Schooled.

If you've spent any time...any time at all...remotely near the environmental field, you have probably heard the conversation turn inevitably to education. The discussion starts by identifying a problem (conceptual, specific, and/or anything in between) and at some point somebody will say that the existence/persistence of that problem is, at least in part, due to inadequate education. If you're like me, you roll your eyes and mutter under your breath how it is a vast underestimation of the factors contributing to human decision-making. Whoa now, don't get me wrong. I value environmental education enough that my family dropped thousands of dollars on it as my undergraduate degree. But I also know better than to put too much faith in it. Awareness is not enough to affect change.

A few weeks ago, I was trying to find a way to make this explicitly clear and I made an info-graphic which I am hoping will be a part of the research that I do this quarter and next quarter. The focus is this: How do we get people to change their behavior? Ah, the million dollar question....literally. Ask any marketing director. This is usually where environmental education is put forth, sometimes as a part of the solution and sometimes as the hail mary pass that will save us all. What I believe is unaccounted for (and what I hope to address with the info-graphic) is other components of behavior change. There are far too many people who are fully aware of environmental problems and ways to affect change but do not reflect it in their behavior. This behavior could refer to anything from a consumer decision to purchase one product over another, a vote, support for certain organizations, expression of beliefs, career orientation, etc.

None of this is to say that I think environmental education is inherently faulty and should be eliminated or decreased. But I think that if we believe that it is a valuable part of affecting behavior change, we need to examine ways to make it better.

Here are some of my genius ideas:

1. Crank up the brightness of the light at the end of the tunnel.

I'm beginning to feel the rage boil up inside of me even as I write this. As someone who has heavily invested my time, money, and energy in a quality environmental education, I am disappointed in the prospects from my future. When students chose the focus of their education (most commonly communicated to the outside world as their "major"), why do they pick the programs that they do? Why do students decide to study business or engineering? One answer is the careers those tracks offer. Every discipline has its associated difficulties, but it seems like some are more handsomely rewarded than others. It even seems like people who chose education in fields that are historically low-paying that they are expected to accept the lack of good jobs and high pay because their fields are somehow noble and should be providing them some sort of intrinsic reward. Therein lies the same problem that makes education alone an inadequate way of affecting behavior: Intrinsic value is not enough to make enough people seriously change. Environmental studies needs to be a field that prepares students well for the job market...and the job market needs to recognize the niches it has for environmental students. The light at the end of the tunnel is too dim and it discourages even the most talented and motivated students from entering. In turn, this weakens support for environmental education and creates feedback loop that leaves environmental studies seeming like more of a struggling charity than a legitimate career path.

2. Reframe that ish.

There is not enough time in my life to talk about all of the reframing that I think needs to go into the entire environmental field, but let me just spill a few recommendations for the field of education specifically. First, please stop introducing anything remotely related to environmental history with "Since the first Earth Day in 1970..." That invites people to celebrate this as a hippie cause and makes minds jump right away to tree-hugging. Environmental education has a bit too much tree-hugging as it is. Now, I do think it's valuable for students to do hands-on field work and talk about how and why different parts of the environment matter. But I believe, and disappointingly this is especially the case in early education, that environmental studies starts out on the wrong foot. It starts by teaching intrinsic value and pointing out the beauty of nature. Not to mention the possible pushback of claims of social engineering, but this is problematic because it delegitimizes the entire field. It smacks of deep ecology right from the beginning. What would be a whole lot better would be to look at the economic and social aspects as well. You can read The Lorax, but the connection between the environment and human health and well-being has to be made at the beginning. The nature/culture separation is still surprisingly strong; lots of people do not understand how their livelihoods are attached to components of nature and still believe that conservation is entirely devoted to "Saving the Whales". Sustainability and environmental considerations should be reframed as public health, design, engineering, and policy issues. Which brings me to my next point...

3. "Sustainability should be a part of everything we do."

