Growing Up Policed
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Growing Up Policed

on

  • 350 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
350
Views on SlideShare
350
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • First, special thanks to…organizers … funders, Arcus….
  • My background….as both sociologist (Joe Feagin, Pat Collins) and public health researcher (Rikers project) and former senior producer at an Internet company -- interested in race, sexuality, inequality, technology & LGBT youth. Background of 2 studies: 1 - quant, co-investigator, with Juan Battle, Antonio Jay Pastrana; 2nd - qual, sole investigator. Both framed in terms of resilience - rather than in terms of ‘risk’ or pathology. Several conference presentations and initial paper under review, several others in development.
  • Police arrested or ticketed approximately four students each day in New York City public schools from July through September, according to a New York Civil Liberties Union analysis of new NYPD data. About 94 percent of students arrested were black or Latino; nearly 83 percent were male. According to the data, the School Safety Division arrested, on average, more than one student a day and issued summonses to approximately three students each day. Overall, the School Safety Division made 63 arrests and issued 182 summonses in the reporting period, which includes only 43 school days for middle school students and 50 school days for high school students, two-thirds of which occurred during summer school. (About 11 percent of public school students were required to attend summer school this year, indicating that during a typical three month period, the number of arrests and summonses in schools would be much higher.) The majority of summonses issued by NYPD school safety officers were for disorderly conduct (54 percent). The second most issued summons was for riding a bike on the sidewalk (13 percent). Sixty-three percent of all summonses were issued in the Bronx and Queens. Among arrested students – the only group for whom racial data was released – 68 percent were black and 25 percent were Latino. All of the arrests made in Brooklyn and Staten Island were of black and Latino students. Black and Latino students represent approximately 29 percent and 40 percent, respectively, of the overall public school population, according to New York City Department of Education statistics. Source: http://www.nyclu.org/news/new-nypd-data-raise-concerns-over-racial-disparities-nyc-school-arrests
  • Sample #1
  • This report from 2009 is typical of the way Internet and race gets discussed….almost always framed in terms of “digital divides,” even when the data suggest that there’s lots of overlap, convergence, sameness in use patterns. http://s2smagazine.com/node/2279 Digital Divide(s)? In an initial study conducted by the Census Bureau under the direction of the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration, African-Americans were found to have lower rates than whites in both computer equipment ownership and telephone service (“Falling Through the Net,” NTIA, 1995). Even though the original report was subtitled, “A Survey of ‘Have Nots’ in Rural and Urban America,” the findings about race are what made headlines. The finding about differences in computer ownership between whites and blacks was widely reported and quickly became known as ‘the digital divide.’ It also sparked an entire subfield of research within Internet studies relating to race. The initial focus on computer ownership shifted in subsequent versions of the study to Internet access and the second report included “digital divide” in the title (“Falling Through the Net II: New Data on the Digital Divide,” NTIA, 1998). These initial “divides” in ownership and access have largely vanished now (for example: Leggon, 2006, ““Gender, Race/Ethnicity and the Digital Divide,” in edited by Mary Frank Fox, Deborah G. Johnson, and Sue V. Rosser, (eds.) Women, Gender and Technology, University of Illinois Press, 2006). Still some researchers subsequently identified “second level divides” that focused on the relationship between skills, “Internet literacy” and Internet usage (Hargittai, “Second-Level Digital Divide: Differences in People’s Online Skills,” First Monday 7(4), 2002).
