PolicyMatters Journal
  • Latest Issue
  • Features
    • The Geography of Poverty
  • PMJWire
  • Submissions
  • Archive

PMJWire

PMJWire is the blog of PolicyMatters Journal, featuring short policy discussions and opinion pieces written by Goldman students.  Any views expressed belong solely to the author and are not endorsed by PMJ, the Goldman School of Public Policy, or the University of California.

Student Groups Spotlight: Women in Public Policy (WiPP)

11/21/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
Mary Collins, aka “Mary from Maryland,” is a second year MPP student at the Goldman School of Public Policy.

A few months ago in the Washington Post, I read a story about an immigration lawyer in Atlanta who couldn’t get a postponement of a hearing despite the fact that she was on maternity leave. Since she couldn’t get child care, she brought her infant with her and was reprimanded by the judge for being unprofessional. Lack of child care and parental leave in the United States is keeping women from advancing in the workforce.

Arlie Hochschild, sociologist and author of various books like The Second Shift recently came to talk to WiPP about the roles of women and lack of childcare in the United States. WiPP aims to promote gender equality and to support future generations of female leaders in policy and beyond. We also foster an inclusive space for professional development and discussion—for males as well as females. We work in the spirit of inclusion and encourage male participation to address societal issues as a team, particularly in policy or media.

As Hochschild told us, women currently perform three times as much housework as men, regardless of profession or socioeconomic status. Essentially women work two shifts: one at the office and one at home. But without a substantial child care policy, women won’t be able to earn leadership roles in the workplace. Heck, it impacts all Americans. According to Hochschild, 60 percent of kids in the United States live in homes with two working parents and we have no national childcare policy. Not only does this hold women back but it perpetuates America’s widening gap between rich and poor.

Arlie’s expertise helped the group explore many questions like what are sound economic arguments for providing childcare and parental leave? Is this the government’s responsibility? Which nations are doing better than us?

Another issue WiPP has tackled through trainings and collaboration is the lack of women in public office.  With midterm elections behind us, the lack of female representation brings up a recurring question: why don’t more women run for office? As you can see on the map above we haven’t had too many female governors, and California still hasn’t had one. Only 100 out of 535 members of Congress are female, and worldwide only 1 in 5 parliament members are female—meaning our policies may not reflect the people whom it serves. We need to WiPP that, and we have been joining other organizations to do so.

In August, we hosted a healthcare panel with Emerge California. Emerge seeks to identify, train and encourage women to run for office, get elected and seek higher office. Their intensive, cohort-based training focuses on the nuts and bolts of campaigning, and often doesn’t have time to get into the weeds of policy issues. That can be daunting when a candidate is expected to be an expert on everything from energy policy to health care.  That is why Emerge and WiPP hosted their cohort members with our students to learn from the experts. The panel included: Janet Reilly, President of Clinic by the Bay and Host of The Mix; Adrienne Bousian, Vice President of Public Affairs at Planned Parenthood Northern California; and Alameda County Supervisor Keith Carson.  The panel explored local health care issues and how to frame those issues when running for office.

In March some WiPPers joined students from Mills College to get their own training on running for office. Ignite—a spinoff of emerge led by GSPP alum Fatimah Simmons—provided an all day training on fundraising, public speaking and lessons learned from local female politicians.

We’ve heard the story that women don’t run, but another truth is that many women don’t negotiate.  Women today make 76 cents to the dollar to their male counterpart, and part of this gap can be accounted for by the failure to ask. In fact, by neglecting to negotiate her first salary, a woman may sacrifice over half a million dollars by the end of her career.  Women fail to ask for raises and promotions as well. That’s why WiPP held a negotiations roundtable with Professor Amy Slater, who teaches a popular negotiations class at Goldman. Women from GSPP shared their experiences and with expert advice will understand their value and feel better prepared to enter real-world situations.

Yet getting prepped for the real world doesn’t always relate to policy issues or learning to negotiate. A sense of community, purpose, friendship and mentorship are important elements of WiPP. For international women’s day on March 8, Women from the Goldman School of Public Policy participated in the Vital Voices 2014 Global Mentoring Walk, where mentors and mentees walk together in over 30 countries. The Vital Voices walk was founded by former CEO of Oxygen Media, Geraldine Laybourne, who launched mentoring walks to empower young women professionals in New York City and across the world. Her success was due to the mentorship she received, and she vows to help other women along. Just as this Global mentoring walk was a women’s leadership incubator, an opportunity to highlight the importance of women’s leadership and accelerate the impact of women leaders—a prestigious program like Goldman should be as well. 

