Final Draft: Facebook Diversity Debate

By: Harry Waisbren

Note: this final draft (first draft here, second draft here) is being actively edited, and when completed will be published on the Qworky blog. Feedback is always appreciated!

Facebook's Data Team has released a study entitled How Diverse is Facebook? that has begot much analysis and criticism, first coalescing on the #FBDiversity tag.

The study's purpose is described by Facebook as part of their effort to be as open and connected as possible while working to understand how different populations of users join and use their service. Despite such lofty goals, the original question that brought about the criticism, first poised by Shireen Mitchell (@digitalsista), Beth Kanter (@kanter), and Allyson Kapin (@womenwhotech), is about flaws in their methodology. However, the charge, first made by Tracy Viselli (@myrnatheminx), that the conclusions "seem self-fulfilling prophecy ish" would hold more serious implications.

The methodology aspect is quite tricky, as Facebook does not request information on race as they do for gender. Cheri Mullins (@cherimullins) analyzed this in some detail within her post Facebook "Diversity" Study Fact or Fiction, explaining how "the Facebook Data team has skewed the results to be highly self-referential." The questions regarding the motivation of the study ask whether the data specifically answers a question "that has already been asked or assumed", which is Shireen Mitchell's rationale when referring to Tracy Viselli's self-fulfilling prophecy description as semi-correct.

The methodological issues are important, especially considering the broad conclusion drawn that Facebook's user demographics nearly mirror that of the U.S. population. Moreover, the criticism and skepticism has everything to do with the potentially alarming research from danah boyd (@zephoria), which paints a very different picture of diversity within Facebook. In her speech on The Not-So-Hidden Politics of Class Online, she explained:

It wasn't just anyone who left MySpace to go to Facebook. In fact, if we want to get to the crux of what unfolded, we might as well face an uncomfortable reality...What happened was modern day "white flight." Whites were more likely to leave or choose Facebook.

...

MySpace has become the "ghetto" of the digital landscape. The people there are more likely to be brown or black and to have a set of values that terrifies white society. And many of us have habitually crossed the street to avoid what is seen as the riff-raff.

boyd's warning about this "digital migration" is a stark contrast to the more techno-utopian depiction from Facebook. The draft of her forthcoming article, White Flight in Networked Publics? How Race and Class Shaped American Teen Engagement with MySpace and Facebook, further compares the social media landscape to the historical dynamics of segregation.

Within her response to the Facebook Data Team's study, boyd discussed how although the data does correlate with what she has seen in the field, the focus on access misses the divergence in how different groups are using and experiencing the service. The Facebook depiction does not address the impact racial and ethnic backgrounds have on social media usage, and the resulting limitation on the extent to which users will interact with a diverse set of other users because of it.

However, boyd also professed disappointment that academics began critiquing the Facebook study while not first "appreciating the glimpse that we get into the data they get to see." Indeed, the open study did also spark public dialogue on the issue, and their treatment of this uncomfortable subject does show a willingness to further address it.

Yet if boyd is right that racist and classist attitudes are shaping digital media, action must be taken to shift the debate. If the internet will ever reach its democratizing potential, industry leaders and the social media community at large need to accept and address these serious issues.

Draft Post Take 2: Facebook Diversity Debate

By: Harry Waisbren

Note: this is the second draft (first draft here) of a post to be published on the Qworky blog. Feedback would be much appreciated!

Facebook's Data Team has released a study entitled How Diverse is Facebook? that has begot much analysis and criticism, coalescing on the #FBDiversity tag.

The purpose of this study is described by Facebook as part of their effort to be as open and connected as possible while also working to understand how different populations of users join and use the social network. The original question that has made way for such vehement criticism, first poised by @digitalsista, @kanter , and @womenwhotech, relates to problems with the study's methodology. Furthermore, the question (first asked by @myrnatheminx) of whether the conclusions "seem self-fulfilling prophecy ish" is being assessed in light of this as well.

The methodology aspect of this study is quite tricky, as Facebook does not request information on race as they do for gender. Cheri Mullins analyzed this in some detail in her post Facebook "Diversity" Study Fact or Fiction, and asserts that there is a "highly self-referential" nature to the study through its skewed results. This is why Shireen Mitchell (aka @digitalsista) partially agrees with the self-fulfilling prophecy argument from Tracy Viselli (aka @myrnatheminx), as the data answers a question "that has already been asked or assumed."