That is in quotes because it is a quote from Swedish student Estelle Westling who won a competition to design a plan addressing a company's environmental problem (which I think is such an awesome competition and opportunity for businesses to take on interns and entry-level graduates to do sustainability plans). This is what I think would really propel environmental norms into saliency. I challenge anyone to come up with a discipline or industry that has no relevance to environmental issues. At the very least, better materials management could lead to efficiency in even the most consumptive industries. Even the fine arts derive inspiration and have historical background in earth systems. Take a course in fisheries management and you're likely to run into plenty of math. No, the environment is not separate from us and it's high time to incorporate it into everything we do. Perhaps the best way to do this may not be to have a separate program for environmental studies. Perhaps each discipline needs to take the initiative to incorporate it instead of backing off and relying on another field. There are standards to which we hold our education systems: we would balk if a school announced it was cutting its history program. Environmental studies should be on the checklist of what makes an acceptable school and educations that do not receive it should be looked at as having gaping holes.

The bottom line, I feel, is that environmental education needs to be made applicable. It needs to be recognizably valuable, not just in the form of a metaphorical salute for dedication to some higher moral standard; it needs more tangible benefits. It further limits its applicability by placing too much focus too early on ethical environmentalism instead of economic environmentalism. It is invalid to think it morally reprehensible to do otherwise. It needs to be a part of every kind of education; not just an excuse for field trips to parks. It needs to permeate the false sense of mutual exclusivity that seems to spring up between disciplines. It needs to be considered a necessary component of a quality education, just like math or history. In a truly environmentally conscious world, the word "environmental" in front of the word "education" would be completely superfluous.

Recess is over!

It's been a long time since I last updated this blog. I had started it as a response to my enrollment in an introductory course on environmental justice, but started paying less attention to it once my partner who had committed to joint ownership and operation of the project pulled a disappearing act, and as summer approached, I switched from being a full-time student/lacrosse player, to a fixed-hour wage earner at my summer job. But enough with the excuses! Environmental justice waits for no one!

I have decided to revamp the blog and actually start posting a lot more often. Also, I would like to broaden the scope of this blog...although doing so wouldn't require much stretching of the imagination. In choosing topics related to law, legislation, and environmental justice, I found that the problem was always having too many things to write about. Part of the appeal of law and legislation is its omnipresence in the lives of the people to whom it applies. Part of the appeal of the environmental justice movement is its permeation through society as a social movement, set of legislative reforms, large-scale values shift, and as a catalyst to change whose effects are often taken for grated. These qualities of law and the environmental justice not only make the two inextricably linked, but also demonstrate the connectivity between them and innumerable amounts of other disciplines. What the introductory course taught me, perhaps most usefully, is how to look at the ways in which this movement has grown and progressed and shaped issues of legal and social importance. Therefore, I believe I'd be hard-pressed NOT to find a connection between the law, environmental justice, and any given issue that I encounter throughout my life, my education, and my focus on ecology and the environment. With this in mind, I hope to bring more issues to the table, even if this blog is never read, so that I can have my ideas collected and documented. I am interested in seeing how, if at all, they change.

That's all for this (brief) post. I'm about to start another on one of the issues that came up that inspired me to re-commit myself to sharing my voice...or at least identifying it.

Aftermath of Arizona: Marie goes to the cactus state, finds little more than her quaint family...and cactii

A few weeks ago, I traveled to Arizona for my grandmother's 80th birthday. My family and I had been planning this weekend trip for months, but I had no clue I would be going in the wake of anything like SB 1070. I would like to share a few of my own, personal thoughts on my (albeit brief) experience in the state of Arizona right after the passage of SB 1070, as well as offer some commentary about Arizona's reaction to the law.

