Equity in Smart Cities: The Myth of Neutrality

By Mary Wardell Ghirarduzzi

Mary Wardell Ghirarduzzi is the President of the San Francisco Library Commission, Chief Diversity Officer at University of San Francisco, and has received several prestigious awards including: Most Influential Women in Business (2017) from the San Francisco Business Times, and Hero Award for Human and Civil Rights (2015) from San Francisco Human Rights Commission.

Apr 19, 2017 | Society | 1 comment

There is an ideal that we can be neutral citizens in today’s society, but as responsible citizens we must engage in conversation to imagine and demand equitable, sustainable, and beautiful spaces today more than ever before. To do this, we have to recognize and address the myth of neutrality when we respond to the racialized structures, policies, and practices that produce and sustain racial inequities in our cities. Being neutral can hurt our capacity to fulfill our stewardship as thoughtful and creative people called to intervene and realize city spaces that affirms our human dignity.

At the University of San Francisco (USF), we are currently having dialogues about racial inequity within Jesuit universities. And we are continually coming to terms with understanding and confronting the act of complicity that can often be concealed by an adherence to the safe place of neutrality. This is challenging work for us to undertake. Yet it must be done across all platforms, fields, and disciplines toward social progression, led by conscious, courageous, and vulnerable leaders, to fulfill the promise of equity and social justice in our cities and communities.

Smart cities are an act of social justice

When faced with tough issues pertaining to our duty or responsibility to a ‘social contract’ with others in our community, I have noticed that people can assume an attitude of neutrality when faced with challenging dialogue or difficult conversation. This neutrality is often offered as a gesture of openness and concern for others with differing viewpoints or perspectives; a way to demonstrate capacity for ‘inclusion’ of diverse thoughts. When I think of our collective calling to create smarter spaces to live, learn, raise our families, be connected, and thrive as humans, I also think of the ways in which cities (including anchor institutions like universities and libraries) are spaces that can codify inequity and inequality.

Our cities are constructs most directly impacted by social structures of inequity; through policy, public opinion, and their ensuing patterns of poverty, migration and racism. Today’s thinkers, creators, developers and leaders cannot be neutral to this reality.

To the contrary, we must recall, recant, and reclaim the core belief and values that inform our individual and collective identities and opinions as thought leaders for the common good. We must recommit to caring deeply about people. There are essential dignity and justice frameworks that propel us forward and require us to do even better.

Smart city builders are stewards of human rights

A framework for social justice based upon human rights and the dignity of the whole person is important to ground the work of building smart cities. Smart cities as an ideological construct are aligned with the principles of Catholic Social Teaching that affirm and move society toward basic human rights including:

  • The principle of Human dignity: a society can become a reality only when it is based on respect of the transcendent dignity of the human person;
  • The principle of the Common Good: The sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily;
  • The principal of Subsidiarity: protects people from abuses by higher-level social authority and calls on these same authorities to help individuals and intermediate groups to fulfill their duty;
  • The principal of Solidarity: Unity in a particular way that focuses on the human person, the equality of all in dignity and rights, and the acceleration of interdependence between persons and peoples accompanied by equally intense efforts on the ethical-social plane.

Smart City builders everywhere should be leading discussions right now among your teams to address these four important questions:

  1. Are the pillars of social and economic privilege in the U.S. (i.e. historically white, male, heterosexual, Christian) providing protections and privileges to all residents? If not, then how do we challenge and resist neutrality in our conversation and dialogue when one’s proximity is further from our historically-informed privilege?
  1. When residents of our communities who do not feel secure or safe in our national climate, and are living in fear of social persecution or exclusionary public opinion, what is our responsibility for creating spaces of community-building? Can we create spaces of living and engagement that promote a sense of refuge and inclusion? What is our response?
  1. If there is historically informed images and messages about who possesses intellectual and moral superiority and personal worth, as planners and stewards of the future, how is our work informed by and reinforces these messages? Do they still exist?
  1. Do we recognize and account for historical structural inequity in our work? And if so, do we consider how to proactively privilege the future of Native American and African American youth and the growing Latino and Asian American children in our cities?

Smart Cities is a movement for social change and the common good

The parable of the Good Samaritan reminds us of the dilemma of neutrality as a point of reflection: do we do good work when it is convenient and remain neutral, or do we stand with courage and go out of our way to demonstrate care by taking action? The societal forces of exclusion, blame, and fear are inviting us to be fervently involved in better understanding structural inequity in our cities that has been codified through public policy and law.