However, a few years ago the women of Goldman found themselves without female mentorship. In fact, the faculty did not reflect the increasingly diverse class of students. Although WiPP was concerned about the lack of diversity on all fronts, the team decided to focus in on gender diversity, and they authored a report entitled "Women in Public Policy: A Framework for Greater Faculty Diversity," which documented the lack of female diversity at Goldman. Although we would aim to see more women teaching core classes and in key advisory roles like APA advisors, it is noted that in the past four years the school has added 5 female to ladder rank faculty and another handful to adjunct faculty and lecturers.

We would like to see this trend continue, and have access to great mentors right here on our campus.  Therefore, our next event is a women’s student-faculty coffee connect female students and faculty.  In the spirit of inclusion and collaboration our momentum will continue to address the issues we see in the world around us, like implicit bias. Implicit bias is an unconscious positive or negative attitude held toward a group or thing. It is unknowingly carried by people—perhaps those in leadership roles. Would an employer be more willing to hire John than Akhmed. Instead of just teaching, we will help the Students of Color in Public Policy (SCiPP) execute an implicit bias training, so students can go into the workforce without carrying unknown biases towards people different from them.

And finally on our roster for next semester is the domestic violence symposium. We have all seen in the press Ray Rice’s egregious abuse on his then fiancé. Yet violence against women is not a phenomenon that happens to just black women or uneducated women. It impacts all women, regardless of race, income or education. We’ve seen a case recently of a highly educated, government official be involved too. US District Court Judge Fuller was arrested in August for beating his wife, but accepted a plea deal and he will most likely return the bench in Georgia. Violence against women needs to be addressed and not swept under the carpet, and I am proud to say it is one of our male counterparts leading our efforts to address violence against women.

WiPP is a tool for us to work together as a community to create action on the issues we see and experience. I know the work we’ve done over the past year has encouraged women to stand straighter, be more informed, and reach for leadership positions. I know it has done that for me.

Inspired? Confused? Outraged to your very core? Feel free to leave a (respectful) comment below or to submit your own post to either Paula.Wilhelm or BChristopher (at) Berkeley.edu
0 Comments
 

Standing Together To Fight Government Corruption

11/19/2014

0 Comments

 
PicturePhoto Credit: by Jonathan McIntosh [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons






















***Reblogged from The Huffington Post.  

Charlotte Hill is a board member of Represent.Us, a leading anti-corruption advocacy organization, and an MPP candidate at UC Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy.  To join the anti-corruption movement today, visit Represent.Us.

Voting is over, and in true American fashion, it's time to immediately shift focus to the next national spectacle: Thanksgiving.

Unfortunately, as many of us know all too well, politics and big family dinners are not as distinct as we might hope, especially during an election year. This November, everyone around the table will have an opinion on the Republican Party gaining control of the Senate. If your family is anything like mine, not everyone will agree on whether Congress has changed for the worse or the better. And since the voting deadline will be three weeks past, there will be no real value in trying to change Uncle Pete's mind -- a fact that can only lend an air of futility to the conversation.

I'm here to tell you, however, that all hope is not lost. A Thanksgiving consensus, the veritable unicorn of holiday gatherings, is possible, for conservatives and liberals have at least one topic on which they agree. And it just so happens to be the most important problem in America: government corruption.

Read more via HuffPost . . . 

0 Comments
 

Pipeline Politics: Does Keystone Matter?

11/17/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
Image Source: Flickr user ShannonPatrick17
Ben Christopher is a first-year MPP student and a new blogger for The Wire. 

Quicker than you can say “resounding electoral mandate,” the GOP House kicked off their post-midterm festivities last week by once again voting in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline.

Keen observers of Washington politics will note that we’ve been here before. For six years now, President Obama and his State Department have repeatedly punted on whether or not to approve the continent cleaving pipeline which, if approved, would connect the Athabasca tar sand deposits of northern Alberta to the refineries of the Texas Gulf Coast. And for six years, the Republicans of the House (along with a few purple and petro- state Democrats) have been trying to goad the president into opening up the dilbit faucet.

While the politics might be slightly different this time around (in an almost certainly vain attempt to save herself from run-off defeat, it was Democrat Mary Landrieu who scheduled a pro-Keystone bill in the Senate, which in turn prompted her electoral opponent, Bill Cassidy, to put forward the proposal in the House) it’s hard to shake the sense of déjà vu. This marks the ninth time that the Republican Congress has tried to circumvent the State Department’s approval of the project—though coming from a party that has voted upwards of 50 times to repeal Obamacare, this might still be considered a “fresh idea.”

No matter, in light of the more Republican-friendly political climate, this latest round of legislative back-and-forth over Keystone is likely to thrust this tired debate back into the national spotlight—and with it, a number of tired political talking points.

