Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-22-2019 Human Rights CommissionAGENDA Human Rights Commission (HRC) Thursday, August 22, 2019 5:30 P.M. City Hall, Helling Conference Room 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City 1. Call Meeting to Order and Roll Call. 2. Public Comment of Items not on the Agenda. (Commentators shall address the Commission for no more than 5 minutes. Commissioners shall not engage in discussion with the public concerning said items). 3. Items to be discussed: a. Social Justice and Racial Equity Grant FY2020 Process. (Commission decided to not take comment from the public on this agenda item). b. Correspondence. 4. Adjournment. If you will need disability -related accommodations to participate in this meeting please contact the Equity Director, Stefanie Bowers, at 319-356-5022 or at stefanie-bowers@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Approved Minutes Human Rights Commission City Hall, Helling Conference Room July 3, 2019 Members Present: Jeff Falk, Cathy McGinnis, Bijou Maliabo, Jessica Ferdig, Barbara Kutzko, Tahuanty Pena. Members Absent: Adil Adams, Noemi Ford, Jonathon Munoz Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers. Recommendation to Council: No. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 5:35 PM. Social Justice and Racial Equity Grant: Staff provided an update on the grant allocation to the Iowa City Community School District's Healthy Kids School Based Health Clinic. Staff has placed the project on conditional status. Following the placement of the recipient on conditional status, the Equity Director will meet with the recipient's director and board members to discuss the concerns/problems as identified by the Equity Director. The Equity Director will provide the recipient with a written memo outlining the concerns/problems, specific corrective action steps, and time frames for completion. The recipient will provide periodic reports and meet with the Equity Director during this period to ensure that satisfactory progress is being made. If the recipient fails to meet the requirements of this agreement and/or the action step memo within the appropriate time frame as specified, the Equity Director may recommend to the City Manager that recipient be barred from receiving any future funding from the Social Justice and Racial Equity Grant for a minimum of 2 years. The Commission next discussed its recommendations for changes/updates to the Social Justice and Racial Equity Grant for fiscal year 2020. The recommendations are as follows: 1. The application should provide a definition of social justice and racial equity 2. Applicants should be encouraged to supply or give a narrative about how the proposed project came to be. How the project developed. Examples could be descriptive or based on City statistics and not statewide statistics. 3. A sustainability plan should be presented within the application for projects that wish to continue their project in the future (without SJRE grant funding) with specifics to funding (not just that the agency will continue to look for support). Priority shall be given to projects that expect a sustainable program to continue Page 1 of 4 past the grant period. Not all projects must continue past the grant funding period if not appropriate. 4. The application itself should state that the intent/purpose of the grant is to serve persons who reside in Iowa City. 5. The application should ask what the deliverables are that the program plans on giving to the community, that includes the affected community and the Iowa City community, in general. See page 7 of 11 of application. 6. Applicants should be strongly encouraged to attend an informational session or an open house on the grant prior to applying. 7. Awardees of the grant must be able to demonstrate at the end of first funding cycle that they are making significant progress towards the project/outcome. 8. More evaluation of the project's impact must be reported back to the Commission. 9. Awardees of the grant must give presentations to the Commission and the community at a scheduled Commission meeting or at a public forum after completion of the project. 10. Grant funding should be available for some operational expenses. Operational costs should be defined and costs that are allowed should be very explicit. 11. Place ineligible periods on organizations that have received prior funding for a project from the social justice racial equity grant. 12. There should be a maximum amount requested by each proposal. 13.Organizations that have received City of Iowa City funding through any department/grant should have some restrictions on whether they are eligible to receive funding. If this is consistent with other Commissions. 14.After applications have been received Commissioners may opt to ask questions of applicants via staff. 15. Keeping within the spirit of the grant, final rankings should serve different populations and a statement should be given at the Commission meeting when allocations are recommended so stating. 