The issues with the study are particularly important to assess given the broad conclusions that Facebook has apparently drawn from it, including:

• They have always been diverse yet diversity has increased significantly over the past year to the point where users nearly mirror the diversity of the overall U.S. population
• Hispanics are 80% as likely to be on Facebook as White users
• Black users are as likely to be on as Whites
• Asian/Pacific Islanders are much more likely to be on Facebook than White users.

These broad conclusions are all further questionable in light of danah boyd's speech during the Personal Democracy Forum entitled The Not-So-Hidden Politics of Class Online. Her research has achieved vastly different results, and her charges are damning to the supposedly diverse and inclusive nature of Facebook:

It wasn't just anyone who left MySpace to go to Facebook. In fact, if we want to get to the crux of what unfolded, we might as well face an uncomfortable reality...What happened was modern day "white flight." Whites were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. The educated were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. Those from wealthier backgrounds were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. Those from the suburbs were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. Those who deserted MySpace did so by "choice" but their decision to do so was wrapped up in their connections to others, in their belief that a more peaceful, quiet, less-public space would be more idyllic.

...

MySpace has become the "ghetto" of the digital landscape. The people there are more likely to be brown or black and to have a set of values that terrifies white society. And many of us have habitually crossed the street to avoid what is seen as the riff-raff.

The fact that digital migration is revealing the same social patterns as urban white flight should send warning signals to everyone out there. And if we think back to the language used by teens who use Facebook when talking about MySpace, we should be truly alarmed.

In this context, it is no wonder that Mitchell thinks that the Facebook Data Team's study has everything to do with boyd's Myspace to Facebook white flight theory. The question at hand is how we can work to constructively fix these problems as the revolution of communication that Facebook is part and parcel of continues.

Draft Post: Facebook Diversity Debate

By: Harry Waisbren

Note: this is a draft of a post to be published on the Qworky blog. Feedback would be much appreciated!

Facebook's Data Team has released a study entitled How Diverse is Facebook? that has caused a firestorm of analysis and criticism---coalescing on Twitter through the #FBDiversity tag.

The purpose of this study is described by Facebook as part of their effort to be as open and connected as possible while also working to understand how different populations of users join and use the social network. However, the original question that has begot such vehement criticism, first poised by @digitalsista, @kanter , and @womenwhotech, relates to the study's methodology and their motivations behind it. In fact, the question (first asked by @myrnatheminx) of whether the conclusions "seem self-fulfilling prophecy ish" is being increasingly assessed as the findings are further digested.

The methodology aspect of this study is quite tricky, as Facebook does not request information on race as they do for gender. Cheri Mullins analyzed this aspect of the study in detail in her post Facebook "Diversity" Study Fact or Fiction:

The primary method of identifying users as a given ethnicity or race for the study is by a user's reported last name. This methodology is based on the correlation of last names to self-reported ethnicity or race in the US Census statistics. Short of actually asking users to self-report their data, this approach seems reasonable. (I'll say a bit more about why I favor self-reporting later.)

However, what Facebook refers to as a mixture-modeling technique seems a bit sketchy. By their definition, they "back solve" for name based on ethnicity. This is recursive: one has to know a variable (in this case, race or ethnicity) in order to use it as a given. Certainly, using this back-solving method to cross-check data is valid. If one assumes that the makeup of Facebook does, indeed, parallel the (self-reported) ethnic and racial makeup reflected in the Census statistics, then determining whether study data correlates with the Census data is a valid data point to verify the categorization assumptions of the study. However, by both reporting correlation with the Census statistics as a result and using the same statistics to "refine" the statistics, the Facebook Data team has skewed the results to be highly self-referential.

The "highly self-referential" nature of their results seems to push conclusions to the "seems self-fulfilling prophecy ish" camp. If they are using an unabashedly flawed data set, then what is the purpose of this study? The purpose is particularly questionable given the broad proclamations that Facebook draws from their flawed data set, such as:

• They have always been diverse yet diversity has increased significantly over the past year to the point where users nearly mirror the diversity of the overall U.S. population
• Hispanics are 80% as likely to be on Facebook as White users
• Black users are as likely to be on as Whites
• Asian/Pacific Islanders are much more likely to be on Facebook than White users.

