|
May/June 2003, Issue 23
"This morning, I heard that the successful 38-year-old network of Head
Start programs, which the current administration is trying to creatively
dismantle, has been warned to shut up about it. I hate to say I told you
so...."
Dear Colleagues:
This morning, I heard that the successful 38-year-old network of Head
Start programs, which the current administration is trying to creatively
dismantle, has been warned to shut up about it.
In a May 8 letter, Windy Hill, the Associate Commissioner of the Head
Start Bureau at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
attempted to intimidate Head Start staff and parents by incorrectly
stating that any lobbying or advocacy that they might engage in would
violate conditions of their funding and national law.
I hate to say I told you so, but in our March e-Newsletter, I expressed
alarm about the erosion of our civil rights and liberties.
A few of our readers were unhappy about this. Some even accused us of
being unpatriotic. One gentleman suggested that I "stick to my knitting,"
by which he meant the narrower details of "nonprofit management" issues.
Well, we think the protection of civil
liberties is our "knitting," and the Head Start story is a case in point.
It's a particularly poignant case because of the deep principles of
community participation and activism that Head Start embodies.
Our civil liberties are what allow us
to assemble, and to form opinions about and take action on all of the
issues that affect our lives. And the basic norm of democracy is that
individuals should have equal chances to influence those collective
decisions that affect them.
Nonprofits have an important role in ensuring participation, and should
provide the venue for participation--constantly enlivening our national
fabric of multiple dialogues, interest groups and communities. Whether we
pursue the local advancement of the arts of Southeast Asia, provide for
the safety of abused women, advocate for clean air or, like Head Start,
provide early education in economically, geographically and culturally
marginalized communities, we help to shape and add to the texture of life.
We also attend to equity of access to the things that allow us to
participate fully in life, things like education, food, health care and
affordable, decent housing.
A healthy democracy requires three legs. The first is a government sector
largely organized around majority opinion, but sensitive to the needs of
minorities. The second is a market sector, largely organized around
production and profit. And finally, a healthy democracy has a third sector
driven largely by the free association of people looking, among other
things, to protect the interests of those whose voices or interests are
not being well represented or protected in the market or government or
both.
Thus, nonprofits play an important
balancing role. Our ability to associate as organized power groups, and to
develop, adopt and speak opinions sometimes oppositional to the status
quo, are protected by the rights provided by the Constitution...our civil
liberties.
Since the inception of this sector,
there has been a crucible of core values that too often remain
unspoken--values like engagement, inclusion, equity and freedom of
expression. My assumption has always been that all of these are the
guarantors of democracy, and I also associate this sector with a constant
drive for a more just society. The Nonprofit Quarterly strives to bring
these same values into discussions about management, because a powerful
sector, like a powerful organization, is one that organizes and manages
itself towards a purpose.
In the same way we wouldn't expect the
Harvard Business Review to ignore the profit-making purpose of the
business sector, we can't ignore the purpose of this sector, which, simply
put, is the engagement of ordinary people in public life. And in the same
way that the business sector guards against contextual restraints, so
should we.
When the Nonprofit Quarterly promotes advocacy as a core competency, or
pushes nonprofit managers to shift accountability streams to ensure the
constituents play a role in decision- making and direction- setting, we
don't do so in a vacuum. These functions are central to our ability to act
powerfully as the third leg of our teetering stool of democracy.
As always,
Ruth, Non-Profit Quarterly
1. Background to topics in letter
Link to March 2003 NPQ e-Newsletter
http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/section/385.html
2. Recommended Resources
*** "Freedom Under Fire: Dissent in Post 9/11 America," American Civil
Liberties Union (May 2003): This report draws from recent and pending ACLU
case files, suggesting how challenging it has become to oppose the Bush
administration. This includes a look at the ACLU's battle with the City of
New York over the right to protest and engage in political activity during
times of war, issues of controlled expression at school campuses and
shopping malls, and other protest politics-including a flashback to
charges of police brutality during the anti-war demonstrations of the
1960s.
http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=12580
*** "Imbalance of Powers: How Changes to U.S. Law & Policy Since 9/11
Erode Human and Civil Rights," Lawyer's Committee for Human Rights (March
2003): According to its introduction, this extensive report examines the
wide range of actions taken by the U.S. government in response to the 9/11
tragedies, including actions which eroded basic guarantees central to our
Constitutional system.
http://www.lchr.org/us_law/loss/imbalance/powers.pdf
*** "The USA Patriot Act," Electronic Privacy Information Center (March
2003): According to this EPIC online resource, the USA Patriot Act of
October 2001 introduced many legislative changes that significantly
increased the surveillance and investigative powers of U.S. law
enforcement agencies, while not providing for the system of checks and
balances that traditionally safeguard civil liberties.
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/
*** "Get Ready for Patriot II," by Matt Welch, Alternet (April 2003): This
article examines a draft of provisions known as the Domestic Security
Enhancement Act, aimed at strengthening the USA Patriot Act of 2001.
Critic Nat Hentoff called the outline "the most radical government plan in
our history to remove from Americans their liberties under the Bill of
Rights."
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15541
|