16. Partial funding may be given to the next highest ranked applicant, if it is clearly stated that the project may continue with less funds. Staff will contact Neighborhood and Development Services to inquire as to whether there is a required form that Awardees are to utilize when reporting out quarterly. Page 2 of 4 Staff will provide summaries of past grant recipients and summarize past projects for those who are just joining the Human Rights Commission in January each year. Commissioners will plan to discuss how they would like the recommendations to be implemented at a future meeting then the recommendations will be finalized and sent to the City Council. Commissioner Ferdig asked for the Commission to consider for a future grant process the following: A letter of intent (LOI) should be submitted to the Commission prior to the full grant application period. It would be a simplified grant application that demonstrations to the Commission if the project is worth full review. Only 10 agencies would then be invited to submit a full grant application to be ranked by the Commission. Ultimately, this would save time for both the agencies and the Commission. Pena will not be in attendance at the next meeting for a planned family vacation. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn at 8:03 PM. Page 3 of 4 Member Attendance Sheet Member Term ExP- 1/8 1/24 2119 3/19 4/16 5/21 6/18 7/03 7/16 8/20 9/17 10/15 11/1� Maliabo 1/2021 Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present McGinnis 1/2021 Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Munoz 1/2021 Excused Present Present Present Present Present Present Excused Kutzko 1/2020 Present Present Present Present Present Excused Excused Present Falk 1/2020 Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Pena 1/2020 Present Present Excused Present Present Present Present Present Adams 1/2022 Excused Present Present Present Present Absent Present Excused Ferdig 1/2022 Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Ford 1/2022 Present Excused I Present Excused Present Present Present Excused KEY: X = Present 0 = Absent 0/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member Page 4 of 4 Correspondence -4 4 CITY OF 1OWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: May 8, 2019 To: Human Rights Commission From: Stefanie Bowers, Human Rights Coordinator and Equity Director Re: Social Justice Racial Equity Grants FY2020 History/Background: The Human Rights Commission is holding a special work session on Wednesday, May 15 to discuss the Social Justice and Racial Grant (Grant) process for fiscal year 2020. The work session is being held to allow Commission members the opportunity to receive feedback from the public on the process and to allow Commission members the opportunity to discuss amongst themselves the process used to select projects to recommend to the City Council for funding. The Grant was established in FY17 and to date has given over $125,000 to local organizations to advance social justice and racial equity work. List of recipients is included in the agenda packet for the work session. This memorandum represents staff recommendations based on over 3 years of managing the Grant submissions, working with Grant recipients and working with the Human Rights Commission on the Grant. Recommendations: 1) Racial equity and social justice should be defined. Defining the terms will assist in better illustrating what types of projects would or would not fall under either or both. City Council in previous discussions on the grant has stated that it wants to make sure the Commission is recommending funding for new projects and projects that assist those individuals or groups that have been marginalized; examples given were persons who are low-income, persons of color, veterans, veterans with disability, and LGBTQ persons.' However, this requirement never removed the qualifier of the new project needing to fall under racial equity, social justice or both. Defining both will assist applicants and Commissioners and remove any ambiguity or confusion the terms previously may have caused. Racial Equity: projects or activities that close the gaps or attempt to close the gap so that race does not predict one's success in life by changing policies, institutions, and structures in one of the six priority areas, employment, education, housing, building community, health, and criminal justice. Social Justice: projects or initiatives that provide or enhance equal rights, equal opportunity and equal treatment. Examples include voters' rights, criminal justice, juvenile justice, immigration, and economic justice. ' See City Council Work Session of March 20, 2018. May 8, 2019 Page 2 2) Operational costs should be defined. Defining and providing examples of operational cost should assist both applicants and Commissioners with what should and should not be included in a project's proposal. Operational Costs: expenses which are related to the operation of a business, or to the operation of a device, component, piece of equipment or facility. They are the cost of resources used by an organization just to maintain its existence. Examples Include but are not limited to: salaries or wages of personnel, advertising, raw materials, license or equivalent fees (such as Corporation yearly registration fees) imposed by a government, real estate expenses (like rent or lease payments), furniture and equipment, utilities (such as telephone service, internet connectivity, etc.), maintenance of equipment, office supplies and consumables, and insurance premiums. 