The motivation behind asserting such broad conclusions is further questionable in light of danah boyd's (@zephoria) speech during the Personal Democracy Forum discussing The Not-So-Hidden Politics of Class Online. Her research has achieved vastly different results than those from the internal study in regards to Facebook users vs those on MySpace, and her charges are damning to the supposedly diverse and inclusive nature of Facebook:

It wasn't just anyone who left MySpace to go to Facebook. In fact, if we want to get to the crux of what unfolded, we might as well face an uncomfortable reality...What happened was modern day "white flight." Whites were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. The educated were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. Those from wealthier backgrounds were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. Those from the suburbs were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. Those who deserted MySpace did so by "choice" but their decision to do so was wrapped up in their connections to others, in their belief that a more peaceful, quiet, less-public space would be more idyllic.

This dynamic was furthered by the press, an institution that stems from privilege and tends to reflect the lives of a more privileged class of people. They narrated MySpace as the dangerous underbelly of the Internet while Facebook was the utopian savior. And here we get back to Kat's point: MySpace has become the "ghetto" of the digital landscape. The people there are more likely to be brown or black and to have a set of values that terrifies white society. And many of us have habitually crossed the street to avoid what is seen as the riff-raff.

The fact that digital migration is revealing the same social patterns as urban white flight should send warning signals to everyone out there. And if we think back to the language used by teens who use Facebook when talking about MySpace, we should be truly alarmed.

boyd's speech paints a very different picture of Facebook than their data team's study suggests. Rather than an environment proportionally diverse to the U.S. population, it is one growing as an "idyllic community" free from the "riff raff" in MySpace, and such predispositions are being internalized by our country's youth in an alarming fashion.

In this context, it is no wonder that Shireen Mitchell (aka @digitalsista) says that she thinks that the Facebook Data Team's study has everything to do with boyd's Myspace to Facebook "white flight" theory...

Yet despite the seemingly cause and effect nature of boyd's research and the Facebook Data Team's study asserting opposing conclusions merely months later, is it too much to charge that this was enough of an impetus for Facebook to issue a study with a self-fulling prophecy in mind? Moreover, even if they did, how much of an issue is it?

Despite her views on the flawed nature of their methodology, Mullins argues that there is a positive outlook to take from this study. She applauds their efforts to collect this data, and notes that "the 2010 Census data and adoption statistics that are current and more accurately reflect current Internet access capabilities and trends will provide better data against which to verify future studies."

However, if this is to be but a first step in Facebook's efforts to assert and/or achieve a diversified and inviting community, there is much more work to be done. As Mullins explains:

Ultimately, though, I wonder why Facebook does not simply add an optional (and optionally public) profile statistic for Facebook users to self-report ethnicity and race. If the options are identical to the 2010 Census options -- and identically described, one would expect to obtain results that are directly comparable to the Census statistics and therefore a better indicator of whether or not Facebook is representative of the population at large. Furthermore, Facebook could could provide users with an option to allow this statistic to be used only in cumulative reporting or also in reporting in conjunction with other demographics, which would facilitate a significant depth of data for analysis not only by Facebook but but other social networking researchers. I believe Facebook has work to do here in defining exactly what the purpose of their study is and how best to collect their data.

Instituting a program to self-report race seems like a logical next step for Facebook to take if they truly want to be as open and connected as possible---quite the contrast from acting as a safe haven for those engaging in white flight to escape the riff raff from other more diversified and inclusive social networks. No matter what though, they have more work to do, and despite any pitfalls at least this study acknowledges that they recognize the importance of diversity and inclusiveness within their network.

Hopefully the #FBDiversity effort alerts Facebook to the groundswell of desire for them to achieve their stated goals. Furthermore, it should act as a message to them that posturing will not suffice in a world rapidly becoming increasingly connected and diversified, and that if they sincerely wish to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem, they will have strong allies in all of us!

Government and the Arts

By: Harry Waisbren

On my last day in DC this past week I found myself at the Smithsonian American Art Museum per a suggestion from Alan Rosenblatt (@drdigipol). Upon entering hte museum, I found myself eccstatic to see an exhibit entitled 1934: A New Deal for Artists. This is in large part because my father has long been one of the foremost scholars and collectors of the WPA arts programs, and unsurprisingly he has quite enjoyed a book covering the exhibit that I bought for him.

