowd too many people into substandard living spaces, or a combination of all three. Environmental racism and injustice force workers to trade their fam- ily1s long-term health for their immediate survival.

Conclusion 169

High-tech devices have their most toxic impacts at the beginning of their life cycle, when they are being produced, and at the end, when they are disposed of or recycled. Currently, the United States exports most of its high-tech waste to countries that have weaker environmental protec- tion laws-like Ghana, India, and China-where it is dumped, burned/ or dismantled and mined for precious metals and compounds/ a process somewhat cynically known as "electronics recycling. 11 The United States exports more hazardous electronics waste than any other country in the world (Stephenson 2008). The recycling process can be extremely danger- ous in the absence of proper worker and environmental protections. Workers dismantle computers-often with their bare hands, over open fires or boiling pots-to reclaim precious materials, exposing themselves and their families to lead, cadmium, mercury, hexavalent chromium/ and other highly toxic compounds (Puckett et al. 2002, 9). The globalization of high- tech manufacturing and the export of high-tech waste further complicate issues of environmental justice by moving hazardous wastes from rich communities to poor communities throughout the world.

One solution to these monumental problems is to increase manu- facturer responsibility for the downstream impacts of their products. Environmental stewardship and green business programs ask manufactur- ers to eliminate hazardous materials or design for disassembly, and put pressure on governments to create policies that hold manufacturers respon- sible for end-of-life management of products. Some computer producers, including Apple, are instituting computer take-back campaigns that put the responsibility for disposing of end-of-life computer products (which are classified as hazardous waste) on producers rather than consumers. There have also been some successes in setting higher national standards for the safe disposal of high-tech waste. Fifteen countries in the European Union have signed on to the Basel ban on the export of hazardous waste to developing countries (ibid., 42). Being ultimately responsible for dispos- ing of their own waste will undoubtedly provide much-needed incentives for high-tech manufacturers and countries of origin to design less toxic1 more repairable, more recyclable electronic devices.

9. No Sacrificial Girls Our families, our paychecks, our cities, our drinking water: high-tech equity touches on nearly every aspect of our lives. The ongoing global financial crisis has showed us that the risks and volatilities of the new economy, combined with neoliberal1 laissez-faire approaches to gover- nance1 can unleash devastation that touches us all. Rather than delivering

170 Conclusion

a rising tide, the high-tech economy has left many American workers1 citi- zens, and families to drown.

There are no sacrificial people, no objects of knowledge, no inevitable victims of progress in this struggle. Every man, woman, and child is equally and infinitely precious. We all have a stake in the creation of a more just information age. Everyone has specific expertise, too, their own experience of the real world of information technology1 rooted in their social location. Each one of us has a role to play in creating better knowledge. We cannot afford to neglect any resource for change; there is simply too much work to be done.

If we don't want the information age to deliver widespread economic and political destruction, we must build levees that will hold, craft effective escape plans, and commit to including all citizens in a dialog about build- ing a just and equitable information age. For this job we need to marshal all of our strengths, all of our resources, all of our knowledge as a diverse and vibrant country. We cannot put blind faith in science and technology to redeem the American economy and enrich our democracy. This magical thinking has failed us too many times, in ways far too predictable. To create an information age that works for all people, we need to think more clearly, communicate more honestly, and act with more courage and foresight. In the end, our liberation is bound up in each other; we all _sink or swim together.

Appendix A: Research Methodology

In the spring of 2004, I traveled to New Market, Tennessee, to visit the ancestral home of popular education in the United States. I stayed at the Highlander Research and Education Center for ten days, enjoying long meals, sitting around evening fires talking and telling stories with southern activists, riffling the archives for what insights I could glean about developing popular technology programs. Though I had many memorable moments at Highlander, the one that stands out is the first time I stepped into the Harry Lasker Memorial Library.

The library is a modest redwood structure overlooking a rolling green field, a cow pasture, and, further off across Route ZSW, the Blue Ridge Mountains. Its collection is likewise modest-approximately 6,000 volumes-and its archives are contained in roughly 200 document boxes and five or six filing cabinets full of popular educa- tion and workshop materials. 1 Nevertheless, it seemed to me I had finally hit the mother lode: a whole library exclusively dedicated to mutual education! Though I had been exploring participatory approaches to research and education for years, I had only found a handful of volumes, most Freirian or based in the experiences of activists in the global South-Brazil, South Africa, India. But here in the Lasker Library was proof. People's education has a long and vibrant history in the United States. Though I recognize now that my sense of isolation was naive-there is, of course, a large and widely available literature on popular education, citizenship schools, settlement houses, and other people's education projects in the United States and Canada-the validation I experienced was so strong that I stood in the dusty redwood building and wept.

Can ordinary people be smart about something as complicated as the global knowledge economy? Neoliberalism? Government devolution? I think we can. But uncovering that knowledge and systematizing it takes a reorganization of many of the principles of academic disciplines. Participatory research approaches are non- programmatic and highly context dependent. Participatory techniques require enor- mous practical and theoretical sophistication. Community-based research findings must have high immediate relevance and usability. The focus on diversity and democratic process intrinsic to participatory research is time-consuming relational work that is undervalued in academic institutions, drawing on skills and abilities that many researchers have little incentive to develop.