3) Projects should only be eligible for funding for one year and not consecutive years. When the grant was created by the City Council in fiscal year 2017 it was to provide foundational funding for local organizations to build capacity in racial equity and social justice work. This funding was not intended to be a continued source of funding for a project. Restricting a project to only one year of funding will not prohibit an organization from applying for funding for other new projects just not the same project that has previously been funded. Prohibiting consecutive funding for a project should create diversity in projects that are funded to benefit the community. 4) Recipient of City Funding in the Past 5 Years: Currently the application for the Grant asks the applicant the following questions: Within the last five years, has the organization received any funding from the City of Iowa City? If so, for what purpose and how much? Within the last five years, has the organization received funding for this program, service or activity from a non -City of Iowa City source? If so, how much was received and what is the duration of the funding? Does the organization plan to apply for additional funding for this program, service or activity in fiscal year 2018 or fiscal year 2019? If so, how much is needed? Is the program, service, or activity dependent on receiving both the SJRE and additional funding? * Commissioners should be required to factor into its evaluation of a project whether an organization has received City funding within the past five years for any project or program. Even if an organization is proposing a new or different project. The Commission should also factor into its evaluation of a project whether a non -City source is providing funding for the project and if so, how much. In past grant cycles some organizations that have been funded have received and continue to receive City funding from several different sources to the disadvantage or more grass root organizations that don't have routine and/or continuous funding sources. 5) The Human Rights Commission should host a "Grant" Open House. In the past, staff has conducted grant writing training that included informational sessions on the Grant. Moving forward, applicants may be better served by having a Q&A on the Grant with members of the Human Rights Commission who rank and decide what projects are recommended to City Council for funding consideration. Hosting an open house prior to the May 8, 2019 Page 3 Grant submission start date will increase awareness of the Grant, build relationships with community -based organizations, and allow for inquiries about the application process. 6) The ranking document used by the Human Rights Commissioner should state on it when published that "a high ranking does not guarantee a project will be recommended to City Council for funding". Making this explicitly clear on the published document may avoid expectations that a project will be recommended or the appearance that Commissioners have failed to follow their own process. 7) Public schools, colleges and universities should not be a primary applicant Like City departments, public colleges, universities and public schools receive money from federal, state and local tax collections. Such institutions should not compete with local non- profits for limited City funding. If a City department, public school, college or university have a project that they would like to initiate it should be submitted as a part of their annual budget process. This would not restrict a City department, public school, college or university from being a non- primary applicant to a grant. This also would not prevent an organization associated or affiliated with a public school, college or university from applying as a primary applicant. For example, a student association or a parent teacher organization. 8) The Commission should continue to hold a grant orientation work session for its members prior to reviewing any submissions. The orientation should cover the history of the Grant, the purpose, and the requirements. At this meeting Commissioners would, like now, disclose any potential conflicts of interest of applicants that staff can then relay to the City Attorney for review. 