First of all, I think it's worth mentioning what I had, consciously and unconsciously, been expecting to see and experience in Arizona. After hearing a lot about the law both in the news and discussing it extensively in class, I had (perhaps erroneously) assumed that coverage and knowledge of SB1070 was pretty widespread. I thought it was a hot topic. How could Arizonans not be abuzz with talk of something this big? I mean, after all, I live and study in Seattle and my parents live in Chicago and all of us were following the story pretty closely. Arizonans, I figured, were going to be at least as equally enthralled. I also did not expect a warm reception of my views. I know that this kind of legislation passed in the state of Arizona for a reason: lots of voters there feel strongly about the issue of immigration and do not look fondly upon undocumented workers. I was expecting overwhelmingly supportive and celebratory tones with regards to this law and was expecting quick rebuttal against anything I, or anyone else, would have to say with regards to the racial profiling and institutionalized racism based on the ecology of fear. Just as a bit of background on my own family, all of my family members who currently live in the American southwest identify strongly with the conservative Christian right. My uncle is an adamant tea party supporter and Republican party member. My grandmother and aunt both are very involved in religious activities. My nuclear family (my mother, father, and brother) all live outside of Chicago and identify strongly with the liberal left. Prior to our visit, my father and uncle had been engaged in lengthy, sometimes harshly-worded, email exchanges arguing about politics and exchanging fits of rage and disgust. I worried, coming into that weekend, that a firefight would ensue. I thought the heated political climate of the state, fueled by news of SB1070, added to political differences within my family, would create the perfect storm of clashing expressions of opinions and ideologies.

It's strange to say this with the hint of chagrin I feel, but, I was wrong.

To be fair, my family had nearly unanimously decided that we would put off discussion of religion and politics for the weekend in order to avoid negativity on this special occasion. However, I was a little surprised to find the news of this law didn't simply permeate the atmosphere. I half expected to find protesters or at least a few posters as I exited the airport. Instead, it seemed there wasn't much being said...at least not loudly enough for me to hear. I made mental notes of campaign signs and posters along the road, but most of them were running for state or local government and I had not heard of them. I did recognize John McCain's name and recalled how he had been a supporter of placing troops on the US border in order to "secure" it. I wondered if Arizonians championed him for that and perhaps thought he could have influenced the passage of SB1070. Curiously, the only standout campaign sign we saw was one for McCain, but next to it had an old toilet with the words "MCCAIN STINKS" written in spray paint across it. At first glance, this seems like an instance of a left-wing or liberal person who opposed the Republican senator...but as my father quickly pointed out, the message behind that...uh...unique...demonstrative work was actually critical of McCain and meant to imply that he's drifting too far center, or even left, for certain conservative tastes. Although I knew that Arizona was a predominantly conservative state, I was actually interested to see if there would be any visible signs of opposition. I didn't see a single thing. After a while, I realized that this could have been due to the fact that my family there resides in the relatively wealthy suburb of Phoenix known as Scottsdale where residents are mostly white, upper-middle class. I wish I had had time to explore other parts of the Phoenix area to see how other communities were showing (or not showing) their reaction to this law.

Without much to go by from my visit, I was left curious as to how Arizonians really felt about SB1070. So I did a little digging on my own. According to this recent Rassmussen Report, Arizonians favored the bill and 64% of likely voters support the law. Since April, the support has grown to up to 71%. Here's one interesting quote:

[M]ost Arizona voters (57%) favor an immigration policy that welcomes all immigrants except “national security threats, criminals and those who would come here to live off our welfare system.”

To call an undocumented worker a "security threat", a "criminal", and someone who has come here to live off our "welfare system" is a gross characterization of a few exceptions to the rule. These fear tactics play into the ecology of fear, which makes Arizonians favor passing such a law if they think it will keep them, and their livelihoods, safer. These characterizations are also used in justifying the state of exception for these people that opens the door to institutionalized racism and allows supporters to believe it is right to suspend the rights of these people in the name of national security. Perhaps this speaks to the reasoning behind the majority of Arizonians backing this law.

On a side note, in another report, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer's ratings have received a substantial boost after passing SB1070. This implies that Arizona voters are pleased with her action. One concern I see is that if her ratings go up, it will be seen as a politically wise move and perhaps other state governors will follow suit. Legal decisions serves as examples and frameworks and their effects do not go unseen: What kind of decisions is SB1070 encouraging and how much more power does it have now that it has not only the backing of the voters, but the effect of raising the governors ratings? These are questions that can only be addressed at extensive length.