We are in a time that requires us to reflect upon and be reminded of the moral compass that informs and guides our individual and collective engagement as thought leaders.

  • We must critique and interrogate our bias and assumptions more than ever before and be willing to defend our intentions and beliefs. A re-commitment to the dignity and common good of all human beings is a necessity to do this work.
  • We must develop and demonstrate concrete solutions that center our work toward alleviating injustice in our cities based upon gender, race, and class; thus, consequentially working against detrimental patterns and outcomes of residential segregation, policing, outmigration of communities of color, health disparities, environmental concerns and immigration.
  • We must be on guard to work against neutrality. Our convictions and actions are the bedrock of who we are and what we do.  More equitable and just cities require smart city builders to be conscious, critical, and deeply aware persons mindful of their interior beliefs and motivation.

We are not neutral beings.

Discussion

Leave your comment below, or reply to others.

1 Comment

  1. Mike Green

    American cities were all constructed on a foundation of segregationist policies and practices that maintain the status quo of white supremacy. To disrupt segregationist policies there must be an intentional and concerted committed and sustained effort with measureable results. Ironically, since Dr. King decried the widespread segregation of cities in 1965 in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, the impact of segregation has become worse! There can be no serious consideration of a neutral policy when segregationists rule the roost and their policies continue to ensure white supremacy.

    America elected a segregationist son of a klansman last year. We cannot be surprised by his decisions and policies that offend much of the nation. We must disrupt segregation and remove segregationists from all leadership positions in public service at the local, state and federal levels.

    We must also concentrate on building a 21st century Inclusive America. This requires understanding of a new economic construct. Here’s a new voice of the future economy.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=39sPhx_W7eA

    Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Read more from the Meeting of the Minds Blog

Spotlighting innovations in urban sustainability and connected technology

Combining Technologies to Bring Connectivity to the Community

Rhyzome Networks has undertaken a project to upgrade the equipment used for wireless access in order to create stronger connections between the root access points and the repeaters. Our new network does not rely on the original projects wireless mesh and fibre combination, and instead uses wireless point-to-point and fibre for the backhaul of information and the aging 7181 access points will be swapped out in favor of Aruba units.

Our journey into telecommunications began in 2009 as an initiative to provide a backhaul for Festival Hydro’s smart metering system. That project led us down a path to offering wireless and fibre optic connections. It became clear early on in the project that the infrastructure we were putting in place provided us with the opportunity to create a robust backbone that would support the offering of affordable internet and other connectivity options in a community that was, at the time, largely overlooked by the big players in the Canadian telecommunications space.

Indianapolis Revitalizing Neighborhoods Through Arts & Culture

As historian Mark I. Gelfand has noted: “No federal venture spent more funds in urban areas and returned fewer dividends to central cities than the national highway program.” A micro example of the devastating effect of the highway system developed through the core of Indianapolis is Cruft Street, with a dead end abutting I-65 near the I-65/I-70 split (completed in 1976) in the Garfield Park area of Indianapolis. Forty-two percent of houses in the area have incomes below $25,000, and 13.5 percent live on less than $10,000 a year. The low income demographic of the area results in 22 percent of adults over age 25 having no high school diploma and 81 percent with no college degree.

An examination of the Cruft Street neighborhood has spurred many nonprofit organizations in Indianapolis to question how the public sector can support the role of arts and culture in revitalizing the Cruft Street neighborhood.

How to Build More Connected and Inclusive Cities

When thinking about the cities of the future, I know that they will be more connected, and I strongly believe that they must be more inclusive. We can’t have the Internet of Everything without the Inclusion of Everyone. Already today, a growing number of cities are using smart technologies to better connect people to places and to each other – and more importantly also connecting people to opportunities for better and safer lives.

Unfortunately, what still causes a significant amount of friction in our cities and prevents inclusive growth is the dominance of cash. In fact, close to 85 percent of all consumer payments in the world are still done with cash or checks. This means that far too many people are trapped by default in an informal economy. They lack the financial services to guard themselves against risk, save for themselves, plan for their children’s futures, and build better lives.

Meeting of the Minds is made possible by the generous support of these organizations.