9) To continue to have no set maximum or minimum amount of grant funding required for projects. Projects that require minimal funding could impact a wide range of persons in this community. Think of "Agency A" applying to fund a project designed to help non- native speakers of English improve their verbal and written skills professionally, personally, and academically: A local business has agreed to provide meeting space for the bi-weekly class at no cost to "Agency A", and all instructors of the project are volunteers. The funding request is for $650, the total cost to provide the grammar rules and writing composition workbook to all 75 participants. This workbook is a little less than $9 per student and the 10-week course is at no charge to participants. To be able to assist 75 persons who are English language learners improve their English comprehension has benefits for them and their families, as well as this community. It can further advance career opportunities, allow persons to become more engaged in the community, allow persons to better know and understand their rights, propel educational attainment, and create more bilingual speakers. In contrast, a project that would require maximum funding ($75,000) should be phenomenal and impact populations across all priority areas to be funded. Because the potential exists for such an occurrence, there should not be a ceiling placed on the amount that can be requested. Applicants would be informed on the application itself and at the 'open house" that requesting the maximum funding, or even very large funding amounts is not encouraged, as it is unlikely for the members of the Human Rights Commission to recommend to the City Council that all the funding be placed solely with one or just a few organizations. May 8, 2019 Page 4 10) To continue to make sure each funding round includes projects that support multiple priority areas and benefit a diverse group of community members. In making recommendations on funding, the Human Rights Commission should emphasize a diverse perspective so that funding is not all designated as assisting the same target populations or same priority areas. Funding recommendations should consider income, color, creed, disability, gender identity, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. For example, if the Human Rights Commission receives 28 applications that aim to benefit a wide array of populations and cover multiple stated priority areas (education, building community, housing, criminal justice, health, and employment), then their recommendations should ensure that all funding is not unduly concentrated to a small number of targeted groups or priority areas. Having this requirement may, at times, require the Commission to recommend an organization for funding that did not rank at the highest level but overall that organization's application supports a population or area that is not represented in higher ranking applications 11) Funding for projects to an organization should be distributed out on a quarterly basis over the course of the grant cycle. It also should only be sent after a quarterly report has been submitted that demonstrates that the recipient is making progress towards the stated goals on the project. Currently full funding is provided at the start of the grant cycle and reports are required at 6- month intervals. In at least one project from FY19 the organization has not been able to meet the project goals. Creating a quarterly structure should allow for Commission members to better evaluate and monitor the progress on projects. Social Justice and Racial Equity Overview for Grant Decision -Makers INTRODUCTION During the May 15, 2019 working session for the Iowa City Human Rights Commission, the subject of discussion was the allocation of funds for the Social Justice and Racial Equity (SJRE) Grant. During the working session, it became clear that the community stake -holders and the commissions, like the vast majority of people dealing with these issues, may have different ideas about the goals of the SIRE grant; or, at very least, have different ways of framing and articulating the goals of the grant and how best to reach those goals. Further, we were asked to try to define what "social justice" and "racial equity" means to us as commissions. I believe we may be following up on this request with each of us trying to draft a personal mission statement as to what those terms mean to us. However, this is no easy task. My task in this brief paper is to present at least a, hopefully, non -problematic definition of those terms I respect each and every commissioner, and the set of skills and experience that they bring to bear on their decisions. I believe that each of us has an earnest desire to good in our community. In what follows the hope is to provide some baseline "tools" to use when discussing these complex issues, so that agreements and disagreements between commissions are more easily discernable. In particular, I would like to point out how disagreements in grant decision -making may be based on different complex sets of intuitions and ideas that are almost never clear-cut. It. SJRE GRANT PURPOSE AND SCORING RUBRIC "The purpose of this funding is to encourage, empower and engage social justice and racial equity initiatives. Iowa City for -profit and non-profit organizations can apply for the grant to fund programs, activities, initiatives or educational outreach that helps to eliminate inequities in the community. The SJRE grant has six priority service areas: education, building community, housing, criminal justice, health, and employment."' The scoring rubric, in the Proposal section which is worth up to 60 points, includes the following category: "Program, service, or activity advances social justice or racial equity."2 ' https://www.icgov.org/form/fvl9-social-justice-and-racial-equity-grant-application 