Although there is, indeed, support nationwide, I wanted to share a little bit more about the reaction of those against the law. Here is one of the most entertaining political comedians I have ever found and although he mixes some harsh comedy (and a little salty language, I warn) I believe he portrays a few key points, one of the most notable being that undocumented workers do not come across the border and commit violent crimes, instead they come to do the jobs that no caucasian wants to do, as cliche as that sounds. I believe he reacts in a passionate and outspoken way...which honestly, I would expect to see more of on either side of the argument. Anyway, here's the clip:

Here is a video that artistically begs one of the most important questions about this law: What does "illegal" look like? I think this must have been the reaction of countless people in the state. Who has the complexion for protection and who is left unprotected? Here's the video:

There is one profound reason that I believe I did not encounter much exposure to reaction to SB1070, and this gets personal but I do believe it has a point. Two months before the family would gather to celebrate my grandmother's 80th birthday, she suffered her second stroke and was hospitalized. We were not sure she would make it to see her birthday. This single event helped the entire family put things into perspective. As much as individuals have feelings and opinions about the decisions being made around them, it is often the case that more proximate, more personal, matters take precedence. I feel like this is the case for most individuals who do not have the time or resources to speak out either for or against a piece of legislation, or even to seek further information about it. In my family, we were able to put aside our differences in order to celebrate the life of a truly amazing woman who we all love and value deeply. To me, this showed that as divisive as political forces may seem, we are human after all and we can always work to find common ground. This, I believe, is reason for at least a little hope.

Oh, and here's a cactus picture taken by yours truly:

eWaste? eWhere?

Earlier today, I watched a 20-minute documentary entitled "eDump" which chronicled the path of American-generated "e-Waste" overseas to a small town in China where it was to be dismantled. What is e-Waste? The "e" comes from the word "electronic" and loosely defined, e-Waste refers to computers, televisions, cell phones, circuitry, etc. and all their associated hardware that gets discarded. Instead of being thrown away in landfills or burned in incinerators, unwanted electronic devices have lately met a new fate upon being discarded; they are sent to developing nations worldwide. The e-Waste is then dismantled for its various parts. While the reuse of the parts of electronics may seem like a good way to reduce dependence on raw materials, there is something to be said about the communities in which they are dismantled and treated. As "eDump" depicts, the communities handling this waste, such as Guiyu, China (the study site of the documentary), are subject to polluting, dirty, hazardous facilities where workers are subject to 10-12 hours of toxic fume inhalation daily for about 5-6$ pay. They are exposed to industrial acids to melt and break down e-Waste. Their soil and water are polluted beyond use, and even the children in local kindergartens had higher levels of lead in their blood than normal. Here is a preview of this documentary's harrowing look at the harsh realities of e-Waste:

This film highlights the problem in one Chinese community, but it is important to recognize that the problem is worldwide. In environmental justice and other environmental studies, what is often encountered is a sort of commodity fetishism in which people are unaware of the materials, labor, and other inputs that go into the creation of a certain commodity. They are often equally as unaware as to where it ends up once it is discarded. This is a problem that the environmental justice movement has highlighted. The "Not In My Backyard" philosophies that often lead to placement of landfills and toxic waste sites near low-income/people of color communities are applicable on a global scale. Nobody stops to think about what will happen to the computer monitor they just "recycled": They never actually see where it winds up or the disparate impact of its dismantlement/treatment on poor communities in developing nations.

For wealthier communities in the developed world, it can be far too easy to think that waste disappears after it is hauled away by a disposal service. Individuals in these communities are fortunate enough not to live near landfills, incinerators, etc. nor do they have to suffer the disparate impact and compounded risks associated with being in close proximity to such sites. In the case of e-Waste, what most people do not know is that their discarded material often ends up overseas:

Note that the nations receiving the trash in large quantities are some of the poorest in the world. Hardly anyone who throws out an iPod thinks its parts will end up in India. Here is an interactive e-Waste map detailing where it ends up and where it comes from, courtesy of Greenpeace.

What is the connection to laws and legislation?

There is something to be said about the effects of globalization. The cost of shipping e-Waste overseas for processing is about ten times cheaper than having it dismantled and handled domestically. This economic incentive pushes e-Waste management and associated industries to look abroad, especially in developing nations where environmental, health, and safety regulations are lax enough not to incur high production costs, labor costs are extraordinarily low, and labor laws are lenient at most. The developing condition of these nations allows industries in a wealthier nation to exploit the desperate and dire situations of millions of members of the world's most vulnerable communities, exposing them to devastatingly hazardous and unhealthy workplace conditions. However, appealing to morality is not nearly as strong of a force as the money saved by sending e-Waste abroad. One way to counter this mighty force is through the use of legislation. Only by strong, specific laws can expect to even somewhat overcome the pull of cheap labor overseas.