Furthermore, the knowledge I have gained from my father's passion has made me increasingly convinced that such funding of the arts is essential in today's comprable environment, making me look to such exhibits with a much keener eye. This money would be allocated as but one aspect of a new New Deal that I also believe must be established, as the importance of providing job assistance to artsts, writers, and anyone unfit for physical labor is quite integral. Government assistance should go to both the working and creative classes, and we can look to successful New Deal programs such as the Federal Arts Project as a corrollary to today.

I am hopeful that the organizations and individuals promoting a "Green New Deal" consider the need for more artistic elements to permeate as well. It would not only create jobs for a suffering part of the economy, but it will express the pain and agony of a country whose government has--once again--turned its back on them in a manner in which no policy paper could compare.

21ST CENTURY ACTIVISM IN ACTION: BLOGGERS FIGHT FOR PUBLIC OPTION

By: Harry Waisbren

It’s been incredibly encouraging to watch the blogosphere’s fight for the public option’s inclusion in major healthcare reform. Observers have been able to watch prominent progressive bloggers flex their muscles, and their increasing influence is made manifest by their newfound capacity to rapidly push forward the development of new tools and strategies.

One element of this that has me particularly psyched about the evolution of activism is the Public Plan Whip Tool which Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake has been heavily promoting. This tool correlates to the very successful effort to push members of Congress to vote against the Supplemental Appropriations Act, as they have utilized a crowdsourced effort to call every member repeatedly to both lobby for the cause and document their current position on it. The action’s page makes it easy for anyone to participate by providing concise messaging and the congressperson’s contact information, and the large pool of information is relayed into charts providing day by day and blow by blow updates of where these members of congress stand. At least 1,200 different people participated in the “citizen whip count” for the Supplemental Appropriations Act, and the effort for the public plan continues to go strong on Day 12.

Because of these early successes, I was surprised by the timing Chris Bowers’ post calling for a “new strategy on constituent phone calls to congress” yesterday afternoon. After all, there is only so much time even the most dedicated activists have available to spend on activism such as phoning a congressperson, and Bowers is quite blunt in his criticism of the status quo.

the bottom line is that constituent phone calls to members of Congress have mainly become an astroturf operation by corporate interests designed to skew perception of public opinion and further right-wing economic legislation. It is yet another aspect of our government that has been almost thoroughly corrupted.

Progressives should consider changing tactics. Instead of making phone calls to members of Congress, perhaps we should start campaigns to mail hundreds of copies of comprehensive, non-partisan polling analysis to every congressional office. Instead of making phone calls, perhaps we should turn instead to placing media requests that ask questions (ala our stand with Dr. Dean campaign). Or, perhaps when we make phone calls to Congress, our calls should focus on reminding congressional offices that most of the calls they receive are corporate astroturf.

Whatever we do, we can't allow the status quo to continue. We will lose to the billions of dollars in corporate money every single time.

Bowers does not explicitly cite the Public Plan Whip Tool in the post, and he responded to my email about it by emphasizing that he is not disagreeing with Jane about tactics. In fact, he states that he’s working with her to continue to adopt new strategies. I had been expecting him to denounce large scale blogosphere powered efforts to phone bank, but his passion for reforming these practices instead of replacing them was evident when he discussed its importance in relation to the Progressive Block. Bowers explained that both he and Jane have a shared desire for a dramatically increased focus on calling progressive members of Congress to urge them to vote against Democratic legislation unless specific demands are met. This flies in the face of the current phone banking strategy of attempting to lobby swing members of congress, and it holds great promise since progressives “never convince these swing voters to side with us” anyways. As Bowers argues, the status quo is so ineffective that “the Democratic Party leadership often encourages them to vote against us and heavily funded conservative organizations always place more phone calls”. Ending such encouragement that ensures the maltreatment of progressives is precisely why he is so vociferously seeking help to build the Progressive Block, and this development would have an impact far beyond phone banks.

Furthermore, as Bowers emphasized during our exchange, these strategies and tools can, indeed, “work in concert with one another”. I found this explanation to be extremely satisfying, as I believe wholeheartedly that continued and enhanced coordination between both of these efforts is absolutely essential. In fact, I see a direct corollary to Matt Stoller’s seminal post on Open Left calling for a closing of the rootsgap that separates Democratic politicians and their activist base. When used in concert, these two tools can do much in that regard, as they connect a coordinated block of progressive activists with a self-identified Progressive Block of legislators through the phone lines.