2 http://www.iowa-city.or¢/weblink/0/edoc/1865753/HRC%205%2015%2019.pdf On its face, neither the purpose statement of the SJRE Grant nor the scoring rubric is helpful in defining the terms "social justice" and "racial equity," as those terms are themselves included and left undefined in both places. Further, the more particular priority service areas do not help narrow the field as to which projects deserve funding. First, the terms themselves are fairly broad, e.g. "building community." Second, there is no metric to choose one project or another based on the priority areas themselves, all other things being equal. EXAMPLE 1: ORGANIZATION A REQUESTS FUNDING THAT WILL AID 100 IN DIVI DUALS WITH HOUSING. ORGANIZATION B REQUESTS FUNDING THAT WILL AID 100 IN DIVI DUALS WITH EMPLOYMENT. In example 1, there are no guidelines to determine whether Organization A or Organization B should get funding within the purpose statement or scoring rubric. The decision as to which organization to give funding here thus would come from considerations outside of the rubric itself, e.g. how many other priority areas have been addressed with the current allocation of funds. However, I think it is more likely that a debate about which organization should receive funding would be based on the very concepts we were asked to define, i.e. "social justice" and "racial equity." So, for example, perhaps one commission believes that housing is a bigger issue in Iowa City, and that other organizations are not addressing the issue appropriately, but that organizations are currently addressing the employment area. In other words, the argument would be that Organization A's project advances social justice and racial equity in our community to an extent that the other project would not. Thus, we are back where we started? What is "social justice"? What is "racial equity?" III. WHAT IS SOCIAL JUSTICE? A consensus definition for "social justice" is hard to find. This is complicated by the fact that the term has a different connotation depending on the domain of inquiry. For example, in political philosophy, it is almost impossible to find a stable meaning for "social justice." However, in other contexts, e.g. research into health equity, the definition of "social justice" may be less problematic. The term serves a different function depending on the domain of inquiry. For our purposes, I believe that it would be best to in some way define "social justice" based in the purpose of the Human Rights Commission itself. "There is hereby established the Iowa City human rights commission whose duties shall be to disseminate information, educate the public on illegal discrimination and human rights, provide the enforcement necessary to further the goals of this title, and protect individuals from unfounded charges of discriminatory practices." (Ord. 03-4105, 12-16-2003; amd. Ord. 15-4650, 12-15- 2015). The purpose of the Iowa City Human Rights Code is to protect individuals of the City against discrimination as defined in this chapter. Moreover, this title provides for execution within the City of the policies of the Iowa Civil Rights Act of 1965, as amended, the Federal Civil Rights Acts, as amended, the preamble and part I (articles 1 - 7) of the "International Convention On the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1966)", as amended, and the promotion of cooperation among the City, State and Federal agencies which are charged, presently and in the future, with enforcing these Acts and instruments. (Ord. 03-4105, 12-16-2003; amd. Ord. 15-4650, 12-15-2015).3 Because of the structure of the Code, I propose that the idea of "discrimination" should be the key concept for defining the terms "social justice" and "racial equity." Thankfully, the City Code explicitly refers to the International Convention On the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD).4 ICERD incorporates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Both documents describe human rights as universal rights that belong to each and every person by virtue of the "dignity and equality inherent in all human beings." (ICERD, preamble).5 We can define "DISCRIMINATION" AS FOLLOWS: "THE UNEQUAL ALLOCATION OF GOODS, RESOURCES, AND SERVICES, AND THE LIMITATION OF ACCESS TO FULL PARTICIPATION IN SOCIETY BASED ON INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP IN A PARTICULAR SOCIAL GROUP; REINFORCED BY LAW, POLICY, AND CULTURAL NORMS THAT ALLOW FOR DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT ON THE BASIS OF IDENTITY.i6 ICERD defines "racial discrimination" as "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life." (ICERD, Art. 1(1)). a https://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book id=953 ° https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cerd.aspx 5 It is beyond the scope of this paper to define "human rights," as that term itself has no consensus meaning. It is enough that we agree that they are universal and based on the inherent dignity of each human being, and that they at least demand a minimal concern from the international community. e https://ncci.org/resources/social-justice-definitions Furthermore, discrimination