So why hasn't this been done yet? One reason is that it directly violates the best interests of the industries who benefit from "free-market" capitalism and who tout the advantages of globalization. Political pressure from these large interests as well as some government agencies themselves helps foster and maintain a favorable political climate for globalization and limits the appeal of laws and legislation that appears to go against free trade. Perhaps this is what has effectively kept the U.S. from ratifying a piece of legislation known as the Basel Convention, describing itself as follows:

The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal is the most comprehensive global environmental agreement on hazardous and other wastes.

Read more from the Basel Convention's gloriously thorough website here.

This kind of legislation would be a huge step forward for environmental justice on a global scale. However, the refusal of the United States to ratify it still allows for countless incidences of environmental injustice to occur at the expense of developing nations. The U.S. is the only developed nation that refuses to ratify thi

s international agreement. According to the EPA, they disagree with the definition of hazardous waste as outlined by the document. The following shows a map of nations that have signed and ratified the Basel Convention, as well as nations that have signed, but not ratified it:

The United States sticks out as the only large, industrialized nation that doesn't seem to be on board with this agreement. The failure to abide by the terms of this agreement exemplifies a case where protection is systematically denied to certain people: it is a worldwide example of structural violence. Hopefully, we will soon realize the potential effectiveness of a largely-agreed-upon international agreement on curbing the devastating effects of hazardous wastes on the world's most susceptible people and take on some legislative responsibility.

Columbia Basin Fish Accords

And now for some Washington state/Pacific Northwest history and legislation:

In 1902, the federal government passed the Reclamation Act establishing the Bureau of Reclamation whose job it would be to provide irrigation works to farms of 160 acres or less located in the western United States. This act was revived and put to use (after years of it being viewed as defunct) by Franklin D. Roosevelt and the proponents of the New Deal. The Bureau of Reclamation began receiving federal funds contributing to social and environmental programs. One of the largest projects was the building of the Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River. The hydroelectric industry was being introduced to the pacific northwest as the great American rivers were being targeted for their energy powers and were increasingly disallowed to free flow.

Here is a map of the Columbia River Basin and the multiple federal and non-federal dams throughout the entire region. This map also includes a list of the fish species affected by the damming of the Columbia/Snake river system:




The Grand Coulee Dam was a large focus of the broader Columbia Basin Project. It intended to irrigate and facilitate settlement by people from different parts of the country in eastern Washington, as well as to generate cheap hydroelectricity to power industrial development in the growing pacific northwest. The Colville Indian Reservation was located on the land where the dam would be built; the flooding induced by the damming of the river inundated the region and forced 2,000 Colville natives into relocation. This was roughly 1/2 of their population. At the time, most of the Colville practiced subsistence farming along the river bank and/or relied heavily on the fish population of the river. Thus they lived very close to the river and two of their towns were flooded as part of the project. The destruction of these place-based communities represents structural violence; decisions came from the federal government, yet they completely upset the daily lives of individuals on a community-wide scale.

Additionally, the natives of the area, including the Colville and smaller Spokane tribe, were frequent users of Kettle Falls: an important spot below a waterfall where salmon would stall before attempting to jump up the falls making it very easy to extract massive numbers of fish. Kettle Falls were still an important fishing site in the 1930's when this dam was being built, and they were flooded as a result of its construction. Fish passage through the dam system was not addressed in plans for Grand Coulee, despite the fact that the structure blocks roughly 1,200 miles of upstream river, most of which was salmon spawning ground. A passage from the Columbia Basin Fish Accords project brochure outlines the cultural, ecological, and historical importance of salmon in this region and some of the reasons for their decline:

Salmon are extremely important for cultural ceremonies, subsistence, and commercial fisheries. Historically, average annual salmon runs returning to the Columbia River Basin above Bonneville Dam were estimated in the range of 5-11 million fish. Due to overfishing in the lower river and the ocean, the loss and destruction of critical habitat, and the construction of hydroelectric dams, Columbia River salmon runs have declined by over 90percent.