  • Technology Trends among People of Color http://www.pewinternet.org/Commentary/2010/September/Technology-Trends-Among-People-of-Color.aspx
  • Image source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jiscinfonet/291380031/
  • Data from Pew Internet & American Life Project: http://www.pewinternet.org/Presentations/2011/Feb/PIP-Girl-Scout-Webinar.aspx
  • Digital Divide(s)? In an initial study conducted by the Census Bureau under the direction of the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration, African-Americans were found to have lower rates than whites in both computer equipment ownership and telephone service (“Falling Through the Net,” NTIA, 1995). Even though the original report was subtitled, “A Survey of ‘Have Nots’ in Rural and Urban America,” the findings about race are what made headlines. The finding about differences in computer ownership between whites and blacks was widely reported and quickly became known as ‘the digital divide.’ It also sparked an entire subfield of research within Internet studies relating to race. The initial focus on computer ownership shifted in subsequent versions of the study to Internet access and the second report included “digital divide” in the title (“Falling Through the Net II: New Data on the Digital Divide,” NTIA, 1998). These initial “divides” in ownership and access have largely vanished now (for example: Leggon, 2006, ““Gender, Race/Ethnicity and the Digital Divide,” in edited by Mary Frank Fox, Deborah G. Johnson, and Sue V. Rosser, (eds.) Women, Gender and Technology, University of Illinois Press, 2006). Still some researchers subsequently identified “second level divides” that focused on the relationship between skills, “Internet literacy” and Internet usage (Hargittai, “Second-Level Digital Divide: Differences in People’s Online Skills,” First Monday 7(4), 2002). The rhetoric of “digital divides” has also been heavily critiqued by some scholars as a “disabling rhetoric” that marginalizes people of color as technological innovators (e.g., Anna Everett, (2004) ‘On Cyberfeminism and Cyberwomanism: High-Tech Mediations of Feminism’s Discontents’, Signs 30(1):1278-86; Michelle Wright, (2005) ‘Finding a Place in Cyberspace: Black Women, Technology and Identity,’ Frontiers 26(1):48-59). Selwyn (“Apart from technology: Understanding people’s non-use of information and communication technologies in everyday life,” Technology in Society, 25 (1), 99-116.) contends that digital divide formulations rely on the assumption that Internet access and usage is desirable for everyone, when in fact, people might not be using the Internet because they don’t see a social benefit in doing so. Brock (2006) extends this argument to race and explains that slower Internet adoption rates among Blacks may have more to do with the lack of culturally relevant content online for Blacks rather than any lack of “Internet literacy.” Then came Mobile Technology. Much has changed since the mid-1990s when ‘digital divide’ research began and computer ownership and Internet access meant sitting before a desktop machine with a wire plugged into a wall. Today, being connected to the Internet often means having a “smart phone” (e.g., a phone that enables users to access the Internet).
  • How does mobile technology shape health - in ways that both promote and possibly damage health?
  • Sample #1
  • SJS study - largest, diverse in terms of race, gender, sexual orientation, age, biggest sample of LGBT folks of color.
  • This is the census map of people of color - Af-Am, Latino, API in the U.S.
  • The yellow dots indicate where the SJS LGBT sample was collected - which maps onto the general population of people of color.
  • We did a supplement at the GMHC House of Latex Ball (August, 2010). Added questions about mobile technology, and about contact w/ police at the request of our partner, GMHC.
  • Supplement – GMHC, speaks to success of partnering with organizations. Large sample size would not have been possible without our partners. 10 additional questions about mobile technology + police Total supplement sample = 500, down to N=479 useable, of those N=110 youth, <24.
  • Contrary to research indicating a “ digital divide ” between POC youth and whites, the young people in our survey were more likely to have mobile phones (87%) than youth in a national sample (75% - Pew).
  • Within our supplemental sample, Very much a youth-driven phenom, with 89% of those 24 and under reporting having a mobile w/ Internet, and only 25% of those 50+ reporting having one.
  • Of those w/ phones, most use it everyday to access the Internet (58%), 69% to send text messages -- about a third (30%) to meet someone new to date.
  • Like many people of color in NYC, the LGBT people in our sample reported having had some contact with the police.
  • Mobile technology means survival for queer youth of color. A sizeable portion of our supplement reported that they used their phone to avoid police contact (14% = Every day, 8% At least once a week, 6% Several times a week = 28% total) or to record police misconduct (same %’s).