If we are to get the literally life or death issue of healthcare right, we need every progressive on the ground, in media, and in political office on the same page. Here’s hoping we can leverage FDL’s new tool and Open Left’s new strategy to help do just that!

Accountability Now MUST run a primary against Arlen Specter

By: Harry Waisbren

I have been a major fan of the Accountability Now PAC ever since I first heard rumblings of its creation during the height of the Fisa Fight. This is in large part considering they describe themselves like this:

Accountability Now is an organization built around a single guiding principle: challenging the institutional power structures that make it so easy, so consequence-free for Congress to open up the government coffers for looting by corporate America while people across the country are losing their jobs and their basic constitutional rights while unable to afford basic health care.

Anyways, I am writing this post believing that some of the most prominent members amongst the network of progressive bloggers that make up this coalition (including me) must already be discussing their quickly developing plans to launch by publicly announcing our goal to oppose Arlen Specter in a Pennsylvania Democratic primary battle. A variety of of these prominent bloggers have already been openly discussing supporting a primary against Specter, but they have been curiously silent about the prospects for Accountability Now to make him our main target. However, Accountability Now's suggestions page is empty still, but there is an email address posted soliciting for such suggestions.

Just in case I really am the first person to decivisely make this connection (or at least the first to blog about it), I sent an email to Accountability Now which I am pasting in its entirety below:

I am hoping that many of these messages are flooding your inbox right now! Many prominent Accountability Now bloggers have been openly advocating a primary for Specter, but I'm hoping they go all in and begin openly advocating for him to be the main target for Accountability Now.

He certainly would be the most news-making opponent to go after, and the timing couldn't be better to announce such support! Furthermore, his flip flop on the Military Commissions act and support of the repeal of habeus corpus couldn't be a more important---or timely---issue to jump out in front of with the release of the torture memos! The MSM loves conflict...and man would they love a story about open warfare between the base dems and the feckless dem leadership! Even if we get villified, it will keep the issue of torture in the news and it will provide a tooooooon of pressure on Specter to move leftwards. Plus, it'd be quite the display of netroots power that might force establishment news pundits take pause and realize how quickly they are falling behind in the media space amongst the most engaged citizens (on both sides of the aisle)!

I'm not even really asking----this is so perfect that it must be done and I am presuming talks are rapidly moving forward to make sure this is the case. Please though, when the decision is made, let me know and we can talk more about what I am planning on doing to help!

Even if I am the first to suggest this openly and vociferously (highly doubtful, but it'd be cool if I'm the first to blog about it), I really do believe this is so perfect that it has become a necessity. When it does occur, I will post more about how I can utilize my activism in various capacities and my media work the WYOU TV station (which airs my program Mad Progress TV) in particular to help this integral cause!

Ask the President About Accountability!

By: Harry Waisbren

Ask the President is a new service developed by The Nation, The Washington Times, and the Personal Democracy Forum that lets you vote on what question you would like to "ask the president". It's still very new, but there are certainly indications that this kind of project will succeed at having the winning question really asked of President Obama during a press conference. As a matter of fact, this kind of project has already been successful, as a very similar enterprise on Obama's transition website Change.gov had their winning question asked by George Stephanopoulos.

The winner of that contest was a question about whether Obama would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate things like torture and warratnless wiretapping, and it was poised by Bob Fertik at Democrats.com. Especially in light of this kind of early success, I am very excited to support them in similar efforts and will be doing all I can to convince other student activists to do the same!

The next Obama press conference is this Tuesday, and Democrats.com has a new question they are working on this time:

To vote for the question, simply click the green hand button at the top of the screen. It's also very easy to post the link in you Facebook profile and have everyone checking your news feed see it, and I hope that you send it out to any Facebook or Google Groups you are a part of that have poeple who may be intersted in helping!

This is an incredibly easy way for activists like us to help a cause we care about, yet it could have a major effect. Even if Obama tries to hedge if this question is asked, it will become more and more difficult for him to do so each and every new time it is poised. I think we all agree that Obama needs to be pressured MUCH more about ensuring accountability for those who have decimated our democracy, and this is a quick and easy way to help out. 

1 in 4 Americans already believe that the Bush administration committed war crimes, and some of our country's most respected lawyers are openly calling for President Bush to be prosecuted for murder. This is an extremely mainstream issue that needs much more attention, with even more evidence seen in how, when polled, 71% of Americans already believe there should be an investigation by either criminal prosecutors or an independent panel into the actions of the Bush administration. As the Washington Post's Dan Froomkin argues, our nation really was ruled as a "secret dictatorship", and now we need to both rapidly accept what happened and act accordingly.

It may not seem like much, but taking part in a campaign like this can really make that big a differnece if we can successfully break the silence and bring this into the public discourse! Just think, if 1 in 4 already believe Bush committed war crimes, what will happen when there are--finally--investigations and open prosecutions revealing the horrors of what we have done?

Our Spring Break speeches

By: Harry Waisbren

Yesterday we held our press conference for Our Spring Break out by the capital where I had the opportunity to be introduced as "Our Spring Break's inspiration". Definitely corny, but it is undeniably satisfying as an activist to know that my work and words are appreciated. Plus, it was more than a treat for me to be able to meet David Swanson who spoke right after me. I'm definitely very hopeful that I can work with him (and everyone else who has taken part in Our Spring Break) long after this event, and we'll be utilizing the Break Silence wiki specifically to ensure it!

Anyways, below you'll find the text of the speech I gave describing our motivations for the event:

On April 4^th, 1967—a year to the day before his assassination—Martin Luther King delivered a speech entitled Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence, a speech whose words perhaps ring truer now than even in its own time.

We here today see within King’s far too seldomnly referenced words a vision for our country; a diagnosis of the societal ills that continue to hold us back; a method to achieving his dream.

Yet his prescribed way towards societal redemption remains so controversial, that to this day we still have yet to reconcile the true meaning of his words, much less the fiery controversy that ensued upon his utterance of the

On the day marking the beginning of the last year of his life, King expressed—without equivocation—that "A time comes when silence is betrayal. He called out that that time had come for us in relation to Vietnam. Today, we call out that that time has come for us in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Just as he observed then, we must give voice to the voiceless; we must search to understand the arguments of those we call “enemy”. We must not take the easy way out, we must not engage in non-resistance against active dehumanization. Yet like King, we are left “as deeply concerned now about our own troops there as anything else”.

Then and now we recognize that “We are adding cynicism to the process of death”. This is because our soldiers, as King professed, “must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved”. And indeed, our soldiers do know. Yet still they die, knowing their country would have them give their life for a lie.

That day, King declared that “we must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative method of protest possible.” Today, that prescription remains more true than ever, and I am proud to say that we are working in accord with his dictum. We strive to utilize to the fullest any and all of the new media technologies that we have at our disposal. Such innovative tools aid the match of our actions with words in an effort to amplify what we say, to fortify the actions that we take, and to make the ongoing amnesia regarding King’s call to Break Silence more difficult to maintain.

Yet why are we redoubling our efforts? Why do we push forward amidst the ongoing transitioning of the anti-war movement; amidst a period of change for the country and world at large?

The source of this inspiration also, naturally, links back to King. Like Vietnam in his time, Iraq has become, as he said: “but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit A malady of our country’s spirit that allowed the rise of the horrors seen in Vietnam then, in Iraq now, and likewise, perhaps , if not now, soon in Afghanistan…

In order to heal this malady, King charged that “we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values”. This revolution of values would be demarcated through our “shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society.

As King did, We recognize that--without a doubt--a person-oriented society would never let the most patriotic among us die, generation after generation, amidst such cynicism. A person-oriented society would never let our veterans live—and suffer—alone as they struggle to make peace with what they were compelled by our government to do. Most of all, such a society would never condone the active betrayal of our country’s troops. And make no mistake—there is an ongoing betrayal of our country’s best and our brightest; a betrayal occurring despite their blatant exploitation by cynical politicians; politicians who personally profited off their suffering in order to continue an illegal and immoral war.

Then as now, we find ourselves “confronted with the fierce urgency of now”. As he said then and as it remains true today, we must “recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism.”

Hostility to a society that has made the youth of our country watch—in slow motion—as we make the same mistakes of a generation past. Mistakes we were actively learning about in history books. Mistakes that have led to far too many of our fellow students to fight, and die, while knowing it was all for a lie. Mistakes that make dedicating a spring break towards fighting to truly achieve King’s dream—more than worthwhile.

Beyond Iraq, this is a time to Break Silence!

Thank you very much