In 1939, local tribes gathered to have a Ceremony of Tears in which they mourned the loss of the salmon as a valuable resource. The regret and emotion displayed in the Ceremony of Tears is indicative of the soul wound that occurred to these people as a direct result of the agencies responsible for the Columbia River hydropower project that affected generations to come and upset daily life.


Here is a picture of several Colville tribe members overlooking Kettle Falls at the Ceremony of Tears:



In 1940, Congress was required to provide "just and equitable compensation for land taken". The Colville tribe was awarded $63, 000 and the Spokane tribe was awarded $4,700. The Colville tribes pursued lawsuits claiming loss of fisheries and lost hydroelectric potential.

In 2008, an agreement was reached between The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (the “Action Agencies”) and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) and became known as the Columbia River Fish Accords.

In the introduction of the memorandum, the Columbia Basin Fish Accords states its primary goals and functions as follows:

• To resolve issues between the Parties regarding the Action Agencies’ compliancewith the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) regarding these FCRPS and Upper Snake Projects;
  

• To resolve issues between the Parties regarding compliance with the PacificNorthwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (“NWPA”) and the Clean Water Act (“CWA”);
  

• To address the Parties’ mutual concerns for certainty and stability in the funding and implementation of projects for the benefit of fish affected by the FCRPS and Upper Snake Projects, affirming and adding to the actions proposed in the draft FCRPS and Upper Snake Biological Opinions; and
  

• To foster a cooperative and partnership-like relationship in implementation of the mutual commitments in this Agreement.
  

You can read the memorandum in its entirety here.

The Columbia Basin Fish Accords committed the federal agencies responsible for building the federal Columbia River hydropower system including Grand Coulee Dam to ten years of funding for a number of projects managed by the state government as well as indigenous tribes. The practical results of this agreement resulted in the formation of multiple salmon recovery and restoration projects throughout the region. This piece of legislation was specifically designed to restore healthy and sustainable populations to their natural region.

Here is a map detailing some of the projects supported by the Columbia Basin Fish Accords and their corresponding locations.


What is remarkable about this legislation is that it actually makes an effort to incorporate, consider, and recognize as legitimate some of the native views of the land. The Yakama, Umatilla, Warm Springs and Nez Perce tribes gathered together to form a comprehensive recovery plan for the area's salmon. They called it Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit (Spirit of the
Salmon) and it combined modern scientific knowledge and information gathered with modern technologies with the ancient wisdom that these people held of their land. This wisdom is an example of "Traditional Environmental Knowledge" (TEK); accumulated through indigenous communities practicing stewardship of the land and forming a relationship with it. It focuses on the epistemology of the human relationship to the land. In order for TEK to be powerful, it must be recognized as a legible and legitimate knowledge, which is often not the case in discourse politics; there is usually a considerable separation between those with TEK and those with power. The Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit plan was designed to restore salmon populations in order to make tribes able to practice rights that had been awarded to them by treaty years ago. This demonstrates an application of law being used to promote alterNative approaches to management. The Columbia Basin Fish Accords secured funding that allowed for the continuation of existing projects of this nature as well as funding for new projects. This represents a step in the right direction toward recognizing and incorporating alterNative approaches to land management.


The successes of this program could inspire additional legislation to be passed with attention to alterNative knowledge and for the first time since the beginning of the 500 year old story, the knowledge/power relationship could begin to make a shift, specifically in the kinds of knowledge that are recognized as deserving of power.