  • Mobile technology means survival for queer youth of color. A sizeable portion of our supplement reported that they used their phone to avoid police contact (14% = Every day, 8% At least once a week, 6% Several times a week = 28% total) or to record police misconduct (same %’s).
  • Women were actually much less likely to use mobile phones…. Image source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/humanrights/4967385477/
  • Women were actually much less likely to use mobile phones…. Image source:
  • The rhetoric of “digital divides” has also been heavily critiqued by some scholars as a “disabling rhetoric” that marginalizes people of color as technological innovators (e.g., Anna Everett, (2004) ‘On Cyberfeminism and Cyberwomanism: High-Tech Mediations of Feminism’s Discontents’, Signs 30(1):1278-86; Michelle Wright, (2005) ‘Finding a Place in Cyberspace: Black Women, Technology and Identity,’ Frontiers 26(1):48-59). Selwyn (“Apart from technology: Understanding people’s non-use of information and communication technologies in everyday life,” Technology in Society, 25 (1), 99-116.) contends that digital divide formulations rely on the assumption that Internet access and usage is desirable for everyone, when in fact, people might not be using the Internet because they don’t see a social benefit in doing so. Brock (2006) extends this argument to race and explains that slower Internet adoption rates among Blacks may have more to do with the lack of culturally relevant content online for Blacks rather than any lack of “Internet literacy.” Then came Mobile Technology. Much has changed since the mid-1990s when ‘digital divide’ research began and computer ownership and Internet access meant sitting before a desktop machine with a wire plugged into a wall. Today, being connected to the Internet often means having a “smart phone” (e.g., a phone that enables users to access the Internet).
  • Image source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ari/757882222/ Texting Oasis: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jfraissi/3664612480/
  • The rhetoric of “digital divides” has also been heavily critiqued by some scholars as a “disabling rhetoric” that marginalizes people of color as technological innovators (e.g., Anna Everett, (2004) ‘On Cyberfeminism and Cyberwomanism: High-Tech Mediations of Feminism’s Discontents’, Signs 30(1):1278-86; Michelle Wright, (2005) ‘Finding a Place in Cyberspace: Black Women, Technology and Identity,’ Frontiers 26(1):48-59). Selwyn (“Apart from technology: Understanding people’s non-use of information and communication technologies in everyday life,” Technology in Society, 25 (1), 99-116.) contends that digital divide formulations rely on the assumption that Internet access and usage is desirable for everyone, when in fact, people might not be using the Internet because they don’t see a social benefit in doing so. Brock (2006) extends this argument to race and explains that slower Internet adoption rates among Blacks may have more to do with the lack of culturally relevant content online for Blacks rather than any lack of “Internet literacy.” Then came Mobile Technology. Much has changed since the mid-1990s when ‘digital divide’ research began and computer ownership and Internet access meant sitting before a desktop machine with a wire plugged into a wall. Today, being connected to the Internet often means having a “smart phone” (e.g., a phone that enables users to access the Internet). Disappearing digital divide Graphic adapted from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/will-lion/2636903303/
  • Police are a presence - and a health threat - to LGBT youth of color.
  • LGBT youth use technology to avoid + resist police contact - and to report misconduct whether they are housed or not.
  • They have never known a time without the Internet and they have health challenges. See also: http://www.nextmagazine.com/feature-article/mercy-street Queer (In)Justice: The Criminalization of Queer People of Color in the United States, Andrea J. Ritchie, Joey L. Mogul, Kay Whitlock (Beacon Press, 2011).
  • Image source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/homelessyouthservices/4131028039/
  • They have never known a time without the Internet.
