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.

Please note that this comment section is for thoughtful, on-topic discussions. Admin approval is required for all comments. Your comment may be edited if it contains grammatical errors. Low effort, self-promotional, or impolite comments will be deleted.

1 Comment

  1. 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 MeetingoftheMinds.org

Spotlighting innovations in urban sustainability and connected technology

Encouraging Civic Engagement with What Matters Most to Residents

Encouraging Civic Engagement with What Matters Most to Residents

OurStreets origins are rooted in capturing latent sentiment on social media and converting it to standardized data. It all started in July 2018, when OurStreets co-founder, Daniel Schep, was inspired by the #bikeDC community tweeting photos of cars blocking bike lanes, and built the @HowsMyDrivingDC Twitter bot. The bot used license plate info to produce a screenshot of the vehicle’s outstanding citations from the DC DMV website.

Fast forward to March 2020, and D.C. Department of Public Works asking if we could repurpose OurStreets to crowdsource the availability of essential supplies during the COVID-19 crisis. Knowing how quickly we needed to move in order to be effective, we set out to make a new OurStreets functionality viable nationwide.

How Urban Industry Can Contribute Green Solutions for COVID-Related Health Disparities

How Urban Industry Can Contribute Green Solutions for COVID-Related Health Disparities

The best nature-based solutions on urban industrial lands are those that are part of a corporate citizenship or conservation strategy like DTE’s or Phillips66. By integrating efforts such as tree plantings, restorations, or pollinator gardens into a larger strategy, companies begin to mainstream biodiversity into their operations. When they crosswalk the effort to other CSR goals like employee engagement, community relations, and/or workforce development, like the CommuniTree initiative, the projects become more resilient.

Air quality in urban residential communities near industrial facilities will not be improved by nature alone. But nature can contribute to the solution, and while doing so, bring benefits including recreation, education, and an increased sense of community pride. As one tool to combat disparate societal outcomes, nature is accessible, affordable and has few, if any, downsides.

Crisis funding for public parks

Crisis funding for public parks

I spoke last week to Adrian Benepe, former commissioner for the NYC Parks Department and currently the Senior Vice President and Director of National Programs at The Trust for Public Land.

We discussed a lot of things – the increased use of parks in the era of COVID-19, the role parks have historically played – and currently play – in citizens’ first amendment right to free speech and protests, access & equity for underserved communities, the coming budget shortfalls and how they might play out in park systems.

I wanted to pull out the discussion we had about funding for parks and share Adrian’s thoughts with all of you, as I think it will be most timely and valuable as we move forward with new budgets and new realities.

Subscribe to Our Weekly Newsletter

Sign up for our email list to receive resources and invites related to sustainability, equity, and technology in cities!

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Share This