Washington Gang Legislation: A few Critiques

In 2008, Washington state governor Christine Gregoire signed House Bill 2712 aimed at addressing gang-related activity in Washington state. Here are some of the subheadings of the actual bill itself which demonstrate the specific changes this bill hoped to make along with a link to the bill in its entirety:

• Increase In Sentences For Adults Who Recruit Juveniles
• Expansion Of The List Of Aggravating Factors
• Requiring Community Custody For Unlawful Possession Of A Firearm
• Making Subsequent Convictions Of Malicious Mischief 3 A Gross Misdemeanor Offense
• Civil Cause Of Action For Graffiti And Tagging
• Criminal Street Gang Definition

Something to note with regards to the question of WHO contributed to this bill is that every one of the sponsors of this in the Washington state senate was white. The sponsors included no people of color and nobody youthful. Additionally, most commentators who supported the bill were also white. This is indicative of some organizational inequity which denies people of color and low-income people from having an active role in shaping the laws that will undoubtedly end up affecting them, especially in this case, negatively. There is another heading, entitled "PART VI STUDY ON BEST PRACTICES TO REDUCE GANG INVOLVEMENT WHILE INCARCERATED: The department shall study and establish best practices to reduce gang involvement and recruitment among incarcerated offenders." This begs the question of who is it who will be doing this study? Will it include people of color or low-income? Who gets to determine what the "best practices" are...and how? This seems like a monumentally difficult and long-term task, to say the least. And perhaps it could lead to conclusions about race and socioeconomic status being predominant causes of gang involvement and recruitment. In addition, some of the language of the bill is worthy of note. The following is a direct quote from the bill concerning the last point on the above list, Criminal Street Gang Definition:

"Criminal street gang" means any ongoing organization, association, or group of three or more persons, whether formal or informal, having a common name or common identifying sign or symbol,having as one of its primary activities the commission of criminal acts, and whose members or associates individually or collectively engage in or have engaged in a pattern of criminal street gang activity. This definition does not apply to employees engaged in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection, or to the activities of labor and bona fide nonprofit organizations or their members or agents.

This language is somewhat vague and a lot of the terms are subjective and open to interpretation and variable definitions. "A group of three or more persons" seems very broad and applicable to all sorts of scenarios. Also, subjective determination "having a common name or common unifying sign or symbol" may open the door to discriminatory distinctions. Something like a religious or spiritual symbol that certain ethnic groups share could be misconstrued as a unifying gang membership identifier. Perhaps the color of people's skin could be enough of an identifier to attract the attention of the law. This may pave the way for procedural inequity; racial profiling attributes suspicion and guilt to someone based on skin color or ethnic association. Therefore, certain people could be denied due process of law and will not be considered innocent until proven guilty. Their skin color would be enough to get them accused.

Seattle Weekly published an article (here) about the bill and various responses. According to their report, Larry Gossett, NAACP councilman characterized the bill as "a bill heavy on punitive provisions, light on social programs, and ripe for abuse, particularly in the form of racial profiling". This article also tells how other leaders for people of color groups recognize some significant problems with this bill that could affect civil rights groups already:

The bill's critics question its constitutionality and potential for abuse, with Seattle/King County NAACP President James Bible wondering whether it could have been used to effectively outlaw the Black Panther Party and calling it "a constitutional violation in the making."

Meanwhile, the predominantly white and wealthy lawmakers see it as a bill with "collaborative origins, civil liberties protections, and holistic nature, emphasizing its commitment to social programs". According to one of the sponsors, "The bill is intended to be a multipronged tool to reduce the gang activity and violence that many smaller municipalities—particularly in the Yakima Valley—describe as increasingly problematic." The fact that this statement particularly mentions the Yakima Valley (which is characterized by a high percentage of latino people), indicates this bill's potential to increase geographical inequity. People of color and low-income communities are already seen as "problematic" and will probably be more likely to be subjected to this law: It will not be applied equally to all neighborhoods and regions in the state.

One blog speaks to the problems with Washington gang legislature and clearly lays out the following problems:

1. Legitimizes racial profiling
2. Falsely stereotypes common culturally-relevant non-violent behaviors as gang-related
3. Is all about increasing arrests and harsher punishments
4. Fails to address or even acknowledge the racism and poverty that put youth at risk for gang involvement
5. Lacks any focus whatsoever on recovery ad prevention support for youth at risk

These problems are indicative of a tradition in dealing with sociological "problems" in which the symptoms of the problem are criminalized without any attention to the deeper, racist and discriminatory practices and laws that lead to being "at risk" for gang activity. A more preventative approach would not only serve to decrease gang-related activity, but will also address the roots of other problems such as poverty and poor education. However, the bill as is only treats the one symptom while ignoring the pathogens.