is not merely one-sided, as unequal treatment usually implies that others receive preferential treatment. Those who receive preferential treatment in as system have "SOCIAL POWER," DEFINED AS: "ACCESS TO RESOURCES THAT ENHANCE ONE'S CHANCES OF GETTING WHAT ONE NEEDS IN ORDERTO LEAD A COMFORTABLE, PRODUCTIVE AND SAFE LIFE.."' The National Conference for Community and Justice provides the following "equation" to think about discrimination and social power: (DISCRIMINATION + SOCIAL POWER = OPPRESSION) "OPPRESSION" BEING DEFINED AS "WHEN AN AGENT GROUP, WHETHER KNOWINGLY OR UNKNOWINGLY, ABUSES A TARGET GROUP. THIS PERVASIVE SYSTEM IS ROOTED HISTORICALLY AND MAINTAINED THROUGH INDIVIDUAL AND INSTITUTIONAL/SYSTEMATIC DISCRIMINATION, PERSONAL BIAS, BIGOTRY, AND SOCIAL PREJUDICE, RESULTING IN A CONDITION OF PRIVILEGE FORTH E AGENT GROUP AT THE EXPENSE OF THE TARGET GROUP.."8 So, given the interaction between discrimination and social power, and the foundational role of discrimination in UDFIR and ICERD, and think Bankston's comment on the term is pertinent: The term social justice comes up frequently in circles concerned with political and economic policy. Although it is often ill defined, it generally rests on two overriding principles. First, social justice is viewed primarily as a matter of redistributing goods and resources to improve the situations of the disadvantaged. Second, this redistribution is not presented as a matter of compassion or national interest, but as a matter of the rights of the relatively disadvantaged to make claims on the rest of the society. In common usage, the term is rarely taken as expressing a debatable position, but as a statement of a fundamental axiom of value in political and economic life.9 Put another way, social justice means minimalizing oppression as defined above, whether by reducing discrimination or by giving more social power to oppressed groups through a redistribution of goods and resources. Furthermore, the need for this redistribution stems on claims that the disadvantaged have by virtue of their "inherent dignity and equality" as humans. Social justice is a human rights issue. 7 https://nccj.org/resources/social-justice-definitions s https://nccj.org/resources/social-justice-definitions 9 https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir 15 02 01 bankston.pdf At this point, it is important to note that "racial discrimination," although a social justice issue, is not the exhaustive concern of social justice. For example, social justice would encompass economic justice and housing justice, regardless of race. IV. WHAT IS "RACIAL EQUITY"? The City of Seattle Racial Equity Toolkit provides the following definitions for "racial equity" and "racial inequity." RACIAL EQUITY: RACE CAN NO LONGER BE USED TO PREDICT LIFE OUTCOMES AND OUTCOMES FOR ALL GROUPS ARE IMPROVED. RACIAL INEQUITY: RACE CAN BE USED TO PREDICT LIFE OUTCOMES, E.G., DISPROPORTIONALITY IN EDUCATION (HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATES), JOBS (UNEMPLOYMENT RATE), CRIMINAL JUSTICE (ARREST AND INCARCERATION RATES), ETC." Equality and equity are different things. Equality is about sameness. However, due to historic and systemic oppression, treating people the same will not correct race inequity, as race will still be a pretty good indicator of socio-economic outcomes. Furthermore, it seems clear that racial equity is part of social justice more generally, and not a separate concern." Decreasing discrimination on account of race, and increasing the social power of those discriminated against based on race, through the redistribution of goods and resources, advances social justice and racial equity in particular. RECOMMENDATION: Because "racial equity" is included as its own term in the grant purpose statement and scoring rubric, and considering that racial equity is a sub -issue of social justice more broadly, perhaps our process of grant allocation should take that into account more explicitly. Here is an example where this might come up: EXAMPLE 2: ORGANIZATION A WANTS TO HELP 100 PEOPLE WITH HOUSING. STATISTICALLY, THOSE WHO WORK WITH THIS ORGANIZATION ARE 85% WHITE WHO ARE HOUSING INSECURE. ORGANIZATION B WANTS TO HELP 100 PEOPLE WITH HOUSING. STATISTICALLY, THOSE WHO WORK WITH THIS ORGANIZATION ARE 70% BLACK WHO ARE HOUSING INSECURE. All other things being equal, I think both proposals would be equally deserving as advancing social justice. So, if the grant were only the Social Justice grant, I do not think we have 10 https://www.racialeguityalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/GARE-Resource Guide.pdf ii http://racialeguitvtools.or¢/glossarv#racial-equity an objective metric to decide between the two. However, if the term "racial equity" is doing work in the SIRE grant process, then I think that would favor awarding the grant to Organization B. So, I think our process should ensure that if we need to make decisions based on situations similar to Example 2, then we should favor the project that better addresses racial inequity. V. HARD CASES The problem is that not all cases will be like Example 2. In most cases, there will be competing tensions between proposal that