  • Thanks! :)

Growing Up Policed Growing Up Policed Presentation Transcript

  • “LGBT Youth of Color, Mobile Technology & Resistance to Policing: Preliminary Data from the SJS Project” Growing Up Policed Mini-Conference December 1, 2011 Jessie Daniels, PhD CUNY- Graduate Center and Hunter College Juanita Bell, M.A. CUNY-John Jay College
  • <Background>
  • NYPD Arrests in NYC Schools, July-Sept, 2011 94%100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10% 6% 0% Black or Latino White
  • NYPD Arrests in NYC Schools, July-Sept, 2011100% 83%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20% 17%10% 0% Male Female
  • NYPD Arrests in NYC Schools, July-Sept, 2011100%90%80%70%60% 54%50%40%30%20% 13%10% 0% Disorderly Conduct Riding Bicycle on Sidewalk
  • NYPD Arrests in NYC Schools, July-Sept, 2011100%90%80%70% 63%60%50%40% 37%30%20%10% 0% Bronx, Queens Manhattan, Bronx, Staten Island
  • <Technology>
  • “smart” phones = Internet is mobile
  • 100% 93% 90%90% 84%80% 70%70%60%50% 40%40%30%20%10% 0% Teens 12-17 Adul ts 18-29 Adul ts 30-49 Adul ts 50-64 Adul ts 65+ *Pew Internet & American Life Project
  • Is the “digitaldivide” ausefulconcept forunderstanding the …of LGBT youth ofexperiences color? …including homeless LGBT youth, many of whom are Black and/or Latino/a?
  • How doesmobiletechnologyshape policecontact …for LGBT youth of color? …including homeless LGBT youth, many of whom are Black and/or Latino/a?
  • <Quantitative Sample>
  • <SJS Study>
  • <Supplement>
  • Mobile Technology &
  • 100%90% 87%80% 75%70%60%50%40%30%20%10% 0% Youth - SJS Youth - Overall U.S.* * Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2010
  • ( SJS Suppl N= 479)100% 89%90%80%70%60%50%40%30% 25%20%10% 0% Youth - SJS (18-24) Older - SJS (50+)
  • ( SJS Su p p l N = 4 7 9 )100%90%80% 69%70%60% 58%50% 30%40%30%20%10% 0% Access the Internet Send or Receive Text Meet Someone New to Messages Date
  • Ever Had Cont act w it h Police? ( SJS Su p p l N= 4 7 9 )100%90%80%70%60%50% 41%40%30% 26% 28%20%10% 0% Questioned Detained Arrested
  • Use Your Phone to Avoid Police Cont act? ( SJS Su p p l N= 4 7 9 ) 14%6% Never Less Than Once a Week At Least Once a Week8% Several Times a Week Every Day 56% 5%
  • Use Your Phone t o Recor d Police Misconduct ? ( SJS Su p p l N= 4 7 9 ) 14% 6% Never Less Th an On ce a W eek At Least On ce a W eek8% Sever al Tim es a W eek Ever y Day 56% 10%
  • <What predicted mobiletechnology use to negotiatepolice contact than others?>
  • Women were less likely to use mobile phones….
  • …yet, parents were more likely to use mobile phones.
  • <What Does This Tell Us?>
  • “digitaldivide” is adisablingrhetoric thatis not …for LGBT youth ofsupported by color,all the data… …including homeless LGBT youth, many of whom are Black and/or Latino/a.
  • mobile technology permeates life
  • “One of thethings ourgrandchildrenwill findquaintest aboutus is that we …from the real.distinguish the In the future, that willdigital become literally impossible.” ~ William Gibson
  • police & lgbt youth of color
  • LGBT youth ofcolor usemobiletechnology toavoid policecontact, resist …and to reportpolice misconduct, youth of both LGBTharassment color who are in stable housing and those who are not.
  • When askedabout theirpriorities, LGBTyouth of colorsaid police harassment is a major concern. LGBT homeless youth are most concerned about mental health issues.
  • resilience
  • Perhaps weneed to shiftour thinkingaway fromdigital divides thinking of technology as a basic human right,to like clean water or healthy food.
  • Thank you!www.socialjusticesexuality.co m