For Exhibit #1, take John Boehner’s obligatory post-vote press release, in which the Speaker lambasted Obama’s indecision on Keystone and heralded the “new jobs, lower costs, and increased energy security [the project] would provide.”

Yeah, about that. Long-term jobs created by the project are estimated to be in the double-digits, the effect on world oil prices would be negligible, if not non-existent, and the claims of “energy security” ignore the fact that the global is oil market is, well, global).

Of course, these kinds of claims are expected from the “Drill, Baby, Drill” crowd. Less obvious, though just as ubiquitous among professional commentators, is the claim that from an environmental perspective, Keystone doesn’t matter at all.

It’s a line of reasoning favored in even the more technocratically-minded corners of the American left. Sure, activists like Bill McKibben have done a swell job rousing the rabble over climate change, the argument goes, but the pipeline itself is merely a galvanizing symbol. Whether it gets built or not means very little as far as total emissions go.

This was the thrust of the argument made by Chris Mooney on Washington Post’s Wonkblog last week when he argued that the political “loss” of a Keystone approval for American environmentalists can still be called a win for the planet: “What may happen here is that the more politically radical climate change grassroots loses out on a symbolic issue (blocking a pipeline that will transfer dirty tar sands oil) but climate moderates win really meaty progress on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.”

In other words, by applying political pressure on Keystone, the activists have given Obama a chip that he can trade the opposition for subtler, though more substantial, climate policies. Of course, this assumes that all environmental objections to Keystone boil down to the climate (they don’t) and that Obama is in a position to trade green policies of any kind with Republicans (he isn’t). But to give Mooney his due, the idea that the pressure applied by pipeline activists could translate into positive action on other policies isn’t an unconvincing one. It’s also fair to say that those alternate policies— namely, coal-fired power plant regulations from the EPA and the latest bilateral deal with China—will have a much bigger impact on overall emission reductions than one lousy pipeline.

But it still isn’t quite right to call Keystone a mere “symbolic issue.”

The origins of this misconception can be traced back to the State Department itself, which, in an environmental review of the project from last January, argued that “approval or denial of any one crude oil transport project, including the proposed Project, remains unlikely to significantly impact the rate of extraction in the oil sands.”

On its face, it’s hard to argue with this assessment. With plenty of other similar projects under proposal and construction, there are of course other possible means to get the bitumen out of landlocked Alberta and onto the global oil market. By itself, the Keystone pipeline won’t make or break Canada’s tar sands industry. Analyzed in a vacuum, Keystone won’t make a difference.

The problem is that Keystone doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

Consider some of the current projects that are currently under review: The Northern Gateway pipeline will pipe Albertan dilbit over the Canadian Rockies and out to a terminal along the central B.C. coast. If approved.

The Trans Mountain expansion project will increase export capacity out of the Port of Vancouver. If approved.

The Energy East project will take the longer route to its terminus on the other side of Canada, in Saint John, New Brunswick. If approved.

The Alberta Clipper expansion project will increase the amount of crude exiting Canada through Superior, Wisconsin. If approved.

These various projects, along with Keystone, constitute the future “takeaway capacity” of Alberta’s oil industry. Along with the limited, costly, and high-risk alternative of rail transport, these are the ways that Canada’s expanding oil industry will deliver its product to market. That is, if they're approved.

But heads up, each and every one of the projects listed above is meeting growing political opposition, both local and national.

Is it likely that all of these projects will be blocked? Of course not. There is opposition to every major energy project and many, if not most, go ahead despite that. Still, as UC Berkeley economist, Maximillian Auffhammer, wrote recently, “even if every pipeline project on record is built on time and rail capacity is expanded aggressively, there still is not enough transport capacity to meet industry projected supply…Keystone XL matters in terms of how much of the oil sands will be extracted over the next 26 years.”

Admittedly, the total output of Keystone may not amount to much, in global terms (equal to .02 percent of current total emissions). But by putting a cap on tar sand development, a cap that gets lower with each additional pipeline that gets delayed or denied, a red light on this project represents real emission reductions.

Keep all of this in mind as the Senate votes on Landrieu’s bill today. While most political commentators are likely to focus on the politics and the posturing, remember that Keystone XL is more than just a symbol.

0 Comments
 
<< Previous
Forward >>

    Categories

    All
    California
    Class Of 2015
    Corey Matthews
    Criminal Justice
    Economics
    Education
    Energy
    Environment
    Events
    Hollywood
    Housing
    International
    Ipa
    Labor
    Obama
    Opinion
    Oscars
    Point Counterpoint
    Point-counterpoint
    Policy Analysis
    Politics
    Race
    Roundtable
    Science
    Transportation
    Why I Chose Goldman

    RSS Feed


Create a free website
Powered by

Start your own free website

A surprisingly easy drag & drop site creator. Learn more.