require complex judgments and intuitions that may be hard to articulate. I present the following examples only to illustrate the problem of hard cases. EXAMPLE 3: ORGANIZATION A IS A NEW ORGANIZATION THAT WANTS TO HELP HOUSE 100 PEOPLE OF COLOR, AND THE ENTIRE BOARD CONSISTS OF POC. ORGANIZATION B IS A WELL -ESTABLISHED ORGANIZATION THAT WANTS TO HELP HOUSE 300 PEOPLE, ONE THIRD OF WHOM ARE PEOPLE OF COLOR. THE BOARD DOES NOT CONSIST OF ANY POC. All other things being equal, which organization deserves funding? Support of Organization A likely will have other positive downstream effects, e.g. empowering the POC who serve on the board, etc. However, support of Organization B, who has a proven track record, is a better guarantee of desired results. So, how much do we weigh, in our own judgment, the fact that Organization A is new, that its Board is all POC? How much do we weigh the fact that Organization B will help more people? Along similar lines, consider the following: *:I_1LIFAI91*Ev ORGANIZATION A IS A NEW ORGANIZATION THAT WANTS TO HELP HOUSE 100 PEOPLE OF COLOR, AND ENTIRE BOARD CONSISTS OF POC. ORGANIZATION B IS A NEW ORGANIZATION THAT WANTS TO HELP HOUSE 100 PEOPLE OF COLOR. THE BOARD DOES NOT CONSIST OF ANY POC. To what extent should we care about the make-up of the Board? Should it count for anything that the Board has a similar identity to those to be served? EXAMPLE 4: ORGANIZATION A WANTS TO HELP IMPROVE HEALTH OUTCOMES FOR 50 PEOPLE, ALL OF WHOM ARE BLACK. ORGANIZATION B WANTS TO HELP IMPROVE HEALTH OUTCOMES FOR 50 PEOPLE, ALL OF WHO ARE LATINX. Should we prioritize providing funding to certain sub -classes of POC over others? If so, how do we make those decisions? Percentage of the population that the sub -class accounts for? EXAMPLE 5: ORGANIZATION A WANTS TO HELP IMPROVE HEALTH OUTCOMES FOR 50 PEOPLE, ALL OF WHOM ARE BLACK WOMEN. ORGANIZATION B WANTS TO HELP IMPROVE HEALTH OUTCOMES FOR 50 PEOPLE, ALL OF WHO ARE BLACK MEN. How and to what extent should we take into account intersectionality, i.e. where a single group of people suffer oppression in multiple dimensions? ICCILILI91415:A ORGANIZATION A WANTS TO HELP 100 POC WHO ARE ALL CITIZENS. ORGANIZATION B WANTS TO HELP 100 POC WHO ARE ALL NON -CITIZENS. Should it matter that one organization wants to help non -citizens in particular? Keep in mind that under ICERD, states are explicitly permitted to discriminate on the basis of citizenship: "This Convention shall not apply to distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences made by a State Party to this Convention between citizens and non -citizens." ICERD, Art 1(2). An unarticulated assumption of all these examples has been the utilitarian consideration that it is better to help more people. Should that matter? Consider EXAMPLE 7: ORGANIZATION A WANTS TO HELP 50 WOMAN OF COLOR WHO ARE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE, AND REQUESTING 10K. ORGANIZATION B WANTS TO HELP 200 WOMEN, AND REQUESTING 15K. How do we compare the intersectional interests of proposal A with the "return on investment" (ROI) of proposal B, i.e. that more women are being helped per dollar of funding? VI. CONCLUSION I only wished to sketch out here briefly some operational definitions of social justice and racial equity. I don't think what was presented here provided any exhaustive substantive account of the meaning of those terms. I only urge the following key takeaways: discrimination as a concept is a way to understand both social justice and racial equity, and this concept is grounded in the human rights tradition and UDHR and ICERD; social justice involves the redistribution of goods and resources to disadvantaged groups (i.e. groups that have been systematically discriminated against); racial equity means that race can no longer be used to predict life outcomes; and racial equity is not racial equality. Lastly, I hope it became clear through the hard cases that grant decision -making is based on complex structures of beliefs and intuitions that are hard if not impossible to articulate. We are each guided by our life -experiences, political beliefs, differing conceptions of the good, etc. Rather than be discouraged by our inability to articulate definitions of social justice and racial equity, and think we should be encouraged by the consensus of our unarticulated beliefs and intuitions, as exhibited by our ability to come to grant making decisions in the first place. Part and parcel of `doing the work' as a deliberative body is reckoning with the enormity of our task, and acknowledging what we do not know, and trying to learn from each other and the Iowa City community. Respectfully, Jonathon Munoz Lo otro no existe: tal es la fe racional, la incurable creencia de la mzon humana. Identidad = realidad, como si, a fm de cuentas, todo hubiera de set, absoluta y necesariamente, uno y to mismo. Pero to otro no se deja eliminar; subsiste, persiste; es el hueso duro de roer en que la mzon se deja los dientes. Abel Martin, con fe pokica, no menos humans que la fe racional, creia en to otro, en "La esencial Heterogeneidad del set", como si dijeramos en la incurable otredad que padece to uno